Global Warming Is Undeniable

But you certainly seems to understand the problem --- even if you at the same time claims that the science is in "no way settled." Strong claim that!!

Not surprisingly you fall victim of a certain "kettle logic." You surround yourself with all kinds of notions --- sovereignly negligent as to their reciprocal contradictionary effects --- smoothly re-assuring your claim. Against such logic, though, it is impossible to argue. Smoke screening. A clouded thought. But convenient and efficient enough for the one holding that thought.

'Negligible' means something to the effect that it is so small or unimportant as to be not worth considering; insignificant, inconsequential, etc. So there is a human component? But which is negligible?? But why then "beneficial" too? And did you purport to say that any human carbon emission is such beneficial, or also that any occurring emission (human, or combined natural and human) is such beneficial? And: you also contends, again in conformity with the kettle logic, that whatever the case with global warming, it cannot be stopped anyway. A simple logical analysis of your statements would show them as unintelligible as contradictory.

You think the sum total of carbon industry is negligible? (So "negligible" even that it metamorphoses into something beneficial?) Negligible, for what/whom? For nature? For us? It never even struck you as a statement and a belief too good to be possibly true?

Why don't you try investigate into research not so compliant with your own hitherto ideas and interests? That is what an open mind is all about.

justjoshin, let's examine your claim that "96% of the increase in the CO2 in the atmosphere is due to non-anthropogenic sources". I believe that this is a misinterpretation of the fact that the isotopic analysis shows that most of the anthropogenic CO2 ends up in parts of the carbon system other than the atmosphere (not surprising, but irrelevant to whether anthropogenic CO2 is the main cause of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, as is the consensus belief of climate scientists).

The only reasonable definition of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere due to anthropogenic CO2 is the difference between the increase that is currently occuring and the increase that would occur if the anthropogenic emissions suddenly stopped, everything else remaining the same (difficult though this would be to achieve). Do you really believe that if the 29 Gtonnes per year of anthropogenic CO2 emissions were to suddenly stop, the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere would decrease by about 0.4 Gtonnes, from about 10 Gtonnes per year to about 9.6 Gtonnes per year? To me this sounds utterly absurd, and lacking in the slightest basic in physical mechanism.

The truth is that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the major driving force shifting the equilibrium state of the carbon system, by increasing the carbon content of most parts of the system.

justjoshin still surfing on the wave of "Climategate"? Not noticing it has been based on lies planted by contrarian propagandists (the likes of which could be, to mention but one famous example, Sarah Palin) and that there is manifestly no evidence of clandestine data manipulation?

Have you read those emails? They are not to do with falsifying data, but there is direct reference to perverting the peer review process (to strangle opposing views/theories). As well as denying access to source data and algorithms needed to reproduce their work. Any scientific work that is not reproducible has precisely zero value, as it cannot be checked.

All of the papers published without supporting data/algorithms should be withdrawn. If I applied for a loan I would need supporting papers (bank statements, pay slips etc) before the bank would consider giving me a cent. But these scientists are recieving billions annually, and nobody outside their tightknit circle is allowed to inspect their working.

I don't claim to fully understand the climate system, I have merely proposed another hypothesis that explains much of the observed warming and CO2 rise.

Negligible - because the ability of CO2 to retain IR is mostly exhausted.

Beneficial - because historically warmer periods are when life has flourished.

It likely cannot be prevented - as we are likely not causing it (most warming is solar, look at a graph for this century comparing CO2 and temp, then look at one comparing solar output and temp)

I don't say the sum total of CO2 emitted by man is negligible, I say that it is neglible compared to the amount that is naturally emitted from the earth.

I have looked at both sides of the research, why do you assume I haven't? when I was a teenager, I was a firm believer in the pseudo science that had been drilled into me from a young age. I heard a few convincing arguments against it - and began to examine the evidence for myself.

We are shifting the carbon balance slightly. The point is all things are not the same, there is no equilibrium, it is an inherently dynamic system. The Earth has warmed, I believe mostly through natural causes, but we'll probably differ there... If we burnt no oil/gas, the atmospheric CO2 would still rise as the Earth warms.

So if we examine the isotopic data as you have suggested and can attribute only 4% of the increase in atmospheric CO2 to anthropogenic sources, why assume the rest of the increase is anything to do with us? Even as the Earth is emitting CO2, it is absorbing some of it, it is the rates of emission and absorbtion that alter with temp. So the fact that 96% of the increase is at a natural isotopic density suggests that the carbon is still able to sink at a reasonable speed. The IPCC papers suggest that CO2 will stay in the atmosphere for 50-200 years. Other chemical analysis of the atmospheric carbon exchange put that period at closer to 5 years. (I did post a link to that effect, I can trawl back through the thread if you missed it and find it again?)

justjoshin, it's a little tedious to have to make the same point three times.  You appear to be arguing about a "rough estimate" made many years ago which has been shown to be very likely inaccurate by more recent isotopic studies. But I have explained twice already why this does not imply that through some magical process our CO2 emissions have a tiny effect on CO2 in the atmosphere while other much smaller CO2 emissions miraculously cause the increase in atmospheric CO2.

We definitely add approximately 29 Gtonnes of CO2 to the atmosphere each year. If the inferences from isotopic studies are correct we can deduce that the majority of this CO2 ends up in other parts of the system (notably the oceans) by isotopic studies. We can be sure that by doing so it is to some extent preventing CO2 from other sources from going into those other parts of the system, and as a result we can attribute a large part of the increase in the CO2 in the atmosphere to the anthropogenic emissions.

I will explain my understanding of what appears must be going on with an improved analogy.

Suppose there are two vessels containing water, joined below the water line by a pipe. The smaller shallower vessel represents the atmosphere, and the larger, deeper vessel represents the rest of the Earth's carbon system. Suppose the (horizontal) area of the water in the two vessels is in the ratio 2:1, but the volumes are in ratio 24 to 1 (easy to achieve in this model - see diagram).

Then addition of water to the smaller vessel results in an increase in the volume of water there, but only 1/3 of that added (i.e. 2/3 of the additional volume ends up in the larger vessel). [Hopefully it is clear why].

Suppose the water is isotopically labelled. If we assume mixing is slow, most of the isotopically labelled water will remain in the second vessel. But suppose we make some measurements and find that only 4% of the isotopically labelled water remains in the smaller vessel.

Should we conclude that adding water to the smaller vessel was not the reason the water level rose, or should we conclude that there is a lot of mixing between the two vessels (and also that the larger vessel contains a lot more water)?

[Incidentally, the narrowing of the large vessel above the waterline could be used to model the decreasing ability for the oceans to absorb CO2]

Nice analogy there, perfectly graphic. But my guess goes that it wont change an already confessed denier!

Elroch, I'm glad you can demonstrate graphically how a syphon works. My point is that it was an incredibly poor analogy. There is no equilibrium. The Earth's temperature has been rising for centuries and there is a lot of CO2 being released from natural sources. so maybe if you draw a picture of a man holding a glass adding liquid to the vessel labeled "anthropogenic CO2" and a hose running into it alongside with "Natural increase of CO2" it may be closer.

How can you say that man's input to the atmospheric CO2 is greater than natural sources? The mixing is anything but slow (rates of CO2 exchange with water are incredibly high, and we have convection distibruting CO2 throughout the atmosphere).

If you have an interest in the science behind it (from Dr Roy Spencer, PhD formerly at NASA)

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/increasing-atmospheric-co2-manmade%E2%80%A6or-natural/

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/05/global-warming-causing-carbon-dioxide-increases-a-simple-model/

lol@rubenshein !!!

I do not "confess" to being a denier (I don't deny warming, I argue cause,effect, cost and benefit), as the word confess has negative connotations. I "profess" (state freely) that I have serious doubts to the validity of the climate science, given that it disagrees with other scientific disciplines, and requests for verifiability are routinely denied by climate scientists. This is fundamentally opposed to the scientific principal of reproducibility and verifiability. This of itself should see all the affected papers (the most widely quoted papers in climatological circles) withdrawn until the data and algorithms are available for inspection and verification.

If the same thing was tried (hiding source data and relevant algorithms) in an economic journal (or an engineering journal), it would never be published (or it would be withdrawn later when a request for the information was not honoured). Somehow climate science papers have made themselves immune to this requirement for the availability of information. They have repeatedly dodged requests under the FOIA (Freedom of Information Act). This doesn't sound like the way a scientific discipline should operate.

There is manifestly no evidence of clandestine data manipulation. Do not pretend like it was otherwise.

Almost all the media and political discussion about the hacked emails has been based on brief fragments of soundbites publicized by skeptics on their blogs, often otherwise right-wing in content (no wonder). In many cases, these soundbites have been --- obviously to make a "scandalous" case, alas a Climate"Gate"!!! --- taken out of context and twisted to mean something they were never intended to.

You really believe 'verfifiability' is the business of science on general? Not one scientist worth his clothes talks about verifiability anymore. Not without reason.

Corrections to post #89

(1) (By the way, a simple exchange pipe is not generally classified as a syphon, as an engineer should be aware).  The essential features of my analogue (all of which apply precisely to the carbon system) are:

• There is a material in which we are interested (carbon) and a system broken into two components A and B
• Some of the material added to component A is isotopically distinct
• We can measure the total amount of the material and the amount of isotopically distinct material in component A.

While nothing is a pure equilibrium, the real system concerned can be considered quasi-static, since the rates of change are quite small compared with the time the system takes to adjust to the changes. This is a consequence of the empirically rapid exchange between the parts of the system versus the slow 0.5% increase in atmospheric CO2 each year. Anyhow, all we are interested in are the flows, not whether the system has reached an equilibrium.

The main point of the analogy was to avoid people being misled by justjoshin's erroneous inference:

"only 4% of the additional CO2 in the atmosphere came from anthropogenic sources" does NOT imply "only 4% of the increase in the CO2 in the atmosphere is due to anthropogenic CO2". If this is not yet clear, a careful look at the analogy in post #87 should enlighten.

(2) It is generally accepted that there are not any natural sources of CO2 anything like the size of anthropogenic CO2. [Give reliable references that there are if you want to disagree with this view]. Regardless of this fact, it is bizarre in the extreme to believe that if we suddenly stopped producing 29 Gtonnes of CO2, the atmospheric CO2 would continue to rise at 96% of the current rate. In order to do so, you either have to believe that there are quadrillions of little demons seeking out the molecules of anthropogenic CO2 and hiding them away somewhere at present or you need a non-anthropogenic source of CO2 that is 24 x 29 Gtonnes per year (i.e. 696 Gtonnes per year!), and some separate carbon sink to absorb 686 Gtonnes of this. Good luck - lol! [The reason is that (without the intervention of demons) anthropogenic CO2 molecules behave essentially the same as natural ones]

(3) The glib claim that a (non-anthropogenic) rise in temperature causes the oceans to release CO2 and this is the main cause of the CO2 in the atmosphere runs into a brick wall when you realise that the CO2 content of the oceans has been INCREASING for as long as we have data. This means that the oceans are a net SINK for CO2, not a net source. What most reasonable people believe is that this helps to account for the difference between the 29 Gtonnes of anthropogenic emissions and the 10 Gtonnes per annum increase in atmospheric CO2.

(4) Wouldn't it be nice to have a spare world and the resources necessary to do the experiments necessary to fully verify climate change predictions? Until then, probably best not to risk destroying this one.

(5) Only those who are politically motivated can believe that the mostly petty and inconsequential actions of a few people at one undistinguished university are an argument that the whole of the science associated with climate change is a big conspiracy to deceive. I too dislike the attitude apparent in the leaked e-mails, but there is no evidence that any damage was done to the integrity of climate science, or evidence of any unprofessionalism by >99% of climate scientists.

I've done more reading since I created the analogy that justjoshin was so derisory of (not at all connected with the fact that it demonstrated his error of inference, I am sure). It is interesting to compare the real world numbers to see if the analogy was in the right ball park.

There is about 36,000 Gtonnes of carbon dissolved in the oceans, 42,000 Gtonnes in the biosphere (according to one source, but this seems very high...), and about 490 Gtonnes of carbon in the atmosphere.  So there is 159 times as much carbon in the combined oceans and biosphere (less if the biomass is less). My analogy inferred that if there was perfect mixing betweeen atmosphere and the rest of the carbon system, the ratio had to be at least 24, so the empirical data is consistent with this and shows that that about 15% of the carbon in the oceans and biosphere gets exchanged with that in the atmosphere over the time scale that was examined in the isotopic analysis.

Don't know about the rest of you, but the thing that strikes me most about these figures is how little carbon is in the atmosphere compared to the other components of the system. I am also surprised at how big the global biomass is compared to the mass of crops I stated in an earlier post. I understand most of this is in the oceans, with the biggest single components being tiny crustacea.

The issue is with results from unverifiable data, and deliberately hiding the sources so as to make any attempt at reproduction of the studies impossible. Read the emails, they clearly state that they are point blank refusing to give up the data/source code. Even talk of deliberately giving computer programs without the required libraries so they will no be able to run them. There is talk of blacklisting journals that have published skeptical articles, and discussion of using the peer review process to stop contrary opinions from being published.

Have you read them? Your tone suggests you've read the official (realclimate) interpretation of them. The climate scientists themselves discuss the shortcomings of the models they use, saying that they don't understand why global temperatures are falling (which they did a couple of years ago). All of the IPCC models suggested that temperatures would continue to rise (looking like an exponential graph), yet they fluctuated downwards, suggesting the models are completely innaccurate at best. But let's spend trillions of dollars anyway to fix a problem we don't understand.

A syphon is a method of fluid exchange that utilises the difference in hydrostatic pressure. If you add "liquid" to one side of the mechanism above, the hydrostatic pressure will force liquid through the tube. really is a poor analogy though, it shouldn't be a tube, it should be a partially permeable membrane with membrane permeability as a function of temperature. But yes, as you add "liquid" to one side of it, both sides will increase slightly. But obviously from your own diagram, most of it ends up in the ocean. But if the rates of exchange between atmosphere and ocean are fast, the isotopic density of the increase in one will be indicative as to the anthropogenic contribution to the atmospheric level of increase. The level of isotopic increase suggest that ~4% of the increase in the atmosphere is due to the burning of fossil fuels.

http://www.theresilientearth.com/files/images/carbon_cycle_diagram-1.gif

Solubility of a gas is also a function of the vapour pressure of the gas. Obviously as we increase the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, the amount of CO2 in the ocean will go up.

http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/174temppres.html

There has been 3 independent investigations into that so-called scandal of "Climategate." (The labelling, for itself, does it not really sound like something of a media scoop? What has Nixon to do with this anyway.) So, I repeat myself: none of those investigations have found anything corroborating those initial accusations. So case is really closed. The cut-and-paste method worked for some time, luring lay people into believing it was all a scam --- or at best completely unclear (that is, as to the status of our releasing carbon that nature itself spent millions of years hiding so as to make our planet hospitable). But things are basically the same; nothing has changed. What has been the reaction from the cons? "It is a gigantic WHITEWASH!" Lol. 

In 30 years, (payable) petroleum will have been extracted and spent. In 50 years we will have extracted all of metals. Our petroleumized societies are going to suffer deep and hard, if we don't act now. And many things are already too late for repair and mending.Such irreversible damages and destructions to nature constitutes, in my view, a crime against humanity much more severe than hitherto categories of such crime. (My work, by the way, goes to implement such a broadened definition of crime against humanity.)

It is people like those behind the "Climategate" that, through greed and lies, creates and perpetuates such a horror scenario.

you don't bother to say whether you have read the emails or not, I'd assume not given your unquestioning acceptance. Please read them ,they were investigated on the basis of falsification of data (which was not what I claimed). What is shown is a systematic process of deliberate smearing of opposing scientists and attempts to keep them out of the peer reviewed literature (and blacklisting journals that would dare to publish contrary studies), as well as non-disclosure of relevant source materials from the studies so as to render the core studies completely unverified.

So now you have information as to how much petroleum reserves the world has and can predict how our usage of these reserves will continue into the future. Amazing. I have never said that we would always be able to use fossil fuels, only that to demonise them now is premature.

That's an estimate only, but still an estimate. Due to the nature of the problem it is always difficult to be sure. Oil companies have a very particular interest in trying to disguise things. That is not very amazing really.

Smearing is the most typical behavior; didn't you know that? In any case, it should not surprise anyone. There are, obviously man, all kinds of strategies to get ones view forth. The knowledge is not diminished by that fact.

justjoshin's first paragraph above is a mistake, however many times it is repeated. My analogy shows that even when you have 100% cause and effect, you can have 4% of the isotopically labelled material remaining, due to exchanges. 4% does not equal 100%. The error is to use the words "due to", which were not in the statement by Houghton. It's a bit like claiming a battery does not light a bulb because different electrons heat the filament to the ones leaving the battery. It is understandable to be confused by this once, but not to continue to do so.

The second statement above is correct, but is directly contradictory to justjoshin's repeated claims that the additional CO2 in the atmosphere came from the oceans. There can only be a net flow of carbon one way or the other, and it is into the oceans, not out of them.

A paper in Nature contains a more detailed description of what is going on.

So oil companies have a motive for deceit, but climate scientists don't? all scientists get their funding from somewhere. getting ones scientific view published should be a result only on the accuracy of the articles - NOT THE CONCLUSIONS REACHED.

Squashing opposing views regardless of merit is the domain of religion, not science.

there is not a 4% increase in the (isotopically identifiable) Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide in the air from the link you posted initially. There is a 0.15% increase. if the ratio of carbon stored in the ocean/atmosphere is as you suggest 24/1 then we have contributed under 4% to the total increase in atmospheric CO2.

 you are arguing as if the isotopic levels have increased by 4%. This is completely wrong even by the article you cite.