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

[rangerrebew]

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

 (CNSNews.com) – Cement, the ubiquitous material used to build roads, buildings and other infrastructure, absorbs about one billion tons of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, according to a new study [1] published Monday in the journal Nature Geoscience.

But concrete carbonation [2] is “not currently considered in emissions inventories” kept by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [3] (IPCC), according to the study’s co-authors, an international team of researchers led by Professor Dabo Guan [4] of the U.K.’s University of East Anglia [5].

The study found that cement’s natural carbonation process not only offsets the fossil fuel emissions released during its production, it also “represents a large and growing net sink of CO2” that has not been taken into account by the IPCC.


Source URL: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/study-ipcc-doesnt-account-1-billion-tons-co2-absorbed-annually

[Suppressed]

Yes, exposed concrete takes CO₂ out of the atmosphere.  But the GCMs are based on absolute concentrations in the atmosphere, and adjustments to reductions in emissions would be based on changes in concrete exposure.

[thackney]

So we can save the planet by paving it?

[Oceander]

So we can save the planet by paving it?

[Free Vulcan]

So we can save the planet by paving it?

Can we start with the Middle East?

[LateForLunch]

Yes, exposed concrete takes CO₂ out of the atmosphere.  But the GCMs are based on absolute concentrations in the atmosphere, and adjustments to reductions in emissions would be based on changes in concrete exposure.

Since natural carbon emissions are generally at least ten to twenty time greater than human contributions I'm wondering why that information is not generally known or considered relevant to discussions of carbon emissions in general?

[Suppressed]

Since natural carbon emissions are generally at least ten to twenty time greater than human contributions I'm wondering why that information is not generally known or considered relevant to discussions of carbon emissions in general?

Because it's not generally relevant, as there's little we can do to reduce the natural contributions to offset the large load of CO₂ humans are adding.  The system was in a general equilibrium, with a constant atmospheric CO₂ concentration for quite some time until we began pumping lots in above the natural uptake rate.  While the increased concrete might pulls some out, it's only a few percent of all we are spewing.

[Suppressed]

So we can save the planet by paving it?

Yes.

Note, also, that strip mining prevents forest fires.

[Free Vulcan]

Because it's not generally relevant, as there's little we can do to reduce the natural contributions to offset the large load of CO₂ humans are adding.  The system was in a general equilibrium, with a constant atmospheric CO₂ concentration for quite some time until we began pumping lots in above the natural uptake rate.  While the increased concrete might pulls some out, it's only a few percent of all we are spewing.

But the amount we are producing is still fraction of a fraction. It's minuscule to the whole. And the system maintains equilibrium by faster plant growth, among other things, if there's even a need to.

Assuming CO2 can do what it says it can do. Mostly it's just flat earth theory.

[Just_Victor]

Yes.

Note, also, that strip mining prevents forest fires.

 

[Suppressed]

But the amount we are producing is still fraction of a fraction. It's minuscule to the whole.

It's a significant portion.  There are various ways to see how your analysis falls down.

First of all, the natural system recovers all the CO₂ it generates.  Therefore, we could say that the natural net contribution is zero.   Therefore, the human contribution is infinitely larger than the natural contribution, even given this bit of concrete-enabled sequestration.

Secondly, look at it like a budget.  The natural contribution is all "paid for".  The anthropogenic contribution is unfunded spending.

Try this... Assume our nation has a budget of $4 trillion, and we somehow have that budget balanced (hey, it's hypothetical...I know we don't do as well as nature!).  If Obama/Democrats came out and announced that they were just going to add $150,000,000,000 of spending without generating any corresponding revenue (or perhaps $5 billion [concrete effect]), would you describe that as "miniscule"?  Really?  That's the proportions we're talking about (conservatively).

And the system maintains equilibrium by faster plant growth, among other things, if there's even a need to.

The problem isn't the amount; the real issue is the rate.  The flux far exceeds the response rate. 

We're taking accumulations of millions of years of carbon and dumping it into the atmosphere practically overnight (in geologic terms).  The famous Mauna Loa graph illustrates that plant growth isn't keeping up.

Assuming CO2 can do what it says it can do. Mostly it's just flat earth theory.

While it might not be the huge nightmare scenario some have pushed, it's pretty well backed by hundreds of millions of years of geological/geochemical data.  Times in the past with high CO₂ were warmer.  When carbon was sequestered during the Carboniferous Period, the temperature dropped.  Now we are releasing it again.

Of course, the ocean will soak up some of the effects, by acidifying.  But it's ludicrous to think this rapid forcing will have no effect.

[LateForLunch]

It's a significant portion.  There are various ways to see how your analysis falls down.

First of all, the natural system recovers all the CO₂ it generates.  Therefore, we could say that the natural net contribution is zero.   Therefore, the human contribution is infinitely larger than the natural contribution, even given this bit of concrete-enabled sequestration.

Secondly, look at it like a budget.  The natural contribution is all "paid for".  The anthropogenic contribution is unfunded spending.

Try this... Assume our nation has a budget of $4 trillion, and we somehow have that budget balanced (hey, it's hypothetical...I know we don't do as well as nature!).  If Obama/Democrats came out and announced that they were just going to add $150,000,000,000 of spending without generating any corresponding revenue (or perhaps $5 billion [concrete effect]), would you describe that as "miniscule"?  Really?  That's the proportions we're talking about (conservatively).

The problem isn't the amount; the real issue is the rate.  The flux far exceeds the response rate. 

We're taking accumulations of millions of years of carbon and dumping it into the atmosphere practically overnight (in geologic terms).  The famous Mauna Loa graph illustrates that plant growth isn't keeping up.

While it might not be the huge nightmare scenario some have pushed, it's pretty well backed by hundreds of millions of years of geological/geochemical data.  Times in the past with high CO₂ were warmer.  When carbon was sequestered during the Carboniferous Period, the temperature dropped.  Now we are releasing it again.

Of course, the ocean will soak up some of the effects, by acidifying.  But it's ludicrous to think this rapid forcing will have no effect.

The horse will not rise, no matter how well-flogged. Most of the evidence points strongly to rises in CO2 being an effect, rather than a cause of warming.

And not only that, the IPCC that you and others so religiously quote as definitive is once again "adjusting" its data. That's not kosher. Moving the goal posts is rude.

I would also note that you state opinions as facts. You refer to human contributions to total CO2 as "significant" but show no strong evidence (other than disjointed statistical numbers referring to a previously unsubstantiated claim of carbon forcing being imperative). The claims remain without central theses supported. Significant HOW??? Since variations in natural output often (usually) offset human contributions (a single large volcano contributes more CO2 than ten years of human contributions) the term "significant" is seemingly entirely subjective, yet you use it like it is a technical term that does not even warrant qualification or clarification relative to the central point(s).

Also you state that carbon forcing is an absolute given as a principle when it's far from that. There are numerous studies and opinions expressed by experts in Physical geographical science which disputes the notion that carbon forcing is a real phenomenon which directly effects atmospheric black body radiation retention mediation.

I also note that you use a lot of pejorative terms that are really unnecessary and hostile such as "ludicrous" and were dismissive of the central idea of a previous poster's comment even though you did not effectively refute it. This makes you look defensive and (forgive me) dishonest.

[Free Vulcan]

It's a significant portion.  There are various ways to see how your analysis falls down.

First of all, the natural system recovers all the CO₂ it generates.  Therefore, we could say that the natural net contribution is zero.   Therefore, the human contribution is infinitely larger than the natural contribution, even given this bit of concrete-enabled sequestration.

Secondly, look at it like a budget.  The natural contribution is all "paid for".  The anthropogenic contribution is unfunded spending.

Try this... Assume our nation has a budget of $4 trillion, and we somehow have that budget balanced (hey, it's hypothetical...I know we don't do as well as nature!).  If Obama/Democrats came out and announced that they were just going to add $150,000,000,000 of spending without generating any corresponding revenue (or perhaps $5 billion [concrete effect]), would you describe that as "miniscule"?  Really?  That's the proportions we're talking about (conservatively).

The problem isn't the amount; the real issue is the rate.  The flux far exceeds the response rate. 

We're taking accumulations of millions of years of carbon and dumping it into the atmosphere practically overnight (in geologic terms).  The famous Mauna Loa graph illustrates that plant growth isn't keeping up.

While it might not be the huge nightmare scenario some have pushed, it's pretty well backed by hundreds of millions of years of geological/geochemical data.  Times in the past with high CO₂ were warmer.  When carbon was sequestered during the Carboniferous Period, the temperature dropped.  Now we are releasing it again.

Of course, the ocean will soak up some of the effects, by acidifying.  But it's ludicrous to think this rapid forcing will have no effect.

I'm not sure the correlation is that solid. The problem with the forcing theory is that it assumes the heat all goes in one direction. It goes in all directions, including outer space, helping with equilibrium. As I said, the whole CO2 forcing thing is a bit of flat earth theory.

[Suppressed]

The horse will not rise, no matter how well-flogged. Most of the evidence points strongly to rises in CO2 being an effect, rather than a cause of warming.

Please cite for me the case where CO₂ has been added to the atmosphere as rapidly as we are doing.  Sure, you can go back to the Permian or whatever, but what was the result?  Rapid warming (and mass extinction)!

Look at La Chatelier's principle as an illustration.  When you press on a system in equilibrium, the equilibrium point moves.  Add heat, and you'll get higher CO₂ concentrations.  But add CO₂, and the equilibrium results in a higher temperature.

In recent geologic times, we've had perturbations in temperature which has resulted in CO₂ increases that followed.  Of course they follow, as they can't predict the change!  But if CO₂ concentrations increase, we should expect the temperature to follow.

And not only that, the IPCC that you and others so religiously quote as definitive is once again "adjusting" its data. That's not kosher. Moving the goal posts is rude.

Where have I quoted the IPCC?  Especially "religiously".  Lying about me is not kosher and is rude.

I would also note that you state opinions as facts. You refer to human contributions to total CO2 as "significant" but show no strong evidence (other than disjointed statistical numbers referring to a previously unsubstantiated claim of carbon forcing being imperative). The claims remain without central theses supported. Significant HOW???

The Mauna Loa graph shows increases occurring.  Are you claiming that the annual increase in CO2 is wholly from natural sources?!?!

If you aren't, then it's obviously a significant factor in the amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere.  That's fact, not opinion.

Since variations in natural output often (usually) offset human contributions (a single large volcano contributes more CO2 than ten years of human contributions) the term "significant" is seemingly entirely subjective, yet you use it like it is a technical term that does not even warrant qualification or clarification relative to the central point(s).

I'm going to ask you for a citation of that spurious claim about volcanic contributions (yes, you are not being fact based, citing that).  If a supervolcano contributes that much, then it's a rare enough event that it's far less than the bulk contributions from humans over time.  On average, volcanoes contribute far less than humans. 

Also you state that carbon forcing is an absolute given as a principle when it's far from that.

Let's see.  That's your opinion, not fact.

I also note that you use a lot of pejorative terms that are really unnecessary and hostile such as "ludicrous"

Please cite this "lot of" "pejorative and hostile" terms that I used unnecessarily. 

Seriously, go ahead and list that "lot of" you are claiming.

Frankly, you make accusations about me that are unfounded, and I find that more hostile than anything I wrote. 

... and were dismissive of the central idea of a previous poster's comment even though you did not effectively refute it. This makes you look defensive and (forgive me) dishonest.

If you think that "infinitely larger" is "miniscule", then I don't know what I can do to explain it any clearer.

Try this...

100% of the contribution in excess of equilibrium is caused by humans, and that amount is several billion tons that would not otherwise be there.  That amount is several percent of the annual amount that is emitted and otherwise reabsorbed by natural system, resulting in a very measurable and statistically significant increase in atmospheric CO₂ concentrations.  Many people would find it difficult to stretch a description of such a contribution as "miniscule".

[Suppressed]

I'm not sure the correlation is that solid. The problem with the forcing theory is that it assumes the heat all goes in one direction. It goes in all directions, including outer space, helping with equilibrium. As I said, the whole CO2 forcing thing is a bit of flat earth theory.

@Free Vulcan, I'm not sure I follow your complaint with it.  Would you mind clarifying?

[LateForLunch]

Please cite for me the case where CO₂ has been added to the atmosphere as rapidly as we are doing.  Sure, you can go back to the Permian or whatever, but what was the result?  Rapid warming (and mass extinction)!

Look at La Chatelier's principle as an illustration.  When you press on a system in equilibrium, the equilibrium point moves.  Add heat, and you'll get higher CO₂ concentrations.  But add CO₂, and the equilibrium results in a higher temperature.

In recent geologic times, we've had perturbations in temperature which has resulted in CO₂ increases that followed.  Of course they follow, as they can't predict the change!  But if CO₂ concentrations increase, we should expect the temperature to follow.

Where have I quoted the IPCC?  Especially "religiously".  Lying about me is not kosher and is rude.

The Mauna Loa graph shows increases occurring.  Are you claiming that the annual increase in CO2 is wholly from natural sources?!?!

If you aren't, then it's obviously a significant factor in the amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere.  That's fact, not opinion.


I'm going to ask you for a citation of that spurious claim about volcanic contributions (yes, you are not being fact based, citing that).  If a supervolcano contributes that much, then it's a rare enough event that it's far less than the bulk contributions from humans over time.  On average, volcanoes contribute far less than humans. 


Let's see.  That's your opinion, not fact.

Please cite this "lot of" "pejorative and hostile" terms that I used unnecessarily. 

Seriously, go ahead and list that "lot of" you are claiming.

Frankly, you make accusations about me that are unfounded, and I find that more hostile than anything I wrote. 

If you think that "infinitely larger" is "miniscule", then I don't know what I can do to explain it any clearer.

Try this...

100% of the contribution in excess of equilibrium is caused by humans, and that amount is several billion tons that would not otherwise be there.  That amount is several percent of the annual amount that is emitted and otherwise reabsorbed by natural system, resulting in a very measurable and statistically significant increase in atmospheric CO₂ concentrations.  Many people would find it difficult to stretch a description of such a contribution as "miniscule".

Although I can follow your ramblings, know why you are wrong, could engage and defeat you point-by-point, most of the people reading here likely haven't had the time nor the inclination to study these matters sufficiently to follow along readily. I am not posting here for your benefit or mine, but primarily for theirs. So I decline your invitation to "debate" intricate technical absurdities, regardless of the excruciatingly-rescripted, effusive tangential acrobatics you perform, believing that somehow they prove a point by their sheer magnitude and depth of confusion. 

Clearly you are hypnotized by jargon and "credentialism" which is Suppressing your own ability to be connected to Reality. I sense that there is nothing that I or anyone else could possibly say or offer in refutation that would convince you to change your mind because for each counterpoint offered, you do not ADDRESS THE CENTRAL POINT but launch into another tangent.

I am reminded of the scientists who worked out every detail of the Mars mission in the most exquisite technical detail, except that they forgot to convert miles to kilometers!!! I don't suppose you worked on that mission did you, sieur?

You are lost in endless rehashing of technical minutiae which avoids the central absurdity contained in the belief that the 0.02% (or much less!) of the inert trace gas CO2 which human beings contribute to the total atmosphere can somehow dominate over the effects of the total energy contributed by all of the other natural elements of the geophysical system which mediates average climatic temperature.

 I listed those natural elements above in my initial post and you rudely dismissed ALL OF THAT without refuting ANY of the central information (which was wise because it was all factual)!!! If you are so sure it is wrong THEN POST THE REFUTING FACTS (I extracted the quoted volcano information from Wikipedia for instance, so refute THEM if you like). It's all there for you to see for yourself. I am not your servant so I will not retrieve the information for you. It is after all YOU sir, who insists that I am mistaken, and therefore the onus is rightfully on YOU to provide refuting facts, not mine to assist you.

There is no way in a gross physical sense of total energy in a physical geographical system, that a MINUSCULE fractional amount of energy (likely in thousandths of a percent) can dominate over the effects of the other 99.999 % of the total energy. You propose that a spit-wad hurled at a freight train  will derail it.

That you and others who try to distract with endless circumambulations around that point demonstrate that you are either deliberately trying to obfuscate with obscure technical digressions (that you either refuse or are unable to consolidate into meaningful synthesis of plain speaking) or else have absolutely no grasp whatsoever of the most elementary basics of large geophysical systems. I am inclined to believe it is the former since you seem to have some intellect. If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with convoluted, overly-technical, digressive BS,eh?

 An effective but hardly original stratagem.   

Now, this is where most AGW fanatics whose invitation to engage in endless wild goose chases away from glaringly obvious defects in their basic premises has been declined usually pull out "credentials" and hurl self-pitying, infantile vituperations condemning the one(s) who disagree with them as inferior intellectually or morally and/or accuse them of being "purchased" by oil companies and other nefarious persons who want to destroy the world by denying AGW's horrible Earth destroying danger to the entire world.

I will state this a second time, a refusal to speak in plain terms is evidence that you are either unable or unwilling to make any sort of comprehensive refutation of any of the BASIC fundamental points I or any other posters have raised, but instead digress into endless, largely meaningless tangential excursions into grotesque, baroque jargon-enamored nonsense.

Speak plainly or stop posting. Nobody here is in any mood to play along with your attempt to shift the discussion to endless pointless, meandering verbosity.

Hitting my stopwatch and awaiting your substantive response NOW...and do try to keep it under 1000 words this time if you are capable of that.*

* An unwillingness or inability of people to speak in plain terms without a lot of technical jargon is a red flag to most normal people. Pretend that you are speaking to a board of directors this time, and that they expect you to speak in plain terms and to SUMMARIZE technical arguments so that non-technical people in the room can understand your central points. Failure or refusal to do that by the way, in board rooms and political seats of power, generally results in the principle being told that their services are no longer needed.

[DB]

100% of the contribution in excess of equilibrium is caused by humans, and that amount is several billion tons that would not otherwise be there.  That amount is several percent of the annual amount that is emitted and otherwise reabsorbed by natural system, resulting in a very measurable and statistically significant increase in atmospheric CO₂ concentrations.  Many people would find it difficult to stretch a description of such a contribution as "miniscule".

So in summary, since we add "unnatural" CO2 to the system, even if very small compared to nature, there must be some imbalance causing bad things. Very scientific... Funny how virtually every prediction based on added CO2 has failed. We are in an ice age right now, but in an interglacial period were glaciers retreat... Yet some think they shouldn't be... Very strange...

[Smokin Joe]

Can we start with the Middle East?

Glass doesn't count. Only concrete.

[Smokin Joe]

So in summary, since we add "unnatural" CO2 to the system, even if very small compared to nature, there must be some imbalance causing bad things. Very scientific... Funny how virtually every prediction based on added CO2 has failed. We are in an ice age right now, but in an interglacial period were glaciers retreat... Yet some think they shouldn't be... Very strange...

Sorry, but I live in North Dakota. Warm weather here is not a "bad thing" but something to be cherished. The idea that tomatoes planted in the spring (here, anyway) can ripen on the vine without extraordinary measures taken to prevent their freezing is a joy!
So, amidst all this argument about whether CO2 is a forcing agent, or a result of a climate cycle related to other factors, I must ask:

Just what is the "right" temperature? If you say the current one, well, balderdash!

Only because so many people have so much money tied up in beachfront real estate and insuring it would there be an arbitrary "right" temperature. It's pretty obvious that while humans can survive and even flourish in a wide range of climates, they tend to do pretty well in warmer periods than colder ones (than at present).
 
12000 years ago where I sit was the base of a mile thick sheet of ice. If that comes back, it will wreak havoc on property values around here. The beach was a bit farther offshore than where it is now. One thing not normal in nature is straight line stability. Everything changes, and we adapt or we don't. Divesting ourselves of the available resources to cope with any problems that may arise in the unproven attempt to prevent change is folly, I don't care what else you believe.

[LateForLunch]

@Free Vulcan, I'm not sure I follow your complaint with it.  Would you mind clarifying?

I find that to be intensely ironic. That the poster who by far posts with the least clarity and the utmost obscurity on this thread is asking another poster to "clarify" something. Exquisite. Like something taken directly from the novel Catch-22.

[DB]

Sorry, but I live in North Dakota. Warm weather here is not a "bad thing" but something to be cherished. The idea that tomatoes planted in the spring (here, anyway) can ripen on the vine without extraordinary measures taken to prevent their freezing is a joy!
So, amidst all this argument about whether CO2 is a forcing agent, or a result of a climate cycle related to other factors, I must ask:

Just what is the "right" temperature? If you say the current one, well, balderdash!

Only because so many people have so much money tied up in beachfront real estate and insuring it would there be an arbitrary "right" temperature. It's pretty obvious that while humans can survive and even flourish in a wide range of climates, they tend to do pretty well in warmer periods than colder ones (than at present).
 
12000 years ago where I sit was the base of a mile thick sheet of ice. If that comes back, it will wreak havoc on property values around here. The beach was a bit farther offshore than where it is now. One thing not normal in nature is straight line stability. Everything changes, and we adapt or we don't. Divesting ourselves of the available resources to cope with any problems that may arise in the unproven attempt to prevent change is folly, I don't care what else you believe.

Won't get any argument from me... The climate has gone through continuous change for millions of years yet now it is supposed to just magically stop changing and any deviation from now has to be "man made"... Because, well, it must be...

[Smokin Joe]

Won't get any argument from me... The climate has gone through continuous change for millions of years yet now it is supposed to just magically stop changing and any deviation from now has to be "man made"... Because, well, it must be...

One of the great fallacies of the EnvironMental movement is that it seeks to preserve naturally dynamic systems in stasis. It repeatedly fails at such, and blames human activity for that failure, which is even more ludicrous. Short of some real planet wrecking demonstration of technology (most of which would turn the Earth into an ice ball), humans aren't capable of having a lasting effect on the climate, any more than the dinosaurs were.

[DB]

One of the great fallacies of the EnvironMental movement is that it seeks to preserve naturally dynamic systems in stasis. It repeatedly fails at such, and blames human activity for that failure, which is even more ludicrous. Short of some real planet wrecking demonstration of technology (most of which would turn the Earth into an ice ball), humans aren't capable of having a lasting effect on the climate, any more than the dinosaurs were.

Another fallacy is that nature is some sort of loving embracing mother that we should all long to return to. Nature is brutal where survival of the fittest is the primary rule. Where justice, feelings and intent have no meaning whatsoever. In short you are food. What makes us different is the ability rise above the previous natural order of things.

[driftdiver]

We don't add  co2, we simply move it around.   

[driftdiver]

One of the great fallacies of the EnvironMental movement is that it seeks to preserve naturally dynamic systems in stasis. It repeatedly fails at such, and blames human activity for that failure, which is even more ludicrous. Short of some real planet wrecking demonstration of technology (most of which would turn the Earth into an ice ball), humans aren't capable of having a lasting effect on the climate, any more than the dinosaurs were.

@Smokin Joe

Facts and science don't matter.   It's not out reality it's about controlling people and their money.

[Smokin Joe]

@Smokin Joe

Facts and science don't matter.   It's not out reality it's about controlling people and their money.

If it wasn't the environment, they'd find some other excuse. Fear and panic are used as prime motivators, and the idea that the planet will kill you is a nifty thing to get people scared of. It works, because, after all, it's true.

One thing it didn't take long to figure out, looking at over 15,000 ft. of rock accumulated since the preCambrian in the Williston Basin: It has been fairly rare in geological history that this area was even marginally inhabitable by humans. A great deal of that time was spent either under salt water or as a salt pan/evaporite basin, just not a nice place to be. Some of it was spent as swamp or tidal flats, and more often than not, the dominant sediment was mud. In that time frame, temperatures were both colder and hotter than they are now, by considerable amounts, but one thing is certain, the environment changed. Otherwise, all that rock would be the same.

[goodwithagun]

So we can save the planet by paving it?

Pave paradise and put up a parking lot! 

[Free Vulcan]

@Free Vulcan, I'm not sure I follow your complaint with it.  Would you mind clarifying?

Global warming theory is based on the assertion that CO2 absorbs ground heat and reflects it back to the ground. Except that it radiates it in all directions. The warmists however do the old sleight of hand and act as if it all goes back to the ground. So as I said - flat earth theory.

Much goes back into outer space. In fact that's one of the problems with the global warming models - there is way too much heat radiation going back out into space to keep the models sound.

[thackney]

We don't add  co2, we simply move it around.

We don't add carbon, but global CO2 quantities goes up and down.  We find the carbon often in hydrocarbons.  Burning them creates CO2.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Global warming theory is based on the assertion that CO2 absorbs ground heat and reflects it back to the ground. Except that it radiates it in all directions. The warmists however do the old sleight of hand and act as if it all goes back to the ground. So as I said - flat earth theory.

Much goes back into outer space. In fact that's one of the problems with the global warming models - there is way too much heat radiation going back out into space to keep the models sound.

Stepping back a bit, can someone direct me to somewhere that proves warming up this planet is actually a bad thing?

Yes, I know hot places will get hotter(good for us as the ME becomes unlivable maybe) but we might get Greenland back to being productive, as well as Siberia and most of Canada as farmland.
As an added bonus, maybe the rising oceans will solve the 'blue' problem along our seaboards once and for all.

Most of what I have read is Gore-ites trumping this is a disaster.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Because it's not generally relevant, as there's little we can do to reduce the natural contributions to offset the large load of CO₂ humans are adding.  The system was in a general equilibrium, with a constant atmospheric CO₂ concentration for quite some time until we began pumping lots in above the natural uptake rate.  While the increased concrete might pulls some out, it's only a few percent of all we are spewing.

My dad the meteorologist has told me repeatedly that the earth is continuously seeking equilibrium.

And you 'spewing' means you are alive and breathing.  I do enjoy spewing myself.

[Suppressed]

My dad the meteorologist has told me repeatedly that the earth is continuously seeking equilibrium.

And you 'spewing' means you are alive and breathing.  I do enjoy spewing myself.

Yes, if additional CO2 is added, it will adjust temperatures to remain in equilibrium at that new point.  That's exactly the point.

Alive and breathing is minor compared to the industrial input.

[LateForLunch]

Yes, if additional CO2 is added, it will adjust temperatures to remain in equilibrium at that new point.  That's exactly the point.

Alive and breathing is minor compared to the industrial input.

All due respect saying that there is a demonstrable link between CO2 and elevation of temperature is patently nonsense. Carbon forcing is not established science - not even close.  It is a weak theoretical conjecture at best. Since it forms the core of all of the previous "climatic temperature models" put forth by AGW fanatics and the predictions have never been correct (never as in NEVER), that speaks volumes about the credibility of the carbon forcing conjecture.

The experimental observations about carbon forcing dynamics are all derived from the laboratory. The second the conjecture is positioned in a dynamic climate system involving the total volume of the atmosphere, it collapses. There are too many chaotic contributory factors and the theoreticians inevitably start adding "adjustments" to the data, which is in common speech "fudging" the numbers.

Also concerning the last statement, the natural contribution dwarfs any contribution by human activity especially in years where there are large forest / plains fires and volcanic eruptions.

[Free Vulcan]

All due respect saying that there is a demonstrable link between CO2 and elevation of temperature is patently nonsense. Carbon forcing is not established science - not even close.  It is a weak theoretical conjecture at best. Since it forms the core of all of the previous "climatic temperature models" put forth by AGW fanatics and the predictions have never been correct (never as in NEVER), that speaks volumes about the credibility of the carbon forcing conjecture.

The experimental observations about carbon forcing dynamics are all derived from the laboratory. The second the conjecture is positioned in a dynamic climate system involving the total volume of the atmosphere, it collapses. There are too many chaotic contributory factors and the theoreticians inevitably start adding "adjustments" to the data, which is in common speech "fudging" the numbers.

Boom! Thank you. That's a whole other problem with the theory. Another is that there is only one CO2 measurement outfit that I'm aware of in the whole world, in Hawaii. I'd like confirmation that their ppm measurements are accurate, because I don't think they are.

[Suppressed]

All due respect saying that there is a demonstrable link between CO2 and elevation of temperature is patently nonsense. Carbon forcing is not established science - not even close.  It is a weak theoretical conjecture at best. Since it forms the core of all of the previous "climatic temperature models" put forth by AGW fanatics and the predictions have never been correct (never as in NEVER), that speaks volumes about the credibility of the carbon forcing conjecture.

The experimental observations about carbon forcing dynamics are all derived from the laboratory. The second the conjecture is positioned in a dynamic climate system involving the total volume of the atmosphere, it collapses. There are too many chaotic contributory factors and the theoreticians inevitably start adding "adjustments" to the data, which is in common speech "fudging" the numbers.

With all due respect, this is silly.  Without the effects of carbon dioxide, life would not exist on earth.

Also concerning the last statement, the natural contribution dwarfs any contribution by human activity especially in years where there are large forest / plains fires and volcanic eruptions.

Source?

[Suppressed]

Another is that there is only one CO2 measurement outfit that I'm aware of in the whole world, in Hawaii. I'd like confirmation that their ppm measurements are accurate, because I don't think they are.

Considering there are other stations, stretching from pole to pole, what further confirmation do you need?!

I bet even a quick Google search would reveal these stations are out there.

[LateForLunch]

With all due respect, this is silly.  Without the effects of carbon dioxide, life would not exist on earth.

Source?

What the Hell are you talking about!?! One second you are all about carbon forcing, the next pretending like you have no idea what I am talking about. You have either had too many drugs or not enough. Your ability to remain in touch with reality truly is suppressed.

I gave you the source for the information already; wikipedia. It's right there for you to read if you are not too lazy. I am done holding your hand and repeating myself endlessly because you are too rude, stupid or lazy to actually read what I post or go to the links I provide and read the information.

[Smokin Joe]

Source?

Basic concepts well stated. http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming-2/ice-core-graph/
http://www.palisad.com/co2/slides/siframes.html

(Lots of data here)

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Yes, if additional CO2 is added, it will adjust temperatures to remain in equilibrium at that new point.  That's exactly the point.

So what proof do you offer that new equilibrium is bad for us?

Alive and breathing is minor compared to the industrial input.

Alive and breathing may be minor to you, but not to me, as I wish to live.

[LateForLunch]

So what proof do you offer that new equilibrium is bad for us?
Alive and breathing may be minor to you, but not to me, as I wish to live.

That is an excellent question and it deserves an answer. Since Suppressed is dodging most of the really big questions on this thread (as usual) I will answer for him. There is no proof whatsoever that even granting the silly claims of AGW fanatics of some sort of increase in average global temperatures, human beings don't have sufficient knowledge (or ever will) to determine what an ideal average temperature would be for the entire planet. What human beings consider ideal might not be ideal for the planet's biosphere as a whole. It is almost indescribably arrogant for any human being to believe that human beings have some sort of entitlement to decide this sort of thing. Furthermore, the belief that Humanity can (or should) try to control the planet's average temperature like a thermostat is so idiotic that IMO it calls into question the sanity of anyone who proposes it.   

Suppressed is an AGW fanatic who merely rescripts what he hears or reads on the Reality Denying far left AGW fanatic websites without having any remote idea of how physical geographical systems actually operate. He ignores questions he can't answer which is standard SOP for AGW fanatics. Being an ignoramus he is very good at ignoring things. 

His posts are increasingly unworthy of serious responses because of the way he refuses to participate in a back-and-forth. He would only teach, never learn. He is behaving more like an annoying parrot on this thread than a mature adult.

[starstruck]

I've been on this Earth for about 70 years and most of it in the same location. I remember a Summer over 35 years ago that would kick any Summer's butt for the last 25 years. My father talked about the 1930's dust bowl. -8 degree temperatures are few and far between in my neck of the woods and we got one this year in December. I have been reading all of these dire predictions for the last 20 years but I've yet to see their fulfillment. They keep moving the red line out to the point we won't be around to see it. Hurricanes were supposed to increase but they did the opposite. California droughts were supposed to be an indicator but we found that worse and longer droughts took place in that area centuries ago.
Artic ice was supposed to disappear but it grew. We find out that temperature readings at various stations were adjusted up for unclear reasons.
The World Governments want to tax the wealthy nations and give to the poor nations and AGW is their vehicle.
I say AGW is purely driven by hot unadulterated Bullsh*t.

[Free Vulcan]

@LateForLunch

And what we do know factually from history, is that in the time where the Vikings were most active, there was about a 300 period of warming that surpasses that of today. It was also a period of relative economic and population stability because of the ability to grow crops over a wider range and more bountiful harvests.

Which of course included places like Greenland, which made it far possible for the Vikings to settle and survive. There was also other periods from the historical record of the same, and it mostly seems that warming is an overall a positive thing.

Cooling OTOH seems very disastrous for civilization and population, also proven a couple of times within the last 800 years.

[Suppressed]

Basic concepts well stated. http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming-2/ice-core-graph/
http://www.palisad.com/co2/slides/siframes.html

(Lots of data here)

@Smokin Joe

Sorry, I had missed this thread having activity, and now I'm headed out of town for a busy week, but I wanted to reply because we seemed to be on different pages.

I asked for the source on "Also concerning the last statement, the natural contribution dwarfs any contribution by human activity especially in years where there are large forest / plains fires and volcanic eruptions." and you provided info on a totally different topic.  I'm familiar with ice cores -- they tried to recruit me to drill Greenland.  As they say, "The first year you go for the adventure.  The second year, for the money.  You go back the third because you don't fit into society anymore!"

[Suppressed]

What the Hell are you talking about!?! One second you are all about carbon forcing, the next pretending like you have no idea what I am talking about. You have either had too many drugs or not enough. Your ability to remain in touch with reality truly is suppressed.

@LateForLunch

Well, you implied you had some understanding of the subject, so I took that in consideration when communicating with you.  Now that I see how elementary your understanding is, let's take it down yet another notch. 

First, please let's hear your definition of "carbon forcing".  [BTW, I don't use the IPCC definition, as IPCC is full of dreck.]  But let's first get the definitions out of the way, so we know we're speaking of the same things.

I gave you the source for the information already; wikipedia. It's right there for you to read if you are not too lazy. I am done holding your hand and repeating myself endlessly because you are too rude, stupid or lazy to actually read what I post or go to the links I provide and read the information.

I've looked up and down this thread and don't see that link.

(Sorry, but I'd missed that this thread had activity.  I'll be out of town for a while, but will check back when I return.)

[IsailedawayfromFR]

@LateForLunch

Well, you implied you had some understanding of the subject, so I took that in consideration when communicating with you.  Now that I see how elementary your understanding is, let's take it down yet another notch. 

First, please let's hear your definition of "carbon forcing".  [BTW, I don't use the IPCC definition, as IPCC is full of dreck.]  But let's first get the definitions out of the way, so we know we're speaking of the same things.

I've looked up and down this thread and don't see that link.

(Sorry, but I'd missed that this thread had activity.  I'll be out of town for a while, but will check back when I return.)

When do you give us your proof that establishes that any warming of this earth is actually bad for the earth or its inhabitants?

[Smokin Joe]

@Smokin Joe

Sorry, I had missed this thread having activity, and now I'm headed out of town for a busy week, but I wanted to reply because we seemed to be on different pages.

I asked for the source on "Also concerning the last statement, the natural contribution dwarfs any contribution by human activity especially in years where there are large forest / plains fires and volcanic eruptions." and you provided info on a totally different topic.  I'm familiar with ice cores -- they tried to recruit me to drill Greenland.  As they say, "The first year you go for the adventure.  The second year, for the money.  You go back the third because you don't fit into society anymore!"

Check the ice core graphs. Wow. No SUVs, No smokestack industries, No 'overpopulation', bloody little humanity, but the climate has changed even without human intervention.
So what, pray tell would make one think that current changes are being driven by human activity. Those were natural sources driving the past climate changes, without significant human input. But if over 600,000 years of data won't convince you that natural factors are dominant, maybe a paper will, so look here:

http://notrickszone.com/2013/03/02/most-of-the-rise-in-co2-likely-comes-from-natural-sources/#sthash.wyXcO60O.dpbs

[LateForLunch]

@LateForLunch

Well, you implied you had some understanding of the subject, so I took that in consideration when communicating with you.  Now that I see how elementary your understanding is, let's take it down yet another notch. 

First, please let's hear your definition of "carbon forcing".  [BTW, I don't use the IPCC definition, as IPCC is full of dreck.]  But let's first get the definitions out of the way, so we know we're speaking of the same things.

I've looked up and down this thread and don't see that link.

(Sorry, but I'd missed that this thread had activity.  I'll be out of town for a while, but will check back when I return.)

Ah there is the vituperation I expected! Bravo. RIGHT ON TIME!! Suppressed has got to be one of the most pompous, scientifically illiterate AGW ignorami (sic)  have seen on this forum. He is so blatantly devoid of any willingness or ability to engage in substantive debate outside the childishly stilted parameters of his own horrendously deficient, yea semi-moronic focus upon the topic of physical geographical science, that his rambling, minutiae-obsessed, petulantly plaintive posts are not worthy of any further serious responses.

Maybe he has gone "out of town" (wow, impressive!) to chase down any intelligence he might have once possessed, since it has already taken leave of his skull for parts unknown. BTW, newsflash Suppressed, the Internet is EVERYWHERE now. You can get a laptop or pad device and access the Net even when you are "out of town"!! Unless by that you meant that you were venturing down the Amazon River, heading out to the Siberian Tundra or snow-catting to the South Pole! Even most of Death Valley has Net coverage (can you hear me now!?!) heh

Normal people answer requests for direct response, they do not simply ignore them then focus endlessly on having their own tangential, distraction-focused demands for discussion met. So obviously Suppressed is not normal.

For the benefit of anyone who may be following along in this discussion, (not for Suppressed satisfaction) let me define the effect of Radiative Forcing  in the context of carbon dioxide and other trace gas effects which I prefer to call Carbon Forcing since that is the focus of the AGW /reality-denier's paranoia and alarmism.

Radiative Forcing refers to the amount of solar black-body radiation (heat) which is either forced back into space (reflected) or forced downward (absorbed by the atmosphere). The endlessly erroneous predictions the IPCC and other AGW fanatic-dominated organizations they used to make (but then stopped making because they were always horribly wrong) relied on the notion that concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have a direct or indirect correlation to downward forcing (retention of heat by the atmosphere).

Even in the Wikipedia article that one may reference regarding Radiative Forcing (which largely endeavors to complicate the issue with needlessly complex, tangential formulations and equations focused on debating the magnitude of forcing, not the basic validity of the claim that it has a significant effect relative to carbon) admits that the greater the concentrations of carbon dioxide the less their effect (aka the effect is logarithmic).

The glaring elephant in the room any time one of these mendacious kooks arrive on the scene is that CO2 concentrations were ten times higher on this planet during the period when the average temperature was the lowest (about 260 million years ago). The AGW fanatics try one slick trick after another to exaggerate the projected effects of carbon-driven radiative downward forcing in the atmosphere.

Whenever these people have it pointed out to them that their predictions have been consistently yea,  spectacularly wrong based on these notions of exponential  (the opposite of logarithmic) effects of carbon concentrations on forcing, they retreat into demands that obscure, tangential issues be discussed without addressing any of the central issues whatsoever. Suppressed has already done that on this thread repeatedly. He is really good at ignoring direct questions which of course, he does because he cannot answer them.

That also explains why he is either unable or unwilling to communicate in direct, easily-understood terms but retreats, as most AGW fanatics, into obscure, abstruse digressions which serve only to distract from, not to clarify  the central discussion. He can't or won't phrase his points (if he has any) or information in a way that people without much knowledge of technical jargon or mathematics can understand. That makes him unworthy of consideration and fully worthy of only of scorn and contempt.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

That also explains why he is either unable or unwilling to communicate in direct, easily understood terms but retreats, as most AGW fanatics, into obscure, abstruse digressions which serve only to distract, not to clarify from the central discussion. He is either unable or unwilling to phrase his points (if he has any) or information in a way that people without much knowledge of technical jargon or mathematics can understand. That makes him unworthy of consideration and fully worthy of only of scorn and contempt.

Hence, his coined handle, Suppressed.

[INVAR]

Source?

Any volcanic eruption for starters.

[Suppressed]

When do you give us your proof that establishes that any warming of this earth is actually bad for the earth or its inhabitants?

@IsailedawayfromFR

I never said that warming was "bad for the earth" (whatever that means).

As for being bad for the inhabitants, there are a number of reasons, but let me give you one example.

One issue is that rate of change.  Soils take a long time (in human terms) to develop.  Plants adjust to climate and soil conditions.  If climate changes rapidly, then the climate bands get "out of synch" with the soils.  While some crops are fine with this, certain ones (e.g., wine grapes) are highly sensitive to this disruption.

This is just one example, without getting into things like weather extremes -- since "warming of the earth" doesn't mean a uniform warming.