Gaia Produces 97% Of CO2

In a disturbing development, scientists have discovered that Gaia produces 97% of CO2, and almost 100% of the most potent greenhouse gas (H2O)

ScreenHunter_188 May. 05 08.58

Global Carbon Cycle – The Woods Hole Research Center

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to Gaia Produces 97% Of CO2

  1. squid2112 says:

    Pfffttt … doesn’t matter, there is no such thing as a “greenhouse gas” in the first place.

    • _Jim says:

      Ever work with IR Spectroscopy or no?

      • squid2112 says:

        A cooler object cannot make a warmer object warmer still. You cannot get energy out of nothing. Not to mention the FACT that IR emitted from CO2 is in bandwidth that is below temperatures found on the earth for all but the extreme portions of Antarctica. So, exactly how can IR at temperature less than -80C cause the ground to heat? …

        • Morgan says:

          How can a winter coat keep you warm in the winter when you are 98.6 degrees and the coat colder than you?

        • _Jim says:

          re: squid2112 says May 6, 2014 at 12:48 pm
          A cooler object cannot make a warmer object warmer still …

          I don’t know what your point is; perhaps you are starting off assuming just waaaay to much.


      • squid2112 says:

        In response to your “IR Spectroscopy”, let me repost a comment from a fellow that happens to know just a little bit about the topic at hand.

        I’m a professional infrared astronomer who spent his life trying to observe space through the atmosphere’s back-radiation that the environmental activists claim is caused by CO2 and guess what? In all the bands that are responsible for back radiation in the brightness temperatures (color temperatures) related to earth’s surface temperature (between 9 microns and 13 microns for temps of 220K to 320 K) there is no absorption of radiation by CO2 at all. In all the bands between 9 and 9.5 there is mild absorption by H2O, from 9.5 to 10 microns (300 K) the atmosphere is perfectly clear except around 9.6 is a big ozone band that the warmists never mention for some reason. From 10 to 13 microns there is more absorption by H2O. Starting at 13 we get CO2 absorption but that wavelength corresponds to temperatures below even that of the south pole. Nowhere from 9 to 13 microns do we see appreciable absorption bands of CO2. This means the greenhouse effect is way over 95% caused by water vapor and probably less than 3% from CO2. I would say even ozone is more important due to the 9.6 band, but it’s so high in the atmosphere that it probably serves more to radiate heat into space than for back-radiation to the surface. The whole theory of a CO2 greenhouse effect is wrong yet the ignorant masses in academia have gone to great lengths trying to prove it with one lie and false study after another, mainly because the people pushing the global warming hoax are funded by the government who needs to report what it does to the IPCC to further their “cause”. I’m retired so I don’t need to keep my mouth shut anymore. Kept my mouth shut for 40 years, now I will tell you, not one single IR astronomer gives a rats arse about CO2. Just to let you know how stupid the global warming activists are, I’ve been to the south pole 3 times and even there, where the water vapor is under 0.2 mm precipitable, it’s still the H2O that is the main concern in our field and nobody even talks about CO2 because CO2 doesn’t absorb or radiate in the portion of the spectrum corresponding with earth’s surface temps of 220 to 320 K. Not at all. Therefore, for Earth as a black body radiator IT’S THE WATER VAPOR STUPID and not the CO2.

        But I will include this FACT in contradiction to the quote above… Not even H2O is a “greenhouse gas” … There is no such thing as a “greenhouse gas”, and aside from plant houses made of glass, there is no such thing as a “green house effect” (GHE). The only greenhouse effect, is precisely what Gator states below “Greenhouses have roofs, physical barriers that indeed trap heat…” … Because they restrict convection, not because of any IR “back radiation” … period

        • Morgan says:

          Earth’s gas is not trapped by glass, it’s trapped by gravity.

          By the way, Mike Sanicola was a pseud I was thinking of using so I could stop using my real name, but now I’m just using my real name. I’m an optometrist and astronomical opticist.

        • _Jim says:

          re: squid2112 says May 6, 2014 at 12:54 pm
          In response to your “IR Spectroscopy”, let me repost a comment from a fellow that happens to know just a little bit about the topic

          And I don’t ?

          Again, you appear to be assuming waaaay beyond acceptable bounds.

          You are appearing now to be in the ‘crank’ category.

    • gator69 says:

      Yep! Greenhouses have roofs, physical barriers that indeed trap heat, and can have runaway heating without manual controls.

      Gases have no such property.

  2. tannngl says:

    We must make her pay!

    • Andy Oz says:

      Since the fanatic environmental movement and “climate experts” are Gaia’s representatives on earth, we should send them the bill.

  3. BobW in NC says:

    Bingo! Been looking for those data for a long time.

    So—speaking of IR spectroscopy—1) how do CO2 and Water Vapor compare in specific wavelengths at which energy is absorbed and 2) how does the total of energy absorbed compare between the two molecules? I have heard that water vapor absorbs at more wavelengths and more strongly in total than CO2.

  4. Jimbo says:

    Antarctica dissapoints.

    “Spiegel On Antaractic Sea Ice: “Never Before Has There Been So Much Ice At This Time Of Year Since Measurements Began”!”

    “Antarctic Sea Ice Blows Away Records In April”

  5. BobW in NC says:

    And, our president now appears to be ready to focus on climate change for his legacy. According to a Washington Post article (via Hot Air ), “After years of putting other policy priorities first — and dismaying many liberal allies in the process — Obama is now getting into the weeds on climate change and considers it one of the key components of his legacy, according to aides and advisers.”

    Hot Air also notes that, “As usual, he intends to proceed by using executive power, whether or not the people or their representatives agree and without any consideration of the cost to the consumer.”

    Obama must love Gaia! Ain’t we got fun?

  6. sott allen says:

    Going to the Woods Hole site a chart is displayed which shows the CO2 levels in the atmosphere. The chart show (and is explained by the “research” that it is a seasonal oscillation. Just wondering, knowing the location of the monitor (Mauna Loa, Hawaii) why would there be an oscillation i.e.. if we in the northern hemisphere are using more carbon based fuels to heat our house/work in the winter, wouldn’t it seemed that the souther hemisphere uses less and in the second half of the year the reverse is true, Thus there should be no oscillation based on time of the year and it should be a fairly straight line.

    • Send Al to the Pole says:

      We’re only a minor contributor. The southern hemisphere has more ocean which is the largest contributor.

    • tom0mason says:

      Look closer and you will see that it is seasonal and always has been – look at the historical records.
      As the north has more land mass with more plants on it (compared to the SH), they ‘breath’ CO2 in over the spring and summer, and exhale more during the winter. This is in addition to the seas and ocean life that also blooms during the summer months taking up considerable CO2.

      • tom0mason says:

        One of the implications of the contents of this paper is that anthropogenic activities are not the dominant force behind the post-1800 global warming trend. Atmospheric CO2 is the primary greenhouse gas that is believed to have contributed to global warming since the beginning of the industrial revolution [1]. The use of fossil fuels (e.g. oil, coal, natural gas, etc.) is the dominant source of anthropogenic CO2. In line with the implications of this paper, Ryabchikov [23] shows that the main source of supply of CO2 to the atmosphere is not anthropogenic activities, but tropical regions of the ocean. These regions supply 2×10↑10 tons of air-borne CO2 annually to the temperate and circumpolar latitudes of the northern hemisphere.

        From the Conclusion of the paper ‘Formulations of human-induced variations in global temperature’ by Ernest C. Njau,

  7. emsnews says:

    Tax, cap and trade the southern hemispheric oceans! And any algae, too. Those little monsters have ruined the planet for half a billion years and more!

  8. Tel says:

    That diagram is not complete. For example, making lime by baking limestone in an oven produces CO2 which is required for all cement and concrete (i.e. useful things), but similar processes also happen naturally so there’s an inorganic carbon cycle that has been ignored above. I believe that CO2 is also absorbed by some inorganic reactions.

    What’s more, every shell on the beach contains carbon, and the shells come from somewhere right? Coral reefs are continuing to grow, and they contain carbon too.

  9. Mike D says:

    Are cow farts part of the red coming out of plants?

  10. J Calvert N(UK) says:

    two comments about the Woods Hole block diagram:
    It plays down the contribution of deforestation by using the old “greater than” + “asterisk” trick. Note that the contribution of deforestation is about a third as much as fossil fuel emissions (2 x 10^9 tonne compared to 6.5 x 10^9)

    It completely omits to mention the carbon locked up in carbonate rocks such as limestone, chalk, coral/coral sand. I have not seen any estimates in units of tonnes but it would far exceed the “10,000 x 10^9 tonnes” they attribute to “Coal Oil & Gas”

  11. tom0mason says:

    Remember that, as the UN-IPCC agree the majority of CO2 in the atmosphere is from natural sources. With CO2 amounting to about 4 hundredths of 1% in the atmosphere, the human part of that is less that 1 hundredth of 1%, probably much less. Think of the whole atmosphere as $100, well CO2 is just 4¢, and the human derived part of that is less than 1¢. That OK because big government wants you to pay 20¢ in the dollar for a 4¢ problem they can’t fix.
    But still the UN-IPCC propagandizes their own unproven theory that CO2, especially human derived CO2 causes “CAGW-Climate change”. Remember this is only a THEORY. There is NO definitive evidence that CO2 will, has, or may at future date cause any effects on our climate.

    Or is it that we have we reached Peak Stupid? They are selling the invisible, natural, harm-reducing gas called CO2 as a visible smog “pollution”. This is deeply stupid. And yes CO2 is harm-reducing because it sustains all the carbon-based life on this planet, and at only 400 parts per million parts in the air we breath, it is currently at levels that only just sustains that life. Surely only the stupid could believe atmospheric CO2 is harmful?

    Control the CO2 emissions and they (Big Government) control the mean and methods of production, distribution, and price of virtually all modern day commodities and conveniences. As energy prices ‘necessarily skyrocket’ so will prices; your home, your heating and cooling, clothing, food, the cost of owning and running your vehicle, your medical bills, to your vacation – they control it all and you must pay!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s