Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [climatechangedebate] Claim CO2 isn't anthropogenic,

Expand Messages
  • David Wojick
    Bryce, this is wrong on two grounds, maybe three. First, we do not know that any of the supposed warming is due to the CO2 increase, and I doubt it is. More to
    Message 1 of 68 , Aug 3, 2011
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Bryce, this is wrong on two grounds, maybe three. First, we do not know that any of the supposed warming is due to the CO2 increase, and I doubt it is. More to the point your pool analog does not work because it ignores both the tremendous natural CO2 flux as well as the question as to what determines the atmospheric concentration. To push your analogy, suppose someone is filling the pool to a certain level, and draining off a lot as they go. Your ten raindrops are causally irrelevant to the increase.
      David
      Sent from my IPad

      On Aug 3, 2011, at 4:29 PM, Bryce Johnson <brycenuc@...> wrote:

       

      Some CO2 production would be anthropogenic even if we restricted our production to that from our own respiration.  So too, must some global warming be anthropogenic.  Just as it is undeniable that ten raindrops in an olympic sized swimming pool increases its water level.
       
      Bryce

      On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 10:18 AM, David Wojick <dwojick@...> wrote:
       

      Outstanding! The C12/C13 issue has been controversial for a long time.

      I have always kept the idea that the CO2 increase might not be anthro up front in my blog work, almost alone in that respect, mostly because of Howard Hayden's work on this. The SST-CO2 correlation is too strong for CO2 to be the driver, since CO2 is just one of many warming drivers under AGW, so SSTs are probably the cause of the CO2 increase. It is an elegant argument.

      David

      At 09:27 AM 8/3/2011, you wrote:

       

      I can't be bothered listening to audio or video of every contrarian, but here from a Google search, Salby's claim that humans aren't responsible.

      "Global Emission of Carbon Dioxide: The Contribution from Natural Sources by atmospheric physicist Professor Murry Salby, Chair of Climate, Macquarie University, talking at the Sydney Institute, on his conversion from agnostic to skeptic by his recent results on the natural origin of declining C12/C13 ratios in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

      In his paper due out in early 2012, he claims results that invalidate the main conclusions of the IPCC 2007 report called the AR4. Previous research showing humans are responsible for emissions of CO2 is wrong. Increasing CO2 is not ‘driving the climate bus’ but is very much in the back seat to temperature. Natural processes alter isotopic ratios similar to expected from burning fossil fuels.

      Here for abstract and cable times.

      http://catallaxyfiles.com/2011/08/03/stop-press-climate-talk-on-cable-today/

      http://landshape.org/enm/natural-co2-isotope-changes-mimic-the-burning-fossil-fuels/

      Old WUWT about CO2

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/28/spencer-pt2-more-co2-peculiarities-the-c13c12-isotope-ratio/

      Bob

      --- On Wed, 8/3/11, Ken Calvert <renertech@...> wrote:

      > From: Ken Calvert <renertech@... >
      > Subject: Re: [climatechangedebate] It is Stacking up against the IPCC
      > To: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com
      > Date: Wednesday, August 3, 2011, 3:39 AM
      > Gentlemen!  (Haven't heard any
      > female voices?)
      > As of yesterday the 2nd.  Murry Salby on CO2! From
      > down under! Its well
      > worth listening to if you have the time.
      > The audio is also here if you click on the right URL.Â
      > Ken C.
      > http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/new_research_warmth_produces_these_carbon_dioxide_concentrations/
      >
      >
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: "Ian L. McQueen" <imcqueen@... >
      > To: "CCD CLIMATE CHANGE DEBATE" < climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com>;
      >
      > < climatesceptics@yahoogroups.com>;
      > "NZ CLIMATE SCIENCE"
      > < climatescience@yahoogroups.com>
      > Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 1:54 PM
      > Subject: [climatechangedebate] TIM BALL INTERVIEW [2-8-11]
      >
      >
      > > < http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/featured/prime-time/867432237001/the-hoax-is-up/1091507152001 >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > ------------------------------------
      > >
      > > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      > ------------------------------------
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >     climatechangedebate-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
      >
      >
      >


    • David Wojick
      Don, you are right about the tons being C versus CO2. My point was simply that our 8 billion tons do in fact leave the atmosphere pretty quickly, or disappear,
      Message 68 of 68 , Aug 13, 2011
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Don, you are right about the tons being C versus CO2. My point was simply that our 8 billion tons do in fact leave the atmosphere pretty quickly, or disappear, most of it in less that 5 years. You introduced that issue.

        And yes I believe they have no effect for the short time they remain in the atmosphere, none that anyone can find. There are two reasons for this. First, to return to the subject of this thread, the CO2 increase is probably not due to human emissions. Second, even if it is, it seems to have no effect. I see no evidence of CO2 induced warming.

        David


        At 08:56 AM 8/13/2011, you wrote:
         

        Hi David,

        Ok, so you are saying ( I think ) : there is a natural flux, therefore our emissions disappear without effect. A variation on the 'magic wand' theory.
        BTW the 8 billion tons per year is carbon, not CO2.

        Don Cooper

        --- In climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com, David Wojick <dwojick@...> wrote:
        >
        > Don, do you understand that roughly 200 billion tons of CO2 leave the atmosphere each year, as part of the carbon cycle? Our emissions are around 8 billion. I am not making this up.
        >
        > Sent from my IPad
        >
        > On Aug 8, 2011, at 12:46 PM, "dcooper123" <dcooper123@...> wrote:
        >
        > > Hi David,
        > >
        > > "Don, if you want to talk about concentration then it brings us back to the original issue with this thread, namely new evidence that the concentration increase is not due to human emissions, something I have believed for a long time."
        > >
        > > Interesting that you "believe" that. I'm assuming that you aren't trying to argue against the basic chemistry involved in combustion, so you do "believe" that CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere. But you think that it somehow has no effect on the atmosphere, that it disappears somehow? I'm not clear on what your "belief" is.
        > >
        > > "But I now have no idea what you mean by CO2 does not disappear. Roughly 200 billion tons disappear from the atmosphere every year, including a lot of the human stuff. But the 800 billion or so tons total atmospheric concentration does not disappear. Of course that which leaves the atmosphere goes someplace else, perhaps separating into C and O, so it does not disappear from the global system. So what?"
        > >
        > > So, you really don't have any clue? You just choose to believe that the CO2 goes "someplace else"? I guess I was right about the magic wand after all.
        > > You haven't even hinted at any physical process that could possibly explain what you "believe" about CO2. But if you ever get around to thinking about it rather than believing, you might want to start with the minor issue of how anthropogenic CO2 emissions are selectively removed from the atmosphere.
        > >
        > > Don Cooper
        > >
        > >
        >

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.