Ajax wrote on Aug 11
th, 2013 at 12:13pm:
At the moment approximately,
Well lets see total amount of CO2 in our atmosphere = 2067 Gigatonnes
Every year CO2 emissions are as follows,
Ecosystems CO2 emissions = 770 gigatonnes per annum
Manmade CO2 emissions = 30 gigatonnes per annum
Productivity (flux) = 800 gigatonnes per annum
Now lets see some percentages,
manmade CO2 over total CO2 =30/2067 = 1.45%
manmade CO2 over flux = 30/770 = 3.89%
Lets not forget water vapor is responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect here on Earth and all other greenhouse gases for the rest which is 5%.
So somewhere in that 5% is the 30 gigatonnes of manmade CO2 emissions every year.
We would have to subtract from the 5% for greenhouse gases the 770 gigatonnes of CO2 from the ecosystems.
The effect of methane, ozone, Nitrous oxide, CFC's.
What percentage from that 5% is actually atrributed to manmade CO2 emissions and global warming....?????
Thats why Antropogenic Global Warming is a lie and a scam.
Today we have 390ppm of CO2 in our atmosphere, we once had 7000ppm of CO2 (all natural) in our atmopshere.
Guess what this never triggered a runaway green house effect.
20 imes more CO2 than today and no greenhouse effect......................................??!!
Roll up Roll up and see the amazing vanishing carbon fluxes.
Amazing sleight of hand. You completely ignore the balancing sinks. Not one mention of them in that whole post, even though the sinks are the key to understanding the whole problem. We have eroded those sinks by cutting down tropical rainforests and changing land use. You speak of CO2 levels in the past and totally ignore the fact that the sinks have changed enormously, even over historical times.
For millions of years, the carbon fluxes from the atmosphere to the biosphere (forests etc) and to the ocean have roughly balanced the fluxes from the biosphere to the atmosphere and the ocean to the atmosphere.
Let's look at the pre-industrial ocean to start with. The atmosphere above the ocean contains carbon dioxide at around 300ppm. The deniers say that this is a tiny amount, but this tiny amount is responsible for some pretty massive effects. One of these is photosynthesis. Photosynthesis of plants converts energy from sunlight and carbon from carbon dioxide to form plant tissues, including photosynthesising plankton (phytoplankton). Other plankton balance this process by the respiration process where CO2 is emitted to atmosphere. Nobody would dream of taking one of these fluxes in isolation from the other unless the intent was to deceive.
Apart from these biological processes, the oceans themselves are in (metastable) equilibrium with the atmosphere. When it heats, during the days on one scale, or during the summers on another scale, carbon dioxide is released from the ocean. As it cools, the flux operates in the reverse direction. Intimately and intricately connected again.
I have just considered the ocean fluxes so far, but it doesn't take much to understand that the same principles apply to terrestrial carbon fluxes.
So the natural fluxes are thus intertwined and should never be considered in isolation. There have always been natural positive and negative fluxes which balanced, usually with a little bit to spare.
In your post, you are doing exactly that - considering them in isolation, even though they are intertwined.
To divide the fluxes from human activity by the positive fluxes only is dishonest. If you want to do a comparison, you need to consider the
net natural fluxes.
In this post, I posted a diagram with the carbon fluxes.
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374222833/23#23As you may remember, this is what I said, and you had no argument with it from memory:
Quote:As you can see, the flux from fossil fuel burning and land clearing is +29 gigatonnes. If you ignore the fossil fuel component and look at the natural fluxes, you can see that they are roughly balanced. There is a net negative flux of around - 11 gigatonnes.
Now let's look at the net carbon flux including human contribution. If you do the sums:
(29+439+332-450-338) What do you get? It's +12 Gigatonnes by my calculation. So of the 29 Gigatonnes that were emitted in 2006, 12 Gigatonnes enters the atmosphere.
Now after all that, you come out with this gem:
Quote:I know I know in the past the Earth's sinks have absorbed 7000ppm, every year the Earth's sinks can absorb the 770 gigatonnes the ecosystems throw up but they cannot absorb the 30 extra gigatonnes man throws up.
Thats malarkey..............!!!!!!!!!
As you see from the previous post, I already told you that the net increase is around
12 Gigatonnes, not 30, so why are you using a strawman? Why are you saying that I think that none of the 29 (30) Gigatonnes is absorbed?
Do you honestly believe that the oceanic and terrestrial sinks have an infinite capacity? - that natural systems can adjust to throwing it an extra 30 Gigatonnes per year every year from fossil fuel burning?
How do you suppose that this infinite capacity theory of yours works?
....God?
Now that
is malarkey, but it's also a very touching faith on your part.
Forum
Pages: 1 
