Remember me
β–Ό Content

Total global CO2-stop (scientific value?)



Page 1 of 3123>
Total global CO2-stop (scientific value?)19-11-2015 23:50
Jakob
β˜…β˜†β˜†β˜†β˜†
(127)
Β­



If you imagine the whole world decides to stop almost all emissions for a period.

Will that have any greater scientific value and if so how long must the period be at least..?





Β­
19-11-2015 23:53
Into the Night
β˜…β˜…β˜…β˜…β˜…
(5875)
Jakob wrote:
Β­



If you imagine the whole world decides to stop almost all emissions for a period.

Will that have any greater scientific value and if so how long must the period be at least..?





Β­


Are you including natural emissions in that?


The Parrot Killer
20-11-2015 00:35
trafnProfile pictureβ˜…β˜…β˜…β˜†β˜†
(779)
@Jakob - it also depends on the gas, but it can take hundreds of years for the levels to settle down on their own back to per-industrial revolution times (early 1800's and before).


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
20-11-2015 00:38
IBdaMann
β˜…β˜…β˜…β˜…β˜…
(3109)
Jakob wrote:If you imagine the whole world decides to stop almost all emissions for a period.
Will that have any greater scientific value and if so how long must the period be at least..? Β­


The effect would be detrimental (i.e. bad). Plants across the globe would suffer. There is no minimum amount of time the period must be. The longer the period, the worse it would be for the plants.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
20-11-2015 00:42
trafnProfile pictureβ˜…β˜…β˜…β˜†β˜†
(779)
IBdaMann wrote:The effect would be detrimental (i.e. bad).

Bad as in no more ocean acidification, no more GHG effect, no more rising sea levels, no more melting polar caps, no more...



The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!

Edited on 20-11-2015 00:43
20-11-2015 01:03
Totototo
β˜…β˜†β˜†β˜†β˜†
(117)
Not only it depends on the type of gas as Trafn said, but also the length of said period (an hour, a day, a week, etc.). Like the Earth Hour movement?

IBdaMann said
The effect would be detrimental (i.e. bad). Plants across the globe would suffer. There is no minimum amount of time the period must be. The longer the period, the worse it would be for the plants.

Based on what?
Edited on 20-11-2015 01:45
20-11-2015 03:22
IBdaMann
β˜…β˜…β˜…β˜…β˜…
(3109)
Totototo wrote:Based on what?

Plants thrive on CO2. Giving them less is not a positive for them.

Otherwise, CO2 is not pollution. CO2 is not poison. CO2 is essential for life. CO2 is the Diablo in the Global Warming religion but planet earth could use more of it. We don't need to reduct CO2 levels.

Help the plants. Give them more CO2.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
20-11-2015 03:25
still learning
β˜…β˜…β˜†β˜†β˜†
(217)
Jakob wrote:
Β­If you imagine the whole world decides to stop almost all emissions for a period.
Β­


Presumably you mean human caused carbon dioxide emissions, not the much greater natural CO2emissions.

Stop burning all fossil fuels?
Burn no more gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, ship bunker fuel, all natural gas, for home and electric powerplant use. Electricity production would be way less than now, maybe 1/4 of now. No more tractors running, modern agriculture shut down. Modern commerce stopped. Most folks couldn't commute to where they worked. Workplaces wouldn't be able to run much anyway with no deliveries or pickups by trucks and railroads and airlines and ships.

No agricultural machinery running? Starvation before too many months. No home heating in winter? Hypothermia for some. Not enough electricity to keep water works and sewage disposal plants running? Sounds thirsty and smelly.

Presumably we could still breathe. That produces a little CO2.

According to my back-of the-envelope kind of calculation, stopping fossil fuel burning for eleven years would allow the atmospheric CO2 level to creep back down to 350 parts per million.
20-11-2015 03:31
IBdaMann
β˜…β˜…β˜…β˜…β˜…
(3109)
still learning wrote:According to my back-of the-envelope kind of calculation, stopping fossil fuel burning for eleven years would allow the atmospheric CO2 level to creep back down to 350 parts per million.

If you could magically reduce the atmospheric CO2 to 350 ppm, or elevate it to 500 ppm, or leave it the same, what would you choose?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
20-11-2015 04:13
IBdaMann
β˜…β˜…β˜…β˜…β˜…
(3109)
trafn wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:The effect would be detrimental (i.e. bad).

Bad as in no more ocean acidification, no more GHG effect, no more rising sea levels, no more melting polar caps, no more...


Fortunately CO2 is not acidifying the oceans. The oceans have never been acidic, even when atmospheric levels were several times higher than what we have today. There is essentially zero probability of the ocean's pH value falling below 8.0 by the time my great-grandchildren have great-grandchildren.

Fortunately, there is no "greenhouse effect." We have two threads that nailed that coffin shut.

Fortunately we have the Maldives to show us quite clearly that the ocean has not been rising noticeably/measurably at least since the 1940s and more likely at least since the late 1800s.

Fortunately, both Greenland and Antarctica are accumulating ice, burying anything left on the ice.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
20-11-2015 10:00
trafnProfile pictureβ˜…β˜…β˜…β˜†β˜†
(779)
IBdaMann wrote:CO2 is not poison


Well, here's someone who clearly knows nothing about anesthesiology!



The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
20-11-2015 10:22
Jakob
β˜…β˜†β˜†β˜†β˜†
(127)
Β­



Is it for sure not possible to measure how fast the CO2 concentration drops if the CO2-stop just takes a few days or a week or two..?

I was thinking a well prepared period in the summertime when the plants absorb the most.
We just stop as much as possible also among natural emissions.


How can science know for sure how fast it can drop if we do not test it..?






Β­
20-11-2015 10:40
trafnProfile pictureβ˜…β˜…β˜…β˜†β˜†
(779)
@Jakob - science can only suggest what is likely to happen in the future based upon what we know about the past and present. The current state of knowledge suggests that even if you could stop all GHG emissions instantaneously, the GHG sinks which absorb them would take centuries to bring GHG's back to the pre-industrial levels.

By the way, does the Danish version of this site have as many climate change deniers as we do here?


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
20-11-2015 10:41
Tim the plumber
β˜…β˜…β˜…β˜…β˜†
(1250)
IBdaMann wrote:
still learning wrote:According to my back-of the-envelope kind of calculation, stopping fossil fuel burning for eleven years would allow the atmospheric CO2 level to creep back down to 350 parts per million.

If you could magically reduce the atmospheric CO2 to 350 ppm, or elevate it to 500 ppm, or leave it the same, what would you choose?


Personally I would go for the 500 PPM and hope that the warmists are right with the mid range predictions.

I think we can be sure the high end predictions are now off the cards so bring it on.
20-11-2015 10:43
Into the Night
β˜…β˜…β˜…β˜…β˜…
(5875)
trafn wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:CO2 is not poison


Well, here's someone who clearly knows nothing about anesthesiology!


False equivalence resulting in an argument ab adsurdum. IBdaMann's use of the term was colloquial, generally referring to normal concentrations of CO2. At these levels, CO2 is beneficial, not poisonous.

Your line of reasoning uses unreasonable concentrations of CO2 that do not come anywhere near normal atmospheric levels (or even 400ppm). By your line of reasoning, all substances are poisonous. All you need is a high enough dose in a given time.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 20-11-2015 10:45
20-11-2015 10:59
still learning
β˜…β˜…β˜†β˜†β˜†
(217)
Jakob wrote:
Β­We just stop as much as possible also among natural emissions.
Β­


Talk about a large scale experiment.....

You've seen a carbon cycle diagram? Such as the one at http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/

Try to stop worldwide terrestrial microbial decomposition and respiration amounting to an estimated sixty gigatons of carbon per year? Stop an additional sixty gigatons from plant respiration? Stop another ninety from the oceans? Basically, stop all life on earth?

Rather not do that.
20-11-2015 12:02
IBdaMann
β˜…β˜…β˜…β˜…β˜…
(3109)
trafn wrote: @Jakob - science can only suggest what is likely to happen in the future based upon what we know about the past and present.

Wild speculation is not a science thing. Sciece does not offer suggestions.

trafn wrote: The current state of knowledge suggests ...


Aaah, so you presume to speak for the "current state of knowledge" and what it "suggests"...which happens to be whatever WACKY dogma you happened to have adopted.

Science does not offer suggestions.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
20-11-2015 13:21
Jakob
β˜…β˜†β˜†β˜†β˜†
(127)
Β­



I think a lot of people believe that CO2 concentration will drop rapidly if we stop burning fossils.
It will be a little mystery to me if they don't want this experiment to proof the prognoses wrong.
And at the same time science can hope to proof itself to be right and society will take a good lesson in cutting emissions.
All mostly good stuff it seems to me.


However maybe it is playing too much of a fools game because everybody with just a little skill of math can look at a measurement and realize not even the economic crises is to find.


http://www.klimadebat.dk/grafer_co2_ppm.php







So everybody here realize the high CO2 concentration is not to get rid of in a hurry even if we stop emissions and therefore if the consequences are hell on earth there is still for hundreds of years no way back in that experiment, it will just continue..?





Β­
20-11-2015 17:00
Jakob
β˜…β˜†β˜†β˜†β˜†
(127)
Β­



Jakob wrote:
So everybody here realize the high CO2 concentration is not to get rid of in a hurry even if we stop emissions and therefore if the consequences are hell on earth there is still for hundreds of years no way back in that experiment, it will just continue..?



Hmm... that was maybe a little too fast...

This is more close to what I meant:

So everybody here realize the high CO2 concentration is not to get rid of in a hurry even if we stop emissions and therefore if the consequences are hell on earth there is still for many years ( maybe 10-20 ) no way back in that experiment..?



However if we have passed some tipping-points there can be no way back for the heat not only for hundreds but maybe thousands of years.
True.?


Β­
Β­
Β­
20-11-2015 17:05
IBdaMann
β˜…β˜…β˜…β˜…β˜…
(3109)
Jakob wrote: It will be a little mystery to me if they don't want this experiment to proof the prognoses wrong.

There are promising new techniques for reattaching severed limbs. If we could just use your left arm as a test to show that it'll work, it would be a mystery to me if you wouldn't want the experiment to prove the naysayers are wrong.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
20-11-2015 17:26
still learning
β˜…β˜…β˜†β˜†β˜†
(217)
Jakob wrote:
Β­This is more close to what I meant:
So everybody here realize the high CO2 concentration is not to get rid of in a hurry even if we stop emissions and therefore if the consequences are hell on earth there is still for many years ( maybe 10-20 ) no way back in that experiment..?

However if we have passed some tipping-points there can be no way back for the heat not only for hundreds but maybe thousands of years.
True.?Β­
Β­


Hell on Earth?

Don't think mainstream science has any expectation of that. Would eventually get nasty for some if fossil fuel burning continues as in a business-as-usual scenario, again the mainstream science view, if I have it right. Deadly nasty maybe if food shortages materialize, which might happen if third-world farmers can't adjust to changes.

Tipping point where CO2 concentrations would continue even if fossil fuel burning were cut way back? Again, not there yet, according to mainstream science.

Anyway, to reiterate some of what was in a couple of my previous posts, it's not at all feasible to stop or materially reduce natural CO2 emissions, and not socially feasible to suddenly stop all fossil fuel burning. Cut way back over several decades, yes. Sudden stop, no.
20-11-2015 17:37
IBdaMann
β˜…β˜…β˜…β˜…β˜…
(3109)
still learning wrote: Don't think mainstream science has any expectation of that.

there is no such thing as "mainstream" science. Science is just science. "Mainstream" is for religions and science is not a religion. The term "mainstream" is typically misapplied to the word "science" by those who cannot effectively discern religion from science.

still learning wrote: Would eventually get nasty for some if fossil fuel burning continues as in a business-as-usual scenario, again the mainstream science view, if I have it right.

Could you explain the science that "says" this? If, on the other hand, you meant that this is the mainstream view of "The Science" congregation then I agree with you.

still learning wrote: Deadly nasty maybe if food shortages materialize, which might happen if third-world farmers can't adjust to changes.

More CO2 in the atmosphere entails better crop growth. The only problems farmers would have are in deciding what to do with the unexpected extra bushels.

still learning wrote: Tipping point where CO2 concentrations would continue even if fossil fuel burning were cut way back? Again, not there yet, according to mainstream science.

What science says this? What falsifiable model treats "tipping points"?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
20-11-2015 17:39
IBdaMann
β˜…β˜…β˜…β˜…β˜…
(3109)
Jakob wrote:
However if we have passed some tipping-points there can be no way back for the heat not only for hundreds but maybe thousands of years.
True.?Β­

No. Not at all. What makes you think heat will suddenly become such that it will not radiate away?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
20-11-2015 17:42
Totototo
β˜…β˜†β˜†β˜†β˜†
(117)
We don't need to reduct CO2 levels.

Help the plants. Give them more CO2.


Again, based on what? Is there an optimal level of CO2 for plants? Can you back-up that statement or is it an asumption?
20-11-2015 17:48
IBdaMann
β˜…β˜…β˜…β˜…β˜…
(3109)
Totototo wrote:
We don't need to reduct CO2 levels.

Help the plants. Give them more CO2.


Again, based on what? Is there an optimal level of CO2 for plants? Can you back-up that statement or is it an asumption?


What do you mean "optimum level"?

Plants need CO2. They don't wither if you give them a large serving.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
20-11-2015 18:32
trafnProfile pictureβ˜…β˜…β˜…β˜†β˜†
(779)
@Totototo - each plant species has a variable range of CO2 in which it thrives, so there is no one level or range that is good for all plants. Drastic changes in atmospheric GHG's will be detrimental to some species, but may in fact be helpful to others up to a point.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
20-11-2015 18:38
IBdaMann
β˜…β˜…β˜…β˜…β˜…
(3109)
trafn wrote:
@Totototo - each plant species has a variable range of CO2 in which it thrives, so there is no one level or range that is good for all plants. Drastic changes in atmospheric GHG's will be detrimental to some species, but may in fact be helpful to others up to a point.


@ Totototo, this "range" of which trafn speaks is well above our current atmospheric level of CO2. No plants will be harmed, and all will benefit from higher levels of CO2 than we have at present. All of them.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
20-11-2015 18:42
Totototo
β˜…β˜†β˜†β˜†β˜†
(117)
@Trafn and IBdaMann - Thank you both for answering.
20-11-2015 18:53
trafnProfile pictureβ˜…β˜…β˜…β˜†β˜†
(779)
IBdaMann wrote: No plants will be harmed, and all will benefit from higher levels of CO2 than we have at present.

Looks like someone doesn't understand M2C2's desertification effect on equatorial regions!



The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
20-11-2015 19:07
IBdaMann
β˜…β˜…β˜…β˜…β˜…
(3109)
trafn wrote:
IBdaMann wrote: No plants will be harmed, and all will benefit from higher levels of CO2 than we have at present.

Looks like someone doesn't understand M2C2's desertification effect on equatorial regions!


Ooops, it looks like someone wants to compete with Scientology by creating a WACKY fringe religion and authoring a convoluted "Bible".


.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
20-11-2015 19:12
Into the Night
β˜…β˜…β˜…β˜…β˜…
(5875)
Jakob wrote:

However if we have passed some tipping-points there can be no way back for the heat not only for hundreds but maybe thousands of years.
True.?
Β­


Any 'tipping point' is indicative of an inherently unstable system. If the climate had any tipping points, they would have tripped already, and we would not be here to discuss it.


The Parrot Killer
20-11-2015 19:21
IBdaMann
β˜…β˜…β˜…β˜…β˜…
(3109)
Into the Night wrote:
Any 'tipping point' is indicative of an inherently unstable system. If the climate had any tipping points, they would have tripped already, and we would not be here to discuss it.


Good point!


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
20-11-2015 20:44
Jakob
β˜…β˜†β˜†β˜†β˜†
(127)
Β­




If I look at this picture:


http://www.klimadebat.dk/grafer_co2_ppm.php





It can actually seem to me that we already have passed a tipping point long ago and that process will already now take a much stronger effort to stop.
It looks so ugly steady compared to the emissions.

Maybe others have better pictures more comparable..?



http://www.klimadebat.dk/grafer_co2udledning.php







About the original question:

400 ppm today
350 ppm after 11 years if we drop al fossils.


That means 50/11 = 4,5 ppm per year

and 4,5/365 = 0,012 per day

So I guess a lot of it comes down to with what accuracy it can be measured..?

Or maybe it is not even a straight line..?


I have been thinking if it is possible that the plants over the years has lost or will lose some of the efficiency in dragging CO2 out of the air because there is so much of it now..?
Of course not for trees planted before the industrial time but for plants with a shorter life and much faster evolution.
That could perhaps damage the calculations for the future..?






Β­
20-11-2015 22:28
Into the Night
β˜…β˜…β˜…β˜…β˜…
(5875)
Jakob wrote:

So I guess a lot of it comes down to with what accuracy it can be measured..?

Β­


To answer this question, it is best to examine the instrumentation used to measure CO2 and how it works. It is also something to consider any weak points in the instrument to introduce an unintentional bias by being sensitive to something besides CO2.

These instruments work by pushing air through a chamber with a window that contains an infrared LED and a phototransistor. I assume the material chosen for the window is basically transparent to the infrared frequencies of interest.

Because many gases absorb infrared at the same or at nearby frequencies to that of CO2, it is quite possible to be measuring something else that could affect the CO2 measurement.

This instrument is calibrated using air samples of known CO2 concentration, but the biased reading might indicate a higher 'CO2' concentration than is actually there by measuring something else in the chamber with it.

There seems to be no information on what Mauna Loa or any other station is doing to prevent this kind of bias. It makes me wonder.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 20-11-2015 22:29
20-11-2015 22:34
still learning
β˜…β˜…β˜†β˜†β˜†
(217)
Jakob wrote:
Β­About the original question:

400 ppm today
350 ppm after 11 years if we drop al fossils.


That means 50/11 = 4,5 ppm per year

and 4,5/365 = 0,012 per day

So I guess a lot of it comes down to with what accuracy it can be measured..?

Or maybe it is not even a straight line..?


I have been thinking if it is possible that the plants over the years has lost or will lose some of the efficiency in dragging CO2 out of the air because there is so much of it now..?
Of course not for trees planted before the industrial time but for plants with a shorter life and much faster evolution.
That could perhaps damage the calculations for the future..?
Β­


That 350 ppm in eleven years number that I came up with earlier in this thread, don't place much credence in it.

I said it was a sort of a back-of-the-envelope calculation, meaning not well thought out, something "quick and dirty." Maybe a "beer-hall napkin" calculation would be a better description. I expect that the 11 years would be a best-case scenario. Other folks will come up with other numbers.

Probably not a straight-line decrease. Decrease not measurable on a daily basis, for sure. Even a year's data would be suspect.

Regarding your plant speculation, too soon to expect a visible effect. Maybe, just maybe some individual plant somewhere has evolved in the way you suppose. If so it'd take many plant generations to spread enough in the biosphere to be noticeable. Some plants, the so-called C4 plants like maize/corn have a way of concentrating CO2, giving them an advantage over ordinary C3 plants under some circumstances. With more CO2 in the atmospnere, maybe not so much of an advantage for the C4's. Should eventually have an evolutionary effect in nature. Wouldn't expect an effect in actual food crops, artificial selection overriding natural selection.
see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C4_carbon_fixation
20-11-2015 23:05
Jakob
β˜…β˜†β˜†β˜†β˜†
(127)
Β­



Okay, I say thank you very much for all your answers.


I then suppose much of the difference in the two pictures and why the first is so steady is mostly coming from uncertainty in the year to year measurements.



Β­Β­
20-11-2015 23:39
still learning
β˜…β˜…β˜†β˜†β˜†
(217)
Jakob wrote:
Β­I then suppose much of the difference in the two pictures and why the first is so steady is mostly coming from uncertainty in the year to year measurements.
Β­Β­


The lower one is world fossil fuel use, I think. Probably calculated, not measured. If I have it right the it's basically a sum of what fossil fuel usage data that governments around the world release. A lot of it based on tax data. Add up a year's the gasoline tax receipts in the US and you could figure out how much gasoline was sold. Likewise all other fossil fuels. Anyway, it only includes fossil fuels.
Recall from the carbon cycle diagram that natural emissions of CO2 are much greater than fossil fuel emissions, 210 gigatons per year versus 9 gigatons. That natural amount is included in the upper graph, the Mauna Loa Keeling curve graph. The much larger natural amount sort of hides the yearly fluctuations in fossil fuel amounts.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/
21-11-2015 00:22
trafnProfile pictureβ˜…β˜…β˜…β˜†β˜†
(779)
Jakob wrote: It can actually seem to me that we already have passed a tipping point long ago and that process will already now take a much stronger effort to stop.

We did pass the tipping point, quite a long time ago. The problem is that people don't realize this, or in the case of denialists, like the trolls here, they don't want to realize it. So, just like the tobacco companies did in the 1900's, they spread mis-information about climate change trying to convince people it's not real.

In the end, the whole planet is just a larger version of the Titanic.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
21-11-2015 01:07
IBdaMann
β˜…β˜…β˜…β˜…β˜…
(3109)
Jakob wrote: It can actually seem to me that we already have passed a tipping point long ago and that process will already now take a much stronger effort to stop.Β­

If it's a "tipping point" then, by definition, it cannot be stopped.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-11-2015 01:53
Jakob
β˜…β˜†β˜†β˜†β˜†
(127)
Β­


IBdaMann wrote:
Jakob wrote: It can actually seem to me that we already have passed a tipping point long ago and that process will already now take a much stronger effort to stop.Β­

If it's a "tipping point" then, by definition, it cannot be stopped.


So what do you say then.. "reverse"..?


Β­
Page 1 of 3123>





Join the debate Total global CO2-stop (scientific value?):

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Why only 'Man-Made' CO2?2915-11-2018 02:19
What would happen to global temperature if the US stopped all CO2 emissions for the next 50 years?1517-09-2018 07:12
Is the CO2 increase natural or man-made?4006-09-2018 18:07
CO2 is an acid--so, what's the problem?2011-07-2018 18:16
Scientific Consensus14126-05-2018 18:34
β–² Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright Β© 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact