Remember me
▼ Content

CO2 increasing too fast


CO2 increasing too fast15-01-2017 16:40
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
Now it's nearly 4 ppm per year. CO2 suffocates people.

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/weekly.html
Edited on 15-01-2017 16:41
04-02-2017 00:05
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Now it's nearly 4 ppm per year. CO2 suffocates people.

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/weekly.html


Long distance airline flights exceed levels of CO2 in the cabin of 5,000 ppm. This can make you sleepy and interfere with your concentration but little else.

Brain damage can result from 40,000 ppm.

I don't believe anyone is in any immediate danger. Despite spot, litesong and a few others driving their cars and adding to the problem while telling you and I that we shouldn't drive.
05-02-2017 03:46
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Now it's nearly 4 ppm per year. CO2 suffocates people.

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/weekly.html


By the way, that looks highly strange. Aside from the point that you say that there's an increase of 4 ppm, it is actually 2.72 ppm/yr. Now that equals about 89.64 million tons per year.

And yet our so-called carbon observatory satellite reports that we are adding 40 million tons per year.

So why does the graph say one thing and the numbers report that man would have to be adding more than DOUBLE the reported quantity to be able to match the growth?

This brings into grave question what the hell is being reported.

Why would MAN be adding less than half of what would be necessary to meet the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere? And IF that is the case where is the amount of CO2 more than man's total coming from? Wouldn't you think that THAT would be at least as important than man's contribution which begins to look puny?

"According to the National Center for Atmospheric Research, "The total mean mass of the atmosphere is 5.1480×10^18 kg.

Thus, the total weight of CO2 = 0.0582% x 5.1480 x 10^15 tonnes
= 2.996×10^12 tonnes."

1 tonne = 1kg = 2204.6 lbs = 1.1 ton

2.72 ppm = .0000272

.0000272 x (2.996 x 10^12) = 89,640,320 tons required to raise the ppm 2.72/yr
Edited on 05-02-2017 04:38
05-02-2017 05:06
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Now it's nearly 4 ppm per year. CO2 suffocates people.

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/weekly.html


By the way, that looks highly strange. Aside from the point that you say that there's an increase of 4 ppm, it is actually 2.72 ppm/yr. Now that equals about 89.64 million tons per year.

And yet our so-called carbon observatory satellite reports that we are adding 40 million tons per year.

So why does the graph say one thing and the numbers report that man would have to be adding more than DOUBLE the reported quantity to be able to match the growth?

This brings into grave question what the hell is being reported.

Why would MAN be adding less than half of what would be necessary to meet the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere? And IF that is the case where is the amount of CO2 more than man's total coming from? Wouldn't you think that THAT would be at least as important than man's contribution which begins to look puny?

"According to the National Center for Atmospheric Research, "The total mean mass of the atmosphere is 5.1480×10^18 kg.

Thus, the total weight of CO2 = 0.0582% x 5.1480 x 10^15 tonnes
= 2.996×10^12 tonnes."

1 tonne = 1kg = 2204.6 lbs = 1.1 ton

2.72 ppm = .0000272

.0000272 x (2.996 x 10^12) = 89,640,320 tons required to raise the ppm 2.72/yr

Carbon observatory satellite? I think you must have dreamt that. How could a satellite observe how much CO2 is being emitted? In fact, human emissions of CO2 are around 40 billion tons per year, not 40 million tons. You're out by a factor of 1,000.

CO2 emissions set to reach new 40 billion ton record high in 2014
05-02-2017 06:22
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(244)
Surface Detail wrote:

.....Carbon observatory satellite?....


See https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/excitement-grows-as-nasa-carbon-sleuth-begins-year-two
05-02-2017 15:26
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
still learning wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:

.....Carbon observatory satellite?....


See https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/excitement-grows-as-nasa-carbon-sleuth-begins-year-two

Ah, thanks for that. Most interesting.

Of course, the carbon observatory satellite doesn't measure directly how much CO2 humans are emitting, as Wake claims, but rather provides a series of high resolution snapshots of the CO2 distribution in the atmosphere.

As well as being out by a factor of 1,000, Wake also has the figures the wrong way round. In fact, human emissions of CO2, as determined from the amount of fossil fuel burned, are about twice as high as the measured increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration. The rest are mostly absorbed by the oceans (causing their acidification).
05-02-2017 15:51
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Surface Detail wrote:
still learning wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:

.....Carbon observatory satellite?....


See https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/excitement-grows-as-nasa-carbon-sleuth-begins-year-two

Ah, thanks for that. Most interesting.

Of course, the carbon observatory satellite doesn't measure directly how much CO2 humans are emitting, as Wake claims, but rather provides a series of high resolution snapshots of the CO2 distribution in the atmosphere.

As well as being out by a factor of 1,000, Wake also has the figures the wrong way round. In fact, human emissions of CO2, as determined from the amount of fossil fuel burned, are about twice as high as the measured increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration. The rest are mostly absorbed by the oceans (causing their acidification).


And a great increase in the fertility of them.

Plants in the oceans need CO2 just like those on land.

Although often other resources are a limiting factor in such growth.
05-02-2017 17:12
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Chen, your question caused me to think all night long even while sleeping.

Finally what's going on struck me.

Are you a college student and if so what is your area of study?
Edited on 05-02-2017 17:14
05-02-2017 17:25
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
[b]Surface Detail wrote:

CO2 emissions set to reach new 40 billion ton record high in 2014


I agree that my 40 million should have been 40 billion.

But the CALCULATIONS were based on the growth of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Question - why did you not find fault with the calculation instead of repeating the number claimed by someone else.

And how is it that you're so F-ing stupid you don't know that these numbers of man-generated CO2 come from NASA's Orbiting Carbon Observatory?

If you haven't a clue what the hell you're talking about then by all means feel free to stick your uneducated opinions to where the sun doesn't shine. Any ASS could know that you can measure CO2 in any area by monitoring spectral lines unique to carbon dioxide. Futhermore the spectrum of man-made CO2 has slightly different lines since it has a different C14 ratio.

Exactly what is wrong with you parrots that it would never occur to you to think before speaking?
05-02-2017 18:04
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
Wake wrote:Exactly what is wrong with you parrots that it would never occur to you to think before speaking?

Ah....AGW advocates quote scientists' accurate numbers, instead of relying on the calculations of "old sick silly sleepy sleazy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up".

"old sick silly sleepy sleazy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" attacks people for discovering its thousand times error. Its col-eege professors musta got tired listening to its tirades, too.... ifn it actually went ta col-eege.

Don' worra 'bout yer 1000 times error. Other AGW denier liar whiners have made errors as great as 500 million times.... 4 billion times.....2.5 trillion times. & one AGW denier liar whiner dolt made a 1,000,000,000,000,000 times error. However, they were around another AGW denier liar whiner forum for a lot longer than you've been on this AGW denier liar whiner forum. So, don' worra. Yer errors will probably increase. AGW denier liar whiners love to race fer the greatest errors.
Edited on 05-02-2017 18:15
05-02-2017 18:22
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
[b]Surface Detail wrote:

CO2 emissions set to reach new 40 billion ton record high in 2014


I agree that my 40 million should have been 40 billion.

But the CALCULATIONS were based on the growth of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Question - why did you not find fault with the calculation instead of repeating the number claimed by someone else.

And how is it that you're so F-ing stupid you don't know that these numbers of man-generated CO2 come from NASA's Orbiting Carbon Observatory?

If you haven't a clue what the hell you're talking about then by all means feel free to stick your uneducated opinions to where the sun doesn't shine. Any ASS could know that you can measure CO2 in any area by monitoring spectral lines unique to carbon dioxide. Futhermore the spectrum of man-made CO2 has slightly different lines since it has a different C14 ratio.

Exactly what is wrong with you parrots that it would never occur to you to think before speaking?

The images of CO2 concentration that I've seen (such as the one in still learning's link) don't specify a particular isotope of carbon, and I've not found anything to indicate that the Orbiting Carbon Observatory distinguishes between isotopes. Are you sure that it is capable of doing so?

Edit: And where does the 0.0582% in your calculation come from?
Edited on 05-02-2017 18:24
05-02-2017 18:34
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
[b]Surface Detail wrote:

CO2 emissions set to reach new 40 billion ton record high in 2014


I agree that my 40 million should have been 40 billion.

But the CALCULATIONS were based on the growth of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Question - why did you not find fault with the calculation instead of repeating the number claimed by someone else.

And how is it that you're so F-ing stupid you don't know that these numbers of man-generated CO2 come from NASA's Orbiting Carbon Observatory?

If you haven't a clue what the hell you're talking about then by all means feel free to stick your uneducated opinions to where the sun doesn't shine. Any ASS could know that you can measure CO2 in any area by monitoring spectral lines unique to carbon dioxide. Futhermore the spectrum of man-made CO2 has slightly different lines since it has a different C14 ratio.

Exactly what is wrong with you parrots that it would never occur to you to think before speaking?

The images of CO2 concentration that I've seen (such as the one in still learning's link) don't specify a particular isotope of carbon, and I've not found anything to indicate that the Orbiting Carbon Observatory distinguishes between isotopes. Are you sure that it is capable of doing so?

Edit: And where does the 0.0582% in your calculation come from?


Whoops - pushed the wrong button before writing.

If you are interested in actually having a discussion rather than putting forward claims without even bothering to read you are perfectly welcome.

Here is the information from JPL:

"The characteristic spectral pattern for CO2 can alternate from transparent to opaque over very small variations in wavelength. The OCO-2 instrument must be able to detect these dramatic changes, and specify the wavelengths where these variations take place. So, the grooves in the instrument diffraction grating will be very finely tuned to spread the light spectrum into a large number of very narrow wavelength bands or colors. In fact, the OCO-2 instrument design incorporates 17,500 different colors, to cover the entire wavelength range that can be seen by the human eye. A digital camera covers the same wavelength range using just three colors."

While these explanations are simplified the instrument is designed to cover the spectrum of O2 and CO2 or from .2 to approximately 2,000 um.

Simple math shows that there is some 1.143 um between "colors".

The resonance and hence the absorption spectrum of man-made CO2 can be told from natural source by spectroscopy because fossil fuels contain almost no carbon 14 versus naturally formed recent CO2. C14 is unstable and breaks down over time into C12. This is the basis of C14 dating in geology. C14 is created via cosmic rays impinging on C12 or so the theory goes.

I have contested using the lack of C14 to be indicative since volcanoes burn through layer upon layer of fossil fuels which would make it impossible to relate CO2 to man purely on the ratios of C14. This could quite easily be shown via the ORO by mapping the exhaust plumes of volcanoes.

"As of January 2007, the earth's atmospheric CO2 concentration is about 0.0383% by volume (383 ppmv) or 0.0582% by weight. This represents about 2.996×1012 tonnes, and is estimated to be 105 ppm (37.77%) above the pre-industrial average." Strictly speaking we have a higher weight of CO2 in the atmosphere but Chen's chart shows a straight line so the approximation still holds true.

In ANY case this leaves a serious gap in one particular area that I do not wish to discuss since it would be a good subject for a paper.
Edited on 05-02-2017 19:08
05-02-2017 20:14
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Ummmm....

Why are you interested in if we humans have caused all of the growth in CO2 or just most of it?

Clearly we have done lots of it.

But, the worst case scenarios of AGW tell a tale of nothing to worry about. This should be the focus of the debate as the level of knowledge required to understand the whole IR stuff is way over the heads of all of us. This insite is from looking the the work being done at CERN by professors who challenge the orthodoxy and put forward a hypothesis of solar influence on clud formation. Given they don't know the answer we certainly don't.

Those who are religious in their conviction will always be able to avoid thinking about such things. It will only be the facts that they cannot avoid seeing that force them to change their minds.

That's why when I ask for a specific property to look at the impact of slightly higher sea levels they run a mile. There is no clearer demonstration of somebody who really, deep down understands that he is spouting drivel.

Edited on 05-02-2017 20:15
05-02-2017 23:08
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Now it's nearly 4 ppm per year. CO2 suffocates people.

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/weekly.html


By the way, that looks highly strange. Aside from the point that you say that there's an increase of 4 ppm, it is actually 2.72 ppm/yr. Now that equals about 89.64 million tons per year.

And yet our so-called carbon observatory satellite reports that we are adding 40 million tons per year.

So why does the graph say one thing and the numbers report that man would have to be adding more than DOUBLE the reported quantity to be able to match the growth?

This brings into grave question what the hell is being reported.

Why would MAN be adding less than half of what would be necessary to meet the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere? And IF that is the case where is the amount of CO2 more than man's total coming from? Wouldn't you think that THAT would be at least as important than man's contribution which begins to look puny?

"According to the National Center for Atmospheric Research, "The total mean mass of the atmosphere is 5.1480×10^18 kg.

Thus, the total weight of CO2 = 0.0582% x 5.1480 x 10^15 tonnes
= 2.996×10^12 tonnes."

1 tonne = 1kg = 2204.6 lbs = 1.1 ton

2.72 ppm = .0000272

.0000272 x (2.996 x 10^12) = 89,640,320 tons required to raise the ppm 2.72/yr

You seem to have made a couple of mistakes here.

Firstly, the 40 billion tonnes per year figure doesn't come from the OMO. That figure has been determined from the quantity of fossil fuels burned per year. Perhaps you were confused by the mention of this figure in some description of the function of the OMO.

Secondly, you got your sums wrong.
The total weight of CO2 = 2.996×10^12 tonnes, as you stated.
This is equivalent to 383 ppmv of the atmosphere.
So 2.72 ppm is equivalent to 2.996×10^12 x 2.72 / 383 = 2.13 x 10^10 tonnes, i.e. about 21 billion tonnes.

This is indeed about half of the 40 billion tonnes released emitted by human activity, as determined from the amount of fossil fuel burned. The remaining 19 billion tonnes is absorbed, primarily by the oceans.

Tip: Always check your answers for plausibility. If you're expecting billions and get millions, you've probably done something wrong!
06-02-2017 18:31
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Now it's nearly 4 ppm per year. CO2 suffocates people.

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/weekly.html


By the way, that looks highly strange. Aside from the point that you say that there's an increase of 4 ppm, it is actually 2.72 ppm/yr. Now that equals about 89.64 million tons per year.

And yet our so-called carbon observatory satellite reports that we are adding 40 million tons per year.

So why does the graph say one thing and the numbers report that man would have to be adding more than DOUBLE the reported quantity to be able to match the growth?

This brings into grave question what the hell is being reported.

Why would MAN be adding less than half of what would be necessary to meet the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere? And IF that is the case where is the amount of CO2 more than man's total coming from? Wouldn't you think that THAT would be at least as important than man's contribution which begins to look puny?

"According to the National Center for Atmospheric Research, "The total mean mass of the atmosphere is 5.1480×10^18 kg.

Thus, the total weight of CO2 = 0.0582% x 5.1480 x 10^15 tonnes
= 2.996×10^12 tonnes."

1 tonne = 1kg = 2204.6 lbs = 1.1 ton

2.72 ppm = .0000272

.0000272 x (2.996 x 10^12) = 89,640,320 tons required to raise the ppm 2.72/yr

You seem to have made a couple of mistakes here.

Firstly, the 40 billion tonnes per year figure doesn't come from the OMO. That figure has been determined from the quantity of fossil fuels burned per year. Perhaps you were confused by the mention of this figure in some description of the function of the OMO.

Secondly, you got your sums wrong.
The total weight of CO2 = 2.996×10^12 tonnes, as you stated.
This is equivalent to 383 ppmv of the atmosphere.
So 2.72 ppm is equivalent to 2.996×10^12 x 2.72 / 383 = 2.13 x 10^10 tonnes, i.e. about 21 billion tonnes.

This is indeed about half of the 40 billion tonnes released emitted by human activity, as determined from the amount of fossil fuel burned. The remaining 19 billion tonnes is absorbed, primarily by the oceans.

Tip: Always check your answers for plausibility. If you're expecting billions and get millions, you've probably done something wrong!


The rise in the chart is LINEAR. That means that although the actual weight of CO2 in the atmosphere NOW is more the relationship is the same.

Tip: Always check your answers for plausibility. If you don't even understand the simplest form of arithmetic perhaps you shouldn't comment upon it?

Water composes 95% of the Earth's "greenhouse effect", although 99% of the remainder of the greenhouse gases is CO2 the ADDITION to greenhouse effect is only 78%.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Of the total load of CO2 in the atmosphere 96.5% is naturally generated. This leaves only 3.6% generated by man or only 0.12% of the total "greenhouse effect" possible to be caused by man. And as I've noted BEFORE - the amount generated by man is highly questionable.

Warming is a natural process caused by Milankovitch Cycles. The rise in CO2 is a direct CAUSE of the warming process.

This brings into direct question the claim that CO2 and most especially that of man has ANYTHING to do with "climate change" which is a preposterous name since this is a normal and natural cycle.
06-02-2017 18:49
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Now it's nearly 4 ppm per year. CO2 suffocates people.

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/weekly.html


By the way, that looks highly strange. Aside from the point that you say that there's an increase of 4 ppm, it is actually 2.72 ppm/yr. Now that equals about 89.64 million tons per year.

And yet our so-called carbon observatory satellite reports that we are adding 40 million tons per year.

So why does the graph say one thing and the numbers report that man would have to be adding more than DOUBLE the reported quantity to be able to match the growth?

This brings into grave question what the hell is being reported.

Why would MAN be adding less than half of what would be necessary to meet the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere? And IF that is the case where is the amount of CO2 more than man's total coming from? Wouldn't you think that THAT would be at least as important than man's contribution which begins to look puny?

"According to the National Center for Atmospheric Research, "The total mean mass of the atmosphere is 5.1480×10^18 kg.

Thus, the total weight of CO2 = 0.0582% x 5.1480 x 10^15 tonnes
= 2.996×10^12 tonnes."

1 tonne = 1kg = 2204.6 lbs = 1.1 ton

2.72 ppm = .0000272

.0000272 x (2.996 x 10^12) = 89,640,320 tons required to raise the ppm 2.72/yr

You seem to have made a couple of mistakes here.

Firstly, the 40 billion tonnes per year figure doesn't come from the OMO. That figure has been determined from the quantity of fossil fuels burned per year. Perhaps you were confused by the mention of this figure in some description of the function of the OMO.

Secondly, you got your sums wrong.
The total weight of CO2 = 2.996×10^12 tonnes, as you stated.
This is equivalent to 383 ppmv of the atmosphere.
So 2.72 ppm is equivalent to 2.996×10^12 x 2.72 / 383 = 2.13 x 10^10 tonnes, i.e. about 21 billion tonnes.

This is indeed about half of the 40 billion tonnes released emitted by human activity, as determined from the amount of fossil fuel burned. The remaining 19 billion tonnes is absorbed, primarily by the oceans.

Tip: Always check your answers for plausibility. If you're expecting billions and get millions, you've probably done something wrong!

The rise in CO2 is a direct CAUSE of the warming process.

Well, you got one thing right.
06-02-2017 19:36
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
[b]Surface Detail wrote:The rise in CO2 is a direct CAUSE of the warming process.

Well, you got one thing right.[/quote]

All those surprised that people like this are willing to take ANYTHING out of context to think that they're proving something? An ass by any other name still brays as loud.
06-02-2017 23:50
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Surface Detail wrote:
still learning wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:

.....Carbon observatory satellite?....


See https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/excitement-grows-as-nasa-carbon-sleuth-begins-year-two

Ah, thanks for that. Most interesting.

Of course, the carbon observatory satellite doesn't measure directly how much CO2 humans are emitting, as Wake claims, but rather provides a series of high resolution snapshots of the CO2 distribution in the atmosphere.

As well as being out by a factor of 1,000, Wake also has the figures the wrong way round. In fact, human emissions of CO2, as determined from the amount of fossil fuel burned, are about twice as high as the measured increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration. The rest are mostly absorbed by the oceans (causing their acidification).


You weren't even aware that you can detect CO2 from orbit spectroscopically and now you know all about it. I will say that not many people have the gall to say "you're a liar" and then try to use information from the very same sources that you just said you don't believe in. Why do I get the idea that in reality you're a high school football player.
06-02-2017 23:55
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
[b]Surface Detail wrote: Well, you got one thing right.


By the way - ALL of the research has shown that increases in CO2 follow increases in temperature. But since you cannot do the slightest investigation on your own you don't know that do you?
07-02-2017 00:46
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
[b]Surface Detail wrote: Well, you got one thing right.


By the way - ALL of the research has shown that increases in CO2 follow increases in temperature. But since you cannot do the slightest investigation on your own you don't know that do you?

Yes, I'm quite aware of this, as is every climatologist in the world. It's exactly what you'd expect when warming is triggered by a small change in temperature and then amplified by CO2 feedback, as was the case in prehistory. A small rise in temperature due to such things as Milankovitch cycles causes a release of CO2 from oceans, which causes a further rise and more release of CO2 and so on until a new equilibrium is reached. This is all very well understood by scientists.
07-02-2017 00:53
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
still learning wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:

.....Carbon observatory satellite?....


See https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/excitement-grows-as-nasa-carbon-sleuth-begins-year-two

Ah, thanks for that. Most interesting.

Of course, the carbon observatory satellite doesn't measure directly how much CO2 humans are emitting, as Wake claims, but rather provides a series of high resolution snapshots of the CO2 distribution in the atmosphere.

As well as being out by a factor of 1,000, Wake also has the figures the wrong way round. In fact, human emissions of CO2, as determined from the amount of fossil fuel burned, are about twice as high as the measured increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration. The rest are mostly absorbed by the oceans (causing their acidification).


You weren't even aware that you can detect CO2 from orbit spectroscopically and now you know all about it. I will say that not many people have the gall to say "you're a liar" and then try to use information from the very same sources that you just said you don't believe in. Why do I get the idea that in reality you're a high school football player.

Says the idiot who is incapable of performing simple arithmetic, and doesn't even notice that his result is about 1,000 too low. It's true that I wasn't aware of the existence of the OCO, but I have now informed myself of its capabilities. These don't seem to include the ability to distinguish between isotopes of carbon in CO2, but feel free to give a link indicating otherwise.
09-02-2017 05:34
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
still learning wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:

.....Carbon observatory satellite?....


See https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/excitement-grows-as-nasa-carbon-sleuth-begins-year-two

Ah, thanks for that. Most interesting.

Of course, the carbon observatory satellite doesn't measure directly how much CO2 humans are emitting, as Wake claims, but rather provides a series of high resolution snapshots of the CO2 distribution in the atmosphere.

As well as being out by a factor of 1,000, Wake also has the figures the wrong way round. In fact, human emissions of CO2, as determined from the amount of fossil fuel burned, are about twice as high as the measured increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration. The rest are mostly absorbed by the oceans (causing their acidification).


You weren't even aware that you can detect CO2 from orbit spectroscopically and now you know all about it. I will say that not many people have the gall to say "you're a liar" and then try to use information from the very same sources that you just said you don't believe in. Why do I get the idea that in reality you're a high school football player.

Says the idiot who is incapable of performing simple arithmetic, and doesn't even notice that his result is about 1,000 too low. It's true that I wasn't aware of the existence of the OCO, but I have now informed myself of its capabilities. These don't seem to include the ability to distinguish between isotopes of carbon in CO2, but feel free to give a link indicating otherwise.


I hate to educate you even a little, but my mistake in the CLAIMED amount of human generated and the calculated actual amount differ by a factor of 40.

But I'll let you argue with NOAA about that.
26-02-2017 05:40
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofs: levels of CO2...Brain damage can result from 40,000 ppm. I don't believe anyone is in any immediate danger.

Specially brain-dead old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiners.




Join the debate CO2 increasing too fast:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
CO2 increase10019-08-2019 09:18
How does radiation heat CO2615-08-2019 05:38
Greenhouse effect of CO22713-08-2019 17:11
CO2 saturated water409-08-2019 06:43
Do I have the CO2 calamity math right? (help from an expert please)2031-07-2019 23:12
▲ 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 © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact