Remember me
▼ Content

Is the CO2 increase natural or man-made?



Page 1 of 212>
Is the CO2 increase natural or man-made?16-08-2018 12:41
One Punch Man
★☆☆☆☆
(116)
The link below is a link to a short article I wrote explaining the reasons as to why Skeptical Science is wrong when it lists 10 points as to why the increase in CO2 is man-made: https://chipstero7.blogspot.com/2018/08/is-co2-increase-natural-or-man-made.html A case can be made for the increase in CO2 to be natural.


Nathan-D
16-08-2018 19:28
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
One Punch Man wrote:
The link below is a link to a short article I wrote explaining the reasons as to why Skeptical Science is wrong when it lists 10 points as to why the increase in CO2 is man-made: https://chipstero7.blogspot.com/2018/08/is-co2-increase-natural-or-man-made.html A case can be made for the increase in CO2 to be natural.


Certainly a case can be made. It's not possible to determine how much CO2 is emitted by any particular source.

Doesn't matter anyway. CO2 is a necessary gas for life on Earth is incapable of warming the Earth.


The Parrot Killer
18-08-2018 14:53
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1260)
One Punch Man wrote:
The link below is a link to a short article I wrote explaining the reasons as to why Skeptical Science is wrong when it lists 10 points as to why the increase in CO2 is man-made: https://chipstero7.blogspot.com/2018/08/is-co2-increase-natural-or-man-made.html A case can be made for the increase in CO2 to be natural.


Tricky, the level is much higher than any time in the last few million years and has gone up with the industrialisation of the world.
20-08-2018 14:58
One Punch Man
★☆☆☆☆
(116)
Tim the plumber wrote:
One Punch Man wrote:
The link below is a link to a short article I wrote explaining the reasons as to why Skeptical Science is wrong when it lists 10 points as to why the increase in CO2 is man-made: https://chipstero7.blogspot.com/2018/08/is-co2-increase-natural-or-man-made.html A case can be made for the increase in CO2 to be natural.


Tricky, the level is much higher than any time in the last few million years and has gone up with the industrialisation of the world.

That depends. The paleo-climate ice core data suggests that the current atmospheric CO2 level is unprecedented but Stomata-proxy and chemical measurements would suggest otherwise. Also the CO2 increase has gone up with the industrialization of the world but so has the temperature and as the oceans warm they should release more CO2 according to Henry's law. So some of the increase must be due to the supposed temperature rise of the oceans.


Nathan-D
20-08-2018 15:55
One Punch Man
★☆☆☆☆
(116)
Under the *assumption* that the oceans have increased in temperature by 1C since 1850 then the corresponding increase in atmospheric CO2 is as much as 20ppmv based on CO2's solubility alone. That may not sound a lot but other factors that are temperature-dependent such as changes in ocean biology can apparently affect the CO2 concentration by a large amount. For example if all of the ocean biology were removed, then the atmospheric partial pressure could increase by a factor of 5 (Jaworowski 1992: A Critical Review).


Nathan-D
Edited on 20-08-2018 16:06
20-08-2018 19:48
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1260)
One Punch Man wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
One Punch Man wrote:
The link below is a link to a short article I wrote explaining the reasons as to why Skeptical Science is wrong when it lists 10 points as to why the increase in CO2 is man-made: https://chipstero7.blogspot.com/2018/08/is-co2-increase-natural-or-man-made.html A case can be made for the increase in CO2 to be natural.


Tricky, the level is much higher than any time in the last few million years and has gone up with the industrialisation of the world.

That depends. The paleo-climate ice core data suggests that the current atmospheric CO2 level is unprecedented but Stomata-proxy and chemical measurements would suggest otherwise. Also the CO2 increase has gone up with the industrialization of the world but so has the temperature and as the oceans warm they should release more CO2 according to Henry's law. So some of the increase must be due to the supposed temperature rise of the oceans.


Never come across them, what are they ?
22-08-2018 01:05
One Punch Man
★☆☆☆☆
(116)
Tim the plumber wrote:
One Punch Man wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
One Punch Man wrote:
The link below is a link to a short article I wrote explaining the reasons as to why Skeptical Science is wrong when it lists 10 points as to why the increase in CO2 is man-made: https://chipstero7.blogspot.com/2018/08/is-co2-increase-natural-or-man-made.html A case can be made for the increase in CO2 to be natural.


Tricky, the level is much higher than any time in the last few million years and has gone up with the industrialisation of the world.

That depends. The paleo-climate ice core data suggests that the current atmospheric CO2 level is unprecedented but Stomata-proxy and chemical measurements would suggest otherwise. Also the CO2 increase has gone up with the industrialization of the world but so has the temperature and as the oceans warm they should release more CO2 according to Henry's law. So some of the increase must be due to the supposed temperature rise of the oceans.


Never come across them, what are they ?

Stomata uses plant leafs for a proxy for past CO2 concentrations and the chemial measurements are direct instrument measurements of the CO2 concentrations complied by Georg Beck 2007.


Nathan-D
22-08-2018 01:08
One Punch Man
★☆☆☆☆
(116)
**


Nathan-D
22-08-2018 22:30
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1260)
One Punch Man wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
One Punch Man wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
One Punch Man wrote:
The link below is a link to a short article I wrote explaining the reasons as to why Skeptical Science is wrong when it lists 10 points as to why the increase in CO2 is man-made: https://chipstero7.blogspot.com/2018/08/is-co2-increase-natural-or-man-made.html A case can be made for the increase in CO2 to be natural.


Tricky, the level is much higher than any time in the last few million years and has gone up with the industrialisation of the world.

That depends. The paleo-climate ice core data suggests that the current atmospheric CO2 level is unprecedented but Stomata-proxy and chemical measurements would suggest otherwise. Also the CO2 increase has gone up with the industrialization of the world but so has the temperature and as the oceans warm they should release more CO2 according to Henry's law. So some of the increase must be due to the supposed temperature rise of the oceans.


Never come across them, what are they ?

Stomata uses plant leafs for a proxy for past CO2 concentrations and the chemial measurements are direct instrument measurements of the CO2 concentrations complied by Georg Beck 2007.


Can you link to it and explain what it is. How it works, where the deposits were found etc?
23-08-2018 16:21
Gamul1
☆☆☆☆☆
(35)
One Punch Man wrote:
The link below is a link to a short article I wrote explaining the reasons as to why Skeptical Science is wrong when it lists 10 points as to why the increase in CO2 is man-made: https://chipstero7.blogspot.com/2018/08/is-co2-increase-natural-or-man-made.html A case can be made for the increase in CO2 to be natural.


Is it just me? The link you gave is dead for me.

In any case, changes in anything that is measured has to also take into account the history of that which is measured.

If you look at this link:
http://geologist-1011.net/net/deforestation/

You can see that although CO2 has been trending down for the past 500 million years from very high levels, across that time CO@ has fluctuated tremendously all without the presence of humans to influence it. Considering we are near the all time low for atmospheric CO2, should we be surprised that there is a recent uptick in the measurement of it?

If you take into account "only" the past 400,000 years:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png

The recent trend is a bit more concerning. To me, its clear something is going on and is causing a change over the past couple hundred years. Keep in mind this chart is not recent as we recently went over 400 ppm.

Never mind the politics of "why" or "who" or "what" is causing the change - it seems clear that its changing outside of the more recent normal. But the change is also within a much longer fluctuation cycle. Unfortunately the truth of all this may take much longer than those currently alive to fully grasp.
01-09-2018 02:05
Wake
★★★★★
(3509)
One Punch Man wrote:
The link below is a link to a short article I wrote explaining the reasons as to why Skeptical Science is wrong when it lists 10 points as to why the increase in CO2 is man-made: https://chipstero7.blogspot.com/2018/08/is-co2-increase-natural-or-man-made.html A case can be made for the increase in CO2 to be natural.


The problem with this is that the increases in CO2 pretty much track the human use of fossil fuels. I have a difficult time arguing with that reasoning.

But I do argue with the fact that CO2 in the amounts we have or are likely to have is harmful. Quite the opposite, we are seeing plant blooms all over the world in a previously starving Earth.

The human population growth must be fed, unless you are one of those odious "environmentalists" who think that we must control the human animal by starving them to death. At its heart this is a form of racism since the populations that would suffer the most are Asians and Indians.
01-09-2018 23:40
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1260)
Wake wrote:
One Punch Man wrote:
The link below is a link to a short article I wrote explaining the reasons as to why Skeptical Science is wrong when it lists 10 points as to why the increase in CO2 is man-made: https://chipstero7.blogspot.com/2018/08/is-co2-increase-natural-or-man-made.html A case can be made for the increase in CO2 to be natural.


The problem with this is that the increases in CO2 pretty much track the human use of fossil fuels. I have a difficult time arguing with that reasoning.

But I do argue with the fact that CO2 in the amounts we have or are likely to have is harmful. Quite the opposite, we are seeing plant blooms all over the world in a previously starving Earth.

The human population growth must be fed, unless you are one of those odious "environmentalists" who think that we must control the human animal by starving them to death. At its heart this is a form of racism since the populations that would suffer the most are Asians and Indians.


1, More Africans than anybody.

2, Have you noticed just how bouncing with geen the world is these days? I'm sure it was never quite as solid with leaves as this when I was a kid.
02-09-2018 15:49
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Wake wrote:
One Punch Man wrote:
The link below is a link to a short article I wrote explaining the reasons as to why Skeptical Science is wrong when it lists 10 points as to why the increase in CO2 is man-made: https://chipstero7.blogspot.com/2018/08/is-co2-increase-natural-or-man-made.html A case can be made for the increase in CO2 to be natural.


The problem with this is that the increases in CO2 pretty much track the human use of fossil fuels. I have a difficult time arguing with that reasoning.

But I do argue with the fact that CO2 in the amounts we have or are likely to have is harmful. Quite the opposite, we are seeing plant blooms all over the world in a previously starving Earth.

The human population growth must be fed, unless you are one of those odious "environmentalists" who think that we must control the human animal by starving them to death. At its heart this is a form of racism since the populations that would suffer the most are Asians and Indians.


1, More Africans than anybody.

2, Have you noticed just how bouncing with geen the world is these days? I'm sure it was never quite as solid with leaves as this when I was a kid.



...If you check out this graph, it'd be interesting to find out how much a volcanic eruption can effect how the Earth rotates. Also this graph shows that it was warmer around 1100 B.C.E. than it is today. I'm almost wondering if the Earth and Moon's wobble around the Sun might vary slightly. This means that if it's becoming more circular that there will be times the orbit becomes more elliptical and then goes back towards a circular orbit. This little bit gets into astrophysics or astronomy.
https://goo.gl/images/13yFIA
03-09-2018 15:52
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)
...@All, same graph. Just look at each cold period over the last 4,000 years. Trending colder. If that graph is right, it would take some "due diligence" then WTF is going on ?

https://goo.gl/images/13yFIA[/quote]


...From NOAA,

https://goo.gl/images/7beqkB

...According to NOAA's graph it's been cooling for about 4,500 years. What were the CO2 levels before and after 4,500 years ago ?
03-09-2018 19:13
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
James___ wrote:
...@All, same graph. Just look at each cold period over the last 4,000 years. Trending colder. If that graph is right, it would take some "due diligence" then WTF is going on ?

https://goo.gl/images/13yFIA



...From NOAA,

https://goo.gl/images/7beqkB

...According to NOAA's graph it's been cooling for about 4,500 years. What were the CO2 levels before and after 4,500 years ago ?[/quote]

Who cares (other than the Church of Global Warming)?


The Parrot Killer
03-09-2018 19:29
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
...@All, same graph. Just look at each cold period over the last 4,000 years. Trending colder. If that graph is right, it would take some "due diligence" then WTF is going on ?

https://goo.gl/images/13yFIA



...From NOAA,

https://goo.gl/images/7beqkB

...According to NOAA's graph it's been cooling for about 4,500 years. What were the CO2 levels before and after 4,500 years ago ?


Who cares (other than the Church of Global Warming)?[/quote]


...ITN, let's see, you don't care yet here you are.

...@All, tried doing a search for CO2 levels over the last 4,000 years but that's something that might be hard to find. Even over the last 10,000 years might be something that's not considered important. It's possible that historically CO2 levels have only been an indicator of the global average temperature. This because the oceans can absorb and release depending on ocean temperature and how fast the thermohaline circulation is moving.
Edited on 03-09-2018 19:47
04-09-2018 02:02
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)
...Here's a graph that's typical. It shows that CO2 levels parallels the global average temperature. That is except for the recent climb in CO2 levels. The global temperature hasn't kept pace. And with even NOAA saying that our planet has been cooling when compared to the last 4,000 years could be why most graphs show 10's of thousands of years instead. The Little Ice Age is basically unexplained just as was the warming when the pyramids were built.
...And if anyone looks at most graphs for ice ages few show where 50° F. or even 55° F. is for reference purposes. After all at what point does the cooling of the planet become a problem ? Maybe someone can find a graph that shows the preferred temperature for life as we know.
..There is a good side to this. The warm and cold cycles going back 4,000 years last for about 4 or 5 centuries. The current warming cycle is only about 250 years old.

https://goo.gl/images/iALCR7
04-09-2018 16:07
One Punch Man
★☆☆☆☆
(116)
Gamul1 wrote:
One Punch Man wrote:
The link below is a link to a short article I wrote explaining the reasons as to why Skeptical Science is wrong when it lists 10 points as to why the increase in CO2 is man-made: https://chipstero7.blogspot.com/2018/08/is-co2-increase-natural-or-man-made.html A case can be made for the increase in CO2 to be natural.


Is it just me? The link you gave is dead for me.

In any case, changes in anything that is measured has to also take into account the history of that which is measured.

If you look at this link:
http://geologist-1011.net/net/deforestation/

You can see that although CO2 has been trending down for the past 500 million years from very high levels, across that time CO@ has fluctuated tremendously all without the presence of humans to influence it. Considering we are near the all time low for atmospheric CO2, should we be surprised that there is a recent uptick in the measurement of it?

If you take into account "only" the past 400,000 years:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png

The recent trend is a bit more concerning. To me, its clear something is going on and is causing a change over the past couple hundred years. Keep in mind this chart is not recent as we recently went over 400 ppm.

Never mind the politics of "why" or "who" or "what" is causing the change - it seems clear that its changing outside of the more recent normal. But the change is also within a much longer fluctuation cycle. Unfortunately the truth of all this may take much longer than those currently alive to fully grasp.

I re-posted it. Here's the article: https://chipstero7.blogspot.com/2018/09/this-article-is-counterargument-to.html


Nathan-D
04-09-2018 16:25
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)
One Punch Man wrote:

I re-posted it. Here's the article: https://chipstero7.blogspot.com/2018/09/this-article-is-counterargument-to.html


...From the link;
The natural atmospheric CO2 reservoir has a δ13C of about -7 when in equilibrium with dissolved CO2 in the oceans^2. The CO2 in the atmosphere as of 2015 has a δ13C of around -8.3 (Figure 2). Thus the amount of anthropogenic CO2 residing in the atmosphere is about 6% (i.e. 6% of -29 and 94% of -7).



...This is actually something that can be tested and could show how the Boltzmann constant or ideal gas law (http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~cchieh/cact/c120/idealgas.html) applies to the heat content in our atmosphere.
04-09-2018 16:25
One Punch Man
★☆☆☆☆
(116)
Wake wrote:
One Punch Man wrote:
The link below is a link to a short article I wrote explaining the reasons as to why Skeptical Science is wrong when it lists 10 points as to why the increase in CO2 is man-made: https://chipstero7.blogspot.com/2018/08/is-co2-increase-natural-or-man-made.html A case can be made for the increase in CO2 to be natural.


The problem with this is that the increases in CO2 pretty much track the human use of fossil fuels. I have a difficult time arguing with that reasoning.

This is not entirely true. There is a definite disconnect between the growth-rates for anthropogenic CO2 and the atmospehric CO2 increase as explained in the article referenced in my last post. See the graph below.



Quote:

The mathematical properties of the growth curves for human CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2 contents are unequivocal in showing that some source other than the human one must be contributing significantly to the atmospheric rise. Between 1990 and 2003 anthropogenic CO2 emissions were relatively stable, as atmospheric CO2 accelerated away from human emissions which means that some source other than human emissions must be driving the acceleration. That non-human source is presently unidentified, though we can tell that it must exist. Furthermore from 2003-2010 anthropogenic CO2 emissions accelerated, while the atmospheric CO2 growth-rate remained relatively flat. Hence there is a definite mismatch.



Nathan-D
04-09-2018 20:06
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
...@All, same graph. Just look at each cold period over the last 4,000 years. Trending colder. If that graph is right, it would take some "due diligence" then WTF is going on ?

https://goo.gl/images/13yFIA



...From NOAA,

https://goo.gl/images/7beqkB

...According to NOAA's graph it's been cooling for about 4,500 years. What were the CO2 levels before and after 4,500 years ago ?


Who cares (other than the Church of Global Warming)?



...ITN, let's see, you don't care yet here you are.

...@All, tried doing a search for CO2 levels over the last 4,000 years but that's something that might be hard to find. Even over the last 10,000 years might be something that's not considered important. It's possible that historically CO2 levels have only been an indicator of the global average temperature. This because the oceans can absorb and release depending on ocean temperature and how fast the thermohaline circulation is moving.[/quote]

It's impossible to find. It is not possible to measure the global content of CO2.


The Parrot Killer
04-09-2018 20:12
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
James___ wrote:
...Here's a graph that's typical.

In that it is copy of another graph.
James___ wrote:
It shows that CO2 levels parallels the global average temperature. That is except for the recent climb in CO2 levels. The global temperature hasn't kept pace.

It isn't possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. It isn't possible to measure the global atmospheric CO2 content.
James___ wrote:
And with even NOAA saying that our planet has been cooling when compared to the last 4,000 years could be why most graphs show 10's of thousands of years instead.

Nah. They're just showing manufactured number over a longer period.
James___ wrote:
The Little Ice Age is basically unexplained just as was the warming when the pyramids were built.

Egypt is not the Earth.
James___ wrote:
...And if anyone looks at most graphs for ice ages few show where 50° F. or even 55° F. is for reference purposes. After all at what point does the cooling of the planet become a problem ? Maybe someone can find a graph that shows the preferred temperature for life as we know.

Easy. Look at where life lives...all over the planet at all different temperatures. Everything from orchids to penguins.
James___ wrote:
..There is a good side to this. The warm and cold cycles going back 4,000 years last for about 4 or 5 centuries. The current warming cycle is only about 250 years old.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.


The Parrot Killer
04-09-2018 20:14
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
James___ wrote:
One Punch Man wrote:

I re-posted it. Here's the article: https://chipstero7.blogspot.com/2018/09/this-article-is-counterargument-to.html


...From the link;
The natural atmospheric CO2 reservoir has a δ13C of about -7 when in equilibrium with dissolved CO2 in the oceans^2. The CO2 in the atmosphere as of 2015 has a δ13C of around -8.3 (Figure 2). Thus the amount of anthropogenic CO2 residing in the atmosphere is about 6% (i.e. 6% of -29 and 94% of -7).



...This is actually something that can be tested and could show how the Boltzmann constant or ideal gas law (http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~cchieh/cact/c120/idealgas.html) applies to the heat content in our atmosphere.


Heat is not a 'content'. There is no such thing as the 'heat content' of anything.


The Parrot Killer
04-09-2018 20:17
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
One Punch Man wrote:
This is not entirely true. There is a definite disconnect between the growth-rates for anthropogenic CO2 and the atmospehric CO2 increase as explained in the article referenced in my last post. See the graph below.

Quote:

The mathematical properties of the growth curves for human CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2 contents are unequivocal in showing that some source other than the human one must be contributing significantly to the atmospheric rise. Between 1990 and 2003 anthropogenic CO2 emissions were relatively stable, as atmospheric CO2 accelerated away from human emissions which means that some source other than human emissions must be driving the acceleration. That non-human source is presently unidentified, though we can tell that it must exist. Furthermore from 2003-2010 anthropogenic CO2 emissions accelerated, while the atmospheric CO2 growth-rate remained relatively flat. Hence there is a definite mismatch.

It is not possible to measure either the temperature of the Earth or the global CO2 content. We don't have anywhere near enough instrumentation to even begin a sensible statistical analysis.


The Parrot Killer
05-09-2018 15:06
One Punch Man
★☆☆☆☆
(116)
Into the Night wrote:
One Punch Man wrote:
This is not entirely true. There is a definite disconnect between the growth-rates for anthropogenic CO2 and the atmospehric CO2 increase as explained in the article referenced in my last post. See the graph below.

Quote:

The mathematical properties of the growth curves for human CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2 contents are unequivocal in showing that some source other than the human one must be contributing significantly to the atmospheric rise. Between 1990 and 2003 anthropogenic CO2 emissions were relatively stable, as atmospheric CO2 accelerated away from human emissions which means that some source other than human emissions must be driving the acceleration. That non-human source is presently unidentified, though we can tell that it must exist. Furthermore from 2003-2010 anthropogenic CO2 emissions accelerated, while the atmospheric CO2 growth-rate remained relatively flat. Hence there is a definite mismatch.

It is not possible to measure either the temperature of the Earth or the global CO2 content. We don't have anywhere near enough instrumentation to even begin a sensible statistical analysis.

I agree. Nothing can make up for the missing lack of basic data. However from what data we do have there is still a disconnect between anthropogenic CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2 increases as shown by the graph above.


Nathan-D
05-09-2018 19:37
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
One Punch Man wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
One Punch Man wrote:
This is not entirely true. There is a definite disconnect between the growth-rates for anthropogenic CO2 and the atmospehric CO2 increase as explained in the article referenced in my last post. See the graph below.

Quote:

The mathematical properties of the growth curves for human CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2 contents are unequivocal in showing that some source other than the human one must be contributing significantly to the atmospheric rise. Between 1990 and 2003 anthropogenic CO2 emissions were relatively stable, as atmospheric CO2 accelerated away from human emissions which means that some source other than human emissions must be driving the acceleration. That non-human source is presently unidentified, though we can tell that it must exist. Furthermore from 2003-2010 anthropogenic CO2 emissions accelerated, while the atmospheric CO2 growth-rate remained relatively flat. Hence there is a definite mismatch.

It is not possible to measure either the temperature of the Earth or the global CO2 content. We don't have anywhere near enough instrumentation to even begin a sensible statistical analysis.

I agree. Nothing can make up for the missing lack of basic data. However from what data we do have there is still a disconnect between anthropogenic CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2 increases as shown by the graph above.


We really don't have any data at all that's usable for a temperature of the Earth.

NOAA, for example, claims they use 3750 thermometers for this measurement. These thermometers are currently grouped geographically. They are not uniformly distributed. Assuming you uniformly distribute them (which would be required for a sensible statistical analysis), that would mean one thermometer for every 52353 square miles. Since temperature gradients as steep as 20 deg F per mile have been observed reasonably frequently, the only thing you could call this is a blatant guess.

The use of ice cores as proxy data is even worse. There are only a few dozen cores (the equivalent of a few dozen thermometers) spread over the same area.

If you can't measure the temperature of the Earth, you can't measure any changes to the temperature of the Earth.

Even if you could do all that, you have to pick a starting and ending time for data collection to describe a 'change'. You have to justify why those two points in time are significant, and why any other two points in time are not significant.

Thus, the very phrases 'global warming' and 'climate change' don't mean anything. They are just meaningless buzzwords that can only be defined by themselves. Any theory built on a meaningless buzzword is a void argument fallacy and thus cannot be a theory at all.


The Parrot Killer
05-09-2018 20:58
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)
Into the Night wrote:

We really don't have any data at all that's usable for a temperature of the Earth.

If you can't measure the temperature of the Earth, you can't measure any changes to the temperature of the Earth.

Even if you could do all that, you have to pick a starting and ending time for data collection to describe a 'change'.
Thus, the very phrases 'global warming' and 'climate change' don't mean anything. They are just meaningless buzzwords that can only be defined by themselves. Any theory built on a meaningless buzzword is a void argument fallacy and thus cannot be a theory at all.



...same old crap itn. This isn't a philosophy forum. You're just a whiny little b1tch.
Edited on 05-09-2018 21:01
05-09-2018 21:17
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
James___ wrote:
You're just a whiny little b1tch.


Inversion fallacy. Insult fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 05-09-2018 21:17
05-09-2018 21:39
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
You're just a whiny little b1tch.


Inversion fallacy. Insult fallacy.



...You're the one whines all the time. I know it's actually a brain washing technique. People don't believe it's possible for someone else to control them, what they think and their emotions but it is possible. And with brain washing people it's only about getting control and not really doing nothing unless it suits you.
..An example is whenever you post the word fallacy it's to condition the other person, it let's them know that you are in control. And if you were a woman you'd be a whiny assed little b1tch.
05-09-2018 23:15
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)
...itn,
..Face it, when you keep acting like people don't understand the basic concepts in psychology that you know, it's just to get them to think they're missing something obvious and they should've known better. And yep, it bothers you to have to correct people who aren't wrong. They have their opinions while you don't have one. Why you always say The Church of Global Warming. You try to establish that anyone who doesn't understand your point of view is worshiping science.
..Myself I find it tiresome. While I'm at it I might as well point out that when you cite the Stefan-Boltzmann constant but then reject Boltzmann's work with gasses is a bit hypocritical. You claim that Boltzmann was an intelligent man that didn't know what he was talking about.
06-09-2018 00:31
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
You're just a whiny little b1tch.


Inversion fallacy. Insult fallacy.



...You're the one whines all the time.

Inversion fallacy.
James___ wrote:
I know it's actually a brain washing technique.
People don't believe it's possible for someone else to control them, what they think and their emotions but it is possible. And with brain washing people it's only about getting control and not really doing nothing unless it suits you.

Psychoquackery.
James___ wrote:
..An example is whenever you post the word fallacy it's to condition the other person,

No, it's because you are making errors in the constructs of your arguments.
James___ wrote:
it let's them know that you are in control.

I'm not trying to control you. I'm trying to get you to stop making so many stupid errors in your arguments repeatedly.
James___ wrote:
And if you were a woman you'd be a whiny assed little b1tch.

Inversion fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
06-09-2018 00:40
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
James___ wrote:
...itn,
..Face it, when you keep acting like people don't understand the basic concepts in psychology

There is no 'basic concept' of psychology. It is not a science. It is quackery.
James___ wrote:
that you know, it's just to get them to think they're missing something obvious and they should've known better. And yep, it bothers you to have to correct people who aren't wrong.

You are wrong.
James___ wrote:
They have their opinions while you don't have one.

Using an opinion to deny existing theories of science is wrong.
James___ wrote:
Why you always say The Church of Global Warming.

Because it qualifies as a religion. It is based on an initial circular argument. It has arguments extending from that initial argument. It is a religion.
James___ wrote:
You try to establish that anyone who doesn't understand your point of view is worshiping science.

The Church of Global Warming denies science and mathematics. It is a fundamentalist style religion. It's believers do not recognize the circular nature of their religion.
James___ wrote:
..Myself I find it tiresome.

Too bad. I really don't care. Stop making stupid mistakes.
James___ wrote:
While I'm at it I might as well point out that when you cite the Stefan-Boltzmann constant

I am not citing the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. I am citing the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
James___ wrote:
but then reject Boltzmann's work with gasses

I don't. Non-sequitur fallacy.
James___ wrote:
is a bit hypocritical.

False dichotomy fallacy.
James___ wrote:
You claim that Boltzmann was an intelligent man that didn't know what he was talking about.

Lie. Never made any such claim. Redirection fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
06-09-2018 01:50
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
...itn,
..Face it, when you keep acting like people don't understand the basic concepts in psychology

There is no 'basic concept' of psychology. It is not a science. It is quackery.
James___ wrote:
that you know, it's just to get them to think they're missing something obvious and they should've known better. And yep, it bothers you to have to correct people who aren't wrong.

You are wrong.
James___ wrote:
They have their opinions while you don't have one.

Using an opinion to deny existing theories of science is wrong.
James___ wrote:
Why you always say The Church of Global Warming.

Because it qualifies as a religion. It is based on an initial circular argument. It has arguments extending from that initial argument. It is a religion.
James___ wrote:
You try to establish that anyone who doesn't understand your point of view is worshiping science.

The Church of Global Warming denies science and mathematics. It is a fundamentalist style religion. It's believers do not recognize the circular nature of their religion.
James___ wrote:
..Myself I find it tiresome.

Too bad. I really don't care. Stop making stupid mistakes.
James___ wrote:
While I'm at it I might as well point out that when you cite the Stefan-Boltzmann constant

I am not citing the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. I am citing the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
James___ wrote:
but then reject Boltzmann's work with gasses

I don't. Non-sequitur fallacy.
James___ wrote:
is a bit hypocritical.

False dichotomy fallacy.
James___ wrote:
You claim that Boltzmann was an intelligent man that didn't know what he was talking about.

Lie. Never made any such claim. Redirection fallacy.


..I hope when you keep saying fallacy that you're not secretly thinking phallus.
.For all I know you're getting a rise out of this.
..Thankfully these guys have you to correct them when they get your opinion wrong. That is serious. We wouldn't want them thinking for themselves now, would we ?
06-09-2018 05:41
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
...itn,
..Face it, when you keep acting like people don't understand the basic concepts in psychology

There is no 'basic concept' of psychology. It is not a science. It is quackery.
James___ wrote:
that you know, it's just to get them to think they're missing something obvious and they should've known better. And yep, it bothers you to have to correct people who aren't wrong.

You are wrong.
James___ wrote:
They have their opinions while you don't have one.

Using an opinion to deny existing theories of science is wrong.
James___ wrote:
Why you always say The Church of Global Warming.

Because it qualifies as a religion. It is based on an initial circular argument. It has arguments extending from that initial argument. It is a religion.
James___ wrote:
You try to establish that anyone who doesn't understand your point of view is worshiping science.

The Church of Global Warming denies science and mathematics. It is a fundamentalist style religion. It's believers do not recognize the circular nature of their religion.
James___ wrote:
..Myself I find it tiresome.

Too bad. I really don't care. Stop making stupid mistakes.
James___ wrote:
While I'm at it I might as well point out that when you cite the Stefan-Boltzmann constant

I am not citing the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. I am citing the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
James___ wrote:
but then reject Boltzmann's work with gasses

I don't. Non-sequitur fallacy.
James___ wrote:
is a bit hypocritical.

False dichotomy fallacy.
James___ wrote:
You claim that Boltzmann was an intelligent man that didn't know what he was talking about.

Lie. Never made any such claim. Redirection fallacy.


..I hope when you keep saying fallacy that you're not secretly thinking phallus.
.For all I know you're getting a rise out of this.
..Thankfully these guys have you to correct them when they get your opinion wrong. That is serious. We wouldn't want them thinking for themselves now, would we ?


Now you're just acting paranoid.


The Parrot Killer
06-09-2018 14:33
One Punch Man
★☆☆☆☆
(116)
Into the Night wrote:

The use of ice cores as proxy data is even worse. There are only a few dozen cores (the equivalent of a few dozen thermometers) spread over the same area.

If you can't measure the temperature of the Earth, you can't measure any changes to the temperature of the Earth.

The limited number of ice-core measurements is one my criticisms in my blog-article. Quote:

According to the NOAA^7, the Vostok ice-core data has 283 measurements from 415,000 years (Petit et al 1999)^8, 66 measurements from 160,000 years (Barnola 1987)^9 and 200 from (Fischer et al 1999)^10. Therefore over the 415,000 years this gives us an average measurement-spacing of 756 years (i.e. 415,000/549). Therefore the chance of measuring an increase in atmospheric CO2 (such as the one as measured at Mauna Loa over the last 50+ years), if one exists in the Vostok ice-core samples, amounts to about 6.6% (i.e. 50/756). This corresponds to a 6.6% certainty that the current CO2 level is unprecedented. The problem is, the measurements have not been done comprehensively enough for every transitional-epoch, in order for us to say, with enough certainty, that the current increase in CO2 is unprecedented.



Nathan-D
06-09-2018 15:30
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)
One Punch Man wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

The use of ice cores as proxy data is even worse. There are only a few dozen cores (the equivalent of a few dozen thermometers) spread over the same area.

If you can't measure the temperature of the Earth, you can't measure any changes to the temperature of the Earth.

The limited number of ice-core measurements is one my criticisms in my blog-article. Quote:

According to the NOAA^7, the Vostok ice-core data has 283 measurements from 415,000 years (Petit et al 1999)^8, 66 measurements from 160,000 years (Barnola 1987)^9 and 200 from (Fischer et al 1999)^10. Therefore over the 415,000 years this gives us an average measurement-spacing of 756 years (i.e. 415,000/549). Therefore the chance of measuring an increase in atmospheric CO2 (such as the one as measured at Mauna Loa over the last 50+ years), if one exists in the Vostok ice-core samples, amounts to about 6.6% (i.e. 50/756). This corresponds to a 6.6% certainty that the current CO2 level is unprecedented. The problem is, the measurements have not been done comprehensively enough for every transitional-epoch, in order for us to say, with enough certainty, that the current increase in CO2 is unprecedented.



....When they say ice core samples they are not mentioning the soil and sediment sampling that is done to confirm the information in the ice core samples. This is where sometimes a person needs to learn some about the science itself to understand what scientists are basically basing their statements on.
...Planck said E=hv. Then Einstein said E=MC^2. And with ideal gasses (Boltzmann) it's said that 1/3mc^2 = 1/2mv^2 = 3/2kT.
...It's similar with ice core research. When atmospheric co2 increases then the amount of co2 in our oceans decreases. This shows in the sediments because I think the shells (calcium) of animals with shells absorbs co2 which is where the deposits come from.
06-09-2018 16:05
One Punch Man
★☆☆☆☆
(116)
James___ wrote:When atmospheric co2 increases then the amount of co2 in our oceans decreases. This shows in the sediments because I think the shells (calcium) of animals with shells absorbs co2 which is where the deposits come from.

Not sure where you got that idea from. When atmospheric CO2 increases then the amount of CO2 in the oceans should increase. Henry's law governs the solubility of gases in water and determines a specific fixed 'partitioning ratio' between the amount of CO2 residing in the atmosphere and the amount that will be dissolved in the oceans at a given temperature at equilibrium. At the current mean ocean temperature of 15C (at the surface), that partitioning ratio comes out to be 1:50. This is why there exists around 50 times as much CO2 as DIC in the oceans than the atmosphere. This fixed partitioning ratio implies that for every tonne of CO2 that is released into the atmosphere only about 0.02 tonnes will remain there and the rest (about 0.98 tonnes) will be absorbed into the oceans. The 1:50 partitioning ratio for CO2 between the atmosphere and oceans at the Earth's average surface temperature means that 98% of anthropogenic CO2 should be absorbed by the oceans and only 2% should remain as a permanent addition to the atmospheric CO2 greenhouse upon equilibrium.


Nathan-D
Edited on 06-09-2018 16:05
06-09-2018 16:22
Gamul1
☆☆☆☆☆
(35)
One thing I've learned on these discussions is how little I actually really know and understand about all this. Being an arm chair scientist is awesome until reality smacks you in the face....
06-09-2018 18:20
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)
One Punch Man wrote:
James___ wrote:When atmospheric co2 increases then the amount of co2 in our oceans decreases. This shows in the sediments because I think the shells (calcium) of animals with shells absorbs co2 which is where the deposits come from.

Not sure where you got that idea from. When atmospheric CO2 increases then the amount of CO2 in the oceans should increase. Henry's law governs the solubility of gases in water and determines a specific fixed 'partitioning ratio' between the amount of CO2 residing in the atmosphere and the amount that will be dissolved in the oceans at a given temperature at equilibrium. At the current mean ocean temperature of 15C (at the surface), that partitioning ratio comes out to be 1:50. This is why there exists around 50 times as much CO2 as DIC in the oceans than the atmosphere. This fixed partitioning ratio implies that for every tonne of CO2 that is released into the atmosphere only about 0.02 tonnes will remain there and the rest (about 0.98 tonnes) will be absorbed into the oceans. The 1:50 partitioning ratio for CO2 between the atmosphere and oceans at the Earth's average surface temperature means that 98% of anthropogenic CO2 should be absorbed by the oceans and only 2% should remain as a permanent addition to the atmospheric CO2 greenhouse upon equilibrium.


..It's well known that when the oceans warm that they release CO2 and when they cool they absorb it.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20413-warmer-oceans-release-co2-faster-than-thought/


...What I wonder is if they mean that the warmer the oceans are that the ability for them to absorb atmospheric CO2 decreases. We are elevating atmospheric levels and if we weren't what would the oceans be doing ?
Edited on 06-09-2018 18:48
06-09-2018 20:01
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
One Punch Man wrote:
James___ wrote:When atmospheric co2 increases then the amount of co2 in our oceans decreases. This shows in the sediments because I think the shells (calcium) of animals with shells absorbs co2 which is where the deposits come from.

Not sure where you got that idea from. When atmospheric CO2 increases then the amount of CO2 in the oceans should increase. Henry's law governs the solubility of gases in water and determines a specific fixed 'partitioning ratio' between the amount of CO2 residing in the atmosphere and the amount that will be dissolved in the oceans at a given temperature at equilibrium. At the current mean ocean temperature of 15C (at the surface), that partitioning ratio comes out to be 1:50. This is why there exists around 50 times as much CO2 as DIC in the oceans than the atmosphere. This fixed partitioning ratio implies that for every tonne of CO2 that is released into the atmosphere only about 0.02 tonnes will remain there and the rest (about 0.98 tonnes) will be absorbed into the oceans. The 1:50 partitioning ratio for CO2 between the atmosphere and oceans at the Earth's average surface temperature means that 98% of anthropogenic CO2 should be absorbed by the oceans and only 2% should remain as a permanent addition to the atmospheric CO2 greenhouse upon equilibrium.


He denies science, including things like Henry's law.


The Parrot Killer
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate Is the CO2 increase natural or man-made?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
CO2 and Some transparency3510-12-2018 01:46
Why only 'Man-Made' CO2?16105-12-2018 03:22
CO2 is causing ozone depletion, cause of climate change?1126-11-2018 22:53
What would happen to global temperature if the US stopped all CO2 emissions for the next 50 years?1517-09-2018 09:12
What are Stacks made from317-09-2018 08:58
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact