Thread: Katoomba Monthly Temp average set to be SMASHED!!! AGAIN!!!

Originally Posted by Lappa

Does this mean that this has may have happened before and is just part of a cycle?

Lappa, You're gonna burn in hell for saying that.

Originally Posted by Lappa

Does this mean that this has may have happened before and is just part of a cycle?

It means that it may have happened before (for other reasons).

It does not mean that it's part of a cycle because burning of fossil fuels has only been happening for 200 years, and hasn't happened before (certainly not by mankind, and certainly not on the scale of the last 60-70 years) - so not cyclic.

There is no escaping the fact that burning fossil fuels has increased CO2 levels by ~33% in an extremely short period of time (since the mid 20th Century). There is no indication of what is meant by "abrupt" climate changes in the past (following that link just leads to a sales site), but in geological terms 60-70years is absolutely instantaneous. I would have thought that abrupt would mean something like 5,000-10,000 years in geological terms (given that Ice Ages are measured in the 100s of thousands of years.

It is not possible to normalise what is happening.

Mankind’s burning of Fossil fuels is not the only source of CO2.

It may be a little bit of a red herring to mention that elevated temperatures and elevated levels of CO2 have been on the planet before as that is not really the question. The question being that can modern mankind survive with the levels that are current and with the levels predicted without action to curtail the rise.

Remember that modern man (hommo sapiens) has only been around for about 1,000,000 years. Modern man has only recorded information in about the last 7,000 years (the early Chinese civilisations?) and not seriously or reliably until way after that. This is a graph of the recent rise in carbon dioxide over the 800,000 years:

CO2 rise over 800,000 years.jpg

It seems to me that the previous high levels of CO2 and high temperatures while true are misleading as mankind did not have to cope with them. Remember too that the population of the earth only reached one billion around the year 1800. The planet is a lot more stressed today with nearly eight times that population. Arguably we will require up to ten times the food, ten times the energy and ten times the habitable space than we did when the good Captain Cook was floating around the high seas shoving his flag into virgin soils. The full CO2 article from NASA is here.

Graphic: The relentless rise of carbon dioxide – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

If you wish to see where mankind fits into the evolution timeline, you can see here:

Timeline of human evolution - Wikipedia

I appreciate that for many of you this will only be a refresher to what you already know. For myself, I needed more definitive timelines of man's position in history and more concrete information as to what CO2 levels we are talking about.

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by Lappa

Mankind’s burning of Fossil fuels is not the only source of CO2.

Care to substantiate this?

This may provide some insight to CO2 production:

"Due to human activities, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has been rising extensively since the Industrial Revolution and has now reached dangerous levels not seen in the last 3 million years.1 2 3 Human sources of carbon dioxide emissions are much smaller than natural emissions but they have upset the natural balance that existed for many thousands of years before the influence of humans."

Mankind has created an imbalance through excess:
"This is because natural sinks remove around the same quantity of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere than are produced by natural sources.4 This had kept carbon dioxide levels balanced and in a safe range. But human sources of emissions have upset the natural balance by adding extra carbon dioxide to the atmosphere without removing any";

The source:
Main sources of carbon dioxide emissions | CO2 Human Emissions

I would comment that we have additionally removed large amounts of the natural sinks (trees) and as I have pointed out before, this has considerably exacerbated the problem: Perhaps even more than the actual burning of fossil fuels, but thatis open to conjecture and purely my supposition unsupported by any factual evidence.

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Care to substantiate this?

Certainly

In an average year, wildfires around the world burn an area equivalent to the size of
India and emit more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than global road, rail,
shipping and air transport combined.
Aug 5, 2019


California’s 2018 fire season, including the largest fire in state history, released nearly
as much climate-warming and air-polluting emissions as a year’s worth of electricity use there
The wildfires released 68 million tons of carbon dioxide in 2018, according to the
US Geological Survey, or 15% of the state's total emissions. For comparison,
all electricity use in California in 2016 produced roughly 76 million tons in emissions.
Dec 4, 2018


The historic wildfires in Australia likely unleashed about 900 million tons of carbon dioxide
into the atmosphere, equivalent to nearly double the country's total yearly fossil fuel emissions,
according to scientists.
Jan. 23, 2020, 5:57 AM AEDT


According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world's volcanoes, both on land and undersea,
generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and
industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide.
Science News, Articles, and Information - Scientific American › article › earthtalks-volcanoes-or-humans




Peat fires and plant biomass that grow on it cause the material to oxidize into gaseous form,
especially CO2 which is emitted into the atmosphere.


etc, etc,

Ignoring that those figures are quoting unprecedented fire seasons (exacerbated by CC in the first place), are you (Lappa) suggesting that we just carry on dumping fossil fuel burnt CO2 into the atmosphere at the same increasing rates, are are you suggesting something else? Your position seems to be a little unclear.

Thanks for the articles Paul. While I do believe that NASAs article aren’t fake ( I note that some believe they are the great conspirators ie fake moon landing etc) I do take some umbridge with their diagrams then wording.

Their diagram shows apparent CO2 levels going back 800,000 years yet they state “are higher than they have been at any time in the past 400,000 years”
If their data is so accurate, why not state 800,000 years?

Then they state “In 2013, CO2levels surpassed 400 ppm for the first time in recorded history.” If They are so confident in their data, why not say “ for the first time in 800,000 years”

Maybe picking at straws, but if the data is so accurate and they have great confidence in it, why not utilise it?

Samples where taken from ice cores but are CO2 levels the same at any point on the planet!?
If not, by how much do they vary?
I have no idea re sampling so just throwing it out there.

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Ignoring that those figures are quoting unprecedented fire seasons (exacerbated by CC in the first place), .

BUT, taking in the contribution of wild fires, peat fires, volcanoes over many, many years to CO2 emissions, did wildfires emissions help cause CC or did CC cause them ?

Originally Posted by Lappa

BUT, taking in the contribution of wild fires, peat fires, volcanoes over many, many years to CO2 emissions, did wildfires emissions help cause CC or did CC cause them ?

Lappa, when I get to hell, I will save you a spot, I think you are gonna need it. Looks like you are only a day or so behind me.

Originally Posted by Lappa

Their diagram shows apparent CO2 levels going back 800,000 years yet they state “are higher than they have been at any time in the past 400,000 years”
If their data is so accurate, why not state 800,000 years?

The last 400k were showing all the peaks which were significantly higher than the 400k before that - so they are more relevant.

Originally Posted by Lappa

BUT, taking in the contribution of wild fires, peat fires, volcanoes over many, many years to CO2 emissions, did wildfires emissions help cause CC or did CC cause them ?

Well one hand washes the other, meaning that wildfires will perpetuate CC which will make wildfires worse, and so on.

However, none of that is any reason at all why we should continue putting extraordinary amounts of CO2 out - in fact it's even more reason why we should be reducing CO2 emissions.

I'm not sure if I read a response anywhere, so I'll just ask the question: do you accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas which causes the planet to warm?

Of course..Have I stated otherwise? I have had an intimate relationship with that (and other gases) for many a year.

In actual fact, I measure it 4 days a week. To me its a lovely gas and a joy to see. The higher the reading the better.