20 Reasons To Be Skeptical of Human-Induced Global Warming

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by Nathan-D, Oct 6, 2018.

  1. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    6,965
    Likes Received:
    2,817
    Trophy Points:
    113
    [
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]


    Suitable for framing
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2018
    drluggit likes this.
  2. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    8,019
    Likes Received:
    5,381
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I would point the OP to several studies that have recently been published that discuss the gaseous distribution in layers effect necessary for additional concentrations of CO2 to have a greater effect. To date, this distribution has not been evident in the atmosphere. The continued concentration at the existing layer will continue to denigrate the effective amplification of the warming effects as you rightly pointed out in your limit slide. Many folks will ignore the actual physics in favor of the theology. Best of luck in your publications.
     
    Josephwalker likes this.
  3. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    6,965
    Likes Received:
    2,817
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We need a new term to describe climate science and you may have hit upon it. Theology based science. The endless quest to prove a theology can be supported by science.
     
    drluggit likes this.
  4. Nathan-D

    Nathan-D New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2018
    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    My argument would be that the use of the Stefan-Boltzmann law is just meant to be an approximation that is applicable only over a limited range of temperatures. A temperature increase of 0.17°C from a 0.025 W/sq.m increment of radiative forcing (RF) seems rather high to me. The IPCC relates temperature-changes to CO2 logarithmically by combining two component-equations into one – the first one for RF from CO2 being the logarithmic equation quoted in my opening post and the second one for ΔT from RF being the linear feedback equation as follows: ΔT = λRF (where λ is generally considered to be 0.8 corresponding to a climate sensitivity of 3°C). When applying the IPCC’s feedback-equation to the 0.025 W/sq.m increment of RF from CO2 we get a feedback-inclusive temperature increase of 0.02°C which is 8 times less than your estimate of 0.17°C. The IPCC estimate that the 3.7 W/sq.m of RF from CO2 alone without feedbacks is sufficient to increase the global mean surface temperature by about 1°C and that’s how much warming I calculate when applying the following equation: ΔT = {T^4+RF/σ}^0.25-T (where T is the TOA-temperature of 255°K and RF is the increment of radiative forcing from CO2).
     
  5. Nathan-D

    Nathan-D New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2018
    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Don’t worry, your eyes aren’t playing tricks on you. I based the anthropogenic concentration in the pie-chart on the isotopic measurements. A δ13C value of -8.3 indicates that there is around 6% of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere with the other 94% being isotopically-indistinguishable from nature.
    I find it unlikely that anthropogenic sources explain nearly 100% of the increase. The oceans are assumed to have warmed over the last 100-years and as they warm the solubility of CO2 decreases and more CO2 is outgassed from the oceans into the atmosphere. So, some of the increase in CO2 must be due to the warming oceans. But how much? When applying the Van’t-Hoff temperature-equation on Wikipedia’s Henry’s law page I calculated an increase in CO2 of around 19ppmv assuming the oceans have warmed by around 1°C. That doesn’t sound like much, but the CO2 concentration is also affected by changes in ocean biota which itself is temperature-dependent. Baker et al (2013) estimates that changes in photosynthetic activity in certain ocean regions could potentially cause a change in the partial pressure of CO2 of more than 100ppmv.
    I am familiar with the argument that residence time and lifetime have been conflated by skeptics. But I don’t think so. The key evidence that indicates a short atmospheric CO2 lifetime is the bomb-spike data. Since the 1963 test-ban treaty atmospheric nuclear-14CO2 has been steadily decaying as it reaches equilibrium with sources and sinks. The decay-rate (or lifetime) of nuclear-14CO2 is the same decay-rate you would measure if you added a larger impulse to the atmospheric CO2 concentration. It is what would happen to all anthropogenic CO2 additions. The nuclear-14CO2 is a tracer and should not behave differently to anthropogenic CO2. It is plausible that some small absorption preference would arise on the basis of different isotope frequencies (plants absorb 12CO2 preferentially) but not to any dramatic extent. If nuclear-14CO2 were being absorbed by sinks in accordance with a half-life of 10-12 years (with equilibrium taking around 40-48 years) and not anthropogenic CO2, it implies some selective principle is at work in the Earth’s CO2-sinks whereby nuclear-14CO2 molecules are absorbed without anthropogenic ones being absorbed. But how could the CO2-sinks (such as the oceans) discriminate between nuclear-14CO2 and anthropogenic molecules of CO2 when they are all mixed up together in the atmosphere?
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2018
  6. Nathan-D

    Nathan-D New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2018
    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    The IPCC admits that the initial greenhouse effect of CO2 is slight but I gather they claim that this small effect from CO2 is amplified by positive feedbacks. Water vapour is responsible for increasing the initial forcing from CO2 by a factor of about 3 (in the models). By my understanding, measurements have shown that ‘specific humanity’ has remained roughly the same (see Ole Humlum) as CO2 has increased.
    The idea that natural CO2 and the CO2-sinks were initially in balance for thousands of years seems highly unlikely on the face of it to me because nothing in nature is ever in a state of fixed equilibrium. So it’s true that this is suggested by the ice-core data, but there is so much intrinsic uncertainty in paleoclimate ice-core reconstructions. I see a fundamental problem with paleoclimate data in that none of the measures and estimates that are taken can be standardized by reference to direct empirical observations. Skeptics have argued that the ice-core may be unreliable as a proxy for CO2 because it undergoes ‘fractionation processes’ that can underestimate true paleo-atmospheric CO2 values. Other paleo-climate data such as Stomata shows more variability, with CO2 as high as 459ppmv, but even Stomata may be unreliable due to local variability.
    But does the mass-accounting ‘match up’ with the CO2 we have emitted? Humans have emitted about 2,000Gts of CO2 since 1850 according to the IPCC and the CO2 increase has been about 950Gts. The IPCC claims that about half has been absorbed by the sinks. It may sound counterintuitive, but Henry’s law makes it possible for the oceans to have absorbed the vast majority of our CO2-emissions while also at the same time contributing to the CO2 increase due to a temperature-change (as explained in reason #20). In fact, the oceans *must* have contributed something to the CO2 increase because we know that they have warmed.
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2018
    Josephwalker likes this.
  7. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    3,463
    Likes Received:
    1,122
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think 14C bomb spike is really useful. It highlights the short residence time on per molecule basis nicely. And I agree that the residence time for 14C, 13C, and 12C should be close to the same with the caveat that there is some preferential treat certain isotopes for certain processes. That's actually what makes the isotope analysis useful. But the bomb spike data doesn't really tell us anything about the exchange rates.

    The Suess effect describes the fossil fuel signature pretty well I think. Plants have preferential uptake of 12C vs 13C in general. But a certain class of plant that is responsible for the largest stock of fossil fuels is even more preferential than the general case. So fossil fuels are depleted in 13C relative to the atmosphere. Then because 14C is radioactive with a half of about 5,000 years it's concentration in fossil fuels is rarified because fossil fuels are millions of years old. So when you have a low 13C-to-12C ratio being injected into the atmosphere at a rapid pace you expect the existing 13C-to-12C ratio to drop. And that's what we observe. Interestingly, because fossil fuels are also exhibit 14C depletion the injection of fossil carbon into the atmosphere would also lower the 14C-to-12C ratio as well assuming there were no anthroprogenic injections of 14C like with nuclear reactions.

    The real issue here is with the longevity of the concentration which is not be confused with the longevity of a molecule. The only way to know this for sure is to pulse a slug of CO2 and observe how long it takes for the concentration to return to it's baseline point. Using a tracer isotope like 14C isn't useful because a 14C molecule could be getting replaced with 13C or 12C molecule. You'd see the tracer decrease relative to the other isotopes without seeing a corresponding decrease in the concentration. Fortunately we are running the best possible real-life experiment right now because we are in fact pulsing a quantity of CO2, which just happens to have a unique isotope signature, in the atmosphere. And based on both the changes in the isotope ratios and the mass accounting of the carbon the best model that matches the CO2 concentration for both preindustrial and postindustrial eras is one in which the half-life of the concentration perturbations are really long (possibly 100 years or even longer). Some studies show that it might take as much as 10,000 years before concentrations return to preindustrial levels. And the paleoclimate record is consistent with that hypothesis. For example, the last interglacial warming event prior to the most recent one saw a rapid spike in CO2 levels followed by a 100,000 year dieoff. The begs the question...how did CO2 levels spike so quickly but take so long to recover?
     
  8. Nathan-D

    Nathan-D New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2018
    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    The recovery-time for CO2 levels in the paleoclimate record may not be representative of true paleo-atmospheric CO2 levels. As mentioned, the ice-core data suffers from fractionation processes such as the formation of clathrates and gravitational compression (forcing CO2 out of the ice to the surface over millennia) which may underestimate true levels. Stomata data (and chemical measurements – see Georg Beck 2007-09) show more variability in CO2. Also, I wouldn’t describe it as a “recovery-time”. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere varies continually in accordance with a host of environmental parameters, such as temperature, biomass and partial pressure. The oceans regulate how much CO2 is in the atmosphere based on their temperature. As the oceans warm, CO2 is released into the atmosphere, and as they cool, more CO2 is absorbed by the oceans. So, what we’re observing in the paleoclimate record is not a “recovery-time” or adjustment time. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is simply rising and falling based on the temperature of the oceans.
    Indeed. I agree. The δ13C value has increased from a pre-industrial value of around –7 to –8.3 implying that there is around 6% of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere today. Because of this, isotopic measurements can’t be used as proof that humans have contributed 30% to the atmospheric CO2-greenhouse. Also, in my last post, I did mention that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is based on the temperature and used the Van’t-Hoff temperature-equation to calculate how much CO2 would have been outgassed into the atmosphere due to a temperature-change. I calculated just under 20ppmv from a 1°C temperature change – but other scientists have calculated much more. Jaworowski (1997) says: “The IPCC estimated that the temperature of the surface waters increased between 1910 and 1988 by about 0.6°C. A similar increase was observed in the surface air temperature in this period. Increasing the average temperature of the surface of the oceanic waters (15°C) by 0.6°C, would decrease the solubility of CO2 in these waters (0.1970 g CO2 per 100 g) by about 2 percent. The CO2 flux from the ocean to the atmosphere should be increased by the same factor; that is, by about 1.9 GtC/year. This is similar to the observed average increase of atmospheric CO2 in the years 1958 to 1968, of 0.73ppmv/year, which corresponds to 1.6 GtC/year. The measured annual atmospheric CO2 increases were higher in the next two decades (2.5 GtC/year and 3.4 GtC/year) which indicates
    that changes in CO2 solubility in oceanic water were responsible only for a part of observed CO2 increases”.

    I don’t follow your reasoning here. The decrease in nuclear-14C is not being measured relative to 12C and 13C.
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2018 at 8:29 AM
  9. Nathan-D

    Nathan-D New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2018
    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    I would like to just correct a mistake in my last post. Δ14C reflects the ratio of the abundance of 14C atoms compared to 12C atoms in a sample. For some reason, I was thinking that Δ14CO2 was measured based on how many 14C atoms the CO2 concentration has in it without being relative to other isotopes. After the 1963 test-ban treaty the number of CO2 molecules containing 14C atoms increased to almost +1000 per mil doubling the concentration and it has been steadily decreasing ever since as the 14CO2 molecules equilibrate with sources and sinks. I would think that the decrease in Δ14CO2 is a measure of equilibration not just for 14CO2, but for all CO2 in the atmosphere, as suggested by Tom Segalstad and Hermann Harde. Because the nuclear-14CO2 has been mixed indiscriminately with atmospheric 12CO2 and 13CO2, the rate of removal and equilibration for 14CO2 should be the same for larger the concentrations of 12CO2 and 13CO2. Even though there is more 12CO2 and 13CO2 in the atmosphere, because the nuclear-14CO2 has been mixed indiscriminately with the other CO2 isotopes, they should all be removed by the same proportions.
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2018 at 11:02 AM
  10. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    6,965
    Likes Received:
    2,817
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your opponent seems to have gone home to lick his wounds. Good job.
     
  11. Nathan-D

    Nathan-D New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2018
    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Heh. Iamanonman to me seems very knowledgeable on AGW and I appreciate his input. This discussion has motivated me to look into ∆14C more and there are new things that I’ve learnt that I didn’t know before.
     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2018 at 9:51 AM
  12. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    6,965
    Likes Received:
    2,817
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your attitude I appreciated but I have run out of patience with the guy in my history. Good luck.
     
  13. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    4,386
    Likes Received:
    1,091
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    About the book "A Hundred Authors Against Einstein", Einstein said “Why 100 authors? If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!”. A Gish Gallup is a sign that you've got nothing, that you're tossing everything at the wall in the hopes that something will stick. If you had one good argument, then the one good argument would have been sufficient.

    Let's go over the points of the graphic.

    1. CO2 has a very low concentration, so it can't be a factor.

    You refute this yourself with your later calculations of forcing, so I don't have to. Your arguments are self-contradicting. You say CO2 can't have any significant effect, then you calculate the rather significant effect that CO2 has.

    2. Water vapor is the main GHG.

    Red herring. That's always been taken into account. Water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing.

    3. CO2 has a logarithmic forcing

    Red herring. That's always been taken into account.

    4. Some scientists "dissent" from climate sensitivity.

    So? Most don't.

    5. Notrickszone has papers.

    And those papers look absurd. In the real world, about half a doubling (logarithmic) of CO2 has resulted in about 1.0C of warming, demonstrating a TCS of around 2.0C. ECS has to be bigger than TCS, yet all but one of those papers predict an ECS of < 1.0C. Those papers are clearly very wrong.

    I suggest you go over every entry here, as it covers many of your arguments.

    https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
     
  14. Nathan-D

    Nathan-D New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2018
    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    You say that the papers look absurd. I think you are being closed-minded. Real science is about applying critical reality-checks to what you think might be the truth. How do you know the papers are absurd if you have not read them? What you are doing is making sweeping assumptions without applying any critical reality-checks. That’s not science. The idea that doubling atmospheric CO2 will produce 1°C of warming is problematic because the amount of RF which a given amount of CO2 creates has not been established evidentially and is a matter of dispute at the present time. Based on the IPCC’s own equations, I have calculated a warming from CO2 of only 0.37°C without feedbacks and other scientists have calculated lower values (See the graphic below). You write: “Some scientists “dissent” from climate sensitivity. So? Most don't”. How fascinating. But how did you become a spokesperson for all scientists worldwide to be able to say what the majority of them believe regarding climate sensitivity?

    [​IMG]

    I did not say that CO2 could not be a factor. I said the warming from CO2 is trivial. What calculations are you referring to?
    That’s a distorted picture of the true situation, I’m afraid. Water vapour is produced by the evaporation of surface water and that evaporation occurs due to various causes — not just by the radiance from atmospheric CO2. It is therefore as much a primary forcing in its own right as CO2 and is not just a feedback to CO2. Indeed, it is not a direct feedback to CO2 at all, since its mean atmospheric concentration is affected by other factors besides CO2 as well, such as condensation rates, precipitation rates, air-temperature, air-pressure and so on.
     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2018 at 3:27 PM
  15. Nathan-D

    Nathan-D New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2018
    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    But how do you know that this 1°C of warming is due to CO2 and not some other natural factor unrelated to CO2? Aren’t you jumping to conclusions here?
     
  16. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    4,386
    Likes Received:
    1,091
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    How do you know they're right, given you haven't read them? How do you know the mainstream papers are wrong, given you haven't read them? You're clearly pushing a double standard.

    Those papers predict a result which is contradicted by observed reality. It doesn't matter how elegant your theory is, if it's contradicted by the real world, it's wrong.

    On the contrary, seeing if your results match reality is the most critical reality-check. I'm doing it. You're not.

    You have clearly calculated incorrectly, because observed reality strongly disagrees with your calculations. You can ask me to believe you over my lying eyes, but I'm going to decline.

    There are around a thousand papers referenced here, and that's the tip of the iceberg. In contrast, you put forth a small list that's mostly very old papers, works by non-scientists, paid shill papers, or papers that NoTricksZone just lied outright about.

    https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter12_FINAL.pdf

    That's also not science. It's the equivalent of saying "Well, we can't be absolutely sure it's not fairy magic changing the climate, therefore we have to assume that fairy magic could possibly be the cause, therefore the mainstream science should be ignored". You're waving your hands around wildly and invoking some mysterious unknown. And being you don't use that "But we don't know with absolute 100% certainty!" standard in any other branch of science, it's hypocritical for you to invoke it here.

    If your theory is that something besides greenhouse gases are changing the climate, then state precisely what those factors are, then provide evidence to back up that claim. That's science.

    The erroneous calculations where you predict warming of 0.0046°C. Certainly measurable.

    If water vapor was a primary forcing, then more water vapor would cause more heat which would cause more water vapor which would cause more heat, until the earth boiled. As water vapor self-corrects back to a level based on temperature, it's a feedback.

    All of those things even out in the long run, to a level based on temperature. The only thing that changes water vapor levels in the medium-long run is temperature.
     
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2018 at 6:57 PM
  17. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    39,426
    Likes Received:
    21,321
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's very scientific of you.
     
  18. politicalcenter

    politicalcenter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    7,064
    Likes Received:
    2,775
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No, just experience. ...
     
  19. Nathan-D

    Nathan-D New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2018
    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Hold on. I ask you how do you know that the 1°C of warming was caused by CO2 and you respond by saying that I am “waving my hands around wildly and invoking some mysterious unknown”. You got all that from a question I asked you? What a masterful performance in the art of prevarication!
    Clouds can explain some of the warming. Cloud-cover is assumed to have decreased by around 1.56% (Warren et al 2012) between 1971-2009 and based on Reed’s (1977) Flux Formula that relates to an increase in absorbed short-wave solar radiation of about 3 W/m2. For more information, see reason #12 in my blog-post.
    Why are they erroneous as calculations?
    Regardless of how many papers the IPCC cite, I think the essential question at issue is that of how much radiation enhancement the CO2 greenhouse is actually producing. How many of those thousand papers support the notion that human CO2-emissions are main the cause of global warming? A citizen audit of the IPCC’s AR4 report found a staggering 5,600 “grey references” which included NGO-pronouncements, newspaper clippings and magazine articles. In terms of its scientific quality it appears to be dishonest rubbish to me.
    Water vapour is in the incorrigible habit of turning into clouds, which reflect away more energy of incoming sunlight than they re-radiate back down to Earth by way of positive feedback.
    I can only say that I disagree for the reasons explained in my previous post. If the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere was determined by temperature and atmospheric CO2 (while ignoring other factors) then how do you explain the lack of increase in atmospheric specific humidity? According to the IPCC’s theory, as CO2 warms the surface this should increase evaporation-rates and dump more water vapour into the atmosphere. But the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere has remained roughly the same. There is no direct, one-to-one, linear causal relationship between CO2 (or temperature) and water vapour and the graph in the link (here) attests to that.
    What “observed reality” are you referring to? And why are the calculations wrong?
    I am not claiming that they are all right. Just that there are a number of papers that disagree with the IPCC on climate sensitivity. Oh, and I have read the papers (or at very least the abstracts and summaries).
    Well what evidence do you have that human CO2 emissions are 1) increasing atmospheric CO2 and 2) are the primary cause of global warming.
     
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2018 at 9:36 PM
    Josephwalker likes this.
  20. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    39,426
    Likes Received:
    21,321
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You've lived long enough to understand climate change from personal experience?
     

Share This Page