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.
If that were true, there would be both atmospheric and oceanic saturation, which is far from the case.
I suppose you think that if you shake up sea water, it will "fizz" like a Fresca? I know that fallacious claims are rife in the AGW world, but try to stay somewhat close to reality. It is embarassing.
That has nothing to do with the argument. You were defending the use of logical fallacies by citing the existence of anti-vaxers.
That has absolutely nothing to with Tim Ball, climate skepticism or the fact that logical fallacies are poor way to engage in a debate. In fact, it is ANOTHER logical fallacy that you are attempting to equate skepticism of climate change alarmism as being the same as an anti-vaxer.
Wiki is one hell a lot better source than what I see from deniers....I know it may be too complicated for some but everything on that wiki page is referenced.
Great way to engage in a discussion! Call people "deniers", insult their intelligence and tell people not to cite poor sources, while you do the exact same thing.
The OP asked if anyone could refute the article cited on it's merits alone, not by it's source or your particular bias of that source. I guess you failed.
The natural carbon cycle is kept very nearly in balance; animals and plants emit CO2 into the atmosphere through respiration, while plants absorb it through photosynthesis.
The bold is wrong. Plants emit oxygen into the atmosphere. Look up photosynthesis...
Maybe an honest error... but how can plants both emit and absorb CO2 at the same time?
And even before that statement... your link states that the "natural carbon cycle is kept very nearly in balance". I agree.
Wiki is one hell a lot better source than what I see from deniers....I know it may be too complicated for some but everything on that wiki page is referenced.
Try to site WIKI on a college paper and see what kind of grade it brings.
I believe this is a great read and encourage you to do so. Please do not attack the source either with attempted character assassinations or by proclaiming how you'll simply dismiss the article because it came from Dr. Tim Ball. If you disagree with Dr. Tim Ball, make a contribution to the thread by stating which individual parts of the data you disagree with and why, then please support your criticism with supporting links.
Why shouldn't we dismiss Tim Ball who is picking up pocket change in his declining years by working as a shill for the ultra conservative Heartland Institute which is dedicated to convincing the lay public that there's no such thing as climate change. I glanced over the Heartland Institutes own list of endorsements and was amused to see the name of environmentalist Bill McGibbon who was quoted out of context as saying, "This tiny collection of [skeptics] has actually been incredibly effective over the past years.” This cherry picking is just downright pathetic especially since Heartland CEO Joe Bast called Bill McKibben and Michael Mann ‘Madmen.’ Including the words of a so-called madman as an endorsement is really scraping the bottom of the barrell.
I glanced over your two links and it's apparent that the closest Ball ever came to a physics class was to erase the blackboards of all the equations once the class was over. I could spend the next half hour explaining why Ball's statements in your second link show an amazing ignorance of both climate science and the laws of thermodynamics, but this is PoC, not the science forum.
Over the past few years I have offered to answer any questions about the SCIENCE of climate change, but never have had anyone take me up on it. Conservatives here want to argue propaganda and half truths - heaven forbid that they expose themselves to even the most simplified mathematical equations or go to the trouble of understanding how science, scientists and scientific theories work. It is ever so much more fun to stand around with their heads in the sand and proclaim all is well as a tsunami rushes up the beach to sweep them away.
The science of global warming/climate change has been settled for a very long time now, Conservative squawking notwithstanding. Meanwhile in today's climate news, top Admiral nominee, Adm. Bill Moran, told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday that climate change is "going to be a problem" for the military branch, adding that the service is working on a plan to prepare bases for challenges such as rising waters. In addition, last Friday The EPA published a 150-page document urging communities to start planning for the fact that climate change is going to make catastrophes worse. The report is the latest example of government experts continuing to sound the alarm as the White House tries to minimize or ignore climate science.
Write your Congressperson now and demand that Adm. Moran be forced into an early retirement since the republican propaganda machine tops any concerns for national defense (sarcasm).
Carry on, oh Trumpers and don't forget your water wings.
I believe this is a great read and encourage you to do so. Please do not attack the source either with attempted character assassinations or by proclaiming how you'll simply dismiss the article because it came from Dr. Tim Ball. If you disagree with Dr. Tim Ball, make a contribution to the thread by stating which individual parts of the data you disagree with and why, then please support your criticism with supporting links.
OK. Here are the bullet points from the article and my comments in red:
Natural levels of Carbon dioxide (CO2) are less than 0.04% of the total atmosphere; completely irrelevant. The impact of a compound is the product of its concentration and the effectiveness of it having a certain effect. The toxicity of sarin gas, for example is measure in parts per trillion
Water vapour which is 95 percent of the greenhouse gases by volume is by far the most abundant and important greenhouse gas. Again, abundance by itself is meaningless. And a warming atmosphere will hold more water vapor, which may magnify the effect of CO2 on global warming https://www.climatesignals.org/clima...sture-increase
The other natural greenhouse gas of relevance is methane (CH4), but it is only 0.000175 percent of atmospheric gases and 0,036 percent of all greenhouse gases. Point being?
In order to amplify the importance of CO2 they created a measure called “climate sensitivity”. This determines that CO2 is more “effective” as a greenhouse gas than water vapour
Here is a table from Wikipedia showing estimates of the effectiveness of the various GHGs. Notice the range of estimates, which effectively makes the measures meaningless, unless you have a political agenda. Wikipedia acknowledges “It is not possible to state that a certain gas causes an exact percentage of the greenhouse effect.”The range of estimates is not all that great. In any case it shows that H2O and CO2 have about the same impact on the greenhouse effect, within an order of magnitude. We can control how much CO2 is released much more than we can control water vapor. When you burn a hydrocarbon, you release one molecule of H2O for every molecule of CO2. Because levels of H2O are much higher, that release is insignificant. Not so for CO2.
The result of determining “effectiveness” was the creation of a Global Warming Potential (GWP) chart. It was similar to the chart of Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS) created after the false claim that CFCs were destroying ozone in the upper atmosphere. No evidence is offered that the claim was false. Ozone levels have stabilized since CFCs were banned. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/im...ating-chemical.
The ocean is the major control of atmospheric CO2, but its ability varies with water temperature. A cold ocean absorbs more than a warm ocean.So again, a magnifying effect on global warming
Humans produce CO2, but they also remove it from the atmosphere. Agriculture and forestry are the major absorbers, removing an estimated 50 percent of total production. No supporting data is presented. But if we cut down an old growth forest to plant sugar cane, what do you think the net effect on CO2 would be?
Carbon dioxide is essential for all life on Earth. Research shows current levels of 392 ppm are approximately one third the optimum for most plants. Empirical evidence from CO2 levels injected into commercial greenhouses indicate optimum yields at levels between 1000 and 1200 ppm. Interestingly this is the average level of the last 300 million years.So if you want a hot planet that is great for plants to grow but not too good for humans, keep pumping out the CO2
Corrected with one additional highlight:
OK. Here are the bullet points from the article and my comments in red:
Natural levels of Carbon dioxide (CO2) are less than 0.04% of the total atmosphere; completely irrelevant. The impact of a compound is the product of its concentration and the effectiveness of it having a certain effect. The toxicity of sarin gas, for example is measure in parts per trillion
Water vapour which is 95 percent of the greenhouse gases by volume is by far the most abundant and important greenhouse gas. Again, abundance by itself is meaningless. And a warming atmosphere will hold more water vapor, which may magnify the effect of CO2 on global warming https://www.climatesignals.org/clima...sture-increase
The other natural greenhouse gas of relevance is methane (CH4), but it is only 0.000175 percent of atmospheric gases and 0,036 percent of all greenhouse gases. Point being?
In order to amplify the importance of CO2 they created a measure called “climate sensitivity”. This determines that CO2 is more “effective” as a greenhouse gas than water vapour
Here is a table from Wikipedia showing estimates of the effectiveness of the various GHGs. Notice the range of estimates, which effectively makes the measures meaningless, unless you have a political agenda. Wikipedia acknowledges “It is not possible to state that a certain gas causes an exact percentage of the greenhouse effect.”The range of estimates is not all that great. In any case it shows that H2O and CO2 have about the same impact on the greenhouse effect, within an order of magnitude. We can control how much CO2 is released much more than we can control water vapor. When you burn a hydrocarbon, you release one molecule of H2O for every molecule of CO2. Because levels of H2O are much higher, that release is insignificant. Not so for CO2.
The result of determining “effectiveness” was the creation of a Global Warming Potential (GWP) chart. It was similar to the chart of Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS) created after the false claim that CFCs were destroying ozone in the upper atmosphere. No evidence is offered that the claim was false. Ozone levels have stabilized since CFCs were banned. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/im...ating-chemical.
The ocean is the major control of atmospheric CO2, but its ability varies with water temperature. A cold ocean absorbs more than a warm ocean.So again, a magnifying effect on global warming
Humans produce CO2, but they also remove it from the atmosphere. Agriculture and forestry are the major absorbers, removing an estimated 50 percent of total production. No supporting data is presented. But if we cut down an old growth forest to plant sugar cane, what do you think the net effect on CO2 would be?
Carbon dioxide is essential for all life on Earth. Research shows current levels of 392 ppm are approximately one third the optimum for most plants. Empirical evidence from CO2 levels injected into commercial greenhouses indicate optimum yields at levels between 1000 and 1200 ppm. Interestingly this is the average level of the last 300 million years.So if you want a hot planet that is great for plants to grow but not too good for humans, keep pumping out the CO2
Why shouldn't we dismiss Tim Ball who is picking up pocket change in his declining years by working as a shill for the ultra conservative Heartland Institute which is dedicated to convincing the lay public that there's no such thing as climate change. I glanced over the Heartland Institutes own [URL="https://www.heartland.org/about-us/what-theyre-saying/"]list of endorsements[/URL] and was amused to see the name of environmentalist Bill McGibbon who was quoted out of context as saying, "This tiny collection of [skeptics] has actually been incredibly effective over the past years.” This cherry picking is just downright pathetic especially since Heartland CEO Joe Bast called Bill McKibben and Michael Mann ‘Madmen.’ Including the words of a so-called madman as an endorsement is really scraping the bottom of the barrell.
I glanced over your two links and it's apparent that the closest Ball ever came to a physics class was to erase the blackboards of all the equations once the class was over. I could spend the next half hour explaining why Ball's statements in your second link show an amazing ignorance of both climate science and the laws of thermodynamics, but this is PoC, not the science forum.
Over the past few years I have offered to answer any questions about the SCIENCE of climate change, but never have had anyone take me up on it. Conservatives here want to argue propaganda and half truths - heaven forbid that they expose themselves to even the most simplified mathematical equations or go to the trouble of understanding how science, scientists and scientific theories work. It is ever so much more fun to stand around with their heads in the sand and proclaim all is well as a tsunami rushes up the beach to sweep them away.
The science of global warming/climate change has been settled for a very long time now, Conservative squawking notwithstanding. Meanwhile in [URL="https://insideclimatenews.org/todaysclimate"]today's climate news[/URL], top Admiral nominee, Adm. Bill Moran, told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday that climate change is "going to be a problem" for the military branch, adding that the service is working on a plan to prepare bases for challenges such as rising waters. In addition, last Friday The EPA published a 150-page document urging communities to start planning for the fact that climate change is going to make catastrophes worse. The report is the latest example of government experts continuing to sound the alarm as the White House tries to minimize or ignore climate science.
Write your Congressperson now and demand that Adm. Moran be forced into an early retirement since the republican propaganda machine tops any concerns for national defense (sarcasm).
Carry on, oh Trumpers and don't forget your water wings.
Why do you assume that anyone skeptical of this is automatically a conservative?
What makes you think if corruption, bias, groupthink and greed are a problem for skeptical scientists that the same cannot be said for consensus scientists? The climategate emails proved this a long time ago.
Science is never "settled". That is a big part of your problem right there. If we believed in settled science, we'd still be using leeches and riding horses.
If you have a problem with Tim Ball (I'd lay odds he's FORGOTTEN more science than you will EVER learn), how about Judith Curry or Cliff Mass? Both think climate change is a problem and don't "deny" it yet they are regularly attacked by the consensus crowd because they stray from the narrative and offer legitimate skepticism over many of the claims.
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.
I know that fallacious claims are rife in the AGW world, but try to stay somewhat close to reality. It is embarassing. 