Oil Earthquakes confirmed

[dennishoddy]

i'll let the experts explain it. Maybe just stick with the abstract written in bold
http://132.239.121.69/publications/ralph/3_Seasonal.pdf

Not my field, I'm just a simple man that looked at instruments for many years that can detect 1 part per billion of lets say So2, Co2, Nox, etc, for a living.

You said this is your field. I'll need you to explain the scientific language in the link you provided and put it in simple terms for me/us.

 

[dieseltech09]

Isnt the Meers fault in Oklahoma?

Shhh..... don't tell anyone.

 

[dennishoddy]

I think he is saying you are taking C from under the ground where it is not in the atmosphere and reacting it with O2 which creates a net increase decrease in atmospheric oxygen (O2) and a net increase of carbon dioxide (CO2). The oxygen is now bound to carbon that wasn't in the atmosphere before it was dug up and burned.

We have been taking C from under the ground since the beginning of time in one way or another.

From the Scientific American:
Climate, volcanism, plate tectonics all played a key role in regulating the oxygen level during various time periods. Yet no one has come up with a rock-solid test to determine the precise oxygen content of the atmosphere at any given time from the geologic record. But one thing is clear-the origins of oxygen in Earth's atmosphere derive from one thing: life.

I am staying on track here. Note the bolded part

 

[Eagle Eye]

Not my field, I'm just a simple man that looked at instruments for many years that can detect 1 part per billion of lets say So2, Co2, Nox, etc, for a living.

You said this is your field. I'll need you to explain the scientific language in the link you provided and put it in simple terms for me/us.

I think the first paragraph does not contain too much scientific language. I don't have the time to do this now... This is a terrible thing to do on a forum, a phone call would be better. I'll Pm you my number. In the mean time, the first paragraph gets at the idea that measuring O2 is not a good indicator of the Carbon cycle.

 

[1krr]

We have been taking C from under the ground since the beginning of time in one way or another.

From the Scientific American:
Climate, volcanism, plate tectonics all played a key role in regulating the oxygen level during various time periods. Yet no one has come up with a rock-solid test to determine the precise oxygen content of the atmosphere at any given time from the geologic record. But one thing is clear-the origins of oxygen in Earth's atmosphere derive from one thing: life.

I am staying on track here. Note the bolded part

But "we" aren't climate, volcanism, or plates. What "we" are doing is something the earth has never seen until about a century ago. We've already kind of blown the track out of the water anyway so I don't understand what we are going for. Are you saying there is exactly the same amount of carbon in the atmosphere as there would be if we didn't extract and burn fossil fuels?

 

[doctorjj]

Im glad you brought this up. This happens to be my field. bear with me on this one
Q1. where does the Carbon dioxide we breath out come from?
A1: it came from the atmosphere, was fixed (taken up) by a plant and converted into a sugar using the energy of light and hydrogens found in water.
So, that carbons cycles back and forth and there is no NET increase in C.
Q2:Where does the carbon dioxide cars release come from?
A2: Fossil fuels that have been locked away underground. So by releasing it, there is a NET increase in CO2. see?

Yes, one would think that more co2 means more plant productivity (biomass), right? Not the case. Plants are most often not limited by Co2, instead they are limited by Nitrogen or Phosphorous or some other nutrient. So, more co2 in the air will only increase plant productivity to a degree, until plants are limited by another nutrient. Either way. we are increasing the NET Co2 concentration by taking the C that was locked away ouderground and burning it, thereby releasing it into the atmosphere.

I hope i was clear enough

Wrong!
http://www.researchgate.net/profile...vironments/links/00b49534c7b1a62b87000000.pdf

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140912/ncomms5967/full/ncomms5967.html

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1002/asl.275/asset/275_ftp.pdf?v=1&t=i8tlxx4o&c056fcd3

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11442-010-0323-6

 

[1krr]

Hold up guys, what are we debating? Atmospheric co2 in the upper atmosphere where it is suspected of contributing to climate change is not the same airmass that plants interact with near the surface. I don't know to what extent greenhouse effect works outside of the emissive radiation frequencies (coming in white and reflective radiation in the IR band) but that happens in two different places if it is in fact true.

EDIT: if I were to be suspect of the greenhouse effect as I understand it, it would be because it requires a few things to work. Radiation that can pass though the atmopshere to be absorbed where it is reradiated at frequency the atmosphere is opaque too. I've seen it described as energy being absorbed by greenhouse gas from the surface and re-radiated to the surface but there is no mechanics I know of where an atom will absorb then emit a photon in any particular direction that are at work in the atmosphere. This is where I ride the fence interested to learn more.

 

[Eagle Eye]

Wrong!

Try again
http://www.researchgate.net/profile...vironments/links/00b49534c7b1a62b87000000.pdf
From the abstract "The direct CO2 effect on vegetation should be most clearly expressed in warm, arid environments where water is the dominant limit to vegetation growth. Pretty limited in their conclusions aren't they?

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140912/ncomms5967/full/ncomms5967.html

From the Abstract ", suggest that mainly the rise in temperature and extended growing seasons contribute to increased growth acceleration, particularly on fertile sites. How was i wrong?

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1002/asl.275/asset/275_ftp.pdf?v=1&t=i8tlxx4o&c056fcd3
Link does not work

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11442-010-0323-6
There is no link with CO2 or any other limiting nutrients here, not sure why you posted this. Irrelevant

 

[doctorjj]

Hold up guys, what are we debating? Atmospheric co2 in the upper atmosphere where it is suspected of contributing to climate change is not the same airmass that plants interact with near the surface. I don't know to what extent greenhouse effect works outside of the emissive radiation frequencies (coming in white and reflective radiation in the IR band) but that happens in two different places if it is in fact true.

Google well mixed greenhouse gasses. It's a foundation of the AGW theory.

 

[dennishoddy]

Hold up guys, what are we debating? Atmospheric co2 in the upper atmosphere where it is suspected of contributing to climate change is not the same airmass that plants interact with near the surface. I don't know to what extent greenhouse effect works outside of the emissive radiation frequencies (coming in white and reflective radiation in the IR band) but that happens in two different places if it is in fact true.

Per your statement, its suspected. Not proven.

Climate change has been going on from the beginning of time. Events in nature have had 10 fold more effect on our atmosphere than the human race ever will.