epsilonGreedy

Save the world, install an LPG tank.

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

I stumbled on some YouTube videos this morning that cover a new subject for me, The Carbon Deficit.

 

In brief the claim is that global CO2 levels are in a longterm decline that started with the arrival of life on planet earth. Overlaid on this longterm trend there is a CO2-glaciation fluctuation and at the most recent CO2 low point the level dropped to 180 which is just 30 points above the threshold at which photosynthesis is possible. The theory claims that on trends prior to the industrial revolution life on earth will be extinguished in a few millions years during a future glaciation cycle when the atmospheric CO2 level drops below this critical photosynthesis level.

 

Where has the carbon gone?

 

Well since the beginning of life on earth much of it has been incorporated in fossil fuels and the remainder is locked in carboniferous rocks which again are the result of marine life.

 

The theory concludes that human beings burning fossils fuels is the key to reversing this deadly trend, also cement production is the most significant human activity for liberating CO2 from carboniferous rocks. 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXxktLAsBPo

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-9UlF8hkhs

 

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/30/life-on-earth-was-nearly-doomed-by-too-little-co2/

 

Edited by epsilonGreedy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

did you find that in the flat earth forum ?.

lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rather than believe something posted on YouTube, or whatever, that hasn't been scrutinised and peer reviewed (and robust peer review has been shown to be pretty effective at weeding out bad science), I'd prefer to believe the peer reviewed data that's readily available, like this simplified plot of CO2 versus time (source, Nature: https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14845/figures/4) :

 

image.png.781c4ebdccfa02a3a68bc038f7da60d6.png

 

The evidence seems to show that, historically, CO2 levels have varied quiet markedly, and only been relatively stable over the past 10 million years or so (bear in mind that this plot has a non-linear time axis).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love these posts where I understand absolutely nothing about what is being said.

 

I had never even heard of 'Fake News' until Donald Trump so perhaps I have something to thank him for. On the other hand I avoid news and current affairs because of the bias or 'spin' as I last understood it was called which falls to whichever argument they are trying to put forward.

 

Glancing at a Sunday newspaper recently, with its non enviro friendly packaging and six trees worth of garbage, took me all of five minutes before I realised that whatever it contained had no relevance to me and I was wasting my time looking at it when I should have been wasting my time doing something useless that I enjoy.

 

Having said all that I would still rather believe Jeremy Harris than Trump or the BBC if only I could understand what he was talking about.

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JSHarris said:

I'd prefer to believe the peer reviewed data that's readily available, like this simplified plot of CO2 versus time

 

The evidence seems to show that, historically, CO2 levels have varied quiet markedly, and only been relatively stable over the past 10 million years or so (bear in mind that this plot has a non-linear time axis).

 

The logarithmic x-axis distorts the true picture with regular glacial cycles of steadily decreasing amplitude (y-axis CO2) as the earth's biosphere locks more carbon away. Presumably you do not contest the underlying claims that (1) biological processes are steadily capturing co2 and fusing the carbon away in the earth's crust and (2) at some point co2 levels will diminish to the point that photo synthesis fails and it is game over for all life on earth.

 

2 hours ago, JSHarris said:

Rather than believe something posted on YouTube, or whatever, that hasn't been scrutinised and peer reviewed (and robust peer review has been shown to be pretty effective at weeding out bad science), I'd prefer to believe the peer reviewed data

 

The evidence seems to show that, historically, CO2 levels have varied quiet markedly, and only been relatively stable over the past 10 million years or so (bear in mind that this plot has a non-linear time axis).

 

 

An often voiced criticism of climate change science is the group-think, this is the product of politics and money. I watched a great interview with a group of ex NASA climatologists at or beyond retirement age, they were scathing of the scientific consensus on climate change and explained that for the past 30 years it has been impossible to develop a career in this branch of science without subscribing to the mainstream belief system. The international politics and money has purchased a consensus.

 

The two people interviewed in those YouTube videos are:

  1. Dr. Patrick Moore (the Founder of Green Peace)
  2. William Happer (Proffesor of physics at Princeton University) 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JSHarris said:

The evidence seems to show that, historically, CO2 levels have varied quiet markedly, and only been relatively stable over the past 10 million years or so (bear in mind that this plot has a non-linear time axis).

 

 

Ah ha.

 

Having scanned the Nature article I note you were selective with your evidence, another graph in that same article illustrates the validity of my opening post and YouTube caliber science, here is the graph of declining co2.

 

Figure 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, epsilonGreedy said:

Having scanned the Nature article I note you were selective with your evidence, another graph in that same article illustrates the validity of my opening post and YouTube caliber science, here is the graph of declining co2.

The new graph suggests to me that we are due an up spike on co2 levels very soon, probably timed to conicide with a major movement on the San Andreas fault !

 

The other thing miss g from the mix is a major apocalyptic  event resulting in a correction in the number of humans on the planet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, epsilonGreedy said:

 

Ah ha.

 

Having scanned the Nature article I note you were selective with your evidence, another graph in that same article illustrates the validity of my opening post and YouTube caliber science, here is the graph of declining co2.

 

Figure 1

 

 

FFS, I just quoted the first link in Nature I found, as is, no editing, no BS, just evidence.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, bobberjob said:

Having said all that I would still rather believe Jeremy Harris than Trump or the BBC if only I could understand what he was talking about.

 

I’ve got very good at nodding sagely 😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
51 minutes ago, bobberjob said:

[...]

Having said all that I would still rather believe Jeremy Harris than Trump

[...]

 

Who wouldn't?

But I sometimes long for someone to give our J a really serious, well-argued run for his money: if only because we'd all learn far more from the back and forth. 

Expert power needs to be handled with care (because it's Personal power French and Ravens 1958 ish) .

 

Otherwise, I do what Sue (above) does.

 

Edited by AnonymousBosch
addition of hyperlink
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

🤔 (The closest  emoji is could get to a safe rubbing of the chin.)

Edited by Sue B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Triassic said:

The other thing miss g from the mix is a major apocalyptic  event resulting in a correction in the number of humans on the planet

 

 

Err, the point being raised here is that all these pesky, fossil fuel burning humans are saving the planet from an otherwise predictable demise when all the green stuff dies due to a lack of co2 to drive photosynthesis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, JSHarris said:

FFS, I just quoted the first link in Nature I found, as is, no editing, no BS, just evidence.

 

 

No you scanned the article and posted the one graph with the most logarithmic distortion of the underlying truth, namely a long term downward trend in co2 levels has occurred. You then traded insults on the mechanism by which the concept is presented rather than consider or comment on the the underlying theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, epsilonGreedy said:

 

No you scanned the article and posted the one graph with the most logarithmic distortion of the underlying truth, namely a long term downward trend in co2 levels has occurred. You then traded insults on the mechanism by which the concept is presented rather than consider or comment on the the underlying theory.

 

 

Actually you're wrong, and anyway you have absolutely no idea what I did or did not do, you've just decided to invent something to fit your own views. 

 

What I actually did was this:

 

  • I was curious about historical CO2, so did a quick web search.
  • The second result that came up was to Wikipedia (here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere)
  • The first graphic was a link to a Nature article (the link and graphic I posted).
  • I trust Nature (having read it for most of my life) so noted the non-linear time scale (which you then pointed out after I'd already done so as a caution in my post) and posted the historical mosaic plot that goes back ~450 million years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this the intellectual equivalent to 'come outside and say that?'

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@epsilonGreedy, I really don't think your graph supports the notion “that global CO2 levels are in a longterm decline that started with the arrival of life on planet earth”. For starters, there was a huge increase from 350 to 200 million years ago.

 

It is true that over much shorter intervals (the 65 million years or so, since about when the non-bird dinosaurs went extinct) there's been an overall decline in CO₂ levels. Note, though, those peaks in @JSHarris's graph in box b around 55 million years ago. This was the PETM which was another mass-extinction event. Since then CO₂ levels have indeed been declining steadily resulting in the current ice age (which started 2.5 million years ago or so) and in which human civilization appeared in the current interglacial which started about 12'000 years ago.

 

We've already put out enough CO₂ to delay the onset of the next glaciation by many thousands of years. It's even possible that humans had already done that via agricultural land-use change prior to the industrial revolution. So there really isn't anything urgent to do from that point of view.

 

Long term (multiple millions a few billions of years) there will indeed be a problem with reduction of CO₂. The Sun is gradually getting brighter which will result in long-term feedbacks in the carbon cycle reducing the amount of CO₂ to the point where photosynthesis won't work. CO₂ is pretty long lived in the atmosphere but burning some LPG today isn't going to make much difference on these timescales. Humans, if still around, will have to come up with another plan then.

 

Somewhat shorter term, current CO₂ emissions clearly are raising Earth's temperature and messing with the climate. As the graph @JSHarris quotes shows, the PETM is a plausible model for the results; compare the CO₂ levels in the various possible concentration pathways in box d with the bump on the left of box b.

Edited by Ed Davies
Correct thinko on long-term trends.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

After some contemplation, a more succinct answer:

 

1) Yes, over billions of years CO₂ is on the decline due to the increasing brightness of the Sun.

 

2) Yes, over 10's of millions of years CO₂ is on the decline (I think because of the uplift of the Himalayas and Tibet, but maybe I'm misremembering this).

 

3) Yes, over thousands of years temperatures have been on the decline due to solar Milankovic cycles.

 

But, we've already emitted enough CO₂ to deal with the possibility of 3 kicking us into a new glaciation. Current emissions are irrelevant on the timescales of 1 and 2. So our priorities should be set on not getting ourselves back to the mass extinction near the beginning of 2.

Edited by Ed Davies
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, epsilonGreedy said:

 

  1. Dr. Patrick Moore (the Founder of Green Peace)

 

Not only is he not "the" founder of Greenpeace, despite what he says he isn't even "a" founder of Greenpeace.

 

He's actually an extremely controversial figure, and it's worth do some careful reading about him before relying too much on anything he says.

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, jack said:

 

Not only is he not "the" founder of Greenpeace, despite what he says he isn't even "a" founder of Greenpeace.

 

He's actually an extremely controversial figure, and it's worth do some careful reading about him before relying too much on anything he says.

 

 

Another factual thread that we can all safely rely on then :/ 

“Taxi for.......”

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jack said:

Not only is he not "the" founder of Greenpeace, despite what he says he isn't even "a" founder of Greenpeace.

 

He's actually an extremely controversial figure, and it's worth do some careful reading about him before relying too much on anything he says.

 

 

If you had your finger on the pulse of these matters you would know that the effort by Greenpeace to disinherit one of its co-founders has been debunked by an archived copy of the Greenpeace web site. This 2007 copy of their own history lists Patrick Moore as a co-founder, in fact he is the only co-founder with a related academic background.

 

https://web.archive.org/web/20070203080000/http://www.greenpeace.org/international/about/history/founders 

 

He is only controversial because as a foundational member of environmental activism from the 1970's he then split from Greenpeace saying:

 

Quote

By the mid-1980s, the environmental movement had abandoned science and logic in favor of emotion and sensationalism. I became aware of the emerging concept of sustainable development: balancing environmental, social and economic priorities. Converted to the idea that win-win solutions could be found by bringing all interests together, I made the move from confrontation to consensus.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Ed Davies said:

1) Yes, over billions of years CO₂ is on the decline due to the increasing brightness of the Sun.

 

2) Yes, over 10's of millions of years CO₂ is on the decline (I think because of the uplift of the Himalayas and Tibet, but maybe I'm misremembering this).

 

3) Yes, over thousands of years temperatures have been on the decline due to solar cycles.

 

 

That almost sounds like Climate Change Denier dialogue as heard on Fox News.

 

I am not sure what prompts you to explain co2 decline in terms of (1) The Sun (2) Tectonic Uplifts (3) Natural Cycles when there is a much simpler explanation on offer namely the earth's own biosphere fixing carbon in the crust, just look at the White Cliffs of Dover.

 

Where I think we agree is that on a much shorter timescale there are more pressing concerns. It is legitimate for alternative thinkers to remind us that co2 has been much higher in the past and that co2 is a lagging indicator of temperature change but with 7 billion humans inhabiting an overcrowded world even minor climatic adjustments could kill off 1 billion of us. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, epsilonGreedy said:

That almost sounds like Climate Change Denier dialogue as heard on Fox News.

 

I am not sure what prompts you to explain co2 decline in terms of (1) The Sun (2) Tectonic Uplifts (3) Natural Cycles when there is a much simpler explanation on offer namely the earth's own biosphere fixing carbon in the crust, just look at the White Cliffs of Dover. 

 

Sorry, I should have been clearer: when I wrote “solar cycles” I meant the cycles in the parameters of the Earth's orbit and orientation which affect solar input to the Earth, the Milankovic cycles, not the cycles in the solar output. Correction made above.

 

It's not just the biosphere fixing carbon, it happens purely by chemical means as well. That the fixing is temperature dependent and that it forms a long-term feedback to stabilize the temperature is well known. That variations in insolation and tectonic uplifts can affect this is also well established. See for example: http://www.columbia.edu/~vjd1/carbon.htm , especially the very last section: “The Climate Buffer”. I'm sure I've read more definitive articles on the subject but not for a while (a decade or so, it's really basic stuff) and I can't remember exactly where.

 

1 hour ago, epsilonGreedy said:

It is legitimate for alternative thinkers to remind us that co2 … and that co2 is a lagging indicator of temperature change

 

No, temperature affects CO₂ and CO₂ affects temperature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, epsilonGreedy said:

If you had your finger on the pulse of these matters you would know that the effort by Greenpeace to disinherit one of its co-founders has been debunked by an archived copy of the Greenpeace web site. This 2007 copy of their own history lists Patrick Moore as a co-founder, in fact he is the only co-founder with a related academic background.

 

Greenpeace may well be lying, sure. It was still incorrect to say that he was "the" founder of Greenpeace. 

 

As for this:

 

10 hours ago, epsilonGreedy said:

He is only controversial because as a foundational member of environmental activism from the 1970's he then split from Greenpeace saying:

 

The change in his position is obviously starker given his history with Greenpeace, but I think the real controversy is not just that he's changed his mind, but that he's taken a stance with which the majority of climate (and other) scientists disagree. So my opinion remains:

 

12 hours ago, jack said:

He's actually an extremely controversial figure, and it's worth do some careful reading about him before relying too much on anything he says.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

With my mod hat on, and speaking to all posters, can we please stick to playing the ball and not the human? Inflammatory statements and accusations are unhelpful.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Ed Davies said:

I'm sure I've read more definitive articles on the subject but not for a while (a decade or so, it's really basic stuff) and I can't remember exactly where.

 

For YouTube on mainstream climate science then you could do a lot worse than this video, even though it's almost a decade old:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now