• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Climate Change Cluedo: Anthropogenic CO2

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
27,254
Reaction score
9,350
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
[h=3]Anthropogenic CO2?[/h] The human-caused origin (anthropogenic) of the measured increase in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 is a cornerstone of predictions of future temperature rises. As such, it has come under frequent attack by people who challenge the science of global warming. One thing noteworthy about those attacks is that the full range of evidence supporting the anthropogenic nature of the CO2 increase seems to slip from sight. So what is the full range of supporting evidence? There are ten main lines of evidence to be considered:


  1. The start of the growth in CO2 concentration coincides with the start of the industrial revolution, hence anthropogenic;
  2. Increase in CO2 concentration over the long term almost exactly correlates with cumulative anthropogenic emissions, hence anthropogenic;
  3. Annual CO2 concentration growth is less than Annual CO2 emissions, hence anthropogenic;
  4. Declining C14 ratio indicates the source is very old, hence fossil fuel or volcanic (ie, not oceanic outgassing or a recent biological source);
  5. Declining C13 ratio indicates a biological source, hence not volcanic;
  6. Declining O2 concentration indicate combustion, hence not volcanic;
  7. Partial pressure of CO2 in the ocean is increasing, hence not oceanic outgassing;
  8. Measured CO2 emissions from all (surface and beneath the sea) volcanoes are one-hundredth of anthropogenic CO2 emissions; hence not volcanic;
  9. Known changes in biomass too small by a factor of 10, hence not deforestation; and
  10. Known changes of CO2 concentration with temperature are too small by a factor of 10, hence not ocean outgassing. Climate Change Cluedo: Anthropogenic CO2
 

flogger

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
16,600
Reaction score
3,990
Location
Wokingham, England
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Thanks for the science denier viewpoint!

If you cite the most selectively interpreted drivel from the most non scientific and rabidly activist blogsites and then try and pass it off as somehow legitimate research what sort of response did you expect to get ? :lamo
 

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
27,254
Reaction score
9,350
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
If you cite the most selectively interpreted drivel from the most non scientific and rabidly activist blogsites and then try and pass it off as somehow legitimate research what sort of response did you expect to get ? :lamo

Every single piece of evidence listed above is from on peer-reviewed science. You shooting the messenger doesn't refute the scientific evidence.
 

Dezaad

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
5,057
Reaction score
2,424
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
If you cite the most selectively interpreted drivel from the most non scientific and rabidly activist blogsites and then try and pass it off as somehow legitimate research what sort of response did you expect to get ? :lamo

Some bloggers cite their sources, and those sources are sometimes all of high quality. That is what we have here... A blogger that knows what he is about.
 

flogger

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
16,600
Reaction score
3,990
Location
Wokingham, England
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Every single piece of evidence listed above is from on peer-reviewed science. You shooting the messenger doesn't refute the scientific evidence.

Its our cartoonist friends subjective interpretation of cherry picked material material thats at issue.
 

Ray410

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2012
Messages
4,838
Reaction score
2,565
Location
Nevada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The reason so many of the liberal academics cannot let go of the global warning routine is that it provided them an opportunity to feel enormously superior to others. It appeared to be an esoteric science that only the elitist of the elite could know. They saw an opportunity to soar above and dribble their specious, elitist knowledge of the unknown to the jabbering masses.

Now, of course, they are an annoyance with their endless babbling. They are akin to the ancient mariner who runs to strangers on the street, grabs their lapels and recites his strange story. This would be a time for grievance counseling because they cannot let go after their loss.
 
Last edited:

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
27,254
Reaction score
9,350
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Its our cartoonist friends subjective interpretation of cherry picked material material thats at issue.

Translated from science denier speak - The peer reviewed evidence of AGW:

1. Wolfgang Knorr, 2009)
2. (Scripps Institute)
3. Cawley, 2011; data from CDIAC)
4. Levin and Hesshaimer 2006)
5. (Bohm et al, 2002)
6. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/108.htm
7. 7A: Carbon Dioxide and Ocean pH: What's the Connection?
8. American Geophysical Union
9.All datasets and modeling output to complete the Global Carbon Budget 2012 are described in detail in Le Quere et al. (2012) [http://bit.ly/UY8GTQ]
All datasets contributing to this year’s update have been integrated in one single file. It is archived at CDIAC doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3334/CDIAC/GCP_V2012 (Excel, 263kb)
10. Lawdome75yrco2.svg
 

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
29,515
Reaction score
10,020
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
[h=3]Anthropogenic CO2?[/h] The human-caused origin (anthropogenic) of the measured increase in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 is a cornerstone of predictions of future temperature rises. As such, it has come under frequent attack by people who challenge the science of global warming. One thing noteworthy about those attacks is that the full range of evidence supporting the anthropogenic nature of the CO2 increase seems to slip from sight. So what is the full range of supporting evidence? There are ten main lines of evidence to be considered:


  1. The start of the growth in CO2 concentration coincides with the start of the industrial revolution, hence anthropogenic;
  2. Increase in CO2 concentration over the long term almost exactly correlates with cumulative anthropogenic emissions, hence anthropogenic;
  3. Annual CO2 concentration growth is less than Annual CO2 emissions, hence anthropogenic;
  4. Declining C14 ratio indicates the source is very old, hence fossil fuel or volcanic (ie, not oceanic outgassing or a recent biological source);
  5. Declining C13 ratio indicates a biological source, hence not volcanic;
  6. Declining O2 concentration indicate combustion, hence not volcanic;
  7. Partial pressure of CO2 in the ocean is increasing, hence not oceanic outgassing;
  8. Measured CO2 emissions from all (surface and beneath the sea) volcanoes are one-hundredth of anthropogenic CO2 emissions; hence not volcanic;
  9. Known changes in biomass too small by a factor of 10, hence not deforestation; and
  10. Known changes of CO2 concentration with temperature are too small by a factor of 10, hence not ocean outgassing. Climate Change Cluedo: Anthropogenic CO2
Most of the above list seems ok, except 8, and 9 may be difficult to verify.
The real issue, is that none of the above hypothesizes a testable connection between the rise in Co2,
and the observed warming.
Without a working theory, there is no way to Scientifically disprove the stated connection.
 

MoSurveyor

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
10,016
Reaction score
3,900
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Its our cartoonist friends subjective interpretation of cherry picked material material thats at issue.
Here, I'll click on those source links for you and you can have at it. I'll be reading through them over the next week or so. :)

1. http://radioviceonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/knorr2009_co2_sequestration.pdf

2. Scripps CO2 Program

3. An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie (Behind a pay wall)

4. http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/6862/1/LevinRAD2000.pdf

5. Evidence for preindustrial variations in the marine surface water carbonate system from coralline sponges - B[]hm - 2002 - Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems - Wiley Online Library (behind a pay wall)

6. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/108.htm (Multiple references here and I've looked at two of the ice core studies so I know they're available online. Did not investigate the others but I'm sure you can Google them.)

7. 7A: Carbon Dioxide and Ocean pH: What's the Connection?

8. http://www.agu.org/pubs/pdf/2011EO240001.pdf

9. Carbon Budget (never seen this site before but I will save the location to see if it's junk or not)

10. Carbon Budget (the reference here was just the picture but here the link to the data set ... NOAA Paleoclimatology World Data Centers Law Dome Ice Core)
 

MoSurveyor

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
10,016
Reaction score
3,900
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Most of the above list seems ok, except 8, and 9 may be difficult to verify.
The real issue, is that none of the above hypothesizes a testable connection between the rise in Co2,
and the observed warming.

Without a working theory, there is no way to Scientifically disprove the stated connection.
Which is why I remain skeptical instead of being a Denier or a Warmer. There are obvious correlations across the records but a correlation does not always denote causality.
 
Last edited:

clownboy

DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
26,087
Reaction score
10,860
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
[h=3]Anthropogenic CO2?[/h] The human-caused origin (anthropogenic) of the measured increase in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 is a cornerstone of predictions of future temperature rises. As such, it has come under frequent attack by people who challenge the science of global warming. One thing noteworthy about those attacks is that the full range of evidence supporting the anthropogenic nature of the CO2 increase seems to slip from sight. So what is the full range of supporting evidence? There are ten main lines of evidence to be considered:


  1. The start of the growth in CO2 concentration coincides with the start of the industrial revolution, hence anthropogenic;
  2. Increase in CO2 concentration over the long term almost exactly correlates with cumulative anthropogenic emissions, hence anthropogenic;
  3. Annual CO2 concentration growth is less than Annual CO2 emissions, hence anthropogenic;
  4. Declining C14 ratio indicates the source is very old, hence fossil fuel or volcanic (ie, not oceanic outgassing or a recent biological source);
  5. Declining C13 ratio indicates a biological source, hence not volcanic;
  6. Declining O2 concentration indicate combustion, hence not volcanic;
  7. Partial pressure of CO2 in the ocean is increasing, hence not oceanic outgassing;
  8. Measured CO2 emissions from all (surface and beneath the sea) volcanoes are one-hundredth of anthropogenic CO2 emissions; hence not volcanic;
  9. Known changes in biomass too small by a factor of 10, hence not deforestation; and
  10. Known changes of CO2 concentration with temperature are too small by a factor of 10, hence not ocean outgassing. Climate Change Cluedo: Anthropogenic CO2

There are plenty more sources of CO2 than just volcanic. Just start you off on your path to education, coal seam fires. There's one in the Phillipines that's been burning for thousands of years and roughly 10-15% of China's vast fields are burning. Then there's trees. Yup, that's right, older forests become CO2 emitters.
 

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
27,254
Reaction score
9,350
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Most of the above list seems ok, except 8, and 9 may be difficult to verify.
The real issue, is that none of the above hypothesizes a testable connection between the rise in Co2,
and the observed warming.
Without a working theory, there is no way to Scientifically disprove the stated connection.

The above peer-reviewed scientific studies together with well established greenhouse effect principal have not had any credible scientific challenge since 2007.
 

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
27,254
Reaction score
9,350
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
There are plenty more sources of CO2 than just volcanic. Just start you off on your path to education, coal seam fires. There's one in the Phillipines that's been burning for thousands of years and roughly 10-15% of China's vast fields are burning. Then there's trees. Yup, that's right, older forests become CO2 emitters.


If you think you have discovered something the world scientists haven't considered, why don't you conduct a scientific study, and have it peer reviewed?
 

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
29,515
Reaction score
10,020
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The above peer-reviewed scientific studies together with well established greenhouse effect principal have not had any credible scientific challenge since 2007.
And yet they have no Scientifically measurable theory that connects Co2 to the observed warming.
The greenhouse effects of Co2 are well established, and alone cannot account for the observed warming,
To forecast abnormal warming, it becomes necessary, to add in positive feedback.
It is the mechanism of this feedback that has not been defined.
 

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
29,515
Reaction score
10,020
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Which is why I remain skeptical instead of being a Denier or a Warmer. There are obvious correlations across the records but a correlation does not always denote causality.
I am also in the skeptic camp. I may appear on the Denier side, but that is more for entertainment value.:mrgreen:
I could be convinced, that Co2 is related to abnormal warming, but see no value in the Panic.
I think we have bigger issues to worry about. (water, Fuel, food, ect)
 

Middleground

Dam Epidamic
Bartender
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 15, 2005
Messages
26,290
Reaction score
12,309
Location
Canada's Capital
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
I am also in the skeptic camp. I may appear on the Denier side, but that is more for entertainment value.:mrgreen:
I could be convinced, that Co2 is related to abnormal warming, but see no value in the Panic.
I think we have bigger issues to worry about. (water, Fuel, food, ect)

That fact that you do not see the connection of Climate Change to water/food/fuel is beyond me.
 

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
27,254
Reaction score
9,350
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
And yet they have no Scientifically measurable theory that connects Co2 to the observed warming.
The greenhouse effects of Co2 are well established, and alone cannot account for the observed warming,
To forecast abnormal warming, it becomes necessary, to add in positive feedback.
It is the mechanism of this feedback that has not been defined.

We have the evidence and we have the well established scientific principle that connects them to the observed warming.
 

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
29,515
Reaction score
10,020
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
We have the evidence and we have the well established scientific principle that connects them to the observed warming.
And if you would be so kind to cite this connection?
 

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
27,254
Reaction score
9,350
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
That fact that you do not see the connection of Climate Change to water/food/fuel is beyond me.

Exactly MG! I think there has to be some denial involved not to see that connection.
 

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
29,515
Reaction score
10,020
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
My answer remains the same,
The real issue, is that none of the above hypothesizes a testable connection between the rise in Co2,
and the observed warming.
Without a working theory, there is no way to Scientifically disprove the stated connection.

Co2 has a finite number of energy states, Bending, Stretching, Rotational , Asymmetric.
These states each translate to a fixed frequency ether emitted or absorbed.
In order for Co2 to pass energy to another gas.
The other gas needs to be sending the frequencies that Co2 is capable of receiving,
or the other gas needs to be capable of receiving one of the frequencies Co2 is emitting.
The AGW hypothesis states that the extra Co2 is passing it's captured energy to some yet
to be defined gas, and that interaction is causing the climate forcing.
They have not named the other gas, or defined the frequencies at which it is passing the energy.
If they would define this process, Scientist could test to see if the energy transfers could be
replicated in a lab setting.
 

Manc Skipper

Wrinkly member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2008
Messages
33,692
Reaction score
22,491
Location
Southern England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
My answer remains the same,
The real issue, is that none of the above hypothesizes a testable connection between the rise in Co2,
and the observed warming.
Without a working theory, there is no way to Scientifically disprove the stated connection.

Co2 has a finite number of energy states, Bending, Stretching, Rotational , Asymmetric.
These states each translate to a fixed frequency ether emitted or absorbed.
In order for Co2 to pass energy to another gas.
The other gas needs to be sending the frequencies that Co2 is capable of receiving,
or the other gas needs to be capable of receiving one of the frequencies Co2 is emitting.
The AGW hypothesis states that the extra Co2 is passing it's captured energy to some yet
to be defined gas, and that interaction is causing the climate forcing.
They have not named the other gas, or defined the frequencies at which it is passing the energy.
If they would define this process, Scientist could test to see if the energy transfers could be
replicated in a lab setting.

Where is this gobbledegook included in the "AGW hypothesis?
 

iguanaman

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 16, 2011
Messages
49,393
Reaction score
17,382
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Which is why I remain skeptical instead of being a Denier or a Warmer. There are obvious correlations across the records but a correlation does not always denote causality.

Given that Co2 is verified as a "greenhouse gas" that traps heat, what other conclusion can be made from increased Co2 levels but warming? You seem to be unable to see the forest for the trees.
 
Top Bottom