CO2 increasing too fast

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

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

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

Surface Detail wrote:

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

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

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).

[b]Surface Detail wrote:

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

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

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?

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?

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

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!

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.

[b]Surface Detail wrote:The rise in CO2 is a direct CAUSE of the warming process.

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).

[b]Surface Detail wrote: Well, you got one thing right.

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?

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.

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.

"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.