Alaska glacier holds secrets to spread of carbon through atmosphere

Anchorage Daily News ^ | Feb. 21, 2012 | Unknown

[Paul Pierett]

Scientists working at Mendenhall Glacier near Juneau -- historically far from the biggest sources of human-caused air pollution -- believe they are finding clues to the spread of carbon soot through the atmosphere during the Industrial Revolution. Red Orbit reports on new research in which carbon dating lets scientists link soot deposited on glaciers by snow and rain to the burning of fossil fuels and forests far away.

[Paul Pierett]

What is significant about this article is that in one way it tells us how Carbons cycle in the glaciers, back to water front, back to the ocean and somewhere around the Equator, the Carbons are returned to the atmosphere and they again are lopped in with the Carbons we created that Mother Nature failed to use before they are dumped again on the glacier.

In the bigger picture, glaciers and Polar Region Ice Caps are the Ice Boxes of the Earth. Much like our Fridge, with an Ice box on the side or top, our glaciers and Ice Caps store unneeded Carbons for later use, such as Global Warming when the expansion of topography north and south of the Equator takes place.

As for the Global Warming Alarmists part of the article, have fun.

[AndyTheBear]

I also wonder if plants do not serve as a forcing factor on carbon in the atmosphere. Its well known (albeit blasphemous to the agw cult) that carbon makes much more plant life grow...and thus supports more life of all kinds on this planet (including endangered species). But somebody help me out here...when the plants and animals die, I am under the impression that although most of that carbon makes it back to the atmosphere, a minority is lost to the atmosphere and instead ends up trapped in the ground far enough down that it leaves the cycle.

So I wonder if more carbon in the atmosphere causes more carbon to be so lost?

[Major Matt Mason]

They are still trying to push their phony global warming/climate change BS. I guess if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.

[AndyTheBear]

I guess if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.

1 + 1 = 3
1 + 1 = 3
1 + 1 = 3
1 + 1 = 3
1 + 1 = 3
1 + 1 = 3
1 + 1 = 3
1 + 1 = 3
...

[Jayster]

One of the best sites/places/pages that I have seen to get tons and tons of info on the GW BS is from the Schnitt Show.

Here is the link:
http://www.schnittshow.com/pages/globalwarming.html

[musicman]

Let's Put This Baby To Bed!!
Less Than $1.7k To Go Green!!
Please Help End This Quarter's FReepathon


The last $6k above normal operating costs
for these next two quarterly FReepathons will be used to
purchase new computer servers to ready
FR for the very important 2012 upcoming election.

If you can, please help contribute to this goal
by Clicking Here!!

[steelyourfaith]

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[ml/nj]

As if "carbon" mattered.

(I think they mean CO₂, which doesn't matter either.)

ML/NJ

[Paul Pierett]

There is also Methane and Carbon Monoxide which I read in another report. I thought it best to keep it general. I am sure if they look hard enough, they will find some Coke a Cola residue.

[Paul Pierett]

AndyTheBear,

I kind of think that the more global warming, the more topography expands, the more plant life expands and of course animal life. The two cycles, carbon and nitrate work together as the topography moves north and south as the earth cools and warms.

[AndyTheBear]

Well, I am no expert here, and I gladly welcome better information, but as I understand it there is some carbon that is out of service of such cycles...or at the least that is part of much longer cycles. For example carbon that sinks so deeply in the ocean that it leaves the life cycle for some extended and difficult to predict amount of time or carbon that becomes buried deeply enough in the ground that plant roots don't capture it.

I got this idea from a handy graphic of "carbon cycles" someone presented to me once...but I can not vouch for the veracity of the graphic.

[AndyTheBear]

As if "carbon" mattered.

Well C02 certainly matters to plants. If the amount in the atmosphere gets too low plants will not grow. Conversly more CO2 will make them grow faster and larger (which is why people will sometimes pump extra CO2 into green houses). The ironic truth is when the "green" movement opposes having more CO2 in our atmosphere, they are opposing having a greener more abundantly alive planet.

I believe carbon in the atmosphere usually combines with the oxygen to take the form of C02...although it might briefly be CO before doing so in some cases. Albeit my knowledge of the chemistry is sketchy at best...I am pretty sure it makes sense to talk about a carbon cycle as opposed to a CO2 cycle.