Climate Change - Is CO2 the cause? - Pt 1 of 4 Videos

Granite46 Says:

Aug 20, 2008 - No I haven't read it. I just stumbled upon it. But I wanted to give everyone a chance to see how smart you are. And you didn't disappoint.

grastog1313 Says:

Aug 20, 2008 - On prehistoric CO2, we have excellent data indicating that current CO2 levels greatly exceed those previously reached any time within the last 650,000 years and probably longer. I would agree that natural mechanisms exist that can theoretically increase CO2 rapidly (reduced weathering, or increased suboceanic volcanic degassing), but these are rarities, and obviously not responsible for current CO2 rises and associated warming. We know from C12/C13 ratios current CO2 rises are anthropogenic.

Granite46 Says:

Aug 20, 2008 - I googled saturated gassy argument and where did I end up: Michael "Hockey Stick" Mann's website. And "credibility" takes another blow.

Granite46 Says:

Aug 20, 2008 - you can distinguish between anthropogenic and natural CO2?Please cite sources!!!!

grastog1313 Says:

Aug 20, 2008 - Granite, did you read the "saturated gassy argument" two-part series by Weart and Pierrehumbert? My limited experience tells me you have genuine interest in understanding some of this, and so I strongly recommend that you read it. The other content on the blog is not really relevant to understanding the quantitative relationship between CO2 and temperature, and its underlying mechanisms.

grastog1313 Says:

Aug 20, 2008 - Granite - I've provided you with more than enough sources on anthropogenic warming to keep you occupied for a while, and although I'm too lazy to immediately hunt up the anthropogenic vs natural CO2 sources, I will eventually if you insist. C12 is preferentially taken up by plants vs C13, and when these are fossilized, they are therefore poor in C13. Most CO2 is recycled from the biosphere and volcanism and is not C13 poor. A reduction in atmospheric C13/C12 ratios signifies fossil fuel burning.

Granite46 Says:

Aug 20, 2008 - I will certainly read it as well as the Miskolczi paper itself (if I can find it, it does seem obscure). I can also appreciate your disagreeing feedback. But what I can't tolerate is your denial that the science is settled and the literature is devoid of empirical data that does not support the sacrosanct AGW theory. On that score, you are just plain wrong and pig-headed (no offense!)

grastog1313 Says:

Aug 20, 2008 - Granite - the only reason I persist in asserting that the science literature universally acknowledges AGW (disagreeing only about certain details) is that individuals with political or ideological motives to forestall action adopt a strategy of claiming AGW is controversial. It's not in the literature, but I would retract that if anyone cites counterexamples from the peer-reviewed literature (no, I don't count the Hungarian Journal of Meteorology, but even Miskolczi didn't completely deny AGW).

Granite46 Says:

Aug 20, 2008 - I insist, I insist!what are you comparing the current ratio to? Is there ongoing atmospheric isotope monitoring and if so, how far back?

jffryfnt Says:

Aug 20, 2008 - But there are no scientific reports that deny AGW, from any reputable scientific journal anyway.Sorry to say, the science IS settled. There's overwhelming evidence. It's a theory. A theory is not a term that is taken lightly in science.

Granite46 Says:

Aug 20, 2008 - There are countless studies that have published findings that do not fit the AGW hypothesis. Even though the studies themselves do not explicitly disprove AGW, you cannot deny evidence to the contrary. That's an implicit denial. But more importantly, when data does not support a hypothesis, it is usually the hypothesis that needs modification. Hence, this debate is not over. There is still much unsettled science to straighten out.

grastog1313 Says:

Aug 20, 2008 - Avoiding blogs, I found one reasonable source on C13/C12 ratios for a start - biology[dot]duke[dot]edu/bio265/sga/atmosphere[dot]html.It's important to point out that fossil fuel burning is the major source of anthropogenic CO2, confirmable by both observed emission rates and C12/C13 ratios, but other sources include cement manufacture and deforestation, which would not reproduce the fossil fuel signature.

Granite46 Says:

Aug 20, 2008 - Thanks. And now I must exit the youtube stage. I profoundly disagree with alot (but not necessarily all) that you say, but I've enjoyed tonights discussion.Au revoir.

grastog1313 Says:

Aug 20, 2008 - No, Granite, there are not "countless" studies that conflict with the general principles of anthropogenice warming. In fact, there are none at all. If you have evidence to the contrary, this is now my third invitation to provide it. I've issued the same invitation "countless" times previously, and the number of responses I received can be counted on less than one finger.Jffryfnt is right - the debate is incontrovertibly over in the science literature. All controversy comes from outside.

Granite46 Says:

Aug 20, 2008 - Oh there you go again. You sound like you do a lot of research. Do a little more.Good night.

grastog1313 Says:

Aug 20, 2008 - Good night, and I'm glad our disagreements have been civil rather than insulting.

TheStarsHaveFaces Says:

Aug 20, 2008 - "the general principles of anthropogenice warming."what exactly do you mean? The Urban Heat Island effect? That certainly is included in AGW. Or do you mean co2's influence on warming? Do you mean co2's influence is major? Minor? Significant? Insignificant?Because if youre saying that co2 has only a very small effect on temperatures then I will agree. Everyone needs to define what they mean. So, do you mean co2 warming of any, including small, level? Or do you say it is only significant?

capemall Says:

Aug 20, 2008 - yes they've added global warming to the other hypothesis for that time including impact...volcanism...glaciation and formation of supercontinentthe way I understand the global warming hypothesis is volcanism would have had to start the process and there is evidence of a considerable amount of volcanic activity...but before it got warm it would get very cold...light would be blocked...acid rain would pour down...if anything was still alive I suppose the hypothesis might be worth looking at

TheStarsHaveFaces Says:

Aug 20, 2008 - AGW is a very tricky term. All on both sides can agree that it is real. The Urban Heat Island effect is anthropogenic, it's manmade. Manmade co2 has had a very, very small effect on warming. So it falls under the category of AGW, anthropogenic global warming. But one needs to clearly define what they are talking about. I think the alarmist side knows that manmade co2 has minuscule effect in temps, but they never let on to that fact. They just harp on how AGW is well established in the literature

TheStarsHaveFaces Says:

Aug 20, 2008 - cont.......They just harp on how AGW is well established in the literature... The Urban heat island is well established. NASA is beginning to at least try to estimate it's effect. But it is next to impossible to get an accurate adjustment for it. I think their efforts are just a token gesture. cont....

TheStarsHaveFaces Says:

Aug 20, 2008 - cont....co2's small effect is observed, if because it only goes along for the ride on evaporating water, or whether it is like a shield, this can be found throughout scientific literature. BUT it needs to be specified that co2 has only a very small effect on temps. I can see how the alarmists can harp on co2's effect in AGW, since it's small effect is accepted on both sides, though I can't see how they do it with a good conscience since they imply images of doom while harping on it.

grastog1313 Says:

Aug 20, 2008 - Within the science literature, the "debate" about the existence of anthropogenic warming has been over for a long time - it's real. A small minority considers the threat it poses insignificant, but a very large majority considers it severe, based on evidence published in the journals - GRL, JGR, J. Clim., Nature, Science, and others. An important debate remains, however - how to curtail CO2 to avert the worst damage from warming. That debate deserves more attention than it has yet received here.

capemall Says:

Aug 20, 2008 - according to a poll conducted of members of the American Meteorological Society and members of the American Geophysical Union apr 2008 by Harris Interactive +/- 4% sampling error56% believed there was a 50% chance or greater that the temperature would rise by 2C or more in the next 50 to 100 years...I suppose if 56% is an overwhelming majority then statements to that effect are true..wonder what the percentage would have been if they had asked for a 95% chance

grastog1313 Says:

Aug 20, 2008 - Although the science literature unanimously recognizes the reality of anthropogenic warming, and near unanimously perceives it as a serious threat, disagreements exist on other details. The potential range of future temperature rise over the next 50-100 years, however, is not even a matter of disagreement about science, but uncertainty about the rate of future CO2 emissions - i.e., a public policy issue. Whether the rise exceeds 2C depends on which of several IPCC emissions scenarios eventuates.

capemall Says:

Aug 20, 2008 - "is not even a matter of disagreement about science, but uncertainty about the rate of future CO2 emissions"if this is true then I wonder why, in the same poll, only 29% expressed a great deal of confidence in our understanding of human induced sources of climate change...certainly if the science was settled this number would be much higher wouldn't it? are you getting dizzy from spinning yet?