you can't use atmospheric measurements of CO2 to say that mankind is emmiting so much CO2. There are other natural sources of CO2 (especially when the planet warms up) that attribute to most of it.
Wrong (however many times you repeat it). The recent rapid increase is due to anthropogenic CO2.
See the reason it cannot be due to other sources
and yet, whenever I look at a source that isn't the IPCC ( realclimate is an IPCC spin machine), the scientists disagree.
http://www.co2web.info/esef5.htm
"The isotopic mass balance calculations show that at least 96% of the current atmospheric CO2 is isotopically indistinguishable from non-fossil-fuel sources, i.e. natural marine and juvenile sources from the Earth's interior. Hence, for the atmospheric CO2 budget, marine equilibration and degassing, and juvenile degassing from e.g. volcanic sources, must be much more important, and burning of fossil-fuel and biogenic materials much less important, than assumed by the authors of the IPCC model" (Houghton et al., 1990).
Highly interesting, but this appears to be a deliberate attempt to mislead the uninformed by insinuating a false conclusion from good science. If it is the Houghton I know, he has no doubts about anthropogenic climate change. Think carefully about the simple facts about the global carbon system:
An analogy might be if you had a bath full of water and poured in some more water (with a different isotopic balance), then noticed an increase in the water on the floor of your bathroom. Measuring the isotopic content of the water on the floor, you could claim it was not the water that was added, so the cause of the spillage was not the water than was added to the bath. I would claim that it is reasonable to believe that the water that was added to the system as a whole caused the displacement of water onto the floor, as it shifted the point of equilibrium. The floor is a component of the system which is far from saturated, so it takes the bulk of the additional water.
elroch, we could all bombard justjoshin with sites. But why? He would just make his point: "there is disagreement --- and so my viewpoint is just as credible as the other." That's why I from the start decided never to argue with justjoshin. There is no point to it.
There's another point, though. We all hate cars. We all do. With no exception. We all know this --- whether we actually use one or not. We all hate cars.
There's a third point too. Can a so-called civilization ever be more maquabre? As ours? I fucking doubt it. That's why all Abrahamic religions are ferked up, and why Buddha is the better opening up for a nev fresh choice. (Here justsohin will have to breach in and say: " Hey, listen, look, scientific mind today prooves itself immediately as a fortuitous confluence of affirming emipirically and theoretically.") I'd say: see that science is to be freed from its illusion. Less clerically I'd just remind ourselves of not forgetting to read those most important philosophical works there are.
A fourth point is that we are all (almost) red.
A fifth point could be to resist attributing this century to Adolph Hitler.
@Liam - my point was that we are contributing a small amount (single figure percantages to the current increase in CO2 that is occurring in the atmosphere. I argued that "you can't say that because the CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by X amount since industrialisation that the human contribution is X". As stated previously we can attribute most of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere to the warming, and when I point out a paper to support my argument, you simply shrug it off because the author believes in man made global warming. The point raised on that website is the figures for our contribution to the increase in atmospheric CO2 in the last couple of centuries is highly dependant on the rate of carbon exchange between the atmosphere and various carbon sinks. There are several scientific papers that suggest the rates used by the IPCC are out by several orders of magnitude (Keeling et al. (1989), Segalstad (1992, 1993), Sundquist (1985), Stumm & Morgan(1970) ).
@Ruben - I only hate my car when it isn't working :-P, jk's - I love my car. Even when the transmission is stuffed, like it is right now :-(
@Ruben again- whilst this has the fervour of a religious debate, the debate is supposed to be a scientific one ... although disbelief in AGW will get a scientist labelled as a heretic.
That is a very common trait these days: directing it into being some kind of concealed debate about religion. (Is it that bad?)
Why are you, you God guys, always reverting to faith rather than to knowledge? Why focus on speculations?
Your only argument for not acting upon some acknowledging of anthropogenic destructive (CO2) effects, is that it is gonna cost a few budgets, and that it is impossible to pay. Assume you "froogle" guys were wrong --- quite likely --- then who would care about all kinds of warnings about your relative budgets? There will always be people like this: upon some "X" said, "-X said!"
Never "-X love your car."
justjoshin, to believe that the 29 Gtonnes of CO2 we put into the atmosphere does not have a large influence on the net 10 Gtonne increase in CO2 in the atmosphere each year suggests a loss of touch with reality. Do you really think it would be increasing in a similar way if we suddenly stopped producing CO2? Bear in mind that the relevant physics does not distinguish between anthropogenic CO2 molecules and ones from other sources.
My point about Houghton was that his statement did not give him (or us) any reason to doubt that anthropogenic CO2 is a significant factor in climate change. It suggests instead that there are greater exchanges between the different components of the carbon system than some people had believed. This is now very old hat, of course.
[Empirical data:
Mass of atmosphere 5.132 x 10^15 tonnes
Fraction of CO2 currently 390 ppm
Average recent increase in CO2 per year 1.973 ppm (~=0.5%)
=> Mass increase in CO2 per year is 10.1 Gtonnes per year]
P.S. I have no objection to cars, but look forward to them becoming sustainable.
I prefer horses for speed.
justjoshin, to believe that the 29 Gtonnes of CO2 we put into the atmosphere does not have a large influence on the net 10 Gtonne increase in CO2 in the atmosphere each year suggests a loss of touch with reality. Do you really think it would be increasing in a similar way if we suddenly stopped producing CO2? Bear in mind that the relevant physics does not distinguish between anthropogenic CO2 molecules and ones from other sources.
The isotopic calculations you pointed me at gives a (somewhat imprecise, but passable) method of calculating how much CO2 we are contributing to the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. And the calculations suggest that it is only a ~4% contribution. The difference in isotopic distributions allows us to differentiate between the contributions from different sources (as older and younger sources have different isotopic levels. So in answer to your question, the current rise in CO2 would be approximately 96% of it's current level of increase without mankinds release of CO2.
My point about Houghton was that his statement did not give him (or us) any reason to doubt that anthropogenic CO2 is a significant factor in climate change. It suggests instead that there are greater exchanges between the different components of the carbon system than some people had believed. This is now very old hat, of course.
Even if Houghton drew different conclusions from the same measurements, it doesn't mean his are more correct, especially since they are based on very different rates of atmospheric CO2 exchange than those calculated by other chemists/phycisists.
Mass of atmosphere 5.132 x 10^15 tonnes
Fraction of CO2 currently 390 ppm
Average recent increase in CO2 per year 1.973 ppm (~=0.5%)
=> Mass increase in CO2 per year is 10.1 Gtonnes per year]
P.S. I have no objection to cars, but look forward to them becoming sustainable.
again, you are attributing all of it to anthropogenic causes. it has been shown that a warming of the planet causes the release of CO2 (with a delay of a couple of hundred years), so it is only natural that with the warming of the earth since the little ice age, the atmospheric levels CO2 are increasing.
ps. if you want to buy a car that does less harm to the environment, buy a reliable second hand car, more resources are used in making a new "green" car than will be used in the lifetime of a reasonably maintained second hand car.
justjoshin, your argument fails (and your statement about a "4% contribution" is absolutely unfounded). To understand this, please read the analogy I gave about pouring water into a bath in post #64 (where your argument would come to the same wrong conclusion). The point you are missing is that since much of the anthropogenic CO2 ends up in other parts of the carbon system, this means that it to some extent prevents other CO2 from doing so, causing an increase in the total CO2 in the atmosphere.
Your claim that the CO2 in the atmosphere would be increasing in a similar way without anthropogenic CO2 is bizarre, because we know that there is a net loss of CO2 from the atmosphere of about 19 Gtonnes per year (corrected by much smaller amounts due to non-cyclic non-anthropogenic sources such as volcanoes). Are you really claiming that without the 29 Gtonnes being put into the atmosphere, this would be miraculously replaced by a reversal of this process? For what reason?
An interesting question is why the amount of CO2 leaving the atmosphere is so high at present (about 2/3 of that which we are putting in). Some part of it must be embedded carbon in sewage, wood, paper, cotton, and whatever, that is taken out of the system on at least a temporary basis, but a rough estimate suggests this is quite a small part of it. So the rest must be carbon dioxide uptake by the oceans and natural vegetation. Oceans are estimated to absorb about 1/3 of human emissions at present (c. 10Gtonnes), but there is another 10 Gtonnes that doesn't (indirectly) contribute to the increase in the atmosphere that needs to be explained.
the bathtub analogy is a poor one and quite misleading. CO2 is readily absorbed and released by water, so as a more accurate analogy, the bathtub would be sealed inside a condenser, so that there would be water evaporating off, some water being added by us, but a lot more water being added by condensation from the air as it condenses and runs in. so the water (our representative of CO2) is not being added entirely by us. what is critical in this system are the rates of exchange.
you are saying that because we have measured the composition of the atmosphere and found that the amount of CO2 has increased by 29 Gt, that we have added 29 Gt to the atmosphere. This is absurd. It has been shown historically that a warming of the Earth causes an increase of CO2, so the warming that has occurred since the LIA must account for at least some of the increase in CO2. The reasons for this are simple chemical properties of CO2 solubilty. I have repeatedly stated that CO2 is less soluble in water as temperature increase (pick up any analytical chem book, but you might not find too many links to them from realclimate). So warming the planet must increase the level of atmospheric CO2. We know from historic accounts that most of the Earth was cooler in the 1700's. We know from ice core samples that CO2 historically has lagged temperatures by hundreds of years (suggesting it takes a long time for a body of water covering 75+% of the planet takes a long time to warm or cool). So much of the increase in CO2 that we see currently can be attributed to the warming that occurred since the 1700's. Calculations using more widely accepted rates of CO2 exchange than those used in IPCC reports suggest the 4% figure.
Thick as pictured. You try lead people (and possibly even yourself) into believing that the dramatic increase in CO2 is due to warming occurring since the 1700s. And that anthropogenic CO2 is insignificant relative this. You think people are dumb? Yeah, I know there is a whole spectrum of "sciences" based upon an assumption that people are indeed thick as pictured. Anyways, what are those "historical accounts" that proves planet to be cooler earlier in the 1700? And this is your argument's sine qua non?
Thing is that the point about solubility should make us really, really discomforted.
(Just for the record. My dislike against cars and car-owners is not only based upon CO2-emissions and all other sorts of pollutions necessary to build and transport cars; in fact, everything about cars I strongly dislike: it is a fact that cars are a pain in the arse: they are noisy, they pollute, they kill people, they change people when inside the car, they smell ugly, they destroy our economy, they completely dominate our social spaces, and they bear witness to an unfathomable bad taste.)
justjoshin, your last post indicates that you misunderstand the meaning of the most important data relating to the topic of discussion, as well as my previous posts. Perhaps when you understand the basic empirical data, you will be in a better position to argue about what is happening.
As stated earlier, the 29 Gtonnes is the calculated current annual global anthropogenic CO2 emissions (there is inevitably a fair amount of uncertainty in this number, but it is roughly correct). 10 Gtonnes is the (more precisely known) average annual increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. Of course, both of these numbers are additive year on year. CO2 in the atmosphere has been directly observed rising for over half a century, and obviously anthropogenic CO2 emissions all add to the total carbon in the carbon system, year by year.
I will make my bath tub analogy more abstract, to show it is perfectly appropriate. Suppose you have a system with just two components A and B containing a material (think A="atmosphere" and B="the rest of the carbon system" and material="carbon"), and exchanges occurring between these two components. Suppose you add some isotopically labelled material to A, and later measure the total amount of material and the amount of isotopically labelled material in A. You find that the total amount of material in A has increased by an amount which is 1/3 of the amount of material you added, but that there is only a smaller fraction of the isotopically labelled material still in component A. You infer incorrectly that the isotopically labelled material added to A did not cause the increase in the total amount of material in A. I infer that without the slightest doubt, most of the isotopically labelled material has ended up in the (bigger) component B, and that it is reasonable to believe that it displaced some unlabelled material from B in doing so (because that is what one would expect in a general equilibrium system).
Rubenshein is right to be concerned about the negative slope of the solubility of CO2 against temperature. There is the possibility for a positive feedback loop between temperature and CO2 in the oceans which will accelerate the rise in atmospheric CO2 and global warming. If I recall correctly, there has been recent research suggesting a decreasing capability for the southern oceans to dissolve CO2.
@Liam : Ok, sorry, this argument was not so clear before.
Yes, we are adding CO2 to the atmosphere. But you refer to an equilibrium system? CO2 levels have never stayed level (they are alway rising or falling). Because they are rising now (as the earth is warming) , you cannot attribute all of the rise to our emissions (I grant that we have contributed to the rise, but again I iterate that most of the increase is probably natural (as calculated at 96% natural), and even if not, there is no proof that it will cause harm. The radiative forcing capacity of CO2 was most exhausted by the time the level of CO2 hit 100ppm, (see the graph demostrating the logarithmic effect of increasing CO2 on trapping IR radiation).
So if you want to use the bathtub analogy, to add to the bathtub full of water, as well as the trickle of CO2 coming from man, you could add a swiftly running hose of natural causes (corresponding to the natural release of CO2 from the ocean), then I might see it as a useful anaolgy. an analogy which only accounts for 1 minor factor is misleading at best.
Thick as pictured. You try lead people (and possibly even yourself) into believing that the dramatic increase in CO2 is due to warming occurring since the 1700s. And that anthropogenic CO2 is insignificant relative this. You think people are dumb? Yeah, I know there is a whole spectrum of "sciences" based upon an assumption that people are indeed thick as pictured. Anyways, what are those "historical accounts" that proves planet to be cooler earlier in the 1700? And this is your argument's sine qua non?
Thing is that the point about solubility should make us really, really discomforted.
Can we leave the ad hominem arguments for the gutters of politics and mainstream media reporting where they belong. This single point is not the sine qua non of my argument. If you read the thread from the beginning you will see that I have raised many criticisms of the argument for AGW (this last one is just the last bone that Liam and I are contesting.
I am not discomforted at all by the chemical properties of this wonderful life giving gas.
(Just for the record. My dislike against cars and car-owners is not only based upon CO2-emissions and all other sorts of pollutions necessary to build and transport cars; in fact, everything about cars I strongly dislike: it is a fact that cars are a pain in the arse: they are noisy, they pollute, they kill people, they change people when inside the car, they smell ugly, they destroy our economy, they completely dominate our social spaces, and they bear witness to an unfathomable bad taste.)
think about how much cars do for people.as an individual, someone could get by without a car. as a society, we wouldn't function without cars and trucks.
That point is the sine qua non of your argument. That's what I read in any of your comments here.
I think your last comment was extremely funny. I laughed so well. "Cars and trucks"?
"Someone could get by without a car, as a society."
a "sine qua non" is a condition central to the validity of an entire argument. the issue here (concerning isotopic carbon levels in the atmosphere and the calculation of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions), will in no way invalidate my other points if it is proven incorrect.
my point about cars and trucks being critical in modern society stands. most cities in the world have woefully inadequate public transport systems, so cars are essential unless you can work from home or are lucky enough to live on a public transport route. horses are impractical in cities due to hygiene issues, and poor availability of grazing. trucks are even more critical to modern life. they are part of the supply chain, and distribution network of virtually every item that we use.
Proposition 1) that warming started somewhere in the 18. century, and proposition 2) that this explains away the whole thematics of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions, is the very sine qua of your argument. You cannot deny that.
However, even if proposition 1) does hold, it is in no way relevant when discussing relatively contemporary (say, during the last 100 years) anthropogenic emissions. You see, we could actually both have 1) and anthropogenic emissions. Your proposition 2) is a pure fallacy; but surely it serves to blatantly (and so drably) deny an almost ubiquitous agreement among climate scientists as to the undeniable facts about the severity of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. This means: since proposition 2) is a logical fallacy, and really way out of the case here, and thus accordingly that your argument fails by its own (bad) premises, you will need some ad hoc stuff. Like claiming that the planetary majority of here relevant scientists somewhat and somehow form a kind of a global conspiracy. And most certainly: such claims have indeed surfaced in your writings here. And as we all know, that has been the one basic strategy of the cons: "We are seeing a science hijacked by radical left-wing people whose only aganda is to destroy our world! It is politics!!!"
I know science should be measured for its scientificity. But it is always also useful --- since science is never a simple and pure affair of noble human quest for pure knowledge --- to ask what particular interests this or that assertion serves. In justjoshin's case those particular interests are very easily discerned.
i agree with point 1, that the warming has been happening since the Little Ice Age, which occurred in the 17th century. This was an established fact until Mann et al released the Hockey Stick graph (the same as seen on the Al Gore sci/fi horror story "An Inconvenient Truth"). It has been shown that due to cherry-picking proxies, and some dubious statistical methods, the MWP and LIA had been flattened out in that graph.
I disagree with point 2. I never said that there was no anthropogenic component to it, only that the component would appear to be negligible, and that any warming that did happen to the planet would be likely to be more beneficial than detrimental. I have highlighted the concerns raised with the state of climate science in general, and how some of the fundamental tenets underpinning the basis of AGW theory disagree with well understood physical and chemical processes.
and the IPCC is not a planetary majority of scientists. Of the 2500 people in the IPCC about 200 are actual scientists, these are divided into 4 task groups. One of these task groups is associated with looking at the processes associated with AGW theory. The others are researching the impacts, the ways to mitigate them, and the most effective preventative measures. So maybe 50 scientsts in that establishment who are responsible for looking at the processes involved. Most of the IPCC are admin, PR and media. Other climate science establishments have demonstrated themselves to be corrupt (through the release of the email exchanges from the CRU at East Anglia - an interesting read).
My argument is that the science is in no way settled, there is too much controversy, too many scientists coming forward and risking their reputation to simply raise doubts about the underlying science. To introduce massive (and incredibly expensive) measures to combat a problem that
a) we do not understand
b) may not be causing
c) may not be able to stop
d) may be more beneficial than detrimental
seems absolutely ludicrous.
are you actually a postgrad philosophy student?
it makes sense.
you can't use atmospheric measurements of CO2 to say that mankind is emmiting so much CO2. There are other natural sources of CO2 (especially when the planet warms up) that attribute to most of it. To use the difference in atmospheric CO2 levels as the measure of how much CO2 we are emitting is wrong. Most of that is a product of the earth heating up (not the cause). As noted earlier, the warming of the Earth causes release of CO2 from the oceans (as the solubility decreases). Actual anthropogenic CO2 emissions are so tiny in comparison to natural sources they pale into insignificance (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html). Less than 3.5% of total emissions of C02 are manmade, and CO2 is an insignificant greenhouse gas compared to water vapour (which accounts for well over 90% of the observed greenhouse effect. So human contribution to the greenhouse effect via CO2 is around 0.12 %. You can feel the effect of water vapour as a greenhouse gas in the desert, as soon as the soon goes down, the heat disappears and the lack of humidity means that night time temperatures plummet. Even if the firestick farming never happened and the australian ecology remained as before it was scorched, the vostok ice core data is still showing the temperatures rising before CO2, and falling before CO2, which reinforces my point that historically temperature has never been driven by CO2, it has always driven CO2.