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

[driftdiver]

Got some type of chart that indicates that or are you winging it again?
That sort of argument is why people have problems with you.

You quote an undeniable, specific physics rock-solid principle like what temperature ice melts at and then proceed to try to somehow equate that with a scientific MODEL like the earth reacting to changes in its atmosphere.

That is completely idiotic to even bring that up in the same sentence.

Ice melting is black and white proven physics, while the history of earth's responses CANNOT be proven, only theorized.
@LateForLunch - you are correct in all areas.  A marshmallow without substance.

@Suppressed
@IsailedawayfromFR

When it comes to earth the only constant is change.   Is the earths weather changing, yes just like it always has.  Is it getting hotter?  Compared to what and how do you measure it?

The "scientists" can't even get that part right yet they expect us to trust them and destroy the country based on their word.   tar and feathers baby

[Just_Victor]

@Smokin Joe

The ideal temperature depends on how I feel.   Do I want to goto the beach?  Work in the garage?   Or maybe go skiing.    /s

Or am I trying to grow collard greens or blackeyed peas?

[LateForLunch]

Yeah, and the ugly elephant in the room any time AGW fanatics talk about "stopping climate change" is this: what they are actually suggesting is that the Human Race attempt to control the average global temperature like a thermostat.

When I make that statement, inevitably AGW advocates scream bloody murder and insist that they are not trying to do that at all. To that I reply, " Of course you are. You are suggesting that the human race take steps to stop the warming process - because you say that it is an "unnatural process". Correct?"

AGW Fanatic: Yes.

Me: So by definition, you are suggesting that we initiate actions which will slow, stop or reverse this "unnatural warming" process?

AGW Fanatic: Yes!

Me: Assuming that we are successful, if the planet's average atmospheric temperature should for any reason start to cool too much, we would then do what? Take actions to restore the warming process or allow it to continue to cool until an Ice Age occurs?

AGW Fanatic: Well, obviously we'd restore the warming process.

Me: A noble sentiment! And if those efforts to restore a warming trend should prove unsuccessful for any reason say, because  we discover that we did not fully understand how to reverse the cooling trend that we started, then the planet could inevitably slide into an Ice Age because we started a cooling trend that we could then not reverse.

AGW Fanatic: Yeah, but we were putting the natural conditions back so...

Me: Well, what if the "natural conditions"  were that the planet was sliding into an Ice Age and by pumping out extra CO2 we were PREVENTING that natural process from happening? We would have signed our own death warrant, wouldn't we?

AGW: BUTBUTBUT...

Me: So in any discussion of bringing an end to any global atmospheric warming trend, we are by definition also discussing endeavoring not only to control warming, but also to cause the temperature to go back up again if it starts to move in the other direction. In other words, to control it like a thermostat. 

AGW Fanatic: (cursing, shouting, spitting).

[driftdiver]

Yeah, and the ugly elephant in the room any time AGW fanatics talk about "stopping climate change" is this: what they are actually suggesting is that the Human Race attempt to control the average global temperature like a thermostat.

When I make that statement, inevitably AGW advocates scream bloody murder and insist that they are not trying to do that at all. To that I reply, " Of course you are. You are suggesting that the human race take steps to stop the warming process - because you say that it is an "unnatural process". Correct?"

AGW Fanatic: Yes.

Me: So by definition, you are suggesting that we initiate actions which will slow, stop or reverse this "unnatural warming" process?

AGW Fanatic: Yes!

Me: Assuming that we are successful, if the planet's average atmospheric temperature should for any reason start to cool too much, we would then do what? Take actions to restore the warming process or allow it to continue to cool until an Ice Age occurs?

AGW Fanatic: Well, obviously we'd restore the warming process.

Me: A noble sentiment! And if those efforts to restore a warming trend should prove unsuccessful for any reason say, because  we discover that we did not fully understand how to reverse the cooling trend that we started, then the planet could inevitably slide into an Ice Age because we started a cooling trend that we could then not reverse.

AGW Fanatic: Yeah, but we were putting the natural conditions back so...

Me: Well, what if the "natural conditions"  were that the planet was sliding into an Ice Age and by pumping out extra CO2 we were PREVENTING that natural process from happening? We would have signed out own death warrant, wouldn't we?

AGW: BUTBUTBUT...

Me: So in any discussion of bringing an end to any global atmospheric warming trend, we are by definition also discussing endeavoring not only to control warming, but also to cause the temperature to go back up again if it starts to move in the other direction. In other words, to control it like a thermostat. 

AGW Fanatic: (cursing, shouting, spitting).

@LateForLunch
You must be racist.   /s I think

[LateForLunch]

Racist, sexist, avaricious, firearms-obsessed, homo-phobe.

But even all of that doesn't stop me from occasionally being correct about something once in awhile!

BTW,I have identified why Suppressed and most of the rest of the posters on this thread cannot get onto the same line of the same page, so to speak. It's because Suppressed is applying inductive and abductive reasoning to the AGW conjecture while the rest of us are applying deductive reasoning.

There is a topic on the forum about that very thing which might prove enlightening for anyone with an interest in the subject of how people think, perceive and form opinions.

[Suppressed]

That is pure Gobblygook.  Not proof to justify the wasteful spending of Green Schemes.

@IsailedawayfromFR

If you saw me supposedly pushing Green Schemes, then there's someone impersonating me.

And 'climate changing rapidly' is the definition of weather.

Uh, no.

If grapes go south, so be it. Others will flourish even more.

If you look at our planet both temporally and spatially, you'll find many times and places where things don't get "replaced" or "flourish" to our liking.  Besides, the timescales for that are beyond what might be useful for humanity.

Although I'm not a huge fan of wine, I kind of like there being certain grapes and other crops.

You offer no proof, hence your argument to torment others by charging them to live shallower lives by taking away their wealth.livelihoods has no basis.

Where have I advocated that?  I'm calling you out on making a claim with no basis.

[Suppressed]

If the purpose of science is understanding, then let's have an open and honest discussion of valid data and draw conclusions from that, not utilize cherry picked secret databases massaged to prove dogma. The entire AGW/ACC movement has made a bad name for science by doing the latter, and suppressing dissenting opinion for the obvious purpose of personal gain, both in terms of prestige and lucre.

@Smokin Joe

 :thumbsup2:

[Just_Victor]

@Smokin Joe

 :thumbsup2:

:thumbsup2: :thumbsup2:

[IsailedawayfromFR]

@IsailedawayfromFR
Quote
You offer no proof, hence your argument to torment others by charging them to live shallower lives by taking away their wealth.livelihoods has no basis.
Where have I advocated that?  I'm calling you out on making a claim with no basis.

Where do I even begin?

Your entire advocacy is to drum up support for ridiculous schemes to sequester or reduce CO2, without any basis of fact that they will do ANYTHING to be beneficial to this earth or its inhabitants.

That takes MONEY.  It takes MONEY taken from those who earn it to spend on these schemes.  No one should ever surrender their hard-earned money to to some bureaucrat to spend as he deems advisable for something that is not PROVEN.

I call you a liar, a cheat, anything you want.

Call me what you dare.

I also note that @Suppressed says he is stressed to respond yet I see him on other threads posting again.

A person who does not debate, just posts his bias.

[LateForLunch]

I'm putting this person who calls himself "Suppressed" on my ignore list for this thread. He has contributed NOTHING substantive whatsoever to the discussion. He makes sweeping generalized statements without substantiation. When called on it, he retreats into whining about being misrepresented.

He reminds me of a character from Catch-22. Maybe Aarfy.

If this poster has good qualities, they are certainly not well represented on this thread. All he has demonstrated on this thread is an ability to be exceedingly egocentric, evasive and very, VERY annoying. 

I hereby name him the Marshmallow Man!!

[EC]

To get back to the OP for a second ...

They probably don't bother to count the billion tons absorbed by cement each year because it's a negligible fraction of the amount of CO2 produced by making cement.

[LateForLunch]

To get back to the OP for a second ...

They probably don't bother to count the billion tons absorbed by cement each year because it's a negligible fraction of the amount of CO2 produced by making cement.

Making cement creates CO2? Documentation?

[driftdiver]

To get back to the OP for a second ...

They probably don't bother to count the billion tons absorbed by cement each year because it's a negligible fraction of the amount of CO2 produced by making cement.

@EC
@LateForLunch

Yes, the process of making cement requires heat which is generally produced through the burning of fossil fuels.   To make that assumption of why they didn't include it is just silly and dishonest.   Par for the course when it comes to AGW proponents though.

BTW, you make concrete once and then it lays there absorbing CO2 for many years in most cases.   The truth is AGW proponents are dishonest and lazy who are using their version of science for political reasons.

[Just_Victor]

@EC
@LateForLunch

Yes, the process of making cement requires heat which is generally produced through the burning of fossil fuels.   To make that assumption of why they didn't include it is just silly and dishonest.   Par for the course when it comes to AGW proponents though.

BTW, you make concrete once and then it lays there absorbing CO2 for many years in most cases.   The truth is AGW proponents are dishonest and lazy who are using their version of science for political reasons.

But if they use an electric furnace to cook the limestone, that doesn't create any greenhouse gases, right?


Works for the electric car loonies.

[driftdiver]

But if they use an electric furnace to cook the limestone, that doesn't create any greenhouse gases, right?


Works for the electric car loonies.

@Just_Victor

I went back to the article to see if they discussed this and SHAZZAMMM!!!!!!

"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."

[LateForLunch]

@Just_Victor

I went back to the article to see if they discussed this and SHAZZAMMM!!!!!!

"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."

Ah, so! Thanks for the information, Sieur!

[EC]

But if they use an electric furnace to cook the limestone, that doesn't create any greenhouse gases, right?


Works for the electric car loonies.

Um - you create cement by cooking any calcuim carbonate rock. Byproduct of that cooking is CO2 - 44tons of it per 100 tons rock. How you generate the heat is an additional source.

[Suppressed]

Continuing my previous reply....
@driftdiver

We know the earths temperature changes and has continuously changed since this planet was formed.   Yet suddenly this change is due to our SUV, our cows, our refrigerator?  And the fix is to transfer wealth from the United States to any number of other countries while IGNORING the 2 nations with 36% of the earths population.

Of course the temperature has changed since the planet was formed.  However, natural variations don't preclude anthropogenic ones.  When we look at the rate of input of CO₂ to the atmosphere (where this conversation started), we are putting in a large amount above the quasi-equilibrium value. 

As for the "fix" (if one is needed or desired), I have never advocated those things.  I know some dishonest posters here will try to claim that, but they have been caught lying on this thread multiple times.

Hogwash, these scientists have proven themselves to be without integrity and they deserve not one iota of consideration until they have cleaned up their act AND paid for their dishonesty.

Which scientists? Those who measure CO₂ in the atmosphere?  Did they do something wrong? 

Those who are asked how we can reduce that loading?

If you speak of those who distort the data, or the presentation of the data, or the results from their analyses, thenI agree.

[Bigun]

Continuing my previous reply....
@driftdiver
Of course the temperature has changed since the planet was formed.  However, natural variations don't preclude anthropogenic ones.  When we look at the rate of input of CO₂ to the atmosphere (where this conversation started), we are putting in a large amount above the quasi-equilibrium value. 

As for the "fix" (if one is needed or desired), I have never advocated those things.  I know some dishonest posters here will try to claim that, but they have been caught lying on this thread multiple times.

Which scientists? Those who measure CO₂ in the atmosphere?  Did they do something wrong? 

Those who are asked how we can reduce that loading?

If you speak of those who distort the data, or the presentation of the data, or the results from their analyses, thenI agree.

Why should we want to reduce the loading?  Plant's LOVE CO₂ and the population is increasing!

[Suppressed]

Where do I even begin?

Your entire advocacy is to drum up support for ridiculous schemes to sequester or reduce CO2, without any basis of fact that they will do ANYTHING to be beneficial to this earth or its inhabitants.

My advocacy is for good science to get correct understanding of the earth.  That includes acknowledging the inputs we have made.  Please go back and read the beginning of the thread to see what my claims were. 

That takes MONEY.  It takes MONEY taken from those who earn it to spend on these schemes.  No one should ever surrender their hard-earned money to to some bureaucrat to spend as he deems advisable for something that is not PROVEN.

It takes money, and it stifles productivity.  In fact, that same productivity might be something we want if we are to manage changes that might occur, whether natural or man-made.   You've built up a straw man, trying to claim I'm saying things I'm not.  Simply, my initial point was that we've added a lot of CO₂ to the atmosphere.  I can't believe the opposition to such a simple, easily verified idea!

CO₂ and temperature generally track together, does anyone dispute that?!  And in quasi-equilibrium systems, if you add to one side, that shifts the "fulcrum point" to make the other side adjust.  Does anyone dispute that?!

I call you a liar, a cheat, anything you want.

Yes, you can.  And the great thing is, people can go back through the thread and confirm that you're attributing things that I never said, so they can see what you are.

Call me what you dare.

Ooh, a dare!

   I left the playground decades ago.

I also note that @Suppressed says he is stressed to respond yet I see him on other threads posting again.

Yeah, I have posted brief, light stuff on the other boards.  Believe it or not, when I need a quick break of enjoyment in between tasks, this is not the thread that pops into mind.

A person who does not debate, just posts his bias.

I like this new signature of yours. 

So, did you go back to the early posts to see what I actually advocated?

[Suppressed]

@LateForLunch

Making cement creates CO2? Documentation?

LMHO!

Oh, the great and knowledgeable guru of the topic is asking for documentation of the most basic concepts of the thread topic. 

I find it difficult to take seriously someone who pontificates on topics related to the biogeochemical carbon cycle, yet demands documentation of the carbon dioxide created by cement production. 

But since you asked, I've looked up a nice little primer on the topic: Emissions from the Cement Industry, by MADELEINE RUBENSTEIN|MAY 9, 2012
The opening...

A single industry accounts for around 5% of global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. It produces a material so ubiquitous it is nearly invisible: cement.

I know, I know...the dinosaurs were laying concrete...

(But in all seriousness, the carbon bound up in biogenic limestone has been a significant factor in the earth's history.)

[Suppressed]

Why should we want to reduce the loading?  Plant's LOVE CO₂ and the population is increasing!

@Bigun
Because there are other concerns that come with it.

"Nature abhors a vacuum" is something most people have heard.  A lesser-known maxim is that nature likes an equilibrium.  When conditions change slowly, a quasi-equilibrium is maintained, as the system can adjust to perturbations.

However, if a rapid perturbation is made, a variety of results can happen, which in the case of climate is hypothesized to include many things such as weather extremes (hotter summers in places, colder winters in places) or weather changes (increased precipitation in places).  These might sound fun to laugh at, but if you have an area that is prone to mudslides, increased precipitation can tip the balance and increase mudslides, for example.


Another issue is the "climate band" one.

Just think, we make it tropical in the Heartland, and move the heartland's weather up to northern Canada.  Plants love CO₂, and warmth is great, eh? (A little Canadian lingo there!)

Well, plants also love soil, and the Canadian Shield doesn't have the well-developed rich soil profiles of the American Heartland.  We would see overall decrease in productivity. 

Geomorphologists use a rule of thumb that soil profiles take on the order of 10,000 years to form, but that means 1,000 to 100,000....not a very useful measure, especially as it's a "moving target" as climate adjusts, it varies on rock type, etc.  But the point is, we won't suddenly get a great soil profile on the glaciated, scoured Canadian Shield anytime soon.

Yes, I used an extreme example for the point of illustration, but if we do get into a situation where the permafrost is melting, or we release the oceanic methane hydrates, we could find ourselves having to face and manage rapid change.

Do I think we're approaching there yet?  No...not like the alarmists are claiming.  Yet I do think there's a very real possibility of triggering some nasty positive feedbacks that the earth won't care a bit about, but it might make our descendants' lives less pleasant.

[Suppressed]

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

Sorry, @Smokin Joe...I think I'm getting lost in the various replies on the thread. This was an important post.

First thing I'd note is the scale of those old timey pre-man changes...the rates of change have increased.

But let's lay out some points from your source:

1) Increasing CO₂ leads to an increase in temperature.

2) Increasing temperature of the ocean leads to the release of more CO₂.

I would agree with these very fundamental points.  But note that some on this board are questioning even of these.  Perhaps they will trust this source since it comes from you!



Anyway, based on these points, the author claims that the source of acknowledged atmospheric CO2 increase is 10x more likely to be natural...but his analysis ignores several points.

If, indeed, the ocean temperature is increasing from CO₂, then some portion of that increase is anthropogenic.  As the ocean warms, it releases more CO₂.  Does that suddenly become "natural" CO₂, despite it being ultimately caused by man?  (Put simply, he's ignoring feedback mechanisms.)

Secondly, the isotope data imply manmade contributions being important.  (I know that it's not clear-cut, but it leans strongly that way.)

Third, is it purely coincidental that the natural input somehow just happens to correlate with human industrial input?

(Note, this isn't the famous "hockey stick" of temperature proxies.  This just presents observational CO₂ data from Antarctic ice cores.)

Finally, I submit that it's missing a broader point.

While it's important to understand the sensitivity of the climate to each input, the bottom line is that we are adding CO₂ to the atmosphere rapidly, and if it affects the temperature (see points above), then that's the factor we have to manage, regardless of source.  A 200-pound man walks to a bridge, carrying 100 pounds...he can't just walk over the 250-pound bridge just because the first 200 is "natural" or inherent...  Similarly, if it's determined that we have excess CO₂ going into the atmosphere to meet some decided-upon criterion, it doesn't matter what nature's doing without our control over it...what matters is what we can control (including reducing natural sources, perhaps).

[Smokin Joe]

@LateForLunch

LMHO!

Oh, the great and knowledgeable guru of the topic is asking for documentation of the most basic concepts of the thread topic. 

I find it difficult to take seriously someone who pontificates on topics related to the biogeochemical carbon cycle, yet demands documentation of the carbon dioxide created by cement production. 

But since you asked, I've looked up a nice little primer on the topic: Emissions from the Cement Industry, by MADELEINE RUBENSTEIN|MAY 9, 2012
The opening...

I know, I know...the dinosaurs were laying concrete...

(But in all seriousness, the carbon bound up in biogenic limestone has been a significant factor in the earth's history.)

Is that 5% of all emissions or 5% of the emissions humans produce? Every creature which respires, with the exception of a few anerobes, produces CO₂.

And that was measured how?

Maybe we should shut down the workout industry, sports, etc., because they make people breathe heavy and exhale more CO₂?

However, all that aside, CO₂ levels seem to be a trailing factor in warming, and that might be related to CO₂ solubility dropping in warmer oceans--which would account for the lag between temperature increases and CO₂ increases. That would make CO₂ levels a trailing indicator of temperature increases instead of a forcing agent.

Either way, Occam's razor would have the simplest solution for the problem, and the Principle of Uniformitarianism would dictate that these changes have occurred in the past without human assistance, therefore humans, while they emit CO₂, are not the agent of change in global temperatures, or not a significant one.

[Smokin Joe]

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/increasing-atmospheric-co2-manmade%E2%80%A6or-natural/
I think you may find this interesting, and it will answer many of your questions without me typing a lot.

I believe we are still at the questions: Does CO₂ force temperature change, temperature increase push CO₂ out of solution (especially in the oceans), and thus make CO₂ an indicator of temperature change rather than a forcing agent, or does man-produced and naturally released CO₂ affect the temperature.

If so, how much, or are there other factors involved? (Is anthropogenic CO₂ of negligible effect?)

Before that can be decided, note that the temperature measurements since the industrial revolution occur in areas where there is industrialization and urban growth. It is well enough documented that poorly sited, or changes in the siting of measuring equipment can cause changes in temperature readings which are not necessarily reflected in the climate, but are actually an artifact of that development--especially paving, HVAC exhaust, jet aircraft exhaust plumes, and the like. It has been stated that a significant portion of us temperature measuring stations are in locations which compromise the validity of that data, and in almost every case, in a way which would cause those stations to record higher temperatures than would be accurate outside of the microclimate caused by the development.
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2010/02/26/climate-data-compromised-by-heat-sources.html
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/08/13/weather-station-closures-flaws-in-temperature-record.html
and then, there are other risks....
http://money.cnn.com/2014/11/12/technology/security/weather-system-hacked/index.html


But beneath it all there is a hysteria level stirred by the MSM we don't trust, fostered on university campuses which have become hotbeds of lunacy and catered to by a class of politicians who do things like: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/16/new-york-announces-nuclear-shutdown-to-fight-climate-change/


It is time to take a deep breath and determine if there is really a change in global temperature (which requires accurate measurements), is so is it one which is unprecedented, if so, what should the target (optimum) temperature be, and whether we are having a meaningful effect on that system which has operated with virtually (or actually) no human input in the past.

If the four answers aren't all "yes", let nature take its course, and continue to develop the technology which will permit us to deal with any problems, rather than abandon that capability in a fit of hubris only to die off because we threw away the means to survive.