Ocean acidifcation .

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Of course cities will have a higher CO2 level. Global CO2 levels vary about 10 ppm on average.
[/url]

except it isn't that close you should look around occasionally .

48.49° N, 134.80° E

225° @ 23 km/h

396 ppmv

8.89° S, 19.26° E

85° @ 8 km/h

458 ppmv

47.40° N, 89.66° W

185° @ 20 km/h

387 ppmv

There seems to be a lot more variability than you think or would have others to believe

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Not that the mere existence of Milankovitch cycles is a minority view, but that it would result in a cooling cycle right now but for AGW. This would mean that all of our warming must be human-caused. My understanding is that the majority view -- to the extent it's even ascertainable -- is more conservative, namely warming results from a combination of human & natural factors. The "official" view from the IPCC, NOAA, NASA, etc. is that the human contribution has "significantly" contributed to warming, but even that is inconsistent with your stated position on Milankovitch cycles.

I've repeated this dozens of times, btw, without any pushback from you. So given the "official" view that warming is a combo of natural & human factors, what evidence do you have that your view is not a minority one? You never hesitate, after all, to present it in absolutist terms, so where's the evidence that it amounts to the dominant position of the science community?

Radiative forcing according to the IPCC. Human activity overwhelms natural forcing.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

except it isn't that close you should look around occasionally .

48.49° N, 134.80° E

225° @ 23 km/h

396 ppmv

8.89° S, 19.26° E

85° @ 8 km/h

458 ppmv

47.40° N, 89.66° W

185° @ 20 km/h

387 ppmv

There seems to be a lot more variability than you think or would have others to believe

Out of what orifice did you dig that?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Historic data comes from tree rings. Current measures from the atmosphere and oceans.

I was asking about where the isotope that can distinguish between fossil fuel vs. naturally-derived CO2 is utilized. Nothing to do with measuring total CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere or anywhere else. If the source of atmospheric CO2 could be tested, then we'd have a breakdown about where it comes from. But it can't, so the assumption is that all the added CO2 is fossil fuel derived. The question currently on the table is whether that assumption is valid or should be questioned. Not sure I can make this any clearer for you.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

I was asking about where the isotope that can distinguish between fossil fuel vs. naturally-derived CO2 is utilized. Nothing to do with measuring total CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere or anywhere else. If the source of atmospheric CO2 could be tested, then we'd have a breakdown about where it comes from. But it can't, so the assumption is that all the added CO2 is fossil fuel derived. The question currently on the table is whether that assumption is valid or should be questioned. Not sure I can make this any clearer for you.

Did you bother to read link to James Powell?

You neither read nor post links, which is why you understand so little.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Radiative forcing according to the IPCC. Human activity overwhelms natural forcing.

Your graph is pretty but your response not understandable. You can try again, but otherwise I'm going to have to interpret your non-responses to this and other questions recently posed as "I don't know's." It's OK -- we're a friendly club and I'm sure you'll benefit from all the humility to be found inside.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Did you bother to read link to James Powell?

You neither read nor post links, which is why you understand so little.

Newhaul always predicts attempts at constructive dialogue with you will always end in personal attacks, and you never disappoint.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Your graph is pretty but your response not understandable. You can try again, but otherwise I'm going to have to interpret your non-responses to this and other questions recently posed as "I don't know's." It's OK -- we're a friendly club and I'm sure you'll benefit from all the humility to be found inside.

I do not know if your lack of comprehension is an act, or the real thing.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I do not know if your lack of comprehension is an act, or the real thing.

Well, at least you admit there's something you don't know.

[stevensuf]

[stevensuf]

Surely the antarctic should be melting as well?

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Just to put what Newhaul said into context, based on EU vehicle emission targets (4.9 l/100 km for diesel, 5.6 l/100 km for petrol)....


Each person emits the equivalent CO2 of 9.2 kms of driving a compliant vehicle.


The global population has increased by around 6.3 billion since 1850.


This equates to the equivalent of 58 000 000 000 km's driven every single day of the year.



That's just one of the factors you queried about earlier.

Perhaps just looking at the numbers using the same units of measure would be instructive.

A person emits 1kg of CO2 a day. That is 365kg per year. The average car about 3000kg per year. So cars are about 10x a person and that is just cars which is less than 30% of the total CO2 from fossil fuels.

But that mostly irrelevant anyway because the breathing is recycling is carbon already in the environment, where the fossil fuel burning is new CO2 being injected into the environment.

It is sort of silly to be arguing where the CO2 is coming from. The annual consumption of fossil fuels is very well known and therefore the amount of CO2 can calculated. Again that CO2 unlike that from termites or trees or humans is NEW CO2 that wasn’t present in the environment. And newhaul, volcanos are 1% contributors to new CO2.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

Perhaps just looking at the numbers using the same units of measure would be instructive.

A person emits 1kg of CO2 a day. That is 365kg per year. The average car about 3000kg per year. So cars are about 10x a person and that is just cars which is less than 30% of the total CO2 from fossil fuels.

But that mostly irrelevant anyway because the breathing is recycling is carbon already in the environment, where the fossil fuel burning is new CO2 being injected into the environment.

It is sort of silly to be arguing where the CO2 is coming from. The annual consumption of fossil fuels is very well known and therefore the amount of CO2 can calculated. Again that CO2 unlike that from termites or trees or humans is NEW CO2 that wasn’t present in the environment. And newhaul, volcanos are 1% contributors to new CO2.

Unless each and every one of 7.5 billion people drive vehicles every day, your comparison is flawed.

And guess from where that coal and oil's carbon was originally extracted?

[ptards]

Let's step back a few decades, when Acid rain was the big issue here in the Eastern US, due to burning coal, so the US cut back the usage of coal & stepped up scrubbing.

Now we have oceanic acidification, who's going to step up to the plate and tell China & India to stop burning coal? Sam Walton, Ali Baba? Jeff Bezos? Consumers?

[mjscottinnc]

I know that this is only a personal experience but over the past 25 years I've noticed that the big toe on my right foot seems to be turning toward the little toe. This can't be coincidence, there has to be an environmental factor causing that change.



AND whenever I'm facing west it points NW, so that is some proof too! I'll post some excel charts and graphs later.