This article is noted more for blowing up the Warmist notion that Mankind is mostly/solely responsible for every weather event and change in temperature
(New Scentist) Is the earthworm turning into a global warming saviour? Earlier this year, the animals were cast as key contributors to climate change, but they may have been falsely accused.
A fifth of carbon dioxide emissions come from soils, and earthworms play a central role. They churn up soil, encouraging breakdown of organic matter to produce CO2. They also drive subterranean processes that both lock up and release carbon.
New Scientist isn’t exactly a “skeptic” site. In fact, they are “climate change” cheerleaders. Two points: first, if the science on earthworms can change, why not the notions on anthropogenic “climate change”?
Second, they just said 1/5th of CO2 output comes from the soil. Most of that will be natural. That means that mankind can’t be mostly/solely responsible right off the bat, as Warmists proposition. Heck, the oceans themselves release 16x more CO2 than mankind.
And Warmists still won’t practice what they preach.
W.T.,
Even if 1/5 of CO2 emissions come from soils, that leaves 4/5 that can come from humans. In fact, even some of the soil emissions could be human generated (land use, global warming).
But that’s a trivial point. The larger point is that you may not understand what is meant by balance. Yes, the oceans emit much more CO2 than man, but the oceans absorb more than they emit! Man is responsible for emitting more than human actions reabsorb. The INCREASE in atmospheric CO2 levels are mostly man-made.
Here’s a simple explanation of the phenomena.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions-intermediate.htm
Johnny, you need to go back to elementary school and learn math. Cuz, yours really sucks bad. Like, 5/4’th bad.
Gumby,
And you need to up your meds. Your willful ignorance is not pretty.
CO2 increase = 100% = Man contribution + Natural contribution
100% = 1/5(soil) + natural production(volcanoes and like) + 16x(ocean) + x(man)
Now, solve for x
Exit question: If CO2 is bad for Earth, then why does the Ocean emit so much of it?
Exit question part 2: If CO2 causes warming, then how is man responsible for that warming when natural sources account for over 16x as much CO2?
Now, who is being ignorant?
You ask: “Now, who is being ignorant?”
Still you.
Data from AICC AR4 show carbon movements (in gigatons)of:
Man Adds 29, Removes 0 = net +29
Land Adds 439, Removes 450 = net -11
Oceans Adds 332, Removes 338 = net -6
Notes:
“Adds”: Emits CO2 into the atmosphere
“Removes”: Absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere
The net CO2 added to the atmosphere/yr is about:
29 -11 -6 = +12 gigatons or 2,000,000,000,000 pounds of CO2.
Clearly, we are out of carbon balance because of fossil fuel burning.
Q1: Why do the Land and Oceans emit so much CO2? It’s a natural cycle based on the physical laws of the universe. Atmospheric CO2 is probably not regulated by any known mechanism. The concentration in the atmosphere equilibrates with the concentration in the oceans. The driving forces of nature do not take into account human needs or desires.
Q2: Man’s impact on atmospheric CO2 is explained above. We are responsible for the CHANGE in atmospheric CO2 concentration, and hence the warming.
Are you actually interested in learning any of this or are you just defending a position?
Google climatechange90 41.8 to see a simple equation which shows that rational change to atmospheric carbon dioxide has no significant influence on climate.
OMG.. that was hilarious jeffery (guess since you’re keeping it up the guise, I can too)
Do tell us what the “balance” point is, Jeffery. And if you do, WHY is it that?
so, man is responsible for all CHANGES in CO2 amounts? Do tell us what the non-human level of CO2 is? This will be good… I can hardly wait…………..
Balls,
Atmospheric CO2 has been between about 180 and 300 ppm for the past 500,000 years (at least). It’s about 200 ppm during ice ages, around 280-300 ppm for interglacials. This information is easily Googled.
The burning of fossil fuels is responsible for the rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 from the rather stable 280 ppm (for the past 10,000 years) to the current 400 ppm. Do you disagree?
Dan,
Can you supply the link to your peer-reviewed article describing this?
J,
Sorry, but you are wrong again. Within the last 500,000 years, our CO2ppm has been up to 1,000ppm.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif
We have had periods, just like with temperature, where CO2ppm goes up, and periods where CO2ppm goes down. You are trying to say that this period where CO2ppm is going up is SOLELY due to man. Yet, we’ve had periods of time, before man, where CO2ppm has been around 2000ppm and higher!!!!!
So, your claim that there is a STABLE CO2ppm value is immensely laughable. That’s like trying to claim there is a stable temperature prior to man.
And J, why are you so anti-plant? Why do you hate plants so much that you want them to not have food? Why do you want farmers to struggle with limited plant growth? Why do you hate farmers?
There is no correlation with rising CO2ppm and temperature. Period. Thus, your claim that CO2 is responsible for temperature is falsified.
Bust_My_Gumballs: Sorry, but you are wrong again. Within the last 500,000 years, our CO2ppm has been up to 1,000ppm.
The chart you linked is scaled in millions of years, and can’t show CO2 accurately over for less than that scale. Jeffery’s moriginal statement is correct. See,
Haywood et al., Pliocene climate, processes and problems, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 2009: “Trace gas records from ice cores indicate that atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are already higher than at any time during the last 650 000 years. In the next 50 years, atmospheric CO2 concentrations are expected to reach a level not encountered since an epoch of time known as the Pliocene.”
Now who’s cherry-picking.
What would you say if I said, “The number of hurricanes is at an all time low not seen since 2005. The trend is toward a continual decrease in storms and intensity.” ?
So, the Pliocene is situated 2-5 million years ago. You’re citing a report that suggests that CO2 was higher then, right? How did it get that high? An amount that is higher than it currently is? Were Mammoths driving cars and burning coal for warming their ice huts?
Current avg temperature (best guess knowing data is flawed) today is about 14C. yet, temperatures were up to 25C during the Cenozoic era which includes the Pliocene. Temps were also near 0C for many ages as our world iced over.
Did CO2 cause all of that? Can it cause us to warm to 25C and kill off all life (CAGW theory) AND also cause the world to freeze, killing off all life (CAGW theory)?
Bust_My_Gumballs: Now who’s cherry-picking.
Huh? You incorrectly said Jeffrey was wrong on a specific point, and you provided a citation that didn’t show what you thought it did.
Bust_My_Gumballs: You’re citing a report that suggests that CO2 was higher then, right? How did it get that high?
Geological and biological processes add and remove CO2 from the atmosphere.
Bust_My_Gumballs: Did CO2 cause all of that?
No. There are a variety of causes of climate change, including solar irradiance, orbital variations, atmospheric content, continental drift, volcanism, albedo, and the occasional object slamming into the Earth.
Nope, my graph showed exactly what i said it did.
Welcome to the climate realist side. There is hope for you yet.
Bust_My_Gumballs: Nope, my graph showed exactly what i said it did.
This is your graph:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif
This your claim:
“Within the last 500,000 years, our CO2ppm has been up to 1,000ppm.”
The graph doesn’t support your claim as there is insufficient detail. In addition, it is contrary to scientific findings. See Haywood et al.
Zachriel: There are a variety of causes of climate change, including solar irradiance, orbital variations, atmospheric content, continental drift, volcanism, albedo, and the occasional object slamming into the Earth.
Bust_My_Gumballs: Welcome to the climate realist side.
What will those crazy climate scientists come up with next?!
How does that citation refute what I said? And, no it is not contrary since it is based on ice core data as well. It just goes back further than you want to recognize.
Bust_My_Gumballs: How does that citation refute what I said?
Your claim: “Within the last 500,000 years, our CO2ppm has been up to 1,000ppm.”
Haywood et al: “Trace gas records from ice cores indicate that atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are already higher than at any time during the last 650 000 years.” As current levels are about 400 ppm, that means they couldn’t have been 1000 ppm in the last 500,000 years.
As for your chart, while it shows a sharp drop-off, it does not show the last half million years with anywhere near sufficient resolution, which would be less than half a pixel.
http://www.zachriel.com/blog/500000years.jpg