ice sheet losses in Greenland and Antarctica reach new highs

Hillhater said:
Punx0r said:
Hillhater said:
For an "Earth Scientist" you are somewhat limited in you understanding of how this planets ecosystem functions.
Normally i would not bother giving references, but since you seem incapable of your own research, i will give you some help..
Click to expand...

That's quite a display of arrogance and pretty embarrassing since [strike]your[/strike] the mistake in your reasoning, as explicitly stated by Chalo, is so obvious.
Click to expand...

Ignoring you embarrassing mistake in sentence construction , ..which makes it impossible to understand what you meant...
....do you want to try again ?
Click to expand...

Fixed. I originally rewrote the sentence to make it less insulting. I guess I shouldn't have bothered!

But yes, net & gross are different things. Money, carbon, whatever.

Saying you don't understand it but it must be too complicated for anyone else to understand either, therefore they are wrong (and somehow that makes you right) is just a cop out.
 
jimw1960 said:
......
The sentence you quoted is not contained in that paper. You completely ignore the net effect on the carbon budget by only citing the fluxes out of plants and oceans and not counting the fluxes in, ....
Click to expand...
Beacause it was a "summmary" to save everyone having to trawl through 90 pages to sift out the info .
This is a forum after all,..not a science Wiki !
But do you deny that natural sources are much larger CO2 emmitters than human sources ?
..and yes i ignored the "fluxes in" figures because it was in response to your original statement which specifically focussed only on emmissions !.....
 
Your mistake was confusing gross with net natural carbon emissions. You somehow still seem to be doing that, or you are just being deliberately obtuse.

I imagine the real reason what you quoted wasn't in the paper is because you've never read the paper, you just copied the reference from a quick google search.
 
Hillhater said:
That was not a mistake, quite deliberate since the discussion was centered on jimw1960s original statement about how human CO2 emissions were 100 times greater than any other source.
Click to expand...

So what is your point? You claim humans are not by far the greatest source of excess carbon being introduced into the normal cycle? Or are you just arguing semantics?
 
Hillhater said:
jimw1960 said:
......
The sentence you quoted is not contained in that paper. You completely ignore the net effect on the carbon budget by only citing the fluxes out of plants and oceans and not counting the fluxes in, ....
Click to expand...
Beacause it was a "summmary" to save everyone having to trawl through 90 pages to sift out the info .
This is a forum after all,..not a science Wiki !
But do you deny that natural sources are much larger CO2 emmitters than human sources ?
..and yes i ignored the "fluxes in" figures because it was in response to your original statement which specifically focussed only on emmissions !.....
Click to expand...


Usually, when you cite a document and put a statement in quotes, you are implying that the quoted statement is from that source. Also, if you were just trying to summarize, why does your quoted statement contradict what the paper concludes--that oceans and plants are net sinks for CO2. Your 42.85% magic number is not even anywhere in that paper. Amazing how you get four significant figures of accuracy out of a paper that acknowledges the inherent uncertainty. But, I digress. Bottom line is that the source that YOU cited directly supports my original statement that more than 99% of net CO2 input into the atmosphere over the past several decades is due to human activity (i.e., fossil fuel burning, cement production, and land use changes). It is apparent that you don't understand the basic concept of mass balance and even what the definition of a "net flux" is, so I will leave you to your willful ignorance. I can see from the comments of others that nobody is buying what you are selling.
 
TheBeastie said:
This guy talks about the carbon cycle here.
https://youtu.be/5Smhn1gL6Xg?t=12m23s
Click to expand...

That guy is full of chit. He is pulling out all the denier tricks, like showing uncorrected satellite data to claim there is no warming or correlation to CO2 levels. He has no expertise in the topics he discusses. Show me some peer-reviewed scientific literature that backs up anything in that video. Pick any point that he is trying to make and I can show you a mountain of evidence to contradict him. Three things you can't deny about the carbon cycle: (1) CO2 levels are higher now than they have been at any time in at least the last million years; and (2) that rise in CO2 is directly attributable to human activity; and (3) CO2 is a known greenhouse gas, meaning it MUST result in more retained heat in the atmosphere.
 
jimw1960 said:
Usually, when you cite a document and put a statement in quotes, you are implying that the quoted statement is from that source. Also, if you were just trying to summarize, why does your quoted statement contradict what the paper concludes--.
Click to expand...
you may preferr it that way, but like i said , this is not a science review..its a forum, so i will do it in a convenient way.
You asked for a source of the information re Ocean CO2 "emissions"...so that is what i gave and summarised the information.
The statement doesnt contradict anything , its simply a statement of fact.
I never said i agreed with everything in that document. ...certainly not its conclusions, which are simply a result of how you interpret and present the data/facts.
 
Punx0r said:
So what is your point? You claim humans are not by far the greatest source of excess carbon being introduced into the normal cycle Or are you just arguing semantics?
Click to expand...

Here you go again , trying to change the context of the "point"..
Which is..
"humans are not by far the greatest source of carbon being introduced into the normal cycle."
 
jimw1960 said:
: (1) CO2 levels are higher now than they have been at any time in at least the last million years;
Click to expand...
.....but some of the lowest they have been in the past 50 million years...or 100million....or the history of the planet even !

jimw1960 said:
...(2) that rise in CO2 is directly attributable to human activity;.....
Click to expand...
.......that is a popularist belief based on disputed reports and inconclusive data.
Rises and high levels of CO2 have existed in periods before human activity.
jimw1960 said:
CO2 is a known greenhouse gas, meaning it MUST result in more retained heat in the atmosphere.
Click to expand...
"Must" ? Doesnt sound very scientific.!
Which is just as well, since science journals have reported that CO2 levels were much higher than today during some of the Earths Ice Age periods. ?
 
bye-smiley-emoticon.gif
Question please?
While CO2 may be feeding the plants... seems like rising sea levels may be a concern? Seeing as how nobuddy was thinking about this stuff while building tons of infrastructure close to waters/oceans on lands that aren't that much higher than some-or-other "baseline".

Possible problem?
 
There is general scientific concensus that sea levels are rising.
But at what rate and how far they may rise is in dispute.
Depending on the source, it is currently at a rate of something less than 1 mm or something more than 3 mm , per year. But its a tricky thing to measure accurately (even NASA are struggling with this) and consequently very difficult to predict future levels.
A fair "guesstimate" might be sometimg like 1-2 meters (6 feet) in the next 100 yrs.
But unless its already lapping at your door step, (Venice ?). i dont see much cause for concern knowing how long modern buildings are planned to last....they will be in need of rebuilding long before the sea level becomes a threat.
PS:-- Many Coastal local planning authorities have already jumped the gun on these predictions, and redefined "high water" zones with various building restrictions and requirements if you want to build anything there.
...but they are also just guessing !
 
Im not really following the thread so I dont know if its been mentioned, I am guessing it has.
But there is a huge Iceberg about to break off, or already has.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/06/world/antarctic-iceberg-break/index.html
Good article

Kind of related to Greenland.
 
Give it up, you got owned.

Let's just give an amusing summary of how you attacked JimW for an alleged lack of scientific rigour, tried grandstanding with reference you swiped from another source and failed to verify, then when caught out because the reference didn't support any of your claims in any way, tried claiming it was your right to miss-quote for convenience :lol:

Word of advise: If you're going to give it the Big 'Un and sling mud at someone else's credentials, have at least something to back it up ;)

Hillhater said:
For an "Earth Scientist" you are somewhat limited in you understanding of how this planets ecosystem functions.
Normally i would not bother giving references, but since you seem incapable of your own research, i will give you some help..
Denman, K.L., G. Brasseur, A. Chidthaisong, P. Ciais, P.M. Cox, R.E. Dickinson, D. Hauglustaine, C. Heinze, E. Holland, D. Jacob, U. Lohmann, S Ramachandran, P.L. da Silva Dias, S.C. Wofsy and X. Zhang. Couplings Between Changes in the Climate System and Biogeochemistry. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 2007.
the most relevant summary being ..
The largest natural source of carbon dioxide emissions is from ocean-atmosphere exchange. This produces 42.84% of natural carbon dioxide emissions. The oceans contain dissolved carbon dioxide, which is released into the air at the sea surface. Annually this process creates about 330 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

jimw1960 said:
The sentence you quoted is not contained in that paper.
Click to expand...

Hillhater said:
Beacause it was a "summmary" to save everyone having to trawl through 90 pages to sift out the info .
Click to expand...

jimw1960 said:
Usually, when you cite a document and put a statement in quotes, you are implying that the quoted statement is from that source. Also, if you were just trying to summarize, why does your quoted statement contradict what the paper concludes--that oceans and plants are net sinks for CO2. Your 42.85% magic number is not even anywhere in that paper.
Click to expand...

Hillhater said:
you may preferr it that way, but like i said , this is not a science review..its a forum, so i will do it in a convenient way.
Click to expand...
 
Punx0r said:
Give it up, you got owned.....
Click to expand...
....thats a strange conclusion ?
but im not surprised considering some of the other conclusions you have ended up with in this area !
You are amusing yourself with bickering over the wording of source material for the data that was being disputed,
..whilst conveniently avoiding the validity of the data, or the actual point that was in debate,
which was ( together with others)..
jimw1960 said:
.... Oceans are currently taking up CO2, not releasing it-..
Click to expand...
 
As had already been plainly pointed out to you, your reference backed up neither the word, the figures, the meaning, nor the spirit of your claims. It contained none of what you claimed it did and directly contradicted the rest.

Even I know the oceans and atmosphere are both increasing in CO2 concentration. They are both absorbing excess carbon that man is emitting. I'm not sure how such basic facts could possibly be disputed...
 
Thanks, Punxor. I'm through wasting my time trying to explain simple concepts like mass balance to this cretin. His ignorance is willful.
 
LockH said:
bye-smiley-emoticon.gif
Question please?
While CO2 may be feeding the plants... seems like rising sea levels may be a concern? Seeing as how nobuddy was thinking about this stuff while building tons of infrastructure close to waters/oceans on lands that aren't that much higher than some-or-other "baseline".
Possible problem?
Click to expand...

Quantifying sea level rise is complicated because other factors like tidal forces and geologic uplift and land subsidence also play into it. Here is a cool website at NOAA that shows current best estimates of the rates of sea level rise around the world. https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html

You can see that it is going up slowly in most of the world, but it is going down along the southern coast of Alaska and other areas in the far north because there is still some isostatic rebound going on following the melting of glaciers from the last ice age 20,000 years ago. Areas that are subsiding, like the coast of Louisiana, show higher rates of sea level rise. If you want to talk in terms of global averages, sea level has risen about 1 foot in the last century, with most of that occurring in the last 30 years. We should expect at least that much rise to occur in the next century, but more likely two to three times that, due to both thermal expansion of the warming sea water and melting of land ice in Greenland, Antarctica, and many smaller glaciers around the world. If you pan around the globe on that NOAA map, it is the areas with the orange and red arrows that are going to get hit the worst.
 
^^ Ohhhh... I love it when folks talk/tap dirty...
ES Bible: "Search found 2 matches: +isostatic +rebound"

http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/isost.html

Isostasy

Isostasy forms the basis of the theory of isostatic rebound. Isostasy itself is based on the opposing influences of two main forces: buoyancy and gravity. For the earth, it is the reason that the relatively rigid lithospheric plates float at certain levels in the underlying ductile asthenosphere. Blocks, or plates, will adjust themselves vertically until the forces of buoyancy and gravity are balanced. When the forces are balanced, the blocks are considered to be in isostatic equilibrium and there will be no vertical movement.

The level at which both continental and oceanic blocks begin to float in the mantle is called the level of compensation and generally corresponds to the top of the asthenosphere. At this location, the mantle will flow in response to stress (e.g. a surficial load); therefore the principal stresses at this level are all equal to the lithostatic pressure (P).
Click to expand...

8)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top