Shocking NASA Video Shows Carbon Emissions as if They Were Visible...

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 11:10:54 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:

On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 3:10:20 AM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 22-June-23 8:17 am, Fred Bloggs wrote:
Looking at the video presentation it\'s no wonder the Earth is turning into an uninhabitable fireball.

https://www.sciencealert.com/shocking-nasa-video-shows-carbon-emissions-as-if-they-were-visible
Thing is, if carbon dioxide emissions stopped, plants would eventually
suck all that remains out of the atmosphere, and then die. The planet
would become engulfed in ice due to the complete loss of the greenhouse
effect. Presumably even the most ardent greenie doesn\'t think that would
be a good idea.

Most of the ice age periods can be traced back to some unbelievably huge catastrophic event that influences and disrupts the distribution of heat by ocean currents.

Rubbish. The current sequences of ice ages and interglacials - over the past few million years - don\'t seem to involve any catastrophic event.

> The equilibrium emission/ absorption by plant life alone is estimated to be 700 Gt annually, of which mankind\'s 30 Gt is but a fraction. As small as it may be, mankind\'s emission are forcing a new equilibrium at higher temperature, that is making the planet uninhabitable. There are other natural sources of sequestration on land and water, which dwarf mankind\'s perturbation, but it\'s not enough apparently. No one is saying the Earth wouldn\'t get hot without GHG, of course it will, but the equilibrium is stable, life has adapted, and it can be dealt with. Mankind is moving the planet to a new equilibrium which won\'t be dealt with easily, even by nature.

Another idiot assertion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum

happened 55 million years ago. It seems to have been caused by a large methane release, spread over some 20,000 to 50,000 years, and the planet recovered on its own over about 200,000 years.

https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/carbontracker/

The problem, to the extent that one exists, is not that carbon dioxide is being emitted, but that more is being emitted than was emitted in the past, and the videos cannot show that.

Why not? They don\'t have to because everybody knows that (give or take a few suckers for climate change denial propaganda).

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 10:14:01 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 11:10:54 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 3:10:20 AM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 22-June-23 8:17 am, Fred Bloggs wrote:
Looking at the video presentation it\'s no wonder the Earth is turning into an uninhabitable fireball.

https://www.sciencealert.com/shocking-nasa-video-shows-carbon-emissions-as-if-they-were-visible
Thing is, if carbon dioxide emissions stopped, plants would eventually
suck all that remains out of the atmosphere, and then die. The planet
would become engulfed in ice due to the complete loss of the greenhouse
effect. Presumably even the most ardent greenie doesn\'t think that would
be a good idea.

Most of the ice age periods can be traced back to some unbelievably huge catastrophic event that influences and disrupts the distribution of heat by ocean currents.
Rubbish. The current sequences of ice ages and interglacials - over the past few million years - don\'t seem to involve any catastrophic event.

The last ice age was caused by a huge glacier lake dam burst in Canada, resulting enough freshwater concentration at the point of overturn to completely halt the gulf stream.

Other catastrophes further back are related to things like tectonic plate upheaval forming huge mountain chains composed of CO2 absorbing minerals, These events abruptly ( that\'s a geological abrupt ) lowered global CO2 enough to cause lower temperatures. Ice ages were self perpetuating as they cause very deep sea level drops, which cause land bridges to form, and land bridges prevent ocean and current mixing necessary for global heat distribution.

The equilibrium emission/ absorption by plant life alone is estimated to be 700 Gt annually, of which mankind\'s 30 Gt is but a fraction. As small as it may be, mankind\'s emission are forcing a new equilibrium at higher temperature, that is making the planet uninhabitable. There are other natural sources of sequestration on land and water, which dwarf mankind\'s perturbation, but it\'s not enough apparently. No one is saying the Earth wouldn\'t get hot without GHG, of course it will, but the equilibrium is stable, life has adapted, and it can be dealt with. Mankind is moving the planet to a new equilibrium which won\'t be dealt with easily, even by nature.
Another idiot assertion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum

happened 55 million years ago. It seems to have been caused by a large methane release, spread over some 20,000 to 50,000 years, and the planet recovered on its own over about 200,000 years.

You continue to loudly demonstrate zero deductive reasoning abilities. That crummy Eocene 50,000 year release amounts to less than 10% of manmade emissions today. The Earth must have been very fragile back then.

https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/carbontracker/

The problem, to the extent that one exists, is not that carbon dioxide is being emitted, but that more is being emitted than was emitted in the past, and the videos cannot show that.
Why not? They don\'t have to because everybody knows that (give or take a few suckers for climate change denial propaganda).

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Saturday, June 24, 2023 at 12:54:06 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:

On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 10:14:01 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 11:10:54 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 3:10:20 AM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 22-June-23 8:17 am, Fred Bloggs wrote:
Looking at the video presentation it\'s no wonder the Earth is turning into an uninhabitable fireball.

https://www.sciencealert.com/shocking-nasa-video-shows-carbon-emissions-as-if-they-were-visible
Thing is, if carbon dioxide emissions stopped, plants would eventually
suck all that remains out of the atmosphere, and then die. The planet
would become engulfed in ice due to the complete loss of the greenhouse
effect. Presumably even the most ardent greenie doesn\'t think that would
be a good idea.

Most of the ice age periods can be traced back to some unbelievably huge catastrophic event that influences and disrupts the distribution of heat by ocean currents.
Rubbish. The current sequences of ice ages and interglacials - over the past few million years - don\'t seem to involve any catastrophic event.

The last ice age was caused by a huge glacier lake dam burst in Canada, resulting enough freshwater concentration at the point of overturn to completely halt the gulf stream.

That\'s one explanation for the Younger Dryas, which happened at the end of the last ice, and it may have been part of the process of moving from the most recent ice age to the current interglacial. Claiming that it \"caused\" the last ice gets the whole episode entirely backwards.

> Other catastrophes further back are related to things like tectonic plate upheaval forming huge mountain chains composed of CO2 absorbing minerals, These events abruptly ( that\'s a geological abrupt ) lowered global CO2 enough to cause lower temperatures. Ice ages were self perpetuating as they cause very deep sea level drops, which cause land bridges to form, and land bridges prevent ocean and current mixing necessary for global heat distribution.

Don\'t be silly.

The equilibrium emission/ absorption by plant life alone is estimated to be 700 Gt annually, of which mankind\'s 30 Gt is but a fraction. As small as it may be, mankind\'s emission are forcing a new equilibrium at higher temperature, that is making the planet uninhabitable. There are other natural sources of sequestration on land and water, which dwarf mankind\'s perturbation, but it\'s not enough apparently. No one is saying the Earth wouldn\'t get hot without GHG, of course it will, but the equilibrium is stable, life has adapted, and it can be dealt with. Mankind is moving the planet to a new equilibrium which won\'t be dealt with easily, even by nature.

Another idiot assertion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum

happened 55 million years ago. It seems to have been caused by a large methane release, spread over some 20,000 to 50,000 years, and the planet recovered on its own over about 200,000 years.

You continue to loudly demonstrate zero deductive reasoning abilities. That crummy Eocene 50,000 year release amounts to less than 10% of manmade emissions today. The Earth must have been very fragile back then.

\" Paired δ13C, δ11B, and δ18O data suggest that ~12,000 Gt of carbon (at least 44000 Gt CO2e) were released over 50,000 years,[5] averaging 0.24 Gt per year. \"

That totals rather more than the 30 Gt a year that you credit us with. It was 11 Gt in the 1960s and it\'s 36 Gt per year now so perhaps 2,500 Gt over 60 years.

It\'s the total amount in the atmosphere that matters, not the rate of release.

Your own reasoning capacity isn\'t looking all that impressive. Perhaps you should try to think it out again?

https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/carbontracker/

The problem, to the extent that one exists, is not that carbon dioxide is being emitted, but that more is being emitted than was emitted in the past, and the videos cannot show that.

Why not? They don\'t have to because everybody knows that (give or take a few suckers for climate change denial propaganda).

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 11:22:59 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

On Saturday, June 24, 2023 at 12:54:06 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 10:14:01 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 11:10:54 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 3:10:20 AM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 22-June-23 8:17 am, Fred Bloggs wrote:
Looking at the video presentation it\'s no wonder the Earth is turning into an uninhabitable fireball.

https://www.sciencealert.com/shocking-nasa-video-shows-carbon-emissions-as-if-they-were-visible
Thing is, if carbon dioxide emissions stopped, plants would eventually
suck all that remains out of the atmosphere, and then die. The planet
would become engulfed in ice due to the complete loss of the greenhouse
effect. Presumably even the most ardent greenie doesn\'t think that would
be a good idea.

Most of the ice age periods can be traced back to some unbelievably huge catastrophic event that influences and disrupts the distribution of heat by ocean currents.
Rubbish. The current sequences of ice ages and interglacials - over the past few million years - don\'t seem to involve any catastrophic event.

The last ice age was caused by a huge glacier lake dam burst in Canada, resulting enough freshwater concentration at the point of overturn to completely halt the gulf stream.
That\'s one explanation for the Younger Dryas, which happened at the end of the last ice, and it may have been part of the process of moving from the most recent ice age to the current interglacial. Claiming that it \"caused\" the last ice gets the whole episode entirely backwards.
Other catastrophes further back are related to things like tectonic plate upheaval forming huge mountain chains composed of CO2 absorbing minerals, These events abruptly ( that\'s a geological abrupt ) lowered global CO2 enough to cause lower temperatures. Ice ages were self perpetuating as they cause very deep sea level drops, which cause land bridges to form, and land bridges prevent ocean and current mixing necessary for global heat distribution.
Don\'t be silly.

The Panama isthmus only formed a land bridge 3 million years ago.

This was a big one:

https://discoveringantarctica.org.uk/oceans-atmosphere-landscape/ice-land-and-sea/tectonic-history-into-the-deep-freeze/

The equilibrium emission/ absorption by plant life alone is estimated to be 700 Gt annually, of which mankind\'s 30 Gt is but a fraction. As small as it may be, mankind\'s emission are forcing a new equilibrium at higher temperature, that is making the planet uninhabitable. There are other natural sources of sequestration on land and water, which dwarf mankind\'s perturbation, but it\'s not enough apparently. No one is saying the Earth wouldn\'t get hot without GHG, of course it will, but the equilibrium is stable, life has adapted, and it can be dealt with. Mankind is moving the planet to a new equilibrium which won\'t be dealt with easily, even by nature.

Another idiot assertion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum

happened 55 million years ago. It seems to have been caused by a large methane release, spread over some 20,000 to 50,000 years, and the planet recovered on its own over about 200,000 years.

You continue to loudly demonstrate zero deductive reasoning abilities. That crummy Eocene 50,000 year release amounts to less than 10% of manmade emissions today. The Earth must have been very fragile back then.
\" Paired δ13C, δ11B, and δ18O data suggest that ~12,000 Gt of carbon (at least 44000 Gt CO2e) were released over 50,000 years,[5] averaging 0.24 Gt per year. \"

That totals rather more than the 30 Gt a year that you credit us with. It was 11 Gt in the 1960s and it\'s 36 Gt per year now so perhaps 2,500 Gt over 60 years.

It\'s the total amount in the atmosphere that matters, not the rate of release.

Of course the rate matters, atmospheric CO2 has a 20 year half life. The manmade introduction is happening much faster than that wimpy Eocene event.

Your own reasoning capacity isn\'t looking all that impressive. Perhaps you should try to think it out again?

Try less thinking and more analysis.

https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/carbontracker/

The problem, to the extent that one exists, is not that carbon dioxide is being emitted, but that more is being emitted than was emitted in the past, and the videos cannot show that.

Why not? They don\'t have to because everybody knows that (give or take a few suckers for climate change denial propaganda).

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Saturday, June 24, 2023 at 1:39:24 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:

On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 11:22:59 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, June 24, 2023 at 12:54:06 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 10:14:01 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 11:10:54 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 3:10:20 AM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 22-June-23 8:17 am, Fred Bloggs wrote:
Looking at the video presentation it\'s no wonder the Earth is turning into an uninhabitable fireball.

https://www.sciencealert.com/shocking-nasa-video-shows-carbon-emissions-as-if-they-were-visible
Thing is, if carbon dioxide emissions stopped, plants would eventually
suck all that remains out of the atmosphere, and then die. The planet
would become engulfed in ice due to the complete loss of the greenhouse
effect. Presumably even the most ardent greenie doesn\'t think that would
be a good idea.

Most of the ice age periods can be traced back to some unbelievably huge catastrophic event that influences and disrupts the distribution of heat by ocean currents.

Rubbish. The current sequences of ice ages and interglacials - over the past few million years - don\'t seem to involve any catastrophic event.

The last ice age was caused by a huge glacier lake dam burst in Canada, resulting enough freshwater concentration at the point of overturn to completely halt the gulf stream.
That\'s one explanation for the Younger Dryas, which happened at the end of the last ice, and it may have been part of the process of moving from the most recent ice age to the current interglacial. Claiming that it \"caused\" the last ice gets the whole episode entirely backwards.
Other catastrophes further back are related to things like tectonic plate upheaval forming huge mountain chains composed of CO2 absorbing minerals, These events abruptly ( that\'s a geological abrupt ) lowered global CO2 enough to cause lower temperatures. Ice ages were self perpetuating as they cause very deep sea level drops, which cause land bridges to form, and land bridges prevent ocean and current mixing necessary for global heat distribution.

Don\'t be silly.

The Panama isthmus only formed a land bridge 3 million years ago.

That was just continental drift, which is remarkably slow and not in the least catastrophic. The current sequence of ice ages and interglacials started 2.58 millions years ago, which probably isn\'t a coincidence

The ocean currents did get reorganised around then and we got an ice sheet over Antarctic and and - a bit later - over the Artic circle but there wasn\'t any catastrophe involved.

The equilibrium emission/ absorption by plant life alone is estimated to be 700 Gt annually, of which mankind\'s 30 Gt is but a fraction. As small as it may be, mankind\'s emission are forcing a new equilibrium at higher temperature, that is making the planet uninhabitable. There are other natural sources of sequestration on land and water, which dwarf mankind\'s perturbation, but it\'s not enough apparently. No one is saying the Earth wouldn\'t get hot without GHG, of course it will, but the equilibrium is stable, life has adapted, and it can be dealt with. Mankind is moving the planet to a new equilibrium which won\'t be dealt with easily, even by nature.

Another idiot assertion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum

happened 55 million years ago. It seems to have been caused by a large methane release, spread over some 20,000 to 50,000 years, and the planet recovered on its own over about 200,000 years.

You continue to loudly demonstrate zero deductive reasoning abilities.. That crummy Eocene 50,000 year release amounts to less than 10% of manmade emissions today. The Earth must have been very fragile back then.

\" Paired δ13C, δ11B, and δ18O data suggest that ~12,000 Gt of carbon (at least 44000 Gt CO2e) were released over 50,000 years,[5] averaging 0.24 Gt per year. \"

That totals rather more than the 30 Gt a year that you credit us with. It was 11 Gt in the 1960s and it\'s 36 Gt per year now so perhaps 2,500 Gt over 60 years.

It\'s the total amount in the atmosphere that matters, not the rate of release.

Of course the rate matters, atmospheric CO2 has a 20 year half life. The manmade introduction is happening much faster than that wimpy Eocene event.

Atmospheric CO2 looks as if it has an 800 year half life, if the ice- age to interglacial transitions are anything to go by.

The \"wimpy Eocene event\" was \"a time period with a more than 5–8 °C global average temperature rise across the event.\"

It took a while to get that warm, but it stayed warm for at least 100,000 years.

Your own reasoning capacity isn\'t looking all that impressive. Perhaps you should try to think it out again?

Try less thinking and more analysis.

Your \"analysis\" seems to consist of cherry picking text you don\'t understand for events you can present as catastrophes.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[boB]

On Thu, 22 Jun 2023 07:03:30 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Thursday, June 22, 2023 at 11:40:20?PM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jun 2023 21:49:29 -0700, boB <b...@K7IQ.com> wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jun 2023 20:41:51 -0700 (PDT), Ricky <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, June 21, 2023 at 6:17:45?PM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote:

snip

No problem. Larkin will be long dead by the time climate change has had a significant impact on the world.

And so will my great-great-great grandchilden.

It\'s wise child that knows its own father. Somebody that is gullible enough to fall for climate change denial propaganda is likely to imagine that he has more children that he has actually fathered

What I hear will be a big problem is that there will be bugs. LOTS of bugs ! Ewwwww !

You are supposed to eat them.

Anybody who can swallow climate change denial propaganda can swallow pretty much anything.

NOT without being covered in either cheese or chocolate !

boB

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 12:15:26 PM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

On Saturday, June 24, 2023 at 1:39:24 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 11:22:59 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, June 24, 2023 at 12:54:06 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 10:14:01 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 11:10:54 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 3:10:20 AM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 22-June-23 8:17 am, Fred Bloggs wrote:
Looking at the video presentation it\'s no wonder the Earth is turning into an uninhabitable fireball.

https://www.sciencealert.com/shocking-nasa-video-shows-carbon-emissions-as-if-they-were-visible
Thing is, if carbon dioxide emissions stopped, plants would eventually
suck all that remains out of the atmosphere, and then die. The planet
would become engulfed in ice due to the complete loss of the greenhouse
effect. Presumably even the most ardent greenie doesn\'t think that would
be a good idea.

Most of the ice age periods can be traced back to some unbelievably huge catastrophic event that influences and disrupts the distribution of heat by ocean currents.

Rubbish. The current sequences of ice ages and interglacials - over the past few million years - don\'t seem to involve any catastrophic event.

The last ice age was caused by a huge glacier lake dam burst in Canada, resulting enough freshwater concentration at the point of overturn to completely halt the gulf stream.
That\'s one explanation for the Younger Dryas, which happened at the end of the last ice, and it may have been part of the process of moving from the most recent ice age to the current interglacial. Claiming that it \"caused\" the last ice gets the whole episode entirely backwards.
Other catastrophes further back are related to things like tectonic plate upheaval forming huge mountain chains composed of CO2 absorbing minerals, These events abruptly ( that\'s a geological abrupt ) lowered global CO2 enough to cause lower temperatures. Ice ages were self perpetuating as they cause very deep sea level drops, which cause land bridges to form, and land bridges prevent ocean and current mixing necessary for global heat distribution.

Don\'t be silly.

The Panama isthmus only formed a land bridge 3 million years ago.
That was just continental drift, which is remarkably slow and not in the least catastrophic. The current sequence of ice ages and interglacials started 2.58 millions years ago, which probably isn\'t a coincidence

The ocean currents did get reorganised around then and we got an ice sheet over Antarctic and and - a bit later - over the Artic circle but there wasn\'t any catastrophe involved.
The equilibrium emission/ absorption by plant life alone is estimated to be 700 Gt annually, of which mankind\'s 30 Gt is but a fraction. As small as it may be, mankind\'s emission are forcing a new equilibrium at higher temperature, that is making the planet uninhabitable. There are other natural sources of sequestration on land and water, which dwarf mankind\'s perturbation, but it\'s not enough apparently. No one is saying the Earth wouldn\'t get hot without GHG, of course it will, but the equilibrium is stable, life has adapted, and it can be dealt with. Mankind is moving the planet to a new equilibrium which won\'t be dealt with easily, even by nature.

Another idiot assertion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum

happened 55 million years ago. It seems to have been caused by a large methane release, spread over some 20,000 to 50,000 years, and the planet recovered on its own over about 200,000 years.

You continue to loudly demonstrate zero deductive reasoning abilities. That crummy Eocene 50,000 year release amounts to less than 10% of manmade emissions today. The Earth must have been very fragile back then.

\" Paired δ13C, δ11B, and δ18O data suggest that ~12,000 Gt of carbon (at least 44000 Gt CO2e) were released over 50,000 years,[5] averaging 0.24 Gt per year. \"

That totals rather more than the 30 Gt a year that you credit us with.. It was 11 Gt in the 1960s and it\'s 36 Gt per year now so perhaps 2,500 Gt over 60 years.

It\'s the total amount in the atmosphere that matters, not the rate of release.

Of course the rate matters, atmospheric CO2 has a 20 year half life. The manmade introduction is happening much faster than that wimpy Eocene event.
Atmospheric CO2 looks as if it has an 800 year half life, if the ice- age to interglacial transitions are anything to go by.

That\'s a ridiculous estimate. Even IPCC doesn\'t commit to a half life because it\'s so variable and unknown. NASA doesn\'t even know what it is, and gives a broad useless range of 300-1000 years, a complete guess. Unless they\'re talking about 5 half lives.

The \"wimpy Eocene event\" was \"a time period with a more than 5–8 °C global average temperature rise across the event.\"

It took a while to get that warm, but it stayed warm for at least 100,000 years.
Your own reasoning capacity isn\'t looking all that impressive. Perhaps you should try to think it out again?

Try less thinking and more analysis.
Your \"analysis\" seems to consist of cherry picking text you don\'t understand for events you can present as catastrophes.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Saturday, June 24, 2023 at 8:40:25 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:

On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 12:15:26 PM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, June 24, 2023 at 1:39:24 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 11:22:59 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, June 24, 2023 at 12:54:06 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 10:14:01 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 11:10:54 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 3:10:20 AM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 22-June-23 8:17 am, Fred Bloggs wrote:

<snip>

It\'s the total amount in the atmosphere that matters, not the rate of release.

Of course the rate matters, atmospheric CO2 has a 20 year half life. The manmade introduction is happening much faster than that wimpy Eocene event.

Atmospheric CO2 looks as if it has an 800 year half life, if the ice- age to interglacial transitions are anything to go by.

That\'s a ridiculous estimate. Even IPCC doesn\'t commit to a half life because it\'s so variable and unknown. NASA doesn\'t even know what it is, and gives a broad useless range of 300-1000 years, a complete guess. Unless they\'re talking about 5 half lives.

As an estimate it is an order of magnitude less ridiculous than your 20 years. Since CO2 leaves the atmosphere by being captured by plants (but most of that gets back into the atsmosphere when the plant dies and rots) and by weathering silicate rocks to carbonates it\'s not sensible to talk about a single half-life as you did (and got it wrong).

<snip>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 23 Jun 2023 15:40:19 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 12:15:26?PM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, June 24, 2023 at 1:39:24?AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 11:22:59?AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, June 24, 2023 at 12:54:06?AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 10:14:01?AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 11:10:54?PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 3:10:20?AM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 22-June-23 8:17 am, Fred Bloggs wrote:
Looking at the video presentation it\'s no wonder the Earth is turning into an uninhabitable fireball.

https://www.sciencealert.com/shocking-nasa-video-shows-carbon-emissions-as-if-they-were-visible
Thing is, if carbon dioxide emissions stopped, plants would eventually
suck all that remains out of the atmosphere, and then die. The planet
would become engulfed in ice due to the complete loss of the greenhouse
effect. Presumably even the most ardent greenie doesn\'t think that would
be a good idea.

Most of the ice age periods can be traced back to some unbelievably huge catastrophic event that influences and disrupts the distribution of heat by ocean currents.

Rubbish. The current sequences of ice ages and interglacials - over the past few million years - don\'t seem to involve any catastrophic event.

The last ice age was caused by a huge glacier lake dam burst in Canada, resulting enough freshwater concentration at the point of overturn to completely halt the gulf stream.
That\'s one explanation for the Younger Dryas, which happened at the end of the last ice, and it may have been part of the process of moving from the most recent ice age to the current interglacial. Claiming that it \"caused\" the last ice gets the whole episode entirely backwards.
Other catastrophes further back are related to things like tectonic plate upheaval forming huge mountain chains composed of CO2 absorbing minerals, These events abruptly ( that\'s a geological abrupt ) lowered global CO2 enough to cause lower temperatures. Ice ages were self perpetuating as they cause very deep sea level drops, which cause land bridges to form, and land bridges prevent ocean and current mixing necessary for global heat distribution.

Don\'t be silly.

The Panama isthmus only formed a land bridge 3 million years ago.
That was just continental drift, which is remarkably slow and not in the least catastrophic. The current sequence of ice ages and interglacials started 2.58 millions years ago, which probably isn\'t a coincidence

The ocean currents did get reorganised around then and we got an ice sheet over Antarctic and and - a bit later - over the Artic circle but there wasn\'t any catastrophe involved.
The equilibrium emission/ absorption by plant life alone is estimated to be 700 Gt annually, of which mankind\'s 30 Gt is but a fraction. As small as it may be, mankind\'s emission are forcing a new equilibrium at higher temperature, that is making the planet uninhabitable. There are other natural sources of sequestration on land and water, which dwarf mankind\'s perturbation, but it\'s not enough apparently. No one is saying the Earth wouldn\'t get hot without GHG, of course it will, but the equilibrium is stable, life has adapted, and it can be dealt with. Mankind is moving the planet to a new equilibrium which won\'t be dealt with easily, even by nature.

Another idiot assertion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum

happened 55 million years ago. It seems to have been caused by a large methane release, spread over some 20,000 to 50,000 years, and the planet recovered on its own over about 200,000 years.

You continue to loudly demonstrate zero deductive reasoning abilities. That crummy Eocene 50,000 year release amounts to less than 10% of manmade emissions today. The Earth must have been very fragile back then.

\" Paired ?13C, ?11B, and ?18O data suggest that ~12,000 Gt of carbon (at least 44000 Gt CO2e) were released over 50,000 years,[5] averaging 0.24 Gt per year. \"

That totals rather more than the 30 Gt a year that you credit us with. It was 11 Gt in the 1960s and it\'s 36 Gt per year now so perhaps 2,500 Gt over 60 years.

It\'s the total amount in the atmosphere that matters, not the rate of release.

Of course the rate matters, atmospheric CO2 has a 20 year half life. The manmade introduction is happening much faster than that wimpy Eocene event.
Atmospheric CO2 looks as if it has an 800 year half life, if the ice- age to interglacial transitions are anything to go by.

That\'s a ridiculous estimate. Even IPCC doesn\'t commit to a half life because it\'s so variable and unknown. NASA doesn\'t even know what it is, and gives a broad useless range of 300-1000 years, a complete guess. Unless they\'re talking about 5 half lives.

The CO2 plot from Mauna Loa is a sawtooth. It slopes down once a year,
so CO2 is being absorbed at a decent rate.

Earth is greening pretty well now, too, so the CO2 absorption rate
will increase.

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Saturday, June 24, 2023 at 7:26:44 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 23 Jun 2023 15:40:19 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 12:15:26?PM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, June 24, 2023 at 1:39:24?AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 11:22:59?AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, June 24, 2023 at 12:54:06?AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 10:14:01?AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 11:10:54?PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 3:10:20?AM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 22-June-23 8:17 am, Fred Bloggs wrote:
Looking at the video presentation it\'s no wonder the Earth is turning into an uninhabitable fireball.

https://www.sciencealert.com/shocking-nasa-video-shows-carbon-emissions-as-if-they-were-visible
Thing is, if carbon dioxide emissions stopped, plants would eventually
suck all that remains out of the atmosphere, and then die. The planet
would become engulfed in ice due to the complete loss of the greenhouse
effect. Presumably even the most ardent greenie doesn\'t think that would
be a good idea.

Most of the ice age periods can be traced back to some unbelievably huge catastrophic event that influences and disrupts the distribution of heat by ocean currents.

Rubbish. The current sequences of ice ages and interglacials - over the past few million years - don\'t seem to involve any catastrophic event.

The last ice age was caused by a huge glacier lake dam burst in Canada, resulting enough freshwater concentration at the point of overturn to completely halt the gulf stream.
That\'s one explanation for the Younger Dryas, which happened at the end of the last ice, and it may have been part of the process of moving from the most recent ice age to the current interglacial. Claiming that it \"caused\" the last ice gets the whole episode entirely backwards.
Other catastrophes further back are related to things like tectonic plate upheaval forming huge mountain chains composed of CO2 absorbing minerals, These events abruptly ( that\'s a geological abrupt ) lowered global CO2 enough to cause lower temperatures. Ice ages were self perpetuating as they cause very deep sea level drops, which cause land bridges to form, and land bridges prevent ocean and current mixing necessary for global heat distribution.

Don\'t be silly.

The Panama isthmus only formed a land bridge 3 million years ago.
That was just continental drift, which is remarkably slow and not in the least catastrophic. The current sequence of ice ages and interglacials started 2.58 millions years ago, which probably isn\'t a coincidence

The ocean currents did get reorganised around then and we got an ice sheet over Antarctic and and - a bit later - over the Artic circle but there wasn\'t any catastrophe involved.
The equilibrium emission/ absorption by plant life alone is estimated to be 700 Gt annually, of which mankind\'s 30 Gt is but a fraction.. As small as it may be, mankind\'s emission are forcing a new equilibrium at higher temperature, that is making the planet uninhabitable. There are other natural sources of sequestration on land and water, which dwarf mankind\'s perturbation, but it\'s not enough apparently. No one is saying the Earth wouldn\'t get hot without GHG, of course it will, but the equilibrium is stable, life has adapted, and it can be dealt with. Mankind is moving the planet to a new equilibrium which won\'t be dealt with easily, even by nature.

Another idiot assertion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum

happened 55 million years ago. It seems to have been caused by a large methane release, spread over some 20,000 to 50,000 years, and the planet recovered on its own over about 200,000 years.

You continue to loudly demonstrate zero deductive reasoning abilities. That crummy Eocene 50,000 year release amounts to less than 10% of manmade emissions today. The Earth must have been very fragile back then.

\" Paired ?13C, ?11B, and ?18O data suggest that ~12,000 Gt of carbon (at least 44000 Gt CO2e) were released over 50,000 years,[5] averaging 0..24 Gt per year. \"

That totals rather more than the 30 Gt a year that you credit us with. It was 11 Gt in the 1960s and it\'s 36 Gt per year now so perhaps 2,500 Gt over 60 years.

It\'s the total amount in the atmosphere that matters, not the rate of release.

Of course the rate matters, atmospheric CO2 has a 20 year half life. The manmade introduction is happening much faster than that wimpy Eocene event.
Atmospheric CO2 looks as if it has an 800 year half life, if the ice- age to interglacial transitions are anything to go by.

That\'s a ridiculous estimate. Even IPCC doesn\'t commit to a half life because it\'s so variable and unknown. NASA doesn\'t even know what it is, and gives a broad useless range of 300-1000 years, a complete guess. Unless they\'re talking about 5 half lives.

The CO2 plot from Mauna Loa is a sawtooth. It slopes down once a year,
so CO2 is being absorbed at a decent rate.

Earth is greening pretty well now, too, so the CO2 absorption rate
will increase.

NASA has been running the OCO ( Orbiting Carbon Observatory ) program for over a decade now (?) and has come across some surprising revelations. They found due to the global warming induced longer growing season, the northern latitude forests are absorbing far more CO2 than originally thought. They also found the super heated tropicals aren\'t the \"lungs of the Earth\" as everyone believed. Also, massive agricultural production in places like central China is removing regional CO2 to almost pre-industrial levels.

To get to net zero optimism there\'s this:

Warming climate could turn ocean plankton microbes into carbon emitters

https://www.newswise.com/articles/climate-change-may-transform-ocean-plankton-into-carbon-emitters

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Saturday, June 24, 2023 at 9:26:44 PM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 23 Jun 2023 15:40:19 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 12:15:26?PM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, June 24, 2023 at 1:39:24?AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 11:22:59?AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, June 24, 2023 at 12:54:06?AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 10:14:01?AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 11:10:54?PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 3:10:20?AM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 22-June-23 8:17 am, Fred Bloggs wrote:

<snip>

The equilibrium emission/ absorption by plant life alone is estimated to be 700 Gt annually, of which mankind\'s 30 Gt is but a fraction.. As small as it may be, mankind\'s emission are forcing a new equilibrium at higher temperature, that is making the planet uninhabitable. There are other natural sources of sequestration on land and water, which dwarf mankind\'s perturbation, but it\'s not enough apparently. No one is saying the Earth wouldn\'t get hot without GHG, of course it will, but the equilibrium is stable, life has adapted, and it can be dealt with. Mankind is moving the planet to a new equilibrium which won\'t be dealt with easily, even by nature.

Another idiot assertion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum

happened 55 million years ago. It seems to have been caused by a large methane release, spread over some 20,000 to 50,000 years, and the planet recovered on its own over about 200,000 years.

You continue to loudly demonstrate zero deductive reasoning abilities. That crummy Eocene 50,000 year release amounts to less than 10% of manmade emissions today. The Earth must have been very fragile back then.

\" Paired ?13C, ?11B, and ?18O data suggest that ~12,000 Gt of carbon (at least 44000 Gt CO2e) were released over 50,000 years,[5] averaging 0..24 Gt per year. \"

That totals rather more than the 30 Gt a year that you credit us with. It was 11 Gt in the 1960s and it\'s 36 Gt per year now so perhaps 2,500 Gt over 60 years.

It\'s the total amount in the atmosphere that matters, not the rate of release.

Of course the rate matters, atmospheric CO2 has a 20 year half life. The manmade introduction is happening much faster than that wimpy Eocene event.
Atmospheric CO2 looks as if it has an 800 year half life, if the ice- age to interglacial transitions are anything to go by.

That\'s a ridiculous estimate. Even IPCC doesn\'t commit to a half life because it\'s so variable and unknown. NASA doesn\'t even know what it is, and gives a broad useless range of 300-1000 years, a complete guess. Unless they\'re talking about 5 half lives.

There are several different processes that take CO2 out of the atmosphere and trying to characterise all of them with a single \"half life\" is pretty silly.

> The CO2 plot from Mauna Loa is a sawtooth. It slopes down once a year, so CO2 is being absorbed at a decent rate.

It looks at the northern hemisphere which shows more seasonal variation. The CO2 plot from Cape Grim in the Southern Hemisphere (in Tasmania, not far from where I grew up) shows a smaller sawtooth.

https://www.csiro.au/en/research/natural-environment/atmosphere/latest-greenhouse-gas-data

> Earth is greening pretty well now, too, so the CO2 absorption rate will increase.

Sadly the seasonal variation is both CO2 being absorbed by growing plants and being returned to the atmosphere when they rot or get burnt in forest fires.

Oceanic formanifera actually fix CO2 and drop it to the ocean floor where it stays until the carbonates get subducted and the CO2 is returned to the atmosphere in volcanic emissions. Weathering olivine and other silicate rocks to carbonates does the same job. Greening doesn\'t come into that.

Do try to read a bit more widely. Climate change denial propaganda may deliver your daily fix of flattery, but it isn\'t any kind of complete or reliable source.

--
Bill Sloman, sydney