Is the CO2 increase natural or man-made?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 ?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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 ?

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.

One Punch Man wrote:

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

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).

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.

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.

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)?

James___ wrote:
...Here's a graph that's typical.

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.

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.

James___ wrote:
The Little Ice Age is basically unexplained just as was the warming when the pyramids were built.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

James___ wrote:
You're just a whiny little b1tch.

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:
You're just a whiny little b1tch.

Inversion fallacy. Insult fallacy.

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.

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.

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

James___ wrote:
it let's them know that you are in control.

James___ wrote:
And if you were a woman you'd be a whiny assed little b1tch.

James___ wrote:
...itn,
..Face it, when you keep acting like people don't understand the basic concepts in psychology

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.

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

James___ wrote:
Why you always say The Church of Global Warming.

James___ wrote:
You try to establish that anyone who doesn't understand your point of view is worshiping science.

James___ wrote:
..Myself I find it tiresome.

James___ wrote:
While I'm at it I might as well point out that when you cite the Stefan-Boltzmann constant

James___ wrote:
but then reject Boltzmann's work with gasses

James___ wrote:
is a bit hypocritical.

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

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.

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 ?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.