The Debunking Thread

[Recusant]

You're right - it is from the pipe.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emi...08_Annex_4.pdf

Now, back to the point at hand - where is the rest "coming from"?

You haven't dispelled the notion that our activities, which reduce the Earth's capacity to absorb emissions, are to blame for the 'extra' increase in co2 in the atmosphere.

Originally Posted by Oregon Elephant

1) As trees are removed (deforestation), that allows new trees to grow and begin filtering out CO2. For many trees (but not all), they stop growing atfer awhile but continue living. While a tree is not growing, it is removing very little CO2. Growing trees remove the most CO2. However, some trees continue to grow as long as they live.

A forrest is forever renewed with new life. If forrests are damaged or destroyed by humans, they are not typically replaced by a replica (or better) forrest - it is cleared permanently. IF they are replaced at all - it is for 'sustainable' logging. The density of forest (ie life and co2 absorbtion capability) is nothing like the same as it used to be due to continual purging/burning and poisoning. The forests ability to absorb co2 is lessened. There is a particularly potent difference between a rainforrest and a plantation forrest.

I have a chart in front of me, which i cannot find online - despite a fair amount of effort!

The source is identified as the "Science, IPCC" and the chart was drawn by "Graphic News".

It shows "typical co2 emissions grams per km".
The chart is about biofuels.

Production, vehicle use:
Petrol: 120
Biomass: 35
Corn Ethanol: 96

BUT - when you factor in land conversion - you add:
Petrol: +0
Biomass: +179
Corn Ethanol: +230

This land conversion (but one example of human caused indirect co2 emissions), according to your info - is not included in the emissions - yet it has contributed to an increase in emissions.

It points out "conversion of forest or grassland to arable land causes loss of organic carbon and subsequent rise in carbon dioxide emissions"

"Increase in co2 emissions over 30 years (tonnes per hectare)"
replace tropical wetland with arable land: up to 1146
replace tropical forest with arable land: up to 824
replace tropical grassland with arable land: up to 305
..more co2 than if left alone.

This ably demonstrates the impact of humans with regard to indirect emissions. The IPCC says this:

Wiki

very likely and likely mean "the assessed likelihood, using expert judgment", are over 90% and 66% respectively.

Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.

Originally Posted by Oregon Elephant

2) As glaciers melt and go from a solid to a liquid, they increase the amount of CO2 that the oceans can hold. Solid water is not capible of have a gas disolved within it, but liquid water is. So the more liquid water that we have, the more capibility to hold more disolved CO2.

Interesting and quite possibly true (reference please). However - what about the previously safely captured co2 and methane (and whatever else) in the ice and permafrost, which is released as it melts. Also, regardless of the ice melt, the ocean still has a limit to what is can safely absorb before it begins to damage life and even become uninhabitable. This is part of the "difficult to predict the impacts of" feedback loops of climate change.



We increase enough co2, and lots else kicks in to amplify our stuff-up many times over.

We know it to be the case with permafrost, we know it to be the case with water vapour.

This is old, well-established science.
Google Search

The ocean will keep soaking up co2 (to a point - and not enough to offset our emissions if we don't adjust). The cost will be catastrophic for the oceans however as acidification kills just about everything.

Wiki

Leaving aside direct biological effects, it is expected that ocean acidification in the future will lead to a significant decrease in the burial of carbonate sediments for several centuries, and even the dissolution of existing carbonate sediments[20]. This will cause an elevation of ocean alkalinity, leading to the enhancement of the ocean as a reservoir for CO2 with moderate (and potentially beneficial) implications for climate change as more CO2 leaves the atmosphere for the ocean[21].

We know that the ocean won't be able to keep up - because we know how much co2 it took last time to destroy a huge swathe of ocean via acidification.

I think people look at history and say "yeah, it happened before and life went on". But things took tens of thousands of years to stabilise - and at great biological cost.

Ocean Acidification

The upper panel shows calculated carbonate saturation state for pre-industrial times (atmospheric CO2 = 280 ppm). Under those conditions, all Pacific and Caribbean regions are in an optimal state for carbonate rock production. The lower panel shows calculated carbonate saturation state for 2070 (CO2 = 517 ppm). Under those conditions, most tropical reef areas are in a marginal state; a small area of Caribbean is in an adequate state.

What the Past Tells Us

To emphasize the projected future carbonate situation, paleoceanographic evidence indicates that there was a massive carbonate disappearance in geological history. This occurred in the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), 55 million years ago. Sediment cores show that there was an abrupt event where no carbonates survived in the sediment record while carbonates are abundant directly below and above (earlier and later periods respectively). The record indicates that the carbonate disappearance was sudden, occurring in less than 10,000 years and that it recovered naturally in about 100,000 years. The exact cause of the PETM is not well explained but it is thought that there was a relatively sudden massive release of methane gas which contributed to global warming and that the methane was oxidized to CO2 causing ocean acidification.

On a side note, some evidence that some oceans at least are less able to absorb more co2 in the last ~20 years.

Saturation of the Southern Ocean CO2 Sink Due to Recent Climate Change -- Le Qur et al., 10.1126/science.1136188 -- Science
Southern ocean carbon sink weakened (Media Release)

Scientists have observed the first evidence that the Southern Ocean’s ability to absorb the major greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, has weakened by about 15 per cent per decade since 1981.

[Oregon Elephant]

Originally Posted by Recusant

Now, back to the point at hand - where is the rest "coming from"?

You haven't dispelled the notion that our activities, which reduce the Earth's capacity to absorb emissions, are to blame for the 'extra' increase in co2 in the atmosphere.

The ability to absorbed was treated as 0% on my calculations. The only way for higher CO2 increases is for nature to also be releaseing more. We are only produceing so much, so even if nature is absorbing none of that at all, that doesn't explain the increased CO2 (not all of it).

A forrest is forever renewed with new life. If forrests are damaged or destroyed by humans, they are not typically replaced by a replica (or better) forrest - it is cleared permanently. IF they are replaced at all - it is for 'sustainable' logging. The density of forest (ie life and co2 absorbtion capability) is nothing like the same as it used to be due to continual purging/burning and poisoning. The forests ability to absorb co2 is lessened. There is a particularly potent difference between a rainforrest and a plantation forrest.

NZWOOD Growth

"Forests with young trees absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere faster than forests with old trees. As trees become very old they take up carbon dioxide at a slower rate, and the rate at which they release carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere through death and decay accelerates."

So it is actually better (in terms of helping nature absorb more CO2) to go through forests and remove old trees and replace them with young trees. In this effect, sustainable logging is actually better than leaving the forest allone.

Interesting and quite possibly true (reference please). However - what about the previously safely captured co2 and methane (and whatever else) in the ice and permafrost, which is released as it melts. Also, regardless of the ice melt, the ocean still has a limit to what is can safely absorb before it begins to damage life and even become uninhabitable. This is part of the "difficult to predict the impacts of" feedback loops of climate change.

Umm, for a reference all I really have is just chemstry. Ice is really poor at holding gases in it. The CO2 and CH4 in permafrost is not actually in the ice, but in organic compounds sealed by the ice.

Yes, the ocean has a limit, but as the newly melted ice flows into it, this new water (which is currently free of dissolved CO2) acts like reinforcements for the ocean and this new water is able to pick up some slack.

We increase enough co2, and lots else kicks in to amplify our stuff-up many times over.

We know it to be the case with permafrost, we know it to be the case with water vapour.

Okay, what are some of the "kicks"?

This is old, well-established science.
Google Search

The ocean will keep soaking up co2 (to a point - and not enough to offset our emissions if we don't adjust). The cost will be catastrophic for the oceans however as acidification kills just about everything.

Wiki


We know that the ocean won't be able to keep up - because we know how much co2 it took last time to destroy a huge swathe of ocean via acidification.

I think people look at history and say "yeah, it happened before and life went on". But things took tens of thousands of years to stabilise - and at great biological cost.

Ocean Acidification

Wikimedia Error

The problem with the models is that many models have placed "guesstimate" ppm levels for CO2, and many of these are pretty laughable. The one that you posted (ppm 517 by 2070) would require an increase rate of 2.3 ppm per year (well beyond what we are doing and what the math shows we can do), some others, like this one, use 560 ppm by 2050, thats a 4.5 ppm per year increase.

On a side note, some evidence that some oceans at least are less able to absorb more co2 in the last ~20 years.

Saturation of the Southern Ocean CO2 Sink Due to Recent Climate Change -- Le Qur et al., 10.1126/science.1136188 -- Science
Southern ocean carbon sink weakened (Media Release)

Yes, as the oceans fill up, their rate of fill up slows down. If I had some actual numbers (ppms and dates, down to the day), I'd probably be able to do a rough calculation as to what the ocean's natural limit is with some simple Diff EQs.

[Recusant]

Originally Posted by Oregon Elephant

The ability to absorbed was treated as 0% on my calculations. The only way for higher CO2 increases is for nature to also be releaseing more. We are only produceing so much, so even if nature is absorbing none of that at all, that doesn't explain the increased CO2 (not all of it).

OK. I don't have the answer. I'm not a climatolagist with all the intellect and answers, and i don't understand your maths (didn't understand your first post, mathematically). How can your calculations assume 0% absorbtion? There is absorbtion, so how do you cancel it out? I don't mean to be rude, but if one mathematician with one point of order isn't enough to sway the bulk of scientific opinion then it won't sway me. If you can, take your idea to the scientific community and dumfound them and I will be intruiged.

What about this?
Southern Ocean already losing ability to absorb CO<SUB>2</SUB> - earth - 17 May 2007 - New Scientist Environment

Corinne Le Quéré at the University of East Anglia in the UK, and colleagues say their study suggests that climate feedback loops – whereby more CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming which in turn releases even more CO2 from the oceans – are happening between 20 and 40 years before they were expected.

Ocean Motion : Ocean and Climate

As the atmosphere warms due to the buildup of greenhouse gases, it transfers some of this heat to the ocean, slowing the pace of climate change.

RealClimate

Of the new carbon released to the atmosphere from fossil fuel combustion and deforestation, some remains in the atmosphere, while some is taken up into the land biosphere (in places other than those which are being cut) and into the ocean. The natural uptake has been taking up more than half of the carbon emission. If changing climate were to cause the natural world to slow down its carbon uptake, or even begin to release carbon, that would exacerbate the climate forcing from fossil fuels: a positive feedback.
...
They find that the Southern Ocean has begun to release carbon since about 1990, in contrast to the model predictions that Southern Ocean carbon uptake should be increasing because of the Henry's Law thing. We have to keep in mind that it is a tricky business to invert the atmospheric CO2 concentration to get sources and sinks. The history of this type of study tells us to wait for independent replication before taking this result to the bank.

The whole article is good. Not irrefutable yet, but they're checking it out.

So the ocean sucks it up, kills off a bunch of life (if too much is sucked up), lets it back out again, but can't suck up as much next time as the acidification has already begun - which kills the nutrients that would absorb the co2. Same for the forests that we see in that "breathing Earth" graph in Al Gore's documentary and everywhere else. This gets progressively worse over time. Leaving more and more co2 in the atmosphere than before.

If it isn't being safely absorbed - it is being released. Forests, oceans, wetlands, permafrost absorb, hold and release according to a natural cycle - unless destroyed. Man has elevated levels AND reduced Earth's capacity to cope with even it's regular releases (excluding direct man-made emissions).

In a few months, i expect, this angle of skeptic attack will be widely debunked also (I would be suprised if it hasn't already been - i just can't find it - maybe i need to contact my local university). I can only go off the literature that is available at the time and this is the first time i have seen anyone use the Earths "mysterious extra" emissions (using their own calculations i might add.. which i cannot possibly refute as i don't even understand them) to cast doubt. Are you the only person who thinks this proves that man isn't to blame? Any climatologists support you?

I won't respond to all your other stuff as we have deviated from your original assertion. Feel free to ask them elsewhere. Start a thread about feedback loops and we can talk about them there.

I've got tons more to learn, i appreciate this topic.

[AmericanDreamer]

Did you know that Venus fell victim to global warming, due to the fact that it's atmosphere has somewhere around 80% CO2? It once had water, but it evaporated over time.

[Oregon Elephant]

Originally Posted by AmericanDreamer

Did you know that Venus fell victim to global warming, due to the fact that it's atmosphere has somewhere around 80% CO2? It once had water, but it evaporated over time.

It also has an atmosphere that is something like 100x heavier. The water is actually tied up in the form of rust on the metals on the surfase.

[Recusant]

Heya Oregon, i'm not convinced that the Earths extra emissions are not a result of human interferance.

Can you tell me what the Earths ability to absorb co2 was at, say, 1800AD and 2000AD?

[Recusant]

Originally Posted by AmericanDreamer

Did you know that Venus fell victim to global warming, due to the fact that it's atmosphere has somewhere around 80% CO2? It once had water, but it evaporated over time.

How much time? Do we know where that co2 came from?

Not disputing, just would like to know more

[Oregon Elephant]

Originally Posted by Recusant

How much time? Do we know where that co2 came from?

Not disputing, just would like to know more

I don't know the time frame, but the Carbon was orginally in the rocks (like it is on Earth), but the heat from the sun caused it to reacted with the O2 to make CO2, and the H2O that might have been in the air, reacted with the metals on the suface to form rust (that's where nearly all of Venus' water is trapped).

[Oregon Elephant]

Originally Posted by Recusant

Heya Oregon, i'm not convinced that the Earths extra emissions are not a result of human interferance.

Can you tell me what the Earths ability to absorb co2 was at, say, 1800AD and 2000AD?

No, I can't tell you the numbers, but the Earth is absorbing less now than it was in 1800AD. But the calculations I put up consider a 0% absorbtion. Even if the planet was not absorbing 1 gram of CO2, there is still more coming than we are producing. So either 1 of 2 things,

1) The CO2 concentration rate is not raising as fast as they say, or

2) Much of the CO2 is coming from nature, and only some is coming from us.


P.S. I'm not trying to convince you that GW is not man made, there is still some scientific principle that has not yet been brought to this discussion. It is just the teacher in me, but I find that it is worse to be right and not know why your right, than to be wrong.

[Skerlnik]

I'm willing to go by whatever the current scientific consensus is, or eventually figure out. I'm no expert, and the jury is out on the subject.

Still, whether or not GW is man-made or not, there's no real excuse for making the air a mess if we don't have to. If it all ends up being incorrect, we're in pretty good shape by having environmental constraints on ourselves, and I don't see much downside to being conscious of the by products of our society.

My momma raised me to wipe my feet and clean my room, y'know?