Ocean acidifcation .

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by Exile

I would need to have first been worried, disturbed, scared, frustrated or angry in order to now be "reassured," but I haven't been so I'm not. The amount of the human contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere compared to the total CO2 in the atmosphere is a comparatively small amount. In fact, some sources describe it as "tiny." The controversy within the science, of course, is not over the amount but its impact. But unlike more ALARMING stats, it seems rather difficult to uncover. Wonder why? Maybe because when I googled "what is the percentage of human-derived co2 vs. total co2 in the atmosphere," the top hit was from Skeptical Science. In fact, if I didn't believe you were such a fair, objective, independent thinker, I'd have to say that your post above was a simple rephrase from that very page. So maybe in an effort to save many additional thread pages of useless posts (akin to your natural forces burden shifting efforts), let's try and move beyond how Skeptical Science wants us to think and more precisely pinpoint the question on the table, namely



NOT the 40% increase in the otherwise small amount of atmospheric CO2 that humans are believed to have increased as a result of fossil fuels;



NOT the total but still small amount that mainstream AGW theory says is contributing to "significant" warming;



NOT a comparison between current or historical human vs. natural CO2 emissions;



NOT all the CO2 that has been absorbed by land, plants & oceans; and



NOT the other crap (much of it actual harmful "pollutants") humans have been undisputedly putting into the atmosphere.



Instead, we were discussing



ONLY the percentage of human-derived CO2 vs. total CO2 already in the atmosphere."



This may have been what Marc1 was referring to when he cited the 0.0012% stat in his earlier post, but as one of Gord's previous threads was titled, I COULD BE WRONG. In fact, I think this stat may be citing human contributions as compared to total atmospheric gases. I've also seen 3% cited when comparing human vs. total CO2, but can't vouch for that one either. It's also often cited in terms of tonnage which certainly makes it sound scarier, but isn't all that helpful, for the layman anyway. And as Newhaul has repeatedly pointed out, human vs. "natural" apparently cannot be distinguished once in the atmosphere, but has to be measured (or correlated) based on amounts that humans are actually producing from emissions (and land usage).



So what's the percentage, and how much actual scientific consensus supports it? Anyone?

Really??? After all the threads on this, you are unsure? CO2 levels have been directly measured since the 50s when scientists started getting really worried about this. They have been reconstructed from the last million years or so from bubbles in ice. We know the record. We know that since man started burning fossil fuels the level of total atmospheric CO2 has jumped 40%. That jump has been correlated to the amount of CO2 injected from the total of amount of fossil fuels burned which is the majority of the new amount on the atmosphere. On this part of the story there is little to no doubt in the science.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

So what? You see the that too on the chart on my link..

Yes. 95%.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

The source of that graph is from a skeptic website from 2001. That original website doesn’t even seem to have the graph posted any more. Please see if you can find a similar graph in a scientific journal. Records of CO2 levels 100 millions years ago are pretty sketchy, as there are no ice cores with bubbles dating back that far.

Sort of amazing the lengths people will go to try to “disprove” basic physics [emoji3]

Nope.


https://geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carbo...s_climate.html

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by newhaul

wrong and right I really love the bs that you are trying to spread here shows a real likelihood of Berkeley college influence ...

Ah yes, education - the bane of the ideologue.

[GordMay]

The best climate, for humanity, is one that is not rapidly careening toward tipping points in the climate system, but is more or less steady and reliable. Most human and natural systems have evolved to meet the climate we have today. Rapid changes will necessarily introduce disruption.

The Earth doesn't have an ideal temperature, and climate deniers should know that. Human society has evolved, and flourished, during a period of remarkable climate stability. Until recently, the Earth has been pretty close to its current temperature for the last 12,000 years or so. In the past, climate usually changed slowly over thousands of years; today we are on track to add warming equivalent to the difference between the middle of the last ice age, and today, during a single century.

This rate of change will make adaptation painfully difficult, and expensive.
If we were to slowly raise temperatures, over thousands of years, both human and natural systems would be able to adapt much more easily. But, adding 2 or 3 degrees Celsius of warming in a single century will create enormous stresses.

[ImaginaryNumber]

Ocean acidification impairs shrimp’s ability to change sex

https://www.earth.com/news/ocean-acidification-shrimp/

[stevensuf]

Originally Posted by GordMay

The best climate, for humanity, is one that is not rapidly careening toward tipping points in the climate system, but is more or less steady and reliable. Most human and natural systems have evolved to meet the climate we have today. Rapid changes will necessarily introduce disruption.

The Earth doesn't have an ideal temperature, and climate deniers should know that. Human society has evolved, and flourished, during a period of remarkable climate stability. Until recently, the Earth has been pretty close to its current temperature for the last 12,000 years or so. In the past, climate usually changed slowly over thousands of years; today we are on track to add warming equivalent to the difference between the middle of the last ice age, and today, during a single century.

This rate of change will make adaptation painfully difficult, and expensive.
If we were to slowly raise temperatures, over thousands of years, both human and natural systems would be able to adapt much more easily. But, adding 2 or 3 degrees Celsius of warming in a single century will create enormous stresses.

I think you will find that the temperature has been steadily declining for the last 10k years or so and new evidence has shown that the return to full blown glaciation can happen in less than 30 years.


So which do you prefer? some global warming or a return to several kms of ice over a fair chunk of the northern hemisphere? Which geologically speaking is fast approaching.

[stevensuf]

PS co2 fell to 170ppm during the last glaciation, without our help during the next cycle it would have fallen to levels unable to support plant life.. Just a thought!!!

[GordMay]

“If Global Warming Is Real, How Do You Explain Ice Cream?” ~ Op-Ed by Sean Hannity
"Listen up, all you liberal snowflakes and leftist charlatans: You can argue all day long about global warming being real, using whatever so-called “facts” or “science” or “verifiable record temperatures” or “rising sea levels” you want. You can deny the fact that 99% of all pseudo-scientists and conspiracy experts believe that climate change is a hoax. You can deny the fact that what most people call global warming is really just a harmless part of the natural cycle leading up to the inevitable heat death of the universe. You can deny that maybe it’s just really warm lately because some people (like my step-son Kevin) can’t seem to stop leaving the windows open while the heater is on. But at the end of the day, there’s one cold-hard fact even Bill Nye the quote-unquote "Science Guy" cannot deny:
Ice cream exists. It is here, it is real. Oh, and—by the way—it's delicious.
All your “data” and “consensus” melt away when faced with the truth ..."
More ➥ https://babylonbee.com/news/if-globa...y-sean-hannity

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by stevensuf

I think you will find that the temperature has been steadily declining for the last 10k years or so ...

The 11,000-year temperature reconstruction shows global average temperature increasing after the end of the last ice age, and leveling off about 7550 and 3550 BC.
After that time, global temperatures dropped until the "Little Ice Age," bottoming out somewhere between AD 1450 and 1850.
Afterwards temperatures rose again, first slowly then very rapidly.
Natural variability can explain much of the temperature variation, since the end of the last ice age, resulting from factors such as changes in the tilt of the Earth's axis.
Over the past century, though, global average temperatures have risen from near the coldest to the warmest levels in the past 11,300 years. And, it may not be any specific ultimate temperature, but the rapid pace of change, that is causing much of the disruption.
But, not to worry. As long as some of us have ice cream, we're all good. Right?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

Really??? After all the threads on this, you are unsure? CO2 levels have been directly measured since the 50s when scientists started getting really worried about this. They have been reconstructed from the last million years or so from bubbles in ice. We know the record. We know that since man started burning fossil fuels the level of total atmospheric CO2 has jumped 40%. That jump has been correlated to the amount of CO2 injected from the total of amount of fossil fuels burned which is the majority of the new amount on the atmosphere. On this part of the story there is little to no doubt in the science.

He's not unsure. I doubt he even cares. With either real or feigned ignorance of the carbon cycle and the behaviour of gases, the pseudo-question "[what's] the percentage of human-derived CO2 vs. total CO2 already in the atmosphere." is just a rhetorical flourish, that adds nothing to either side.

If a bathtub is near full, then you add 40% more water, and it overflows, you don't stop to ask whether the molecules of water that overflowed came from the original water or the added water. Unless you're an overflow denier.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

He's not unsure. I doubt he even cares. With either real or feigned ignorance of the carbon cycle and the behaviour of gases, the pseudo-question "[what's] the percentage of human-derived CO2 vs. total CO2 already in the atmosphere." is just a rhetorical flourish, that adds nothing to either side.

If a bathtub is near full, then you add 40% more water, and it overflows, you don't stop to ask whether the molecules of water that overflowed came from the original water or the added water. Unless you're an overflow denier.

that is a very bad and misleading analogy but I expect that stuff from you.

We are talking about using your numbers a % increase of .03 to .04 not a 40% increase in the total quantity in the bathtub ( atmosphere) .

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

that is a very bad and misleading analogy but I expect that stuff from you.

We are talking about using your numbers a % increase of .03 to .04 not a 40% increase in the total quantity in the bathtub ( atmosphere) .

Way to miss the point.

Snap quiz: if the atmospheric concentration of CO2 around 1900 was about 285 ppm and it is now about 410 ppm, by what percentage has atmospheric CO2 concentration increased between those points?

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Way to miss the point.

There is No Point....has there ever been on one of these MMGWH Threads?
No, which is why they are so fun and frustrate those that think otherwise.

Is a Hunter a Blue Water Boat...

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

There is No Point....has there ever been on one of these MMGWH Threads?
No, which is why they are so fun and frustrate those that think otherwise.

On this we agree.