- Joined
- Feb 6, 2010
- Messages
- 100,428
- Reaction score
- 53,139
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
From Bman's link.
There's your problem. That number right there.
He cites this website.
Current Greenhouse Gas Concentrations
The weird part is the number I circled appears nowhere on this page. This is not surprising. He's claiming that nature has added about 68ppm to the atmosphere. Where does he get this number? The page he links only gives pre-industrial baseline and the new concentration, it does not mention a difference between natural and man-made additions.
The glaring problem is that nature is a net CO2 sink. Nature emits a lot of CO2, but every single plant on the planet also absorbs CO2 when it grows. Not only is nature not increasing the CO2 levels, it's actually absorbing some of the CO2 we're emitting.
CO2 Emission Sources | Real Science
The image is a good representation of what I'm talking about. Ironically, this writer makes exactly the same mistake. He apparently didn't see the giant arrows pointing back down, the ones with numbers larger than the upward arrows.
The other issue is the addition of pre-industrial levels to the calculation in the first place. Because of this, his whole calculation is referencing the total greenhouse effect instead of what the discussion is actually about: the change in global temperatures from those pre-industrial levels. As I mentioned before, the way he calculates things is referencing an atmosphere without any greenhouse gasses. No water vapor. No CO2. Nothing. Earth would be about 33C colder in such a situation. Nobody references this number because it's useless. The baseline used is the pre-industrial climate, not a theoretical ball of ice!
End result? The number I circled should be negative, and the pre-industrial column probably shouldn't be there in the first place.
There's your problem. That number right there.
He cites this website.
Current Greenhouse Gas Concentrations
The weird part is the number I circled appears nowhere on this page. This is not surprising. He's claiming that nature has added about 68ppm to the atmosphere. Where does he get this number? The page he links only gives pre-industrial baseline and the new concentration, it does not mention a difference between natural and man-made additions.
The glaring problem is that nature is a net CO2 sink. Nature emits a lot of CO2, but every single plant on the planet also absorbs CO2 when it grows. Not only is nature not increasing the CO2 levels, it's actually absorbing some of the CO2 we're emitting.
CO2 Emission Sources | Real Science
The image is a good representation of what I'm talking about. Ironically, this writer makes exactly the same mistake. He apparently didn't see the giant arrows pointing back down, the ones with numbers larger than the upward arrows.
The other issue is the addition of pre-industrial levels to the calculation in the first place. Because of this, his whole calculation is referencing the total greenhouse effect instead of what the discussion is actually about: the change in global temperatures from those pre-industrial levels. As I mentioned before, the way he calculates things is referencing an atmosphere without any greenhouse gasses. No water vapor. No CO2. Nothing. Earth would be about 33C colder in such a situation. Nobody references this number because it's useless. The baseline used is the pre-industrial climate, not a theoretical ball of ice!
End result? The number I circled should be negative, and the pre-industrial column probably shouldn't be there in the first place.
Last edited: