Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 Next
Comments 56451 to 56500:
-
Tom Curtis at 09:41 AM on 26 July 2012Climate Change Cluedo: Anthropogenic CO2
Chris Machens @13 raises an interesting question. Unfortunately he then diverts into a side issue with a discussion of Ozone, which is essentially irrelevant. All we need to recognize is that methane released to the atmosphere will eventually break down to a CO2 molecule and two H2O molecules, consuming two O2 molecules in the process. As CO2 and H2O are the most chemically stable products of the various reaction pathways between CH4 and O2, we can ignore the details. The question then arises, how significant is the release of methane to the depletion in atmospheric O2? Total methane emissions have raised the methane concentration in the atmosphere by approximately 250 parts per billion since 1978. Given that the atmosphere contains approx 1.8 * 10^20 moles, and the molar mass of methane is 16 grams per mole, that represents emissions of 720 million tonnes of methane. Over approximately the same period, humans have used for energy, or flared over 350,000 million tonnes of methane. Thus emissions of methane represent just 0.2% of human consumption of methane. The figures used are conservative, and do not include the fact that much of the methane emission comes from fugutive emissions (gas leaks) from human energy use which are incorporated in the total human consumption. So, while Chris has identified a genuine additional source of O2 depletion, it is too small relative to human use of gas for energy to be noticeable within error; let alone compared to the total use of fossil fuels, of which gas is a very minor component. -
Tom Curtis at 08:56 AM on 26 July 2012Climate Change Cluedo: Anthropogenic CO2
Chris Machens @23, to give your quote in context, it reads as follows:"4.2.3 HOX catalytic cycles -- The importance of these two species, methane and water vapor, in ozone chemistry is that they transport and release hydrogen into the stratosphere. The activated hydrogen that is released can then participate in the destruction of odd oxygen, i.e., ozone, through a variety of catalytic cycles. These reactive hydrogen (HOX) cycles are summarized by Figure 5.15. The open circles show the predominant species in which hydrogen exists in the stratosphere. We have not included H2 (molecular hydrogen), H2O (water vapor), and CH4 (methane) since they are not involved in the fast stratospheric hydrogen photochemistry balance. The arrows with superimposed boxes are reaction pathways. For example, OH (left circle) reacts with O3 to form HO2. The reaction is written OH + O3 --> HO2 + O2 On the figure, we see this represented by the line with the superimposed blue (O, O3) box. The O2 (molecular oxygen) product is not represented, because it is not a hydrogen species. All of the reactions which lead to ozone creation are colored in blue, while ozone photolysis is colored in magenta. Each water vapor molecule can be transformed into two molecules of HOX (reactive hydrogen) through reaction with O atoms via a reaction of water vapor with the singlet D oxygen atom. H2O + O(1D) --> 2 OH Recall that HOX = OH + HO2. In this case, the reactive hydrogen exists in the form of two liberated OH (hydroxyl radical) molecules which become the catalyst in a pair of reactions with odd oxygen (OX) that result in a net loss of OX, by which we mean a net loss of both ozone molecules and free oxygen atoms. OH + O3 --> HO2 + O2 HO2 + O --> OH + O2 ------------------------- NET: O3 + O --> 2 O2 (See Figure 5.15a) Notice that the NET effect of the reactions is simply a conversion of two odd oxygen molecules into two molecules of O2. The sum of reactive hydrogen, OH + HO2, is conserved by this cycle."
(Your quote underlined; my bolding) So, in context it is clear that the net reaction to which your refer is the loss of O3 and O and the creation of O2, hardly an explanation for the depletion of O2 from the atmosphere. That section, however, does not refer to section 4.2.2 from which you draw the methane related reactions, so I am unsure why you refer to it, or why Phil drew attention to it. -
Bob Loblaw at 08:53 AM on 26 July 2012Climate Change Cluedo: Anthropogenic CO2
OK. Chris. Let's see: 1) ozone is O3 2) "free oxygen atoms" = O Is there anything we've forgotten? Perhaps O2, commonly referred to as "oxygen"? Does the statement "O3 + O ==> 2O2" show up somewhere? -
Andy Skuce at 08:45 AM on 26 July 2012Tar Sands Oil - An Environmental Disaster
Clyde@5 In his recent New York Times article, I think that James Hansen's figures for the increase of atmospheric CO2 as a result of complete exploitation of the tar sands are incorrect. He cites a figure of 240 Gt of carbon in the tar sands, which, once combusted, would produce an increase of 120 ppm in the atmospheric concentration of CO2. This assumes that the atmospheric fraction (the percentage of CO2 emitted that stays in the air) would be 100% (today it's about 45%, with the rest of the CO2 going into the ocean and biosphere). Although some people are worried that the atmospheric fraction may increase over the next few decades as the biosphere turns from source to sink, it is very unlikely to rise to 100%. On the other hand, Hansen believes that we have already put too much extra CO2 into the ocean-atmosphere system and that we will have to, some day soon, take it out and sequester it. In that case, using the 100% figure is appropriate for the amount of CO2 that we will have to extract. The 240GtC figure he quoted in the NYT (last year in the Huffington Post he used a figure of 400GtC) is derived from the total bitumen-in-place, not the recoverable bitumen. Current recovery rates are around 50% for the most suitable reservoirs that have been chosen to exploited first and it seems unlikely, even with great improvements in technology, that the recovery rate for the unproven resources, which are located in thinner, deeper or less porous rocks, will exceed 50%. I would say that the 120ppm figure is too high by a factor of two and maybe even a factor of four. Which does not mean that I think developing the tar sands is inconsequential for the climate. On the contrary, an addition of 30-60ppm of CO2 from a single source is a very significant contribution towards the climate disaster that we are busy creating.See my blogpost Alberta’s bitumen sands: “negligible” climate effects, or the “biggest carbon bomb on the planet”? for more detail. -
prokaroytes at 08:05 AM on 26 July 2012Climate Change Cluedo: Anthropogenic CO2
I read following this section "In this case, the reactive hydrogen exists in the form of two liberated OH (hydroxyl radical) molecules which become the catalyst in a pair of reactions with odd oxygen (OX) that result in a net loss of OX, by which we mean a net loss of both ozone molecules and free oxygen atoms." Soooo? "..net loss" -
Flakmeister at 08:04 AM on 26 July 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #29
Not sure where this should go but your Braganza et al 2004 link is dead in http://www.skepticalscience.com/Empirically-observed-fingerprints-of-anthropogenic-global-warming.html replace it with http://150.229.66.66/staff/jma/2004GL019998.pdf -
Phil at 07:55 AM on 26 July 2012Climate Change Cluedo: Anthropogenic CO2
Chris Machens, You also need to read section 4.2.3 of the document you linked to. -
prokaroytes at 07:33 AM on 26 July 2012Climate Change Cluedo: Anthropogenic CO2
Phil "methane water vapor oxygen depletion atmosphere" This article describes the chemical reaction better: methane reacting with something called the singlet D oxygen atom, denoted O(1D). This is a free oxygen atom that is in a particular sort of excited state. The reaction is CH4 + O(1D) --> CH3 + OH The result is a hydroxyl radical and a leftover methyl radical (CH3), which quickly reacts via CH3 + O2 + M --> CH3O2 + M CH3O2 + NO --> CH3O + NO2 CH3O + O2 --> HCHO + HO2 Eventually, reactions of HCHO (formaldehyde) with the hydroxyl radical result in the production of another water vapor molecule in the region between 35 and 45-km HCHO + OH --> CHO + H2O http://www.ccpo.odu.edu/~lizsmith/SEES/ozone/class/Chap_5/5_4.htmModerator Response: TC: Link made live. -
Tom Curtis at 07:23 AM on 26 July 2012Tar Sands Oil - An Environmental Disaster
Further to Dana @6, Hansen is on record as saying that one way to tackle global warming is to never build another coal fired power station, and to phase out all existing coal stations by the end of their design life. He also adds a simultaneous fee and per capita dividend carbon tax. The idea is that by preventing the use of all coal reserves we prevent the burning of sufficient fossil fuels to exceed the 1.5 degree C limit he considers to be the safe limit on temperature increase. Clearly, following this logic he would oppose the opening of new coal mines in my home state of Queensland (Australia), even though all Qld reverves by themselves are no where near enough to take us over that limit. The logic is that what we (Queenslanders) permit ourselves to do, we cannot object to in others; and if others equally exploit their coal reserves we are heading for a 5 degree plus world. The same logic applies to tar sands. Even if the Alberta tar sands are not by themselves enough to bring on disaster, exploiting them tacitly encourages the exploitation of all tar sands, which would be disasterous. I consider the logic to be impeccable, regardless of the merits of any of Hansen's other claims about those tar sands. -
Robert Marston at 07:03 AM on 26 July 2012Tar Sands Oil - An Environmental Disaster
I think it's more an issue of going for the unconventional fuels. If we add tar sands, tight oil, oil shale, tight gas, methane hydrates, ultra deep water oil, and unconventional coal, we're on a road to increasing carbon emissions through at least 2030. You can't hit 2 degrees C in a scenario like that. Not by a long shot. Last year, the world emitted 31.6 billion metric tons of CO2, 3.2 percent more than the previous year. Fatih Birol: "When I look at this data, the trend is perfectly in line with a temperature increase of 6 degrees Celsius (by 2050), which would have devastating consequences for the planet." At the current growth rate, we're set to hit the trillion ton limit by around 2030 or even before. Much of the growth in fossil fuel use is coming from unconventional fuels like tar sands and since the extraction and enrichment process for tar sands is very similar to oil shale (which is a much, much larger resource), it's really critical we stuff that genie back in the bottle ASAP. -
vrooomie at 06:28 AM on 26 July 2012Climate Change Cluedo: Anthropogenic CO2
Chris@...multiples: It *generally* does not look very good, to contantly cite Wikipedia as a *primary* source of data. Nothing wrong with using it here and there but in addition to your dodging Sphaerica's direct questions, I would think you'd use more academic sources to back up what you posit. -
Phil at 06:28 AM on 26 July 2012Climate Change Cluedo: Anthropogenic CO2
Because the process of ozone depletion causes oxygen depletion. This statement is incorrect. Ozone depletion produces oxygen, as the wikipedia articles referenced describe. -
dana1981 at 04:51 AM on 26 July 2012Tar Sands Oil - An Environmental Disaster
Clyde, I think we're in agreement with Hansen, who says"If we turn to these dirtiest of fuels, instead of finding ways to phase out our addiction to fossil fuels, there is no hope of keeping carbon concentrations below 500 p.p.m....weneed to start reducing emissions significantly, not create new ways to increase them"
That's what we said in the above post. However, the amount of carbon which will be released by exploiting the tar sands is still not a climate catastrophe-causing quantity of carbon emissions. The problem is in the approach that we would be taking, exploiting unconventional fossil fuel sources rather than leaving as much carbon in the ground as possible. It represents taking the completely wrong approach, but just by the numbers, the tar sands emissions by themselves aren't going to mean the difference between catastrophe and non-catastrophe. -
vrooomie at 04:40 AM on 26 July 2012Earth's five mass extinction events
Geologista@68: Chances are you are long gone, and may not respond but just in case you may actually get word of this...this "geologita" would like you to provide definitive support, in the form of peer-reviewed sources, that back up your *highly* dogmatic assertion. "7)When looking at the fragility of reef systems and the oceans biomass natural and man-made hazards have impacted their growth and health but NOT FROM CO2." I will be astonished when/if you do/can.Moderator Response: [DB] Geologista has indeed not commented here since. -
prokaroytes at 04:34 AM on 26 July 2012Climate Change Cluedo: Anthropogenic CO2
Sphaerica: "Why did you change topics to ozone?" Because the process of ozone depletion causes oxygen depletion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone-oxygen_cycle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion -
Clyde at 04:32 AM on 26 July 2012Tar Sands Oil - An Environmental Disaster
This is not a climate catastrophe-causing quantity of carbon emissions James Hansen disagrees. If Canada proceeds, and we do nothing, it will be game over for the climate. Read more here. -
KR at 03:59 AM on 26 July 2012Earth hasn't warmed as much as expected
Lindzen is still pushing his nonsense, this time in a talk at Sandia labs. WUWT is echoing it as well. Points refuted a thousand times... -
Bob Lacatena at 03:29 AM on 26 July 2012Climate Change Cluedo: Anthropogenic CO2
15, 16, Chris, Why did you change topics to ozone? We were discussing O2 depletion in the entire atmosphere, and I presume (because we are on the topic of this post) as an indicator of an anthropogenic cause of CO2 increase. Any casual reader of your comment is going to interpret it in that fashion, and your comment suggests oxygen depletion is not an indicator of an anthropogenic source of CO2 increase. As such, you need to support the claim. Your shift to ozone depletion has no bearing whatsoever on the matter, and dodges the point. Your explanation of the chemistry is similarly irrelevant. I well understand the reaction, and anyone who doesn't can google it quickly enough. But you still haven't provided the necessary foundation for your argument, which is observational and computational evidence not merely that the reaction occurs (as it does naturally and continuously), but also that the mass balance involved, as compared to fossil fuel combustion, is high enough to diminish the argument in the original post. You've failed to do so. I'll give you a second chance, or dismiss your statement as unsubstantiated noise. -
prokaroytes at 01:53 AM on 26 July 2012Climate Change Cluedo: Anthropogenic CO2
And the reaction Shindell mentions, includes Oxygen. methane's reaction with hydroxyl radicals formed from singlet oxygen atoms and with water vapor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane -
prokaroytes at 01:51 AM on 26 July 2012Climate Change Cluedo: Anthropogenic CO2
Re 14 Sphaerica Observations of ozone show a thinning of the Earth's protective stratospheric ozone layer by about 3 to 8% overall since the 1970s. In the upper stratosphere, ozone depletion has been from 15 to 20%. Again, the model is better able to reproduce these values when increased water vapor is included. This is especially true in the upper stratosphere, where ozone is most sensitive to water. The model indicates that increased water vapor accounts for about 40% of the ozone loss in the upper stratosphere, and about 20% of the overall loss to date. There are two driving forces behind the change in stratospheric moisture. Increasing emissions of methane are transformed into water in the stratosphere by chemical reactions. This can account for about a third of the observed increase in moisture there. http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/shindell_05/ -
Bob Lacatena at 01:30 AM on 26 July 2012Climate Change Cluedo: Anthropogenic CO2
Chris, Do you have a citation for your Oxygen Depletion understanding... one complete with actual numbers? Nothing is ever "just this one cause," and the conversion of CH4 + O2 to CO2 and H2O is an ongoing natural process that gets H2O into the upper atmosphere. The question becomes one of simple math... how much O2 does the increase in the amount of CH4 (presumably from anthropogenic sources) consume, and how does this compare with the total oxygen depletion. Without those numbers, and a citation, your statement is pure speculation. But I strongly doubt that the numbers balance, or that fossil fuel combustion fails to dwarf the upper atmosphere methane contribution. -
vrooomie at 23:26 PM on 25 July 2012New research special - satellite measurement papers 2010-2011
Record Greenland Ice MeltModerator Response: [RH] In the future you should try to include more context rather than post a link only comment. -
mdenison at 19:41 PM on 25 July 2012Tar Sands Oil - An Environmental Disaster
82% higher (broken link) -
prokaroytes at 17:06 PM on 25 July 2012Climate Change Cluedo: Anthropogenic CO2
As i understand the Oxygen Depletion is attributed to greenhouses gases like Methane breaking down in the upper atmosphere and this reaction consumes O2 molecules. On another note (-Snip-)Moderator Response: [DB] As an FYI: promoting awareness of research tangential to the OP is acceptable; promoting your blog is not. Self-promotional link snipped. -
mandas at 16:25 PM on 25 July 2012Tar Sands Oil - An Environmental Disaster
Thanks dana -
dana1981 at 15:11 PM on 25 July 2012Tar Sands Oil - An Environmental Disaster
mandas - McKibben's number is from now to 2050, whereas the Aussie Climate Commmission was 2000 to 2050. We've already emitted 328 Gt, bringing the remaining budget down to 672 Gt. McKibben also uses an 80% probability of limiting to 2°C vs. the Climate Commission's 75%. Not sure what accounts for the rest of the discrepancy, but it's not an exact calculation. -
mandas at 13:36 PM on 25 July 2012Tar Sands Oil - An Environmental Disaster
I am interested in the number from the Australian Climate Commission's The Critical Decade report that humanity has a budget of 1 trillion tonnes of CO2 between 2000 and 2050 to have a probability of about 75% of limiting global warming to 2°C or less. I read the piece by Bill McKibben in Rolling Stone last week which quoted a figure of 565 gigatonnes to stay below a 2 degree increase - which is only half the ACC figure. I would be interested to see the basis for both of these numbers, and an explanation for the discrepancy. -
scaddenp at 11:09 AM on 25 July 2012New research special - satellite measurement papers 2010-2011
Note also that the Sorenson paper linked in the Cryosphere list uses altimetry for ice change. Dome is positive is anything. -
scaddenp at 10:23 AM on 25 July 2012New research special - satellite measurement papers 2010-2011
Paul, I dont know. It might not be falling at all (depends on amount of winter accumulation) but do you expect much change? The GRACE maps of mass loss show most of the losses around the edges (as you would expect). -
yocta at 09:00 AM on 25 July 2012Climate Change Cluedo: Anthropogenic CO2
Fantastic post! Really great to see a short succinct summary with the points expanded on. This is great fodder to fight away the armies of the night. -
Paul Magnus at 06:41 AM on 25 July 2012New research special - satellite measurement papers 2010-2011
indeed, but how fast is the height of the dome falling? Greenland Ice Melt, Measured By NASA Satellites, Reaches Unprecedented Level http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/24/greenland-ice-melt-nasa_n_1698129.html -
Martin Vermeer at 05:53 AM on 25 July 2012Trigger for past rapid sea level rise discovered
Ah, that explains. I find on Wikipedia for the mean ice thickness of Antarctica "at least 1.6 km" and area 14M km^2, while the total ocean surface is 360M km^2. That gives 62 m for the sea-level effect. It's actually over 1.6 km thick; other sources give 2 km. (But OTOH the rock surface on which it lies is up to 2.5 km below sea level in West Antarctica.) And then, of course, ice contracts when melting. That gives us 0.9*2000*14/360 = 70 meters, which is the value most often found in the literature. -
prokaroytes at 03:59 AM on 25 July 2012Trigger for past rapid sea level rise discovered
Re the 100-180 figure: That statement according to David Noone is a simple calculation. Area of the Antarctic divided by the surface area of the earth. And the mean depth of the ice sheet 2km on average, or 4km on top. -
Alexandre at 00:06 AM on 25 July 2012Climate Change Cluedo: Anthropogenic CO2
Thank you Tom! You commented briefly about this weeks ago, and I'm glad you put all the effort and work to release this post with more depth. I'll definetely save it as a reference. -
ajki at 23:29 PM on 24 July 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #29
@1: Some browser plugins exist for different browsers to assist input into a html textbox. For an example see Text Formatting Toolbar [mozilla.org] for Firefox (no recommendation intended). There will be a learning curve using such tools. Not all html tags supported by those tools are usable within all textboxes or on SkS. The site owner could integrate a WYSIWIG-Editor into the codebase of this server (CKEditor clones, TinyMCE or the like). This would lead to some additional server load and questionable benefit for most users. -
chriskoz at 23:26 PM on 24 July 2012Climate Change Cluedo: Anthropogenic CO2
Tom @7, Then it would make sense to break "fossil fuel arrow" into 2 arrows: 1) "C components of fossil fuels burning", which would form an isosceles triangle 30ppm x 30ppm 2) "H components of fossil fuels burning", which would be vertical arrow as it does not produce CO2 It would be clearer for me and would also indicate the difference between CO2 emmissions from burning pure coal vs. carobhydrates. Regardeless my comment herein, I join my predecessors in praising the value of this article: this is the best summary of arguments why humans are controling CO2. The AGW linking piece (CO2 rise=>warming) was best explained by Richard Alley in AGU 2009. -
robert test at 21:45 PM on 24 July 2012Climate Change Cluedo: Anthropogenic CO2
Tom, you nailed it -- in content, style, and method. Agree with Dikran Marsupial "definitive" describes your piece perfectly. I'd like to see a follow-up definitive posting using the same methodology to nail down atmospheric CO2 as the cause of current warming. -
Dikran Marsupial at 21:07 PM on 24 July 2012Climate Change Cluedo: Anthropogenic CO2
Super post Tom, this is the definitive SkS article on this issue! -
Tristan at 19:17 PM on 24 July 2012New research special - satellite measurement papers 2010-2011
Ari, you're the bomb. -
Tom Curtis at 19:16 PM on 24 July 2012Climate Change Cluedo: Anthropogenic CO2
chriskoz @6, oil products and methane also contain large quantities of hydrogen. The equation for methane is: CH4 + 2 x O2 => CO2 + 2 x H2O Other hydrocarbons are very similar. Estimates of total O2 consumption depend on estimates of total fuel use divided among the three main form of fuels - coal, oil, and methane. -
chriskoz at 18:37 PM on 24 July 2012Climate Change Cluedo: Anthropogenic CO2
I don't understand how the amount of O decline has been quantified in 6). In particular "fossil fuel burning" arrow covers 30ppm on CO2 axis but more than 40ppm on O axis. That sounds incorrect, because according to the obvious reaction: C + O2 -> CO2 O2 & CO2 are matched molecule for molecule, so deltas in O2 & CO2 should be the same. Am I missing something here? -
prokaroytes at 17:56 PM on 24 July 2012Trigger for past rapid sea level rise discovered
Alright i emailed him. -
prokaroytes at 17:53 PM on 24 July 2012Trigger for past rapid sea level rise discovered
Re Martin, i believe that Noone, mistaken feet for meters here. -
Martin Vermeer at 17:48 PM on 24 July 2012Trigger for past rapid sea level rise discovered
chriskoz #23:They assumed CO2 reaches 550, 750 and 1000ppm (3 scenarios) and stays constant after that for almost 3000y until 5000AD. That's very pessimistic/unlikely ...
Yep. And this is a paper by Richard Alley and colleagues... not good. Chris Machens #21, those are lecture notes. You may want to take it up with the lecturer (seriously): David C. Noone The statement "In unlikely case that all of Antarctica melts, 100-180 meters of sea level rise!" on the last slide is just plain wrong, as you know by now. -
prokaroytes at 17:41 PM on 24 July 2012Trigger for past rapid sea level rise discovered
I updated the image, after considering the feedback from this discussion. However i still display the flood map with 100 meter SLR. Because it still seems not so far fetched. Based on maximum SLR of 80 m (USGS, 2003). The wikipedia is stating a TE of 5-10 m during the PETM. So because i have not a better image, the more precise "90 m" ( with today's measurement) is not so far fetched from 100 m SLR given in the flood map i use. There seem to be some updates to ice sheet melt contribution to SLR ie. the wiki cites Greenland ice to rise 7.2 SLR, where the USGS numbers only use 6.4 - and maybe thermal expansion is higher then 10 m too. However if somebody can point me to a better graphic for showing the ice free planet, i would be happy to use that. -
jyyh at 17:34 PM on 24 July 2012Climate Change Cluedo: Anthropogenic CO2
MarkR: [[so many 'skeptics' argue it's natural is absolutely incredible to me!]] Well, I'm pretty much of the same opinion, since I know no one who has extracted the steel and chrome and oil needed to plastics from the ground, and who has built, f.e. a car from these, literally from scratch. Some people might argue learning is natural for humans, and that the products made with the skills acquired from learning are thus also natural, but I'm more old fashioned with my definitions and append these things to culture, since the support structure to build something from scratch (i.e. from the elements that have not been modified by other humans), is likely to involve some sort of culture. To take an example, f.e. I couldn't build even a wooden bow naturally, for I do not have the skills to weave a strong string from the wool that I could get from lambs by some stone tools I can make (I've not done any refining of metals though I know the principle (that I couldn't have found out by myself (the lake/swamp ore process)). But all of the above depends on the various uses of 'natural' that are not connected to the scientific evidence presented here, but are likely more of a subject of philosophy and semantics... Moderators please delete this if this is too out of line and OT. -
MarkR at 17:04 PM on 24 July 2012Climate Change Cluedo: Anthropogenic CO2
For me, it's the mass balance argument that seals it. There is physically no way that the rise isn't being caused by humans. Anyone who sees the mass balance emasurements and then accepts claims that it's a natural rise really needs their skepticism checking. The mass balance shows that for the rise to be natural, one or both of these things must be happening: 1) maths is wrong and bigger numbers are actually smaller than smaller numbers or 2) chemistry is wrong and molecules of carbon dioxide magically disappear in the atmosphere. That's the sort of hypothesis that's needed for a natural rise in CO2 to be logically consistent. The fact that so many 'skeptics' argue it's natural is absolutely incredible to me! -
chuckbot at 15:20 PM on 24 July 2012Climate Change Cluedo: Anthropogenic CO2
well done! It's things like this that sealed the case for AGW in my mind - you've presented 10 solid lines of evidence linking fossil fuel emissions to rising atmospheric CO2. One might imagine that a handful of those evidences are critically flawed, but that still leaves multiple independent justifications intact. To doubt the conclusion, you'd have to explain, not just why ALL the pieces of evidence are flawed, but how the flaws coincidentally line up in favor of the same conclusion. This would take considerably more work than the average fake skeptic is willing to invest. And when you move beyond "Emissions => CO2 Rise" to other core tenants of AGW, you see similar lists of solid, independent evidences (NOAA's graphics on signs of a warming world and human fingerprints on warming come to mind). I really don't see how someone can look at this and not, at least provisionally, accept the obvious conclusions. This is a question I run into surprisingly often. Thanks for putting the answers all in one place. -
jyyh at 14:51 PM on 24 July 2012Climate Change Cluedo: Anthropogenic CO2
(flame) so the ratio of 6/10 vs 1/10 makes AGW only 6 times more likely than GW if one prefers to look only the positive evidence. F.e. who has measured all the ratios of C isotopes from submarine ridges? And there might be ultra-sulfuric low-activity shield volcanoes near upwelling regions making the ocean more acidic. Has the sun produced more 13/14C(4+) that has hit the Earth in recent years? Is the sun transitioning to the alpha2 process (or what ever it was that involved Carbon fusion) and going to He burning??? OMG, we're all gonna die!!!(/flame) (no explanation for the rising [CO3(2-)] though.) Thanks, I guess this list of evidence is pretty extensive, and might be worth a quicklink. Does anybody come up more examples of the evidence of the source of the extra carbon in the atmosphere/ocean? For my part, after 5) had been solved 1999abouts I've seen nothing to doubt the Anthropogenic part of the GW, though I accept the deforestation is a part (and it's mostly anthropogenic too.) -
DaneelOlivaw at 14:19 PM on 24 July 2012Climate Change Cluedo: Anthropogenic CO2
Nice. I love all the other "hockey stick" graphs :)
Prev 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 Next
