Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The fact that you ask this indicates the validity of the question many have been asking which is:
How much of this warming and how much of the increase of atmospheric CO2 can be attributed to man versus nature?
Since you have repeatedly ignored my request for support of the ridiculous claim that an exponential increase in CO2 will lead to a linear increase in temp, I have to tell you yet again, that is BS.
The relationship between CO2 and temps is a logarithmic relationship and not linear.
Hopefully, you also learned that CO2 is not the only factor that impacts temperatures/climate.
It also isn't the one driving the current climate change.
The CO2 in the atmosphere is a kid on a seesaw, with the rest of the carbon cycle as a kid the same weight. Even if both kids weigh 100lbs, adding even just one lb would being to through the system out of equilibrium. Oh, the thing is we have added a whole other kid to the atmospheric side of the equation.
We have doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from atmospheric sources (which is measurable not via modeling but through isotopic analysis aka chemistry).
Well something I actually learned on this thread is that man made and naturally occurring CO2 has different a foot print. I would say that with deforestation and an increased use of fossil fuels would point to man as the primary reason.
What is your opinion?
I question the validity of this point. Is there evidence that some man-made (via burning fossil fuels) atmospheric CO2 shows a different footprint? I suspect there is some valid truth to this. That does not equate to the naturally created atmospheric CO2 footprint IS or MUST be different than the footprint of man-made atmospheric CO2.
Even IF we could determine the footprint of each and every molecule of man-made atmospheric CO2, we have no way of determining if there is naturally occurring atmospheric CO2 with the same footprint. To make such a claim, we must be able to proclaim we KNOW each and every source of naturally occurring atmospheric CO2 and the footprint associated with this source.
Humans are learning new things every day. To suggest we know all of anything, including the source of naturally occurring atmospheric CO2 is illogical at best.
Almost every paper that contradicts what was published is included on this list. Ask Steve McIntyre for a list. Some of them are his own work.
Since you have cast aspersions on the motives of scientists based on who funds the study, clearly you have investigated who funded those papers as well. What percentage of them are funded by energy corporations? What percent from oil and gas? What percent from foundations fronting for the above?
What are you talking about? It's in the the same thread we've both been reading. It's a pretty common accusation.
To be fair to InformedConsent, I don't think he/she has been putting forth that argument (not that you are saying that he/she is saying that).
InformedConsent's argument seems more to be that the theory of ACC isn't a theory at all because it has too many holes in it. As such, he/she thinks it's more of a hypothesis.
I think this is incredibly simplistic, and is more of a semantics debate (or a misunderstanding of what a "scientific theory" is) - but there is a point in there. We do still not understand a lot. I think we understand enough to know that man is contributing a lot to the warming - but of course we have not explained away all variables and their level of contribution.
Assigning exact blame is not very easy. And that isn't just true of Climate Science - I deal with this often in genetic research when trying to assign overall contribution of some nucleotide change to the a disease risk/causation.
That said, not knowing everything doesn't make what we do know any less meaningful.
Last edited by HockeyMac18; 03-03-2017 at 03:48 PM..
I question the validity of this point. Is there evidence that some man-made (via burning fossil fuels) atmospheric CO2 shows a different footprint? I suspect there is some valid truth to this. That does not equate to the naturally created atmospheric CO2 footprint IS or MUST be different than the footprint of man-made atmospheric CO2.
Even IF we could determine the footprint of each and every molecule of man-made atmospheric CO2, we have no way of determining if there is naturally occurring atmospheric CO2 with the same footprint. To make such a claim, we must be able to proclaim we KNOW each and every source of naturally occurring atmospheric CO2 and the footprint associated with this source.
Humans are learning new things every day. To suggest we know all of anything, including the source of naturally occurring atmospheric CO2 is illogical at best.
lkb has already pointed out that origin could be determined through isotopic ratios pages back. S/he explains it. Very cool!
I question the validity of this point. Is there evidence that some man-made (via burning fossil fuels) atmospheric shows a different footprint? I suspect there is some valid truth to this. That does not equate to the naturally created atmospheric CO2 footprint IS or MUST be different than the footprint of man-made atmospheric CO2.
Not a different footprint, but a different isotopic "fingerprint". I will give you sources on that if you include one on a source that says the relationship between an exponential increase in CO2 is a linear relationship in temp.
Quote:
Even IF we could determine the footprint of each and every molecule of man-made atmospheric CO2, we have no way of determining if there is naturally occurring atmospheric CO2 with the same footprint. To make such a claim, we must be able to proclaim we KNOW each and every source of naturally occurring atmospheric CO2 and the footprint associated with this source.
Yes we do. Carbon-14 has a half on the order of about 5K years. CO2 from fossil fuels has an isotopic fingerprint of no C14, because the fossilization process is millions of years. Natural sources of CO2 like decomposition, vulcanism, offgassing from the ocean, etc all have some proportion of C14 because those are new sources of C14. You of course know that C14 is made everyday in the atmosphere by the interaction of cosmic rays and Nitrogen right? Anyway, natural atmospheric CO2, has a high proportion of C14, which then moves at known rates through the carbon cycle, so distance down the cycle (in time) from the atmosphere has a unique amount of C14 (there are different yet similar mechanism for O16;18). But we can measure the CO2 in the atmosphere now (and have samples going back 50+ years) and we can see that the ratio change corresponds with the increase of anthropogenic carbon dioxide sources.
Quote:
Humans are learning new things every day. To suggest we know all of anything, including the source of naturally occurring atmospheric CO2 is illogical at best.
And you end with a logical fallacy, an appeal to ignorance. Speak for yourself. Just because you don't know something (what do you do btw?) doesn't mean it isn't known to science. Do you really think you should be talking about "we" when it comes to science? Since when do you speak for what "we" know?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
