Are human activities influencing the climate?

Master of the Omniverse · 24-10-2017 5:32pm

server down wrote: »

some ( I wouldnt say more) scientific training might help you know what you are on about.

I might suggest that you investigate outside your comfort zone.Otherwise you will be perpetually stuck in the nether regions of misinformation.

B0jangles · 24-10-2017 6:12pm

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

I might suggest that you investigate outside your comfort zone.Otherwise you will be perpetually stuck in the nether regions of misinformation.

Physician, heal thyself.

dense · 24-10-2017 7:37pm

server down wrote: »

That whole post assumes that there will be an outflow equal to the human added inflow and that the oceans will absorb any extra carbon emissions. This leaves him with an explanation of the carbon increase in the atmosphere being down to some external increase in temperature, but he doesnt explain where the increase in temperature comes from.

If you asked him, I wonder would he say:

"The goal of my paper is to prove wrong Claim#1, namely, that “Human CO2 caused all or most of the observed rise in atmospheric CO2.” To do that, I have shown the logical failure of the arguments for Claim#1.

In science, showing that a hypothesis is wrong is an end in itself. I do not need to go any further. I do not need to propose or prove an alternative to Claim#1.

The burden for those on your side of this issue is to come up with a new and better argument to support Claim#1.

Once we acknowledge that I do not need to propose an alternative to Claim#1 to prove the present arguments for Claim#1 are invalid, I will be happy to entertain ideas to address your interest in other possible causes of the rise in atmospheric CO2."

Claim#1 is that human CO2 caused all or most of the observed rise in atmospheric CO2.

You appear to agree that he has done what he says he has done, namely set out to prove that Claim#1 is wrong?

And, there are many loose ends to many theories......

This is not my area but what he says appears to be true.

It would most useful to the conversation here if someone more qualified would challenge or critique his paper on a peer basis, one to one with him, it is even something he says he welcomes.

Whether that's true or not, there's one way to find out.

Akrasia · 24-10-2017 8:30pm

dense wrote: »

If you asked him, I wonder would he say:

Claim#1 is that human CO2 caused all or most of the observed rise in atmospheric CO2.

You appear to agree that he has done what he says he has done, namely set out to prove that Claim#1 is wrong?

And, there are many loose ends to many theories......

This is not my area but what he says appears to be true.

It would most useful to the conversation here if someone more qualified would challenge or critique his paper on a peer basis, one to one with him, it is even something he says he welcomes.

Whether that's true or not, there's one way to find out.

ED Berry is wrong because he counts all the CO2 emissions from the ocean as natural. In reality, human emitted CO2 molecules are absorbed in the oceans where they remain near the surface where they are exchanged with the atmosphere in the normal carbon cycle until they are sequestered in the deep ocean, a process that takes more than a hundred years.

Berry is not accounting for the increased concentrations of CO2 in the oceans from human emissions being a driver of increased transfer from the ocean to the atmosphere, he calls all ocean to atmospheric transfers natural.

His 'paper' completely fudges the rate at which long term co2 sequestration occurs.
I explained this 2 weeks ago.

If only he spent more time on the science and less time ranting about Al Gore and the Aztecs

dense · 24-10-2017 9:03pm

Akrasia wrote: »

ED Berry is wrong because he counts all the CO2 emissions from the ocean as natural. In reality, human emitted CO2 molecules are absorbed in the oceans where they remain near the surface where they are exchanged with the atmosphere in the normal carbon cycle until they are sequestered in the deep ocean, a process that takes more than a hundred years.

Berry is not accounting for the increased concentrations of CO2 in the oceans from human emissions being a driver of increased transfer from the ocean to the atmosphere, he calls all ocean to atmospheric transfers natural.

I explained this 2 weeks ago.

Why not post that response there if it's so simple then?
That's what I find odd.

I could do it for you if you like.
What about using a name we both agree on, such as Arkasia for example?

Would you be on for it?

I'll change the "Berry" and "he" in the above etc. to "you" etc?

Have you tried to post there? Is it difficult to get published do you think?

Akrasia · 24-10-2017 9:10pm

dense wrote: »

Why not post that response there if it's so simple then?
That's what I find odd.

I could do it for you if you like.
What about using a name we both agree on, such as Arkasia for example?

Would you be on for it?

I'll change the "Berry" and "he" in the above etc. to "you" etc?

Have you tried to post there? Is it difficult to get published do you think?

You're free to post anything i say here anywhere you like.

You can link to this thread if you want

conditioned games · 24-10-2017 10:31pm

Climate change is being purposefully geoenginered by our controllers in their push towards a new world order.

By spraying metal chemicals from high altitude jets in the sky, which spread out giving a hazy sky appearance, they can manipulate the weather. Along with HAARP they can bring about weather extremes.

By using weather extremes, it allows them to create a new economy based on carbon trades. Unfortunately many people are ignorant about HAARP and chemtrails, instead believing whatever the mainstream media tells them.

Akrasia · 24-10-2017 10:42pm

conditioned games wrote: »

Climate change is being purposefully geoenginered by our controllers in their push towards a new world order.

By spraying metal chemicals from high altitude jets in the sky, which spread out giving a hazy sky appearance, they can manipulate the weather. Along with HAARP they can bring about weather extremes.

By using weather extremes, it allows them to create a new economy based on carbon trades. Unfortunately many people are ignorant about HAARP and chemtrails, instead believing whatever the mainstream media tells them.

I live near an airport. I have family members involved in aircraft servicing and maintenance. Are my family members part of that conspiracy too?

Master of the Omniverse · 24-10-2017 11:31pm

Akrasia wrote: »

I live near an airport. I have family members involved in aircraft servicing and maintenance. Are my family members part of that conspiracy too?

I dont believe you.

Master of the Omniverse · 24-10-2017 11:37pm

conditioned games wrote: »

Climate change is being purposefully geoenginered by our controllers in their push towards a new world order.

By spraying metal chemicals from high altitude jets in the sky, which spread out giving a hazy sky appearance, they can manipulate the weather. Along with HAARP they can bring about weather extremes.

By using weather extremes, it allows them to create a new economy based on carbon trades. Unfortunately many people are ignorant about HAARP and chemtrails, instead believing whatever the mainstream media tells them.

Finally someone spells out the bigger picture and the end game.

Master of the Omniverse · 24-10-2017 11:43pm

Akrasia wrote: »

I live near an airport. I have family members involved in aircraft servicing and maintenance. Are my family members part of that conspiracy too?

They are not by any chance living in a hotel closed for the winter?Servicing planes whilst single handedly educating the uneducated on climate change while at the same time driving taxis at night to fund their failed attempt to write a book.

LordSutch · 24-10-2017 11:45pm

conditioned games wrote: »

Climate change is being purposefully geoenginered by our controllers in their push towards a new world order.

By spraying metal chemicals from high altitude jets in the sky, which spread out giving a hazy sky appearance, they can manipulate the weather. Along with HAARP they can bring about weather extremes.

By using weather extremes, it allows them to create a new economy based on carbon trades. Unfortunately many people are ignorant about HAARP and chemtrails, instead believing whatever the mainstream media tells them.

Interesting theory, you mean chemtrails?

Hmm, I'm keeping an open mind for now.

Master of the Omniverse · 24-10-2017 11:50pm

LordSutch wrote: »

Interesting theory, you mean chemtrails?

Hmm, I'm keeping an open mind for now.

Chemtrails?No,contrails?Im waiting for akrasia to throw in his two cents worth.People say chemtrails are just contrails.However if you go for a walk on a cold morning and watch your breath and walk for two miles ,turn around,I can guarantee that there is no trail left by your breath.Chemtrails hang around for a long time.They are real folks,and we are being sprayed like cockroaches.

Akrasia · 24-10-2017 11:52pm

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

I dont believe you.

Eh, my location is Ennis, Shannon Airport is 15 miles away.

Master of the Omniverse · 24-10-2017 11:54pm

Akrasia wrote: »

Eh, my location is Ennis, Shannon Airport is 15 miles away.

Yes,ofcourse it is.You have alot in common with a septic tank.

Akrasia · 24-10-2017 11:56pm

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

Chemtrails?No,contrails?Im waiting for akrasia to throw in his two cents worth.People say chemtrails are just contrails.However if you go for a walk on a cold morning and watch your breath and walk for two miles ,turn around,I can guarantee that there is no trail left by your breath.Chemtrails hang around for a long time.They are real folks,and we are being sprayed like cockroaches.

Sigh

Master of the Omniverse · 24-10-2017 11:59pm

Akrasia wrote: »

Sigh

Ive looked at some of your posts in other forums,I think you come on here for amusement and will post any old ****e,am I right?

Doctor Jimbob · 24-10-2017 11:59pm

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

Chemtrails?No,contrails?Im waiting for akrasia to throw in his two cents worth.People say chemtrails are just contrails.However if you go for a walk on a cold morning and watch your breath and walk for two miles ,turn around,I can guarantee that there is no trail left by your breath.Chemtrails hang around for a long time.They are real folks,and we are being sprayed like cockroaches.

Great trolling effort up until that post,but it's too obvious you're at the wind up now

Master of the Omniverse · 25-10-2017 12:04am

Akrasia wrote: »

Sigh

So your response is now only 4 letters long?I do believe your ability to respond is now so severely diminished that the truth has found you and overtaken your sceptical mind,there is no going back,welcome to the truth.

Master of the Omniverse · 25-10-2017 12:06am

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Great trolling effort up until that post,but it's too obvious you're at the wind up now

So we have trolling equals a differing opinion?Cmon,we are all adults,just face up to the truth.

Master of the Omniverse · 25-10-2017 12:13am

I remember now why I stopped coming into these forums,everybody is so serious about themselves,and their precious research ,ffs,I know im right,I cant be arsed to argue the toss with a load of scientist wannabes,the truth doesnt like to hide,and life is too short.However,I really like you all deep down,I know youre decent people,a little misinformed perhaps,some of you,and I get bored with f#####g around,being polite ,following social norms,so welcome to the Master.

dense · 25-10-2017 6:46am

Akrasia wrote: »

You're free to post anything i say here anywhere you like.

You can link to this thread if you want

His verbatim response from here
http://edberry.com/blog/ed-berry/why-our-co2-emissions-do-not-increase-atmosphere-co2/#comment-43223

Dear Arkasia,
I will answer your comment from the perspective of my later post:
http://edberry.com/blog/ed-berry/human-co2-not-change-climate/

You are making a few errors in your argument. First, you are treating human CO2 differently than natural CO2. And by “natural” I mean all CO2 that did not come from humans.

Second, you are neglecting the effect of vapor pressure on the exchange rate. The higher the vapor pressure, which I call the level, the faster the exchange rate.

Third, your claim that human CO2 has a residence time in the atmosphere of hundreds of years has no physical foundation, as I prove in my later post.

If you wish to continue this discussion, please reply in my later post where we can discuss this in more detail after you have read my later post.

Thanks, Ed

Akrasia · 25-10-2017 8:01am

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

Ive looked at some of your posts in other forums,I think you come on here for amusement and will post any old ****e,am I right?

No, I gave you a chance, but your posts don't belong in a serious thread about a serious topic

Master of the Omniverse · 25-10-2017 8:08am

Akrasia wrote: »

No, I gave you a chance, but your posts don't belong in a serious thread about a serious topic

Ofcourse they do.Stop being so precious.You think your scientific meanderings belong on this thread?You obviously do,therefore so do mine.As a counterbalance .I know im right,so do you.

Master of the Omniverse · 25-10-2017 8:20am

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

Ofcourse they do.Stop being so precious.You think your scientific meanderings belong on this thread?You obviously do,therefore so do mine.As a counterbalance .I know im right,so do you.

The psychopaths that run this world have been ****ing about with the weather since wwll,its obvious to any idiot that they are,just go on the internet and look,the huge amount of information on what they are getting up to is there for us too see,and they laugh at us.They laugh and say,"what you gonna do ",because they know most people are enthralled by false science,and are going to follow the set narrative.Like lambs to the ****ing slaughter,while you lot **** around massaging each others egos with stupid theorys on co2.Of course we are affecting the weather,too many of us,and too much pollution.But to limit this to just the co,2 debate.it pisses me off how blind most of the population is,thank god people are waking up.

dr.fuzzenstein · 25-10-2017 8:52am

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

Finally someone spells out the bigger picture and the end game.

Seriously dude, WTF?
You can't possibly believe that.
As for the video, I have seen videos by David Icke and other assorted loons, no way will I do that to myself, i know all there is to know about the Illuminati, Bilderburgs, Arcturians, Grey Aliens, black helicopters, hollow earth, Pleiadiens, project Camelot, mind control by vapor trails, genocide by vaccines, the list goes on and on.
I have lived with someone who watches all that stuff on YouTube for hours on end. That person believes her house is being stalked by black helicopters and the gardai and secret police are watching her around town.
Its sad to see someone descend into madness.
There's only three reasons to believe this stuff, one, stupidity, two, trolling, three, wishing to destroy peoples minds with this sh*t because you get a kick out of it.
Because those are the only possible, logical explanations.

Master of the Omniverse · 25-10-2017 9:10am

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Seriously dude, WTF?
You can't possibly believe that.
As for the video, I have seen videos by David Icke and other assorted loons, no way will I do that to myself, i know all there is to know about the Illuminati, Bilderburgs, Arcturians, Grey Aliens, black helicopters, hollow earth, Pleiadiens, project Camelot, mind control by vapor trails, genocide by vaccines, the list goes on and on.
I have lived with someone who watches all that stuff on YouTube for hours on end. That person believes her house is being stalked by black helicopters and the gardai and secret police are watching her around town.
Its sad to see someone descend into madness.
There's only three reasons to believe this stuff, one, stupidity, two, trolling, three, wishing to destroy peoples minds with this sh*t because you get a kick out of it.
Because those are the only possible, logical explanations.

So whos paying you to write this ****?You are part of the problem.Its ok though,enough of us are aware of whats really going on,you can thank us later when you finally grow up and face the reality of our world.

B0jangles · 25-10-2017 9:16am

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

So whos paying you to write this ****?You are part of the problem.Its ok though,enough of us are aware of whats really going on,you can thank us later when you finally grow up and face the reality of our world.

Do you have someone you can talk to? If this isn't all just messing, you honestly sound like you're experiencing some level of illness.
I'm genuinely not trying to have a go, if you're feeling peculiar please do talk to someone you trust.

Master of the Omniverse · 25-10-2017 9:44am

B0jangles wrote: »

Do you have someone you can talk to? If this isn't all just messing, you honestly sound like you're experiencing some level of illness.
I'm genuinely not trying to have a go, if you're feeling peculiar please do talk to someone you trust.

Really?My only suffering is the suffering of fools that I come across who patronise and fake sincerity because they cant face up to the truth .Plus,I have no need to talk to anyone ,im more interested in ****ing with your heads in the slight hope that you will wake up from your eternal slumber.

dr.fuzzenstein · 25-10-2017 10:11am

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

Really?My only suffering is the suffering of fools that I come across who patronise and fake sincerity because they cant face up to the truth .Plus,I have no need to talk to anyone ,im more interested in ****ing with your heads in the slight hope that you will wake up from your eternal slumber.

Or you could entertain the possibility that there are 2 possible explanations. One involves aliens, UFOs, global conspiracies and cover ups going on for millennia requiring the collusion of millions of people, or the boring one, there is just people living on this planet doing random stuff and there is no greater mystery behind it all.
Occam's Razor is a great tool.

Master of the Omniverse · 25-10-2017 10:15am

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Or you could entertain the possibility that there are 2 possible explanations. One involves aliens, UFOs, global conspiracies and cover ups going on for millennia requiring the collusion of millions of people, or the boring one, there is just people living on this planet doing random stuff and there is no greater mystery behind it all.
Occam's Razor is a great tool.

Youre the one harping on about ufoz and aliens,these have no place in a climate change debate az far as im concerned,your tinfoil hat giving you trouble?

srsly78 · 25-10-2017 10:20am

Would you not open your mind a little bit?

B0jangles · 25-10-2017 10:21am

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

Really?My only suffering is the suffering of fools that I come across who patronise and fake sincerity because they cant face up to the truth .Plus,I have no need to talk to anyone ,im more interested in ****ing with your heads in the slight hope that you will wake up from your eternal slumber.

Ok, look for what its worth I'm not trying to patronize you and I'm perfectly sincere in saying that you don't sound entirely well. I'm not suggesting you believe or trust ME, just maybe talk to someone you do trust.

Doctor Jimbob · 25-10-2017 10:21am

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

Youre the one harping on about ufoz and aliens,these have no place in a climate change debate az far as im concerned,your tinfoil hat giving you trouble?

What's the z thing all about

dr.fuzzenstein · 25-10-2017 11:19am

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

So whos paying you to write this ****?You are part of the problem.Its ok though,enough of us are aware of whats really going on,you can thank us later when you finally grow up and face the reality of our world.

Paying me? That would be great. Maybe you could pay me and I'll write anything you want.

Master of the Omniverse · 25-10-2017 11:27am

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

What's the z thing all about

Im typing on a zmartphone,keep hitting the z key instead of the s key.

Master of the Omniverse · 25-10-2017 11:28am

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Paying me? That would be great. Maybe you could pay me and I'll write anything you want.

Can I pay you to defect from the darkside?

Master of the Omniverse · 25-10-2017 11:39am

Oh dear ,ive received a warning for trolling,whatever the **** that means.A convenient term for tepid discussion.Oh well,it was fun my dear cyber friends,ive enjoyed your company on these pages,the moderator can shag off for spoiling our fun,no doubt I shook up your mundane scientific blah,im gonna miss you all,especially that tenacious Akracia,or whatever your condition is,you have been the most fun,dont stay up too late my darlings,and remember,look up to the sky,were being sprayed like cockroaches.Byyyyyeee mwah mwah mwah,,love you all

dr.fuzzenstein · 25-10-2017 12:45pm

Gone quiet here...

Master of the Omniverse · 25-10-2017 1:07pm

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Gone quiet here...

Miss me?

Doctor Jimbob · 25-10-2017 1:08pm

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Gone quiet here...

Reptilian mods must have silenced the dissenting voices :eek:

Master of the Omniverse · 25-10-2017 1:13pm

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Reptilian mods must have silenced the dissenting voices :eek:

Those slithering mods,theyre everywhere,wheres my snakebuster?

Master of the Omniverse · 25-10-2017 1:14pm

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

Those slithering mods,theyre everywhere,wheres my snakebuster?

Probably gorging on some poor insignificant mammal.

xckjoo · 25-10-2017 1:26pm

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

Probably gorging on some poor insignificant mammal.

What's with all the replies to your own posts?

Master of the Omniverse · 25-10-2017 1:39pm

xckjoo wrote: »

What's with all the replies to your own posts?

Im bored,and nobody else is...

Master of the Omniverse · 25-10-2017 1:40pm

xckjoo wrote: »

What's with all the replies to your own posts?

Apart from your good self

Tayschren · 25-10-2017 1:41pm

And me, im here

Master of the Omniverse · 25-10-2017 1:44pm

Tayschren wrote: »

And me, im here

Hello me,pleased to meet you

Akrasia · 25-10-2017 2:35pm

dense wrote: »

His verbatim response from here
http://edberry.com/blog/ed-berry/why-our-co2-emissions-do-not-increase-atmosphere-co2/#comment-43223

Ed Berry wrote:

Dear Arkasia,
I will answer your comment from the perspective of my later post:
http://edberry.com/blog/ed-berry/hum...hange-climate/

You are making a few errors in your argument. First, you are treating human CO2 differently than natural CO2. And by “natural” I mean all CO2 that did not come from humans.

Not really, Human CO2 is just an additional input of CO2 into a system that only has a limited capacity to sequester CO2.

Most of the CO2 in the carbon cycle is recycled, that's why it's called the carbon cycle a small amount of new CO2 is emitted naturally each year through Volcanic activity. Before humans, the additional CO2 from Volcanic activity was about balanced by the long term sequestration of CO2 in sediments on land and under the sea and through chemical and biological processes.

Now humans are increasing the amount of CO2 in the air beyond the capacity of the planet to sequester it, so concentrations in the air and oceans are going up.

Second, you are neglecting the effect of vapor pressure on the exchange rate. The higher the vapor pressure, which I call the level, the faster the exchange rate.

Vapour pressure refers to evaporation and condensation of a particular gas/liquid, CO2 doesn't evaporate from the oceans. It diffuses between the atmosphere and the oceans (and transfers through mechanical agitation via wind and waves). The rate of diffusion depends on the Partial Pressure and the transfer coefficient. This basically means that the atmosphere equalises the ratio of CO2 in the air with the CO2 in the surface water of the oceans

When humans increase the CO2 in the air, about 30% of it goes into increasing the CO2 concentrations in the ocean, which changes the partial pressure between the atmosphere and the sea, and cause increased diffusion of co2 from the ocean into the atmosphere.

Third, your claim that human CO2 has a residence time in the atmosphere of hundreds of years has no physical foundation, as I prove in my later post.

Unless the rate of deep ocean sequestration increases by the same amount as the additional CO2 entering the oceans from the atmosphere, then the additional co2 emitted by Humans will cause additional CO2 to be emitted by the Oceans.
So while an individual CO2 molecule resides in the atmosphere for 4 years on average before it's taken up by the ocean or chemical or biological processes, the fact most of the CO2 is recycled, and only a small percentage of the CO2 gets sequestered each year means that the effective residence time is the speed at which the biosphere can sequester additional CO2 rather than how long it takes for individual CO2 molecules to get absorbed.

If you wish to continue this discussion, please reply in my later post where we can discuss this in more detail after you have read my later post.

Thanks, Ed

I read the new paper and the error is that Ed assumes that nature is capable of sequestering any amount of additional Co2 at the rate we add it in. In reality, Biological processes had been able to take up about 40% through additional growth, (but this is slowing down now) and ocean sequestration of carbon dioxide has not increased as this relies on downwelling currents which are relatively stable but take a long time (hence why this is part of the slow carbon cycle)

Ed's choice of 4 years as a residence time for CO2 in the atmosphere is in contrast with the expert opinion of most other atmospheric scientists who recognise that carbon cycles through the system, and it is only when it is sequestered long term, that we can consider that it is no longer resident.

Of course it's much more complicated than my explanation, and much much more complicated than the 'berry model', but long story short, An additional 4% of CO2 every year is much more than natural processes can deal with, so CO2 concentrations have been accumulating in the oceans and the atmosphere, and there is no plausible source other than Humans emissions

Master of the Omniverse · 25-10-2017 2:37pm

Akrasia wrote: »

Not really, Human CO2 is just an additional input of CO2 into a system that only has a limited capacity to sequester CO2.

Most of the CO2 in the carbon cycle is recycled, that's why it's called the carbon cycle a small amount of new CO2 is emitted naturally each year through Volcanic activity. Before humans, the additional CO2 from Volcanic activity was about balanced by the long term sequestration of CO2 in sediments on land and under the sea and through chemical and biological processes.

Now humans are increasing the amount of CO2 in the air beyond the capacity of the planet to sequester it, so concentrations in the air and oceans are going up.

Vapour pressure refers to evaporation and condensation of a particular gas/liquid, CO2 doesn't evaporate from the oceans. It diffuses between the atmosphere and the oceans (and transfers through mechanical agitation via wind and waves). The rate of diffusion depends on the Partial Pressure and the transfer coefficient. This basically means that the atmosphere equalises the ratio of CO2 in the air with the CO2 in the surface water of the oceans

When humans increase the CO2 in the air, about 30% of it goes into increasing the CO2 concentrations in the ocean, which changes the partial pressure between the atmosphere and the sea, and cause increased diffusion of co2 from the ocean into the atmosphere.

Unless the rate of deep ocean sequestration increases by the same amount as the additional CO2 entering the oceans from the atmosphere, then the additional co2 emitted by Humans will cause additional CO2 to be emitted by the Oceans.
So while an individual CO2 molecule resides in the atmosphere for 4 years on average before it's taken up by the ocean or chemical or biological processes, the fact most of the CO2 is recycled, and only a small percentage of the CO2 gets sequestered each year means that the effective residence time is the speed at which the biosphere can sequester additional CO2 rather than how long it takes for individual CO2 molecules to get absorbed.

I read the new paper and the error is that Ed assumes that nature is capable of sequestering any amount of additional Co2 at the rate we add it in. In reality, Biological processes had been able to take up about 40% through additional growth, (but this is slowing down now) and ocean sequestration of carbon dioxide has not increased as this relies on downwelling currents which are relatively stable but take a long time (hence why this is part of the slow carbon cycle)

Ed's choice of 4 years as a residence time for CO2 in the atmosphere is in contrast with the expert opinion of most other atmospheric scientists who recognise that carbon cycles through the system, and it is only when it is sequestered long term, that we can consider that it is no longer resident.

Of course it's much more complicated than my explanation, and much much more complicated than the 'berry model', but long story short, An additional 4% of CO2 every year is much more than natural processes can deal with, so CO2 concentrations have been accumulating in the oceans and the atmosphere, and there is no plausible source other than Humans emissions

Yaaaaawnnn............

Are human activities influencing the climate?

Comments