Int'l. Study: IPCC Doesn’t Account for 1 Billion Tons of CO2 Absorbed Annually… by Cement

[IsailedawayfromFR]

That's actually quite incorrect.  Volcanic CO2 output is estimated at just under 600million tons/year. http://www.livescience.com/40451-volcanic-co2-levels-are-staggering.html

All human activity is estimated to produce ~35billion tons/year http://www.livescience.com/14591-carbon-dioxide-emissions-humans-volcanoes.html


Just the truth.

Is this the same person who authored the article on human CO2 activity?  http://www.codependentyogi.com/aboutauthor.html

A yoga instructor with a degree in Arts?  Are you using this person as an expert?

[LateForLunch]

Is this the same person who authored the article on human CO2 activity?  http://www.codependentyogi.com/aboutauthor.html

A yoga instructor with a degree in Arts?  Are you using this person as an expert?

The information is absolutely correct. Please don't start playing the old "credentialism" game. You are better than that. The same information may be found in Wikipedia (hardly a bastion of AGW skepticism), and other reference text on physical geographical science. If you have any OBJECTIVE source of your own which contradicts that information then please post it.

[Bigun]

Thank you VERY MUCH!!

 I posted a similar link waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back at the start of the thread. At least a couple of our more AGW-friendly posters found it convenient to ignore that link and the facts contained in it. Gee, what a surprise.   

I am frankly getting sick and tired of AGW proponents (not that the very noble Bigun is one of those, he was merely misinformed) making the same bogus statements, claims and declarations over and over and over again.

It's high time we put our foot on the throats of the AGW proponent's fallacious arguments and choke the life out of their mendacious, destructive movement permanently. If there was even a scintilla of legitimacy to the AGW conjecture I would tolerate discussing it seriously, but there isn't so I don't. 

This thread has been no different from a hundred or a thousand like them. The AGW proponents lose every substantive argument supporting their conjecture. Even after having their heads handed to them, they usually add derisive vituperations/insults along the way, and then declare themselves the winners. Every. Friggin'. Time.

If I were Emperor, the punishment for making a demonstrably false AGW argument, (and failing to defend it substantively with stipulated objective information) then emphatically claiming victory nonetheless would be defenestration or flaying, with the choice going to the client.

Actually I posted the picture here as a feeble attempt at humor, to see the reaction it would have, and to resurrect the thread! 

[Just_Victor]

Is this the same person who authored the article on human CO2 activity?  http://www.codependentyogi.com/aboutauthor.html

A yoga instructor with a degree in Arts?  Are you using this person as an expert?

The estimates are well founded science, regardless of the credentials of the reporter.  When you argue about the source rather than the data, you've admitted that you've lost the argument.

[Just_Victor]

Actually I posted the picture here as a feeble attempt at humor, to see the reaction it would have, and to resurrect the thread!

We just love to pick at scabs.  :)

[LateForLunch]

Go easy my friend.  We can seek the truth without being rude.  These people are our friends.

 As you wish. I will admit, this triggered one of my pet peeves - people who try to refute a substantive point without information but instead challenge the credentials of the source out-of-hand. That sort of thing rankles me. Since I was coming to someone else's defense primarily in that post and they were apparently not overly-offended, I have withdrawn the offending reference(s). If you were to edit it from your quote the principle may never know that he was ever sounded.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

Ok, I'm missing something here.  If humans account for 60x as much CO2 as volcanoes, how does that not SUPPORT the AGW proponents viewpoint (if, for a moment, we ignore the question of CO2 as a cause vs effect)?

Thank you VERY MUCH!!

 I posted a similar link waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back at the start of the thread. At least a couple of our more AGW-friendly posters found it convenient to ignore that link and the facts contained in it. Gee, what a surprise.   

I am frankly getting sick and tired of AGW proponents (not that the very noble Bigun is one of those, he was merely misinformed) making the same bogus statements, claims and declarations over and over and over again.

It's high time we put our foot on the throats of the AGW proponent's fallacious arguments and choke the life out of their mendacious, destructive movement permanently. If there was even a scintilla of legitimacy to the AGW conjecture I would tolerate discussing it seriously, but there isn't so I don't. 

This thread has been no different from a hundred or a thousand like them. The AGW proponents lose every substantive argument supporting their conjecture. Even after having their heads handed to them, they usually add derisive vituperations/insults along the way, and then declare themselves the winners. Every. Friggin'. Time.

If I were Emperor, the punishment for making a demonstrably false AGW argument, (and failing to defend it substantively with stipulated objective information) then emphatically claiming victory nonetheless would be defenestration or flaying, with the choice going to the client.

[Just_Victor]

Ok, I'm missing something here.  If humans account for 60x as much CO2 as volcanoes, how does that not SUPPORT the AGW proponents viewpoint (if, for a moment, we ignore the question of CO2 as a cause vs effect)?

The cause/effect really is the issue, along with a actual greenhouse effect of CO2.  CO2 is increasing, scientific fact.  Human activity produces a quantifiable amount of CO2.    The issue is what is the real influence on the climate and what is the harm to our survivability.

[LateForLunch]

Ok, I'm missing something here.  If humans account for 60x as much CO2 as volcanoes, how does that not SUPPORT the AGW proponents viewpoint (if, for a moment, we ignore the question of CO2 as a cause vs effect)?

'

'Not sure where you're getting your numbers. Maybe reread the information at the links  about them in the last few posts or go to Wikipedia. AGW proponents routinely lie about or otherwise quote inaccurate numbers about the human-to-natural contribution ratio. More often than not, even after being corrected by objective sources which refute their claims, they continue undeterred by virtue of the fact that their claim has no facts to support it.

In any given year human activity accounts for on average no more than 1/10 (10%) -to -1/5  (20%)of the amount of CO2 contributed to the atmosphere from natural sources. The human contribution never gets much larger, but the percentage can get a lot smaller relative to natural sources, especially in years where there are massive volcanic eruptions or big fires.

FYI, natural sources of CO2 are decay of vegetation both on land and in bodies of water, natural methane upwelling from deep ocean currents, volcanos and natural forest/plains fires caused by lightening, etc.

[Bigun]

A little off topic perhaps but still very interesting!

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/climate/global-warming-is-about-destroying-capitalism/

[Suppressed]

That's actually quite incorrect.  Volcanic CO2 output is estimated at just under 600million tons/year. http://www.livescience.com/40451-volcanic-co2-levels-are-staggering.html

All human activity is estimated to produce ~35billion tons/year http://www.livescience.com/14591-carbon-dioxide-emissions-humans-volcanoes.html


Just the truth.

@Just_Victor
To put a relative comparison to your numbers, for those in Rio Linda...

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

'

'Not sure where you're getting your numbers. Maybe reread the information at the links  about them in the last few posts or go to Wikipedia. AGW proponents routinely lie about or otherwise quote inaccurate numbers about the human-to-natural contribution ratio. More often than not, even after being corrected by objective sources which refute their claims, they continue undeterred by virtue of the fact that their claim has no facts to support it.

In any given year human activity accounts for on average no more than 1/10 (10%) -to -1/5  (20%)of the amount of CO2 contributed to the atmosphere from natural sources. The human contribution never gets much larger, but the percentage can get a lot smaller relative to natural sources, especially in years where there are massive volcanic eruptions or big fires.

FYI, natural sources of CO2 are decay of vegetation both on land and in bodies of water, natural methane upwelling from deep ocean currents, volcanos and natural forest/plains fires caused by lightening, etc.

The links show 600 million tons/year for volcanoes, 35 billion tons/year for humans.  That's (a little less than) 60x more (assuming American definition of billion) from humans than volcanoes.  Your response to the post including these links called the info in these articles facts.  You then said that AGW proponents ignored them.  Since they claim CO2 causes globlal this-that-or-the-other-thing, I don't see why they would ignore them.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

The estimates are well founded science, regardless of the credentials of the reporter.  When you argue about the source rather than the data, you've admitted that you've lost the argument.

Really?  That is what you believe?

Then there is no argument at all is there?

[LateForLunch]

The links show 600 million tons/year for volcanoes, 35 billion tons/year for humans.  That's (a little less than) 60x more (assuming American definition of billion) from humans than volcanoes.  Your response to the post including these links called the info in these articles facts.  You then said that AGW proponents ignored them.  Since they claim CO2 causes globlal this-that-or-the-other-thing, I don't see why they would ignore them.

Not "600 million tons"- that's a misprint. The correct number is 600 billion with a "B". AKA 600 gigatonnes.

[LateForLunch]

Really?  That is what you believe?

Then there is no argument at all is there?

So, do you have some objective source that states otherwise?

[LateForLunch]

@Just_Victor
To put a relative comparison to your numbers, for those in Rio Linda...

The numbers are a misprint. It's supposed to be 600 gigtonnes with a "G". Sorry you nice folks got confused. That pretty much disposes of the argument though doesn't it?  And it also renders the Rio Linda snark sort of flaccid as well, doesn't it? Misprints happen. You must be crestfallen.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

So, do you have some objective source that states otherwise?

am still awaiting some objective source that says what you say is true.

A Buddhist meditation expert posing as a scientist is not what I would call an objective source from your end.

[LateForLunch]

am still awaiting some objective source that says what you say is true.

A Buddhist meditation expert posing as a scientist is not what I would call an objective source from your end.

Several links on this thread other than the one you personally dislike have been posted with that information and Wikipedia( which is hardly a bastion of AGW skepticism) has it as well.

 If you were nicer about this, I  would post more information for you but sadly your manner has been frankly arrogant and discourteous. So I have no interest in nor inclination to being helpful to someone with that sort of snotty attitude.  I doubt that even if the information were provided as you demand, that your posts would add much to the discussion.

For anyone following the discussion, (not in deference to the demand of  ISailedawayfromFreeRepublic),  one may go to Wikipedia and enter "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide: Natural vs. Man Made" to see the numbers to which we are referring.

[Smokin Joe]

The cause/effect really is the issue, along with a actual greenhouse effect of CO2.  CO2 is increasing, scientific fact.  Human activity produces a quantifiable amount of CO2.    The issue is what is the real influence on the climate and what is the harm to our survivability.

Yes, although I would balance and perceived harm to our survivability with the harm to our ability to deal with that harm. If we cease being an industrial society and find that any deleterious effects will continue regardless, we hamper the development of a segment of the population with the skill sets and knowledge we would need to mitigate any ill effects, regardless of the source of those effects, including the ability to spread to other planets and moons within the solar system and possibly beyond.

If we are talking the survival of the three toed striped titmouse, that might seem moot, but if we are talking about the survival of humans versus the addition of one more (other) species to the rolls of the extinct (which include some 98% of all species which have been known to exist), I'll opt for the survival of our species first.

[LateForLunch]

Yes, although I would balance and perceived harm to our survivability with the harm to our ability to deal with that harm. If we cease being an industrial society and find that any deleterious effects will continue regardless, we hamper the development of a segment of the population with the skill sets and knowledge we would need to mitigate any ill effects, regardless of the source of those effects, including the ability to spread to other planets and moons within the solar system and possibly beyond.

If we are talking the survival of the three toed striped titmouse, that might seem moot, but if we are talking about the survival of humans versus the addition of one more (other) species to the rolls of the extinct (which include some 98% of all species which have been known to exist), I'll opt for the survival of our species first.

Some excellent points SJ. One point of information to make on the theoretical but never proven so-called "greenhouse effect" of atmospheric CO2. The greater scientific evidence is that increased CO2 levels are likely a result of warming, not causative. The geological evidence is that the planet's atmosphere was coldest during the time that the CO2 levels were highest (about 260 million years ago). If higher levels of CO2 caused atmospheric warming that would not be the case. Rises in CO2 correlating to corral reef deterioration predated the Industrial Age by around a century, so there is no way that human activity caused the acidification of the water which led to corral reef loss. There are other links posted on this thread which rescript research which bears out this precise conclusion.

[Smokin Joe]

Some excellent points SJ. One point of information to make on the theoretical but never proven so-called "greenhouse effect" of atmospheric CO2. The greater scientific evidence is that increased CO2 levels are likely a result of warming, not causative. The geological evidence is that the planet's atmosphere was coldest during the time that the CO2 levels were highest (about 260 million years ago). If higher levels of CO2 caused atmospheric warming that would not be the case. Rises in CO2 correlating to corral reef deterioration predated the Industrial Age by around a century, so there is no way that human activity caused the acidification of the water which led to corral reef loss. There are other links posted on this thread which rescript research which bears out this precise conclusion.

Yes. I, too, pointed out that CO₂ appears to be a trailing indicator rather than a forcing agent.

[Suppressed]

Wikipedia.  From a suggested search.
Page:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere#

Although the initial carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of the young Earth was produced by volcanic activity, modern volcanic activity releases only 130 to 230 megatonnes of carbon dioxide each year.

[LateForLunch]

Suppressed has lost his entitlement to a direct answer because of his history of ignoring direct questions on this thread and insulting people (such as I) who disagree with his conclusions or data without then apologizing when proven wrong. For example, in another part of the thread, he tried to dismiss my post by stating that I, "obviously did not understand radiative forcing". In my substantive response post to his insulting one, I explained radiative forcing using terms that made it understandable even to those who might not have much technical understanding of science, demonstrating that not only did I understand it, I understood it better than he. Suppressed then scurried away like a rude coward without apologizing nor responding substantive to my post (which he still has not done) for about three weeks using some lame excuse that he was going to be "out of town" (as if they didn't have the Internet wherever he went. The Amazon River? Antarctica? The Moon?)Then he came back and tried to take up where he left off as if nothing had happened. Rude. That's why I ignore his post and do not give him the courtesy of a direct one.

I will be opening another thread on AGW data.

NOTE': For those interested in following the debate (which AGW advocates insist is over, QED) I will be opening a thread on the general topic which will include correct data on natural v. anthropogenic contributions of CO2 to the atmosphere.  Out of courtesy to those people who may have followed the debate to this point I will present the numbers here as a last contribution to information :

Natural annual contributions to the total atmospheric C02 (an inert trace gas which is never more than about 0.04% of the total atmosphere) from natural sources is:

Natural  (volcanoes, decay of vegetation, plains/forest fires, deep ocean current upwelling of methane): not less than 750 - 900 gigatonnes per year.

Anthropogenic : (industry, automobiles, other activities*) ONLY about 35-45 gigatonnes.

Do the math.

As far as Suppressed is concerned, I hope that he is more courteous and responsive on another thread than he has been on this one. Enjoy the Super Bowl everyone or whatever you like to do on Sundays!


PS Since I last viewed Wikipedia's website on Carbon Dioxide, they have apparently scrubbed all previously-listed data concerning total natural C02 contributions and instead added tangential, opinion-laden minutiae related to unproven speculative conjectures like Carbon Forcing, so I will provide another reference for this data. Clearly Wikipedia has in regard to AGW, decided to suppress objective presentation of data and instead become a source for AGW propaganda. Wikipedia has previously done this is in regard to many other politicized issues.

BTW, for anyone interested in finding the correct total natural vs. human contribution information immediately, I suggest referring to the bibliography in the back of "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton. You remember him? He was that oil company shill whose information could not be trusted because he got all of his income and power from oil companies. WHAT? Oh. He was a surgeon and immensely successful writer who made hundreds of millions of dollars from writing books, creating T.V. productions like E.R. and feature films, not from oil companies? Oh. Never mind.

PPS For anyone who is concerned with the extremely weak, peripheral argument presented in the above post. In years where there is a larger-than-average volcanic eruption, the amount of C02 emitted into the atmosphere can be significantly more than the 200+ gigatonnes mentioned above. It is notable that even the lower amount ( referred to as "ONLY 230 gigatonnes") is significantly more than the entire average annual output of C02 by the ENTIRE HUMAN RACE in an average year.

Have a good life Suppressed, I hope that you show more courtesy and demonstrate more honor to others as a general rule than you have show to me and other posters on this thread. I am resigning from this thread now.

* China contributes more to the total atmospheric carbon dioxide than the United States because of the massive numbers of older ICE vehicles, wood fires and dirty coal plants (used for cooking/heating/industry). That is also the case in Oceania and the rest of the second-tier economies of the far east. So even if we fitted ever cow in the U.S. and Europe with a fart collector (rolls eyes) it would not begin to offset the amount of C02 emitted by far-eastern industry and unregulated public sources like wood and coal burning.