• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

CO2 Doesn't Matter

longview said:
Notice the word "could", that does not mean will, and crop yields tend to be increasing.
But alas, I was not actually talking about crops, but all biomass, trees, shrubs, ect.
How much weight can a poplar gain in a year?
How many grow per acre?
640 acres per square mile, is many tonnes of biomass per year per square mile.
And each ton, uses up 3 tonnes of CO2.
Click to expand...

And again, the simple fact which destroys your contention is that if the biomass were increasing enough to handle the extra CO2, then our CO2 level would stay STABLE. But it's not. Instead, it's continuing to rise at an accelerating rate. Your "extra biomass" claim isn't the panacea you seem to think.

co2_10000_years.gif
 
longview said:
Notice the word "could", that does not mean will, and crop yields tend to be increasing.
Click to expand...
Often used when someone floats a hypothesis with no evidence yet.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
And again, the simple fact which destroys your contention is that if the biomass were increasing enough to handle the extra CO2, then our CO2 level would stay STABLE. But it's not. Instead, it's continuing to rise at an accelerating rate. Your "extra biomass" claim isn't the panacea you seem to think.

View attachment 67205570
Click to expand...

Have you ever read the complications of trusting CO2 levels in ice?

We don't even know if those are accurate. They see, to go flat just above 280 ppm sampling, and I mean flat. As if the pressure of that much CO2 cannot be retained, and gets released out of the ice like a pressure valve releases excess pressure.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Have you ever read the complications of trusting CO2 levels in ice?

We don't even know if those are accurate. They see, to go flat just above 280 ppm sampling, and I mean flat. As if the pressure of that much CO2 cannot be retained, and gets released out of the ice like a pressure valve releases excess pressure.
Click to expand...

...you're saying >280ppm of CO2 can't be contained in ice? What?
 
Glen Contrarian said:
And again, the simple fact which destroys your contention is that if the biomass were increasing enough to handle the extra CO2, then our CO2 level would stay STABLE. But it's not. Instead, it's continuing to rise at an accelerating rate. Your "extra biomass" claim isn't the panacea you seem to think.
Click to expand...
Gee, where did I say the biomass increase is enough to handle the extra CO2, currently?
The biomass could play a large part in the future, but will likely take decades, Trees after all start from small seeds.
You also seem to be under the impression, that Humans can continue to use oil like we have in the past century.
Fracking is evidence that the cheap, easy oil is running out.
There is more, but it will neither be cheap or easy.
The alternative is carbon neutral man made fuels, made from atmospheric CO2, water, and energy.
These will start to phase in, when the cost to feed the refineries hits about $90 a barrel.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Have you ever read the complications of trusting CO2 levels in ice?

We don't even know if those are accurate. They see, to go flat just above 280 ppm sampling, and I mean flat. As if the pressure of that much CO2 cannot be retained, and gets released out of the ice like a pressure valve releases excess pressure.
Click to expand...

If it goes 'flat' above 280 ppm, then - if there were periods in the graph where the CO2 PPM were above 280, then that SHOULD be reflected by samples showing 280 PPM in the period described.

But there aren't any before about the year 800. The real spike, as we all know, coincides with the industrial revolution.

What's more, the recent spike is not determined from ice samples - it's there.
 
polgara said:
Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

Very perturbing article on the treatment of Dr. Salby! Isn't that what science is supposedly all about - different ways of arriving at possible solutions to problems? Apparently freedom of speech is not encouraged in scientific circles in Australia when the subject is AGW, which is not entirely surprising - some scientists in America have even asked the Obama administration to sue any scientists here that disagree with them on AGW! Unbelievable! :thumbdown I will be very interested in hearing more about this, since what has been presented sounds very unfair - scheduling a hearing when they knew he would not be available to attend is :bs: !!
Click to expand...

That is why they IPCC and their ilk and what they do can never be called science. What happened there is not science and the science field should be condemning what is happening.
 
Deuce said:
...you're saying >280ppm of CO2 can't be contained in ice? What?
Click to expand...
Have you seen any high resolution samples of it?

Higher resolution samples require thinner slices, and thinner yet as the are older. That's one reason why samples are generally average 600 years or so apart.

Tell me. How does thin slices of ice for sampling not release CO2 past a certain threshold? The ice is being compressed over the years, and the gas bubble pressures exceed what the ice can contain.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
What's more, the recent spike is not determined from ice samples - it's there.
Click to expand...

What happens to the recent spike if we average to 1417 to 2016? This would be the approximate time of an ice sample.
 
Deuce said:
...you're saying >280ppm of CO2 can't be contained in ice? What?
Click to expand...

I said somewhere above 280 ppm for a cutoff point. Not 280 ppm.

Please improve you language comprehension skills.
 
longview said:
Gee, where did I say the biomass increase is enough to handle the extra CO2, currently?
The biomass could play a large part in the future, but will likely take decades, Trees after all start from small seeds.
You also seem to be under the impression, that Humans can continue to use oil like we have in the past century.
Fracking is evidence that the cheap, easy oil is running out.
There is more, but it will neither be cheap or easy.
The alternative is carbon neutral man made fuels, made from atmospheric CO2, water, and energy.
These will start to phase in, when the cost to feed the refineries hits about $90 a barrel.
Click to expand...

Even if you were right - which you're not - about the biomass increasing so very much in the future, what you're missing is how much greater the CO2 PPM will be by then...and how much warmer the planet will be by then...and what the effects of that warming will be.

It's called a feedback loop. The ice melts, and less heat is reflected back into space...and so more heat stays here. Permafrost melts (it's already melting) and releases megatons of methane (which retains 25X more heat than CO2). And the planet gets warmer - and more ice is melted (reflecting less heat back into space) and more permafrost is melted (releasing more methane).

In other words, it's foolish to wait decades in the hope that the land biomass will increase enough to catch up to the CO2 level...because while we're waiting, the CO2 level (and then the methane level) is accelerating even now...and that's not even accounting for the feedback loop we're already entering.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Have you seen any high resolution samples of it?

Higher resolution samples require thinner slices, and thinner yet as the are older. That's one reason why samples are generally average 600 years or so apart.

Tell me. How does thin slices of ice for sampling not release CO2 past a certain threshold? The ice is being compressed over the years, and the gas bubble pressures exceed what the ice can contain.
Click to expand...

The pressure of the bubble isn't changing based on the CO2 content because that's not how pressure works.Bubbles trapped in ice don't selectively release CO2 if their pressure gets too high.

If your theory were correct, we'd expect to see CO2 readings correlate directly to sample resolution. Which we do not.
 
Last edited:
Glen Contrarian said:
I countered his argument with other arguments...and I ALSO attacked the quite questionable credibility of his reference. That, sir, is acceptable in a debate.

If I had only attacked his reference and made no other arguments, then you might have a point. But I provided other arguments as well, and so you have no point.
Click to expand...

No, you didn't even begin to counter his argument. You made a pointless claim about the weight of CO2 per gallon of gas burned, which has nothing to do with his argument... so you kicked it off with a straw man and finished up with ad hominem.

I suggest you watch the whole presentation rather than watching a few minutes and then flooding the thread with logical fallacy.
 
Lord of Planar said:
What happens to the recent spike if we average to 1417 to 2016? This would be the approximate time of an ice sample.
Click to expand...

We don't need to take an ice sample for the last century.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
But there aren't any before about the year 800. The real spike, as we all know, coincides with the industrial revolution.
Click to expand...

It also coincides with the Enlightenment... better throw that out to. :roll:
 
Deuce said:
We don't need to take an ice sample for the last century.
Click to expand...

Why not? Wouldn't it be worth it to see if the last century of ice matches observation?
 
Deuce said:
Throw it out? What?
Click to expand...

I'm commenting on the spurious declaration of causality in Glen Contrarian's statement. Saying that the end of the LIA coincides with the industrial revolution is not a rational attribution of cause. Many things coincide with the end of the LIA.
 
jmotivator said:
Why not? Wouldn't it be worth it to see if the last century of ice matches observation?
Click to expand...

Please don't be practical. You'll ruin everything so many have adjusted, er, worked so hard to establish. We don't need no stinking checking around.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Even if you were right - which you're not - about the biomass increasing so very much in the future, what you're missing is how much greater the CO2 PPM will be by then...and how much warmer the planet will be by then...and what the effects of that warming will be.
Click to expand...
That is assuming the positive feedback is far greater than the negative feedback.

Glen Contrarian said:
It's called a feedback loop. The ice melts, and less heat is reflected back into space...and so more heat stays here. Permafrost melts (it's already melting) and releases megatons of methane (which retains 25X more heat than CO2). And the planet gets warmer - and more ice is melted (reflecting less heat back into space) and more permafrost is melted (releasing more methane).
Click to expand...
Why can't you get that right? the 25 times more is only for the first added ton of CH4 at the levels this calculation was made, and that is for the 100 year GWP in the AR4. After the first doubling from the starting point, CH4 is now only 12.5 times stronger from the new starting point. Then the next doubling only 6.25 times, etc...

GWP is a laughable expression. It is rather meaningless in scientific use. It only is used as a scare tactic perpetrated on those who don't understand what it truly means.

Even the IPCC says this about it:


GWP has provided a convenient measure for policymakers to compare the relative climate impacts of two different emissions. However, the basic definition of GWP has flaws that make its use questionable
​

Aviation and the Global Atmosphere

In gives the ignorant of science a tool to scare with.

In the AR4, they have CH4 increasing from 715 ppb to 1774 ppb. Much greater than a single doubling, at a 148% increase, yet is given a forcing increase of 0.48 W/m^2 when the far less than doubling of CO2 at a 36.3% increase is given 1.66 W/m^2. This in reality, places CO2 at 6.3 times stronger than CH4!

(2.48/0.48)/(1.36/1.66) = 6.3.

Glen Contrarian said:
In other words, it's foolish to wait decades in the hope that the land biomass will increase enough to catch up to the CO2 level...because while we're waiting, the CO2 level (and then the methane level) is accelerating even now...and that's not even accounting for the feedback loop we're already entering.
Click to expand...
You are stuck on the notion that increased CO2 levels are a problem.
 
Deuce said:
The pressure of the bubble isn't changing based on the CO2 content because that's not how pressure works.Bubbles trapped in ice don't selectively release CO2 if their pressure gets too high.

If your theory were correct, we'd expect to see CO2 readings correlate directly to sample resolution. Which we do not.
Click to expand...

The CO2 is trapped in the moisture. When it freezes, CO2 bubbles are created in the ice under new snowfall. The seasons cause some phase transitions, and the partial pressure of gasses are absorbed into the moisture. At a 0C state, this initial absorption is close to proportion of the atmospheric gasses. This creates a primarily CO2 atmosphere and other soluble gasses under the new snow that eventually gets trapped. Once trapped, they create bubbles that get smaller and smaller with pressure. These bubbles get squeezed by the pressure of new ice as it form on top over the centuries, and if you have read any concerns in ice core study material, they acknowledge they don't know how much CO2 is lost in the process.

It isn't trapping an atmosphere sample, but a soluble gas sample.

Is that simple enough to comprehend?
 
Deuce said:
We don't need to take an ice sample for the last century.
Click to expand...

Because we have thermometer reading.

What is you averages the last 600 years of readings is that much were available?

The late 20th century spike would be lost in averaging with the 500 years before. Right?

That's why it's laughable to extend proxy samples with thermometer samples.

I laugh and laugh and laugh at those who think there is merit to it.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Even if you were right - which you're not - about the biomass increasing so very much in the future, what you're missing is how much greater the CO2 PPM will be by then...and how much warmer the planet will be by then...and what the effects of that warming will be.

It's called a feedback loop. The ice melts, and less heat is reflected back into space...and so more heat stays here. Permafrost melts (it's already melting) and releases megatons of methane (which retains 25X more heat than CO2). And the planet gets warmer - and more ice is melted (reflecting less heat back into space) and more permafrost is melted (releasing more methane).

In other words, it's foolish to wait decades in the hope that the land biomass will increase enough to catch up to the CO2 level...because while we're waiting, the CO2 level (and then the methane level) is accelerating even now...and that's not even accounting for the feedback loop we're already entering.
Click to expand...
Consider that it has taken us 136 years to increase CO2 from 290 ppm to 403 ppm, A 113 ppm increase.
During that same time, we have beat just about every bush looking for easy oil, and have recovered much of what we have found.
To actually double the CO2 level would require us to find and burn 147% more oil, in the next few decades,
as has been in the last 136 years.
It seems very unlikely we will be able to do so.
It is not that there are not large oil deposits still remaining, but rather the cost of recovery will exceed
the value of the oil.
As someone in this forum said, the stone age did not end for lack of stone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom