The fable of anthropogenic warming and the fight against CO2

[Obamot]

That's what they say, each side passing the buck ...,

Indeed, our meat diet makes them farts emitting methane: but shhh!
Junk food and covid-19 is political!

[GuyGadebois]

That's what they say, each side passing the buck ...,

Indeed, our meat diet makes them farts emitting methane: but shhh!
Junk food and covid-19 is political!

What about leaks from pipelines and hydraulic fracturing, is that beer?

[Obamot]

Pollution of the seabed by offshore platforms is a well-kept secret, but it is growing ...
Pollution now crosses the entire Gulf of Mexico, probably to Cuba ...

8F108542-1F1C-4303-97CF-06C30453BD33.gif (37.85 Kio) Consulté 1624 fois

[ABC2019]

I republish what I have already published many times!
Source NASA and the IPCC, in fact, the anthropic share of Co2, it would be even less, or 1,5% of 22% = 0,33%

beh no this is completely wrong, nature emits AND recaptures this amount of CO2 every year, whereas what man emits is only half absorbed.

The half that remains in the atmosphere each year is therefore 100% human-made.

[Obamot]

I republish what I have already published many times!
Source NASA and the IPCC, in fact, the anthropic share of Co2, it would be even less, or 1,5% of 22% = 0,33%

beh no this is completely wrong, nature emits AND recaptures this amount of CO2 every year, whereas what man emits is only half absorbed.

The half that remains in the atmosphere each year is therefore 100% human-made.

And it is even marked on what I published .., Nature would capture half of it, or 1,5% of 3%, you can't read?

After the differences come from the time it takes for nature to recapture, the pessimists say 1 century ...
There's no denying the fact that nature absorbs Co2 I think, it's an empty argument.
After you diverge in the conclusions ... There we lost you

beh no this is completely wrong, nature emits AND recaptures this amount of CO2 every year, whereas what man emits is only half absorbed.

Explain yourself? How could nature emit what man emits? we don't understand anything!

The half that remains in the atmosphere each year is therefore 100% human-made.

... ah yes ... 1,5% of 22% or 0,33% you're good at math!

But indeed, it's 100% of that 0,33%

[ABC2019]

E10C0C0F-9E6D-4628-935F-306B2BA44924.jpeg

well we do it again ...
on your graph we compare the 29 (which are rather 35 now) Gt of anthropogenic CO2 with the "772" Gt of natural CO2, but these "772" are fictitious because they are exchanged IN BOTH SENSES (absorbed and re-emitted), therefore in total that makes ... 0.

And in addition Nature reabsorb half of the 29 (or rather 35) Gt of CO2 each year so in fact the balance of nature is ...- 18 Gt CO2 / year, and it accumulates 18 Gt each year, 100 % due to humans.

[Obamot]

Well yes since that is what my sketch says

And...?

BUT you forgot the little sentence:
- “The oceans reject it the most (hot periods) but also absorb it the most (cold periods)"

And between hot periods and cold periods it passes ~ 40 years!

Ah damn ! That was marked.,. And you haven't talked about it ... The trap!

Well yeah ... suddenly it's your annual balance sheet at zero which is fictitious ...

And therefore the GLOBAL balance will fluctuate over the ages, this global balance is not the emission / absorption balance

The total mass of Co2 in the atmosphere is NOT 772 Gt but about 3,16 × 10¹⁵ kg (i.e. not 772 Gt but approximately 3 gigatonnes, and of course, emissions are included in this mass) to find out, we count it in ppm.

If we want to demonstrate everything, we must examine the ice ages expressed in hundreds of thousands of years, We must for example count the Co2 content in ppm of ice cores in Vostok:

And besides it is not all the time 772 Gt of emission, that it is in “hot” period in cold period it must be less since the vegetation is less active. Without wishing to be categorical, the winters must being terrible in the ice age, the deficit of Co2 (compared to hot periods), must mean that natural emissions could, during these winters, be more absorbed by the Oceans, and therefore drastically reducing a greenhouse effect which has a lot dropped, and possibly insufficient to comfortably warm living species!

So ... There you go ... You thought you were giving a lesson but you were fooled like a grown up

[sicetaitsimple]

Without wishing to be categorical, winters must be terrible in the ice age

There I am sawed ..... What relevance!

Uh, we are talking about modifications over a few decades, possibly a hundred depending on certain models, when we talk about anthropogenic warming, whatever his opinion on the subject and the relevance of the models. The warming of anthropogenic origin two centuries ago, bof bof.

Over a few hundred thousand years, we are talking about something else.

[ABC2019]

The total mass of Co2 in the atmosphere is NOT 772 Gt but about 3,16 × 10¹⁵ kg (i.e. not 772 Gt but approximately 3 gigatonnes, and of course, emissions are included in this mass) to find out, we count it in ppm.

uh but there you confuse the amount of CO2 in Gt and the emission in Gt / year, it's as different as a distance is different from a speed !!
your graph talks about ANNUAL emissions, not total quantities.
And of course not nature does not emit 772 Gt per year otherwise after 1000 years we would have 772000 Gt in the atmosphere is more than 200 times more than now! the 772 Gt is once again a two-way trade, with zero balance.

[Obamot]

You, you, you ... I knew you would say that ... but no, because I was very very careful what I said, I know you, you won't get me on this one no more. The graph is one of many that demonstrates it, it is an element of continuity, so you say anything.

Reread: When you understand this sentence, which is not trivial:

BUT you forgot the little sentence:
- “The oceans reject it the most (hot periods) but also absorb it the most (cold periods)"

You CANNOT link it to the carbon emissions of your 772 Gt, since it is an annual volume ... And therefore the fact that it connects the ice ages was implicit. Besides, you don't read anywhere that most of the Co2 comes from the oceans. YOU NEVER SAID IT ... The IPCC, NASA, nobody puts that forward ... And besides, it should an incredible enough base to dissociate the Co2 emissions from the total volume (although this error is often made ...) but you will stop at nothing