Milton Banana wrote:
Just trying to provide some perspective. Man's carbon is not the only carbon going in this system.
But it is the majority of what is being added to the system.
There is plenty of carbon before we arrived on the scene. Yes, I was refering to the total carbon budget.
Which is a blatent attempt at misleading since the carbon cycle IS the system which is being discussed.
Man's contribution is not insignificant, but it is trival really.
No, it is no if one has at least a basic understanding of science. You see the carbon cycle represents a system which is in near equilibrium and the carbon transfers from one part of the system to the other. Not much carbon is added by nature and not much is removed, which is why it takes so long for the atmospheric concentration to be lowered by nature.
Anyone reading just google "total carbon budget" and educate yourself. Or let me provide a NASA study.
If you educated yourself you need a better teacher.
Here is a look at a NASA carbon study. Clearly showing nature provides much more carbon into our system. No question about it. Basically it breaks down as follows.
No, it is showing the system through which carbon flows in out biosphere. The items being mislables as emissions tell the tale of misrepresentation you confirmed in the use of "exchange" and "emit" for what is in the carbon cycle and what is added to it.
Surface Ocean contains about 1,000 Gigatons of CO2
Intermediate and deep ocean contains about 38,000 Gt of CO2
In contrast to the atmosphere containing about 750 GT of CO2
Vegetation, Soils, and Detritus contains about 2,200 GT of CO2
Each year, the surface ocean and atmosphere exchange an estimated 90 GT C;
vegetation and the atmosphere, 60 GT C; marine biota and the surface ocean,
50 GT C; and the surface ocean and the intermediate and deep oceans, 100 GT
Note that the system EXCHANGES carbon.
Mankind emits about 8.5 GT of CO2 per year.
While mankind ADDS to the system.
The atmosphere CO2 is cycled out in less than 8 years.
No, the individual molecules will be exchanged in about that timeframe, but the concentration in the atmosphere will be unaffected. This is where you are confused about the carbon cycle.
CO2 is NOT pollution.
Yes, it is.
770,000 mmt of CO2 is from NATURAL SOURCE
Moving within the system.
23,100 mmt of CO2 is from MAN MADE SOURCE
Being added to the system.
770,000 + 23,100 = 793,000 TOTAL
Faulty logic presented as math.
Absorption is 781,400 mmt
The other part of the cycle, which has a built in buffer to handle the small amount of carbon nature normally will add to the system. This would include weathering, volcanic action, tectonic action and the like.
So as I have clearly demonstrated nature produces 96 percent of the carbon in our system.
No the carbon is not produced, but only exchanged. There is a huge difference between the two. That difference is why the amount humans have added to the system has increased the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and changed the pH of the oceans.
It doesn't matter really CO2 just cannot do what the climate change advocated say it does. No way it is just not possible.
Given the espressed lack of basice science knowledge here, I would not take your word on it, sorry.
Here is another carbon study in case your on the fence.
Carbon budgets are to be avoided at all costs if you want to conceal the true nature of climate.
Only to those who either cannot or do not wish to understand the basic science being discussed. It is no a problem for those who understand science and do not have an agenda they are desparate to support.