Global Warming? – Another Crack!
There was a NewScientist article released in 2011. The article is a perfect example of how a science news release gets garbled in translation on purpose. I am wondering why it was worded in that manner. Let’s break it down and then see if the global warming argument is starting to develop some cracks.
First, the subject is interesting: Warmer Oceans Release CO2 Faster Than Thought. Normally, you would use the word “then” instead of “than.” But maybe they meant to say “faster than Scientists thought” – just don’t want to use the word scientist in the same sentence when it doesn’t support what the original modeling presented. The only reason I can think of is they wanted to get away from saying the science is settled. Are they really telling us the original settled science is false?
So in this article they explain that “as the world oceans warm, their massive stores of dissolved CO2 may be quick to bubble back out into the atmosphere and amplify the greenhouse effect.” That is just one sentence being used as a paragraph. They have made their point. That poses a question.” Just how much of that greenhouse effect is caused by CO2 emissions from the ocean that are natural and not human CO2? The key word in this paragraph is “amplify.” If it does, then by how much?
Then they start the next sentence with “the oceans capture around 30 percent of human CO2 emissions and hide it in their depths.” But they do not say that the oceans also capture the rest of the CO2 at a 30% rate as well. Even the percentage is not clear. I have seen anywhere from 20% to 50% absorption rate by the ocean according to scientist (they are not sure). One thing to remember is that according to these same scientists, the total CO2 in the atmosphere is 398 Parts per million (ppm). But what they really avoid telling us is that the part of that CO2 that is man-made is only 1 percent of that when they include water vapor and clouds in the mix of those elements of our atmosphere that have an effect on keeping our planet warm. They tell us what that number is: It is .0398% of the whole. So that means it is about 1/3 of a ppm of CO2. You have 398 ppm heating the earth, and 1/3 of 1 ppm is responsible for all the heat.
Now doesn’t that strike you as odd when a scientist claims that 1/3 of a ppm of the atmosphere is solely responsible for heating up the entire earth’s atmosphere, and also the ocean that covers 70% of the globe and is as much as 14,000 ft. deep? It would be better to know how many gallons of water are in the ocean. According to these same scientists, there are 343 quintillion gallons. If you’re not sure how much that is, think about it this way: 343 billion, billion gallons of water are in the ocean.
Then in the same paragraph they claim “the hiding of CO2 in the ocean slows global warming somewhat” (but they are not sure how much). “Climate records from the last ice age show that as temperatures climb, the trend reverses and the oceans emit CO2, which exacerbates warming.” So they are telling us that all the CO2, natural (398 ppm) and human (1/3 of 1 ppm), are being emitted causing an exacerbating effect on global warming. I would argue that most of the warming is coming from the natural part, just saying. And if the ocean is absorbing at least 30% of all the CO2 and emitting more and more of it as it warms up, would the ocean be partly to blame for releasing CO2 into the atmosphere causing the increase in warming? And the ratio would be 398 ppm of which 1/3 of 1 ppm is human stuff.
Then they shoot another whole in the settled science case when they state that previous studies suggested that it took 400 to 1300 years for the CO2 to enter the atmosphere from the ocean. “But now the most precise analysis to date” (they are not sure again?) “has whittled that figure down.” Are you kidding us? You use the word “whittled” to describe a drop of anywhere between 200% and 650%? Then they say, “possibly even less” than the 200 years. If you whittle a piece of wood down 650%, you may be left with a toothpick. So I guess you’re like me, I am really confused as to what the answer is since they did say they were using the most precise analysis to date. But they are not done yet. Later in the article they state that “the teams’ study comes with a significant uncertainty. Plus or minus 200 years could actually be no lag time between rising temperatures and gases being release.” Ok then, we have absolute uncertainty, not significant. One scientist from Australia’s commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) stated: “they’ve really nailed it!” I am really glad this scientist is in science and not out building houses! To add to his “nailed it” remark, he states: “despite the uncertainty, this is a really good data set that they’ve got.” So they are telling us everything is uncertain but the data set is very good. Wouldn’t that discredit prior data sets used to settle the science?
Do you remember all the ice core studies that helped scientists settle the science? Well this study states something interesting. They claim “previous estimates used cores from regions with low snowfall leading to a very gradual trapping of the carbon dioxide in the ice. This increased uncertainty in timing.” And here comes another kicker; “many previous studies used only one ice core site.” Oh, how convenient. So the ice core site used previously underestimated the amount of CO2 in all the ice? Could that indicate that the lower estimates of CO2 turns out to be actually larger than originally believed?
But the article is not done yet in putting a “nail” in the settled science modeling. The following statement was made: “climate modelling will be needed before we can speculate how the results relate to current warming. So you need more modelling in order to “speculate” on what this new data, a really good data set, will impact, amplify, exacerbate or effect global warming?
I will speculate. I would be willing to guess, which is also speculation, that 1/3 of 1 ppm (the human part), is not going to have much effect on global warming at all. I am more certain than ever that we are going through a warming trend which started with the end of the little ice age. A 30 year ping in CO2 levels is a blip on the earth’s climate changing record over billions of years. And just as a side note. Scientists state that methane, 25% more powerful than CO2’s heat retaining capability, is now at a level where it contributes 30% of all CO2 impact. And just like always, the scientists are not sure how this is happening. But other scientists say, it is due to permafrost melting and releasing massive amounts of methane. OMG. We need to cork all the cows. And don’t forget the goats, sheep, camels and pigs.
There are a few facts that scientists want to avoid. There was a time in our earth’s history where CO2 levels were between 4000 and 9000 ppm. There was also a time our earth’s history when there were no ice caps on the poles and fir trees were dominant. Most liberals believe in global warming and also like to smoke marijuana. But they do not realize that the best marijuana is created in greenhouses where the CO2 level is kept at its most ideal level to promote the best crop – 1200 to 1500 ppm. Plants can’t survive at 180 ppm so the 1/3 of 1 ppm is meaningless as far as plants are concerned. Why are we so concerned? We would not need greenhouses for plants of any sort if we could just raise the CO2 level to 1200. Government sponsored studies confirmed this CO2 level is best for most plants. But, needless to say, but I will say it anyway. We are going to have to wait for the ocean to take care of the CO2 level in about 0 to 1300 years – But I am not sure about that either.