| Pages:
1
2
3
4 |
nitro-genes
International Hazard
Posts: 1048
Registered: 5-4-2005
Member Is Offline
|
|
This seems relevant:
http://uscentrist.org/platform/positions/environment/context...
Crazy idea probably, but... would it be remotely possible to "model" the earth as in building a large real life representation in which closely
controled changes could be made to observe the effects on other parameters? 
[Edited on 17-4-2018 by nitro-genes]
|
|
|
MrHomeScientist
International Hazard
Posts: 1806
Registered: 24-10-2010
Location: Flerovium
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by byko3y  | | MrHomeScientistOcean contains approx 40 000 gigatonns of CO2 dissolved. Atmosphere contains 3000 gigatonns of CO2. On the picture
i've posted plants and ocean absorb 17 Gt of CO2, while humanity produces 29. In fact humanity produced 10 Gt in 2015 year ( https://www.co2.earth/global-co2-emissions ), but the CO2 level is still rising, which is consistent with theory that influence of humanity on CO2
level in atmosphere is insignificant. |
Wait, so the graphic you yourself provided was wrong? And I assume you meant 2014 since your link only goes up to that year.
I don't think it really matters how much the various sinks contain; sure they emit far more than humanity does, but they absorb most of it right back.
The point is that the net movement of CO2 is 12 [Somethings] into the atmosphere, and that seems to be caused solely by humanity.
That's just based on that graphic you posted, and frankly I'm guessing about what it means because it has almost no information on it. Just bare
numbers and arrows. Can you provide the source for that picture? The graphic and your above link might not be talking about the same thing.
|
|
|
RawWork
Hazard to Others
Posts: 167
Registered: 10-2-2018
Member Is Offline
|
|
LOL, there are billions sources for that exact picture (below text that says "Pages that include matching images"): Google Search
|
|
|
byko3y
National Hazard
Posts: 721
Registered: 16-3-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: dooM
|
|
MrHomeScientist, you might notice there's no units on the picture, it is carbon dioxide weight per year. That's an adapted version of
the report http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch7s7-3.... , where weight of carbon per year is used as a measuring unit.
IPCC based its report on multiple sources from 2004-2006 years. My mistake was that I compared the different type of numbers (10 Gt of C vs 36 Gt of
CO2).
There's more problems with the picture - it's actually made up: "Gross fluxes generally have uncertainties of more than ±20% but fractional amounts
have been retained to achieve overall balance when including estimates in fractions of GtC yr–1 for riverine transport, weathering, deep ocean
burial, etc. ‘GPP’ is annual gross (terrestrial) primary production". Nobody knows the exact values of absorbed and emitted CO2. The picture is
more about "human-made emission is insignificant compared to environmental one".
|
|
|
mayko
International Hazard
Posts: 1218
Registered: 17-1-2013
Location: Carrboro, NC
Member Is Offline
Mood: anomalous (Euclid class)
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by byko3y | You are making mountain out of molehill. I explaned in the very next message that "proven" means "not refuted". I tried to fall and it hurts - that's
sufficient proof of gravitation to me. I'm talking about Popper's definition of scientific method.
And that's the reason it is so vulnerable to cherry picking.
And I know well about phylosophical, religious, and political constituents of the modern science, but I prefere to ignore them, because they have
nothing to deal with scientific method. Of course I can say something is true, I can believe in god, but that's not something we like to talk about
here at sciencemadness. |
Asking for a reasonable, well-defined standard of evidence is not making a mountain out of a molehill. The standard of evidence you've described is
not reasonable, and it's not well-defined, but I'll accept it here, because it means that:
1) anthropogenic global warming is "proven". (You yourself say: "...you might say that the theory is doubtful or incomplete. That's the case of the
currently accepted greenhouse theory of climate". In other words, it hasn't been refuted!)
2) it's "proven" that you owe me $100
When are you going to pay up? I will accept cash, check, or money order. 
| Quote: | | If you look at the graph of the modern temperature global anomaly, you will find that small period fluctuations can be much more prominent than long
time ones. It's even more prominent when looking at local temperatures. Thus Earth has some strong climate-driving mechanisms, and whether or not they
can overcome or compensate for greenhouse effect - is one open question. |
"small periodic fluctuations" can NOT account for a long-term trend!
| Quote: |
The largest producers of carbon dioxide on Earth is not human's industry, but ocean and plants. So if impact of fossil fuel burn is insignificant,
could it be another mechanism responsible for both raise in CO2 level and temperature anomaly? |
Suppose I go into business partnered with my good friend, Joe Schmuckatelli, and we open a joint bank account. Suppose one night Joe looks up from
balancing the books and says:
"Mayko, every day I put $100 into the joint account, and every day you put in $10. Your contribution isn't zero, but you're clearly not pulling your
weight."
Sounds reasonable. But suppose I reply:
"Joe! Every day you take out $105 and every day I take out $0!"
You'd probably conclude that Joe can't be trusted with our finances. And yet, you're making exactly the same mistake, with gigatons of carbon instead
of dollars. As a others have correctly explained, your figure shows that the ocean and terrestrial carbon pools are net sinks, not net sources. (I've
mentioned this already in reply to you, and others have given some more supporting information)
You've called attention to the large size of the carbon reservoirs, but that's like Joe pointing to the size of the bank account. It wouldn't matter
if there were $50 or $5000 in the account; it would still be the case that its growth was entirely my doing, and entirely in spite of Joe.
| Quote: | | You just needed to provide data from another satellites and methods of their processing showing us that satellites are not reliable. I just don't feel
like that's the case, I feel more like the propaganda machine targeted those researchers to defame the facts they published. |
I've posted several links about this; if that's how you feel about them, fine... but are your feelings FACTs??
I sort of agree with what other people have said, that we're stuck in a loop and not really hearing each other. Maybe it would be good to put this to
bed for a little while, at least until we've had some time to dig deeper into sources and think some more about each other's perspective. We can
always come back if someone comes up with a new angle!
al-khemie is not a terrorist organization
"Chemicals, chemicals... I need chemicals!" - George Hayduke
"Wubbalubba dub-dub!" - Rick Sanchez
|
|
|
byko3y
National Hazard
Posts: 721
Registered: 16-3-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: dooM
|
|
| Quote: | | it's "proven" that you owe me $100 |
You may decide anything for yourself, but nobody except you is able to
verify your statement. Continuing to the original subject: | Quote: | | anthropogenic global warming is "proven". (You yourself say: "...you might say that the theory is doubtful or incomplete. That's the case of the
currently accepted greenhouse theory of climate". In other words, it hasn't been refuted!) |
- that's exactly
what we see today in climate committees: no extrinsical data and researchers are allowed to pass in, thus forming a separated world where every
experimental data is suporting the accepted theory. Similar thing is happenning in the heads of people and some societies, that reject every argument
not confirming their believes.
So you can pay yourself my debt.
| Quote: | | "small periodic fluctuations" can NOT account for a long-term trend! |
Why?
| Quote: | "Mayko, every day I put $100 into the joint account, and every day you put in $10. Your contribution isn't zero, but you're clearly not pulling your
weight."
Sounds reasonable. But suppose I reply:
"Joe! Every day you take out $105 and every day I take out $0!"
You'd probably conclude that Joe can't be trusted with our finances. And yet, you're making exactly the same mistake, with gigatons of carbon instead
of dollars. As a others have correctly explained, your figure shows that the ocean and terrestrial carbon pools are net sinks, not net sources. (I've
mentioned this already in reply to you, and others have given some more supporting information)
You've called attention to the large size of the carbon reservoirs, but that's like Joe pointing to the size of the bank account. It wouldn't matter
if there were $50 or $5000 in the account; it would still be the case that its growth was entirely my doing, and entirely in spite of Joe.
|
The analogy is irrelevant, it does not fit the discussed problem. Human's business with environment is
unfair from the begginning.
The ocean and plants are actually emmiting hundreds of gigatonns and consuming similar emount. They can consume more, then can emmit more - 30-40 Gt
of CO2 per year is very small amount of "money" for them, they can easily make or waste them. The fluctuation is so small we can't even measure the
net balance for major participants precise enough to compare it with human's minor participation, unlike your irrelevant example where we can measure
the balance.
| Quote: | | I've posted several links about this; if that's how you feel about them, fine... but are your feelings FACTs?? |
Are you talking about this one:
Then I've already answered that they don't question the satellite data, but rather question the model the data is compared with. Satellite data still
remains reliable, and still is not fitting the currently accepted theory.
update: here's the only argument about uncertainty of data from satellites from the article, it compares the data from different observations, you can
see small deviations, but overall trend is consistent, pretty much proving the reliability of the data:
[Edited on 18-4-2018 by byko3y]
|
|
|
DrP
National Hazard
Posts: 625
Registered: 28-9-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: exothermic
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by byko3y | | Quote: | You may decide | Quote: | | anthropogenic global warming is "proven". (You yourself say: "...you might say that the theory is doubtful or incomplete. That's the case of the
currently accepted greenhouse theory of climate". In other words, it hasn't been refuted!) |
- that's exactly
what we see today in climate committees: no extrinsical data and researchers are allowed to pass in, thus forming a separated world where every
experimental data is suporting the accepted theory.
[Edited on 18-4-2018 by byko3y] |
You mean like the chart you gave yourself that shows a net sinkage of Co2 without human influence, but a net increase with it added to the sums?
|
\"It\'s a man\'s obligation to stick his boneration in a women\'s separation; this sort of penetration will increase the population of the younger
generation\" - Eric Cartman
|
|
|
DrP
National Hazard
Posts: 625
Registered: 28-9-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: exothermic
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by byko3y | | Quote: | | it's "proven" that you owe me $100 |
You may decide anything for yourself, but nobody except you is able to
verify your statement.
|
Hold on! You aren't trying to wrangle out of that one are you? I saw it written there my self a page or 2 back for sure that you owe him $100. tut tut
- nice try!
\"It\'s a man\'s obligation to stick his boneration in a women\'s separation; this sort of penetration will increase the population of the younger
generation\" - Eric Cartman
|
|
|
byko3y
National Hazard
Posts: 721
Registered: 16-3-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: dooM
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by DrP | | You mean like the chart you gave yourself that shows a net sinkage of Co2 without human influence, but a net increase with it added to the sums?
|
I don't really understand what you say. There are a lot of different researches providing different views at
the climate from different angles, compiling them into single theory haven't been done yet, instead there was done a selection of views for the sake
of making a political decision.
|
|
|
MrHomeScientist
International Hazard
Posts: 1806
Registered: 24-10-2010
Location: Flerovium
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
He (and I) are trying to point out that your chart:
clearly shows that the net movement of carbon into the atmosphere is 12 [Gt/year] , if you add up all the contributions shown. 29 + 439 - 450 + 332 -
338 = 12
It also shows that the land and sea do indeed emit a lot of carbon, but they absorb it all right back (and then some). So it makes no difference at
all how big those numbers are compared to human emissions. That is irrelevant. The part that matters is net change, which is +12 into the atmosphere.
Even though humans are a small contributor, we are producing more than the environment can absorb. Thus carbon builds up in the atmosphere. That was
the point of mayko's bank account analogy.
Again this is all based on a piece of data that you gave. I'm not attacking you personally, I'm just trying to point out that your
sources might not be telling the story you think they are.
|
|
|
byko3y
National Hazard
Posts: 721
Registered: 16-3-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: dooM
|
|
MrHomeScientist, they do not "absorb it all right back", the graph shows integration of hundreds of processes. For example, plants
absorb CO2 during day to produce carbohydrates and emmit CO2 by digesting own carbohydrates during night. Warm part of the ocean emmits CO2, while
cold parts of the ocean absorb CO2. The actual balance of those process is beyond precision of measurement. But those processes are at least order of
magnitude larger than human activity. The close numbers of absorbed and produced CO2 means the system is in balance, which is questionable - we don't
know what actually happens.
| Quote: | | Thus carbon builds up in the atmosphere. |
And that's another question: why in atmosphere? Atmosphere contains
only about 3.6% of all the carbon dioxide in biosphere. Ecologists like to wine about lowering of ph in water, but why the hell then CO2 stays in
atmosphere if it is absorbed by water?
|
|
|
mayko
International Hazard
Posts: 1218
Registered: 17-1-2013
Location: Carrboro, NC
Member Is Offline
Mood: anomalous (Euclid class)
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by byko3y | | Quote: | | it's "proven" that you owe me $100 |
You may decide anything for yourself, but nobody except you is able to
verify your statement. |
It meets your criteria for "proof"! You have two outs here. The boring one is to come up with a better standard of evidence. More interesting would be
to experimentally refute my claim. This would put us in a very strange situtation, since the debt would then be, not disproven (that's proof of the
negation), and not unproven (that's neither proven nor disproven), but de-proven: once proven, but no longer. What could that even mean?
Anyway, the point of this detour is that it's not very sensible to demand certainty, and then turn around and say that nothing in science is certain.
| Quote: | | what we see today in climate committees: no extrinsical data and researchers are allowed to pass in, thus forming a separated world where every
experimental data is suporting the accepted theory. Similar thing is happenning in the heads of people and some societies, that reject every argument
not confirming their believes. |
This doesn't sound like a fact to me. Here's an actual fact: Richard Muller was initially very critical and skeptical of the instrumental record, yet
was put in charge of the Berkeley Surface Temperature project anyway - he changed his mind over the course of the project. Here's another fact:
Anthony Watts, of WUWT fame, swore at the outset that he'd accept the results of the BEST data whatever they showed, only to change his mind when he
didn't like the results.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | "small periodic fluctuations" can NOT account for a long-term trend! |
Why? |
Because that's what a periodic fluctuation is: signal without trend. A sine wave doesn't have a long term trend. If I sit in a bathtub and slosh back
and forth, the water at a given point might fluctuate up and down, but it won't exhibit a long-term change unless I turn on the tap or pull out the
plug.
| Quote: | The analogy is irrelevant, it does not fit the discussed problem. Human's business with environment is unfair from the begginning.
The ocean and plants are actually emmiting hundreds of gigatonns and consuming similar emount. They can consume more, then can emmit more - 30-40 Gt
of CO2 per year is very small amount of "money" for them, they can easily make or waste them. The fluctuation is so small we can't even measure the
net balance for major participants precise enough to compare it with human's minor participation, unlike your irrelevant example where we can measure
the balance. |
It certainly was relevant to the claim you originally supported with the figure ("The largest producers of carbon dioxide on Earth is not human's
industry, but ocean and plants.") Those are both net sinks, not net sources. If you want to talk about uncertainty in the flux sizes, that's a
conversation that might be worth having, but we need to be clear about what we're actually talking about. It's just like switching back and forth
between surface vs. troposphere and satellite vs. troposphere; we can talk about one, we can talk about the other, we can talk about one then the
other, or we can talk about something else entirely, but first you need to make up your mind what you want to talk about!
We don't need to know the size of individual fluxes to know that they are in approximate balance; atmospheric CO2 changes much slower in the geologic
record, even during the last deglaciation, than it is now. We also don't need to know the individual fluxes to attribute observed changes to fossil
fuel combustion. One of your own sources does it with better constrained figures and conservation of mass:
https://skepticalscience.com/salby_correlation_conundrum.htm...
nitro-genes has mentioned another line of evidence: the nuclear signal of old carbon, which shows up everywhere from lake varves to the cellulose of
book pages.
Another is the small but measurable decline in oxygen:
http://scrippso2.ucsd.edu
| Quote: | | Quote: | | I've posted several links about this; if that's how you feel about them, fine... but are your feelings FACTs?? |
Are you talking about this one:
Then I've already answered that they don't question the satellite data, but rather question the model the data is compared with. Satellite data still
remains reliable, and still is not fitting the currently accepted theory.
update: here's the only argument about uncertainty of data from satellites from the article, it compares the data from different observations, you can
see small deviations, but overall trend is consistent, pretty much proving the reliability of the data: |
I think you're glossing over a great deal in that article, but I actually had this one more specifically in mind. Not only does it show that UAH is an
outlier compared to both RSS and weather balloon measurements, it points out that trends from satellite measurements vary by a factor of two. This is
at least as murky a situation as 20% uncertainty in carbon flux!
None of this is to say that GCMs are perfect; they aren't, and it's important to explore their deficiencies. None of this is to say that satellite
data are flawed to the point of useless; they aren't. The point is instead that comparing them isn't the "critical experiment" you're trying to make
it into (and in particular, that your original figure was somewhat misleading). (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimentum_crucis)
Finally, I still haven't heard how you're coming to conclusions about attribution from this. For example, you've suggested that solar forcing is at
work - why would that be a more consistent with slower warming at elevation? And how would you reconcile this with direct, evidence for greenhouse
warming, such as measurements of outgoing and downwellinglongwave radiation?
| Quote: | | And that's another question: why in atmosphere? Atmosphere contains only about 3.6% of all the carbon dioxide in biosphere. Ecologists like to wine
about lowering of ph in water, but why the hell then CO2 stays in atmosphere if it is absorbed by water? |
It doesn't; your own image shows a constant exchange between different reservoirs. Fossil fuel emissions equilibrate between those reservoirs just
like CO2 equilibrates between the liquid and the headspace in a soda bottle, with about 40% ending up in the atmosphere. We're discussing the airborne
because the topic is global warming, and the oceanic and land fractions don't absorb and re-radiate outgoing IR. The thing to keep in mind is that
there is no burial process to compensate for fossil fuel combustion, and conservation of mass guarantees that the released CO2 must go somewhere.
This, combined with the observed increases in carbon in each of the reservoirs, strongly suggests that burning fossil fuels are responsible for
observed trends.
al-khemie is not a terrorist organization
"Chemicals, chemicals... I need chemicals!" - George Hayduke
"Wubbalubba dub-dub!" - Rick Sanchez
|
|
|
AJKOER
Radically Dubious
Posts: 3026
Registered: 7-5-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
While the topic of this thread is "What is cause of global warming? Heat or gases?", perhaps a first step is a statistical 0/1 analysis (that is, a
bernoulli event, either yes or no) as to whether we are actually in a period of global warming! Discriminant function analysis is the branch of
science for determining whether a set of variables is effective in predicting category membership (the bernoulli categories in this case being either
a period of global warming or not), which assumes we have a definition of a period of warming.
Focusing on getting a good probability of prediction (with an acceptable Type ll error), which does not necessarily require an identification or
understanding of all causative variables, some postulated correlated variables can act as substitutes.
Once we known that we are in such a period of warming, some average statistics on magnitude of temperature change, and extremes of the distribution
may be meaningful (and likely conservative given the recent introduction of negative human influences, I suspect).
[Edited on 7-5-2018 by AJKOER]
|
|
|
SWIM
National Hazard
Posts: 970
Registered: 3-9-2017
Member Is Offline
|
|
Global warming is caused by dinosaurs.
70 million years ago, they roamed the earth and it was damn hot out there.
A meteor buried them all in ash, and things cooled off.
Now We come along and start digging them back up for museums and suchlike.
Is it any wonder things are heating up again?
We need a re-burial program before things get out of hand.
|
|
|
byko3y
National Hazard
Posts: 721
Registered: 16-3-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: dooM
|
|
| Quote: | | It meets your criteria for "proof"! You have two outs here. The boring one is to come up with a better standard of evidence. More interesting would be
to experimentally refute my claim. |
Truth is subjective. By providing agruments you can shift subjective truth of mine and other readers. I can't be sure I don't owe nobody.
I don't know what you want to say in the end by this particular discussion, but I'm pretty sure you want me to believe in somebody's words.
| Quote: | | It's just like switching back and forth between surface vs. troposphere and satellite vs. troposphere; we can talk about one, we can talk about the
other, we can talk about one then the other, or we can talk about something else entirely, but first you need to make up your mind what you want to
talk about! |
We talk about the state when none of available theories is capable of explaining all the
existing data: temperature in troposphere, surface, satellite data and meteorology stations. You pick one thing and explain it with a single theory -
another data contradicts the theory.
| Quote: | We don't need to know the size of individual fluxes to know that they are in approximate balance; atmospheric CO2 changes much slower in the geologic
record, even during the last deglaciation, than it is now. We also don't need to know the individual fluxes to attribute observed changes to fossil
fuel combustion.
https://skepticalscience.com/salby_correlation_conundrum.htm... |
I don't really understand how that
article relates to our discussion, there's much clearer fact you've stated that the change in CO2 level in the last century should be as low as 10-20
ppm, while the actual raise is measured to be 130 ppm, thus humanity probably is attributed to 110-120 ppm change (and not 100% as the author of the
article wants us to believe):
But overall I agree that the present raise of CO2 level is mainly anthropogenic, environment is not absorbing the CO2 quickly enough.
| Quote: | | I think you're glossing over a great deal in that article, but I actually had this one more specifically in mind. Not only does it show that UAH is an
outlier compared to both RSS and weather balloon measurements, it points out that trends from satellite measurements vary by a factor of two. This is
at least as murky a situation as 20% uncertainty in carbon flux! |
Data from weather ballons confirms the corrected satellite data: https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/fig2-12.htm
I'd like to remind you that in the begginning I was talking about both satellite and weather ballon data, but for some reason you shifted the
discussion into satellites.
| Quote: | None of this is to say that GCMs are perfect; they aren't, and it's important to explore their deficiencies. None of this is to say that satellite
data are flawed to the point of useless; they aren't. The point is instead that comparing them isn't the "critical experiment" you're trying to make
it into (and in particular, that your original figure was somewhat misleading). (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimentum_crucis)
Finally, I still haven't heard how you're coming to conclusions about attribution from this. For example, you've suggested that solar forcing is at
work - why would that be a more consistent with slower warming at elevation? And how would you reconcile this with direct, evidence for greenhouse
warming, such as measurements of outgoing and downwellinglongwave radiation? |
I do not state the solar
activity theory is the correct one, but I do state the greenhouse theory is debunked with publically available experimental data - the data from both
weather ballons and satellites shows the raise of temperature comes from surface, not from atmosphere, so you need to search for another theory or try
to adjust the old one.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3
4 |
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
