Climate deniers don't deny climate change any more

Do I have to say one again that I'm NOT DENYING CO2 contributes to (not causes) climate warming. A few percent of the total. Believe it or not water vapor is the largest contributor to the minuscule total.

 

Doesn't change the scientific fact that C14 has a half life of ~5700 years not ~11 years, whether it is human CO2 or CH4 or methyl carbinol.

 

It's almost all from humans. The majority is from fossil fuel use, but quite a bit is from depletion of organic matter in topsoil by industrial agriculture, deforestation, etc.

 

That's not the subject.

 

I was not referring to the radioactive half-life for C14 but the atmospheric half-life for CO2 incorporated with C14, which is removed from the atmosphere by the oceans and plants very quickly. The half-life of atmospheric CO2-14 is around 10-12 years as you can see from the graph above.

 

So what is the correlation coefficient for the correlation between atmospheric water vapor and global temperatures during my lifetime? And what came first, the chicken or the egg?

Or is that just another irrelevant red herring?

 

From my study of the isotope ratios, I calculated that around 8% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is currently from humans, while the other 92% is from natural sources.

 

Pretty good, because higher temperature increases water vapor as well as CO2. However, unlike CO2, water vapor is at a temperature-determined equilibrium in the short term, and there is really nothing we can do about it.

Are you actually coming to understand that there is a post hoc fallacy involved? Mirabile dictu!!

No, because water vapor totally dominates the greenhouse effect near the earth's surface, making increased CO2 nearly irrelevant to climate.

 

It still does change the scientific fact that C14 has a half life of ~5700 years not ~11 years, whether it is human CO2 or CH4 or methyl carbinol, or whether it is atmospheric CO2, or produced from nuclear testing.

So how long will it take for the atmospheric CO2 levels from human made CO2 to be reduced to pre-industrial levels if burning fossil fuels and deforestation etc is stopped now, and what will the maximum global temperature be before then.

 

I just explained why that is misleading: the isotope ratios equalize very quickly through exchange at the ocean surface, but that doesn't stop the CO2 from fossil fuel use from increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere: it just forces equivalent natural CO2 out of the ocean surface, maintaining the equilibrium at the surface.

 

I am aware of this argument and this seems to be contrdicted by the data.

I explain why the CO2 increase is most likely natural: https://chipstero7.wordpress.com/20...ed-atmospheric-co2-increase-could-be-natural/

Quote from said article:

The idea that there is a bottle-neck in the surface-ocean because CO2 takes a long time to diffuse to the deep-ocean is not valid. The bomb-spike graph shows that anthropogenic nuclear 14CO2 has been absorbed into the deep oceans. After the 1963 test-ban treaty stopped nuclear-testing, the pulse concentration of anthropogenic 14CO2 was naturally removed from the atmosphere with a half-life of 10-12 years with today’s concentration approaching natural equilibrium levels. Given a half-life of 10-12 years, equilibration for the pulse 14CO2 (by ~94%) with other carbon reservoirs would take around 4 half-lives (40-48 years) which is a far cry from the IPCC’s claim of “a few hundred thousand years”. If we assume that humans have released about 2,500 Gts of CO2 into the atmosphere since 1750 (according to the IPCC) and only 270 Gts or a δ13C of -8.3 (8% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere) can be measured as ‘anthropogenic’ based on isotopic analysis, that means that about 2,200 Gts must have been absorbed by sinks. If there was a bottle-neck restricting the flow of anthropogenic CO2 to the deep-ocean then anthropogenic CO2 would have equilibrated with the CO2 in the surface-ocean and land biomass and so the amount of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere should be 650 Gts (since land biomass is about 2000 Gts, surface-ocean is 1000 Gts and atmosphere is 800 Gts). However, we only find about 270 Gts in the atmosphere. This means that a considerable amount of anthrpopogenic CO2 has diffused to the deep-ocean. As Segalstad (199 states: “The alleged long lifetime of 500 years for carbon diffusing to the deep ocean is of no relevance to the debate on the fate of anthropogenic CO2 and the “Greenhouse Effect” because POC can sink to the bottom of the ocean in less than a year (Toggweiler 1990).” And as Jaworowski (1997) states: “The atmospheric CO2 lifetime of about 5 years agrees with numerous estimates based on measurements of atmospheric carbon-14 from natural sources and nuclear tests. Significant amounts of carbon-14 from nuclear tests penetrated deep into the ocean”.

 

On looking over what I quoted I noticed that I converted the figures incorrectly (I counted land biomass and surface-ocean as carbon instead of CO2 and so the calculation was skewed) so I corrected them.

The idea that there is a bottle-neck in the surface-ocean because CO2 takes time to diffuse to the deep-ocean is also not valid. If we assume that humans have released about 2,500 Gts of CO2 into the atmosphere since 1750 (according to the IPCC) and only 270 Gts or a δ13C of -8.3 (8% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere) can be measured as 'anthropogenic' based on isotopic analysis, that means that about 2,200 Gts must have been absorbed by sinks. If there was a bottle-neck restricting the flow of anthropogenic CO2 to the deep-ocean then anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere would have equilibrated with the CO2 in the surface-ocean and land biomass and so the amount of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere should be 625 Gts (since land biomass is about 8,500 Gts, surface-ocean is 3,500 Gts and atmosphere is 3,000 Gts). However, we only find about 270 Gts in the atmosphere. This means that a considerable amount of anthropogenic CO2 has diffused to the deep-ocean. As Segalstad (199 states: "The alleged long lifetime of 500 years for carbon diffusing to the deep-ocean is of no relevance to the debate on the fate of anthropogenic CO2 and the "Greenhouse Effect" because POC can sink to the bottom of the ocean in less than a year (Toggweiler 1990)." And as Jaworowski (1997) states: "The atmospheric CO2 lifetime of about 5 years agrees with numerous estimates based on measurements of atmospheric carbon-14 from natural sources and nuclear tests. Significant amounts of carbon-14 from nuclear tests penetrated deep into the ocean".

 

IOW increases in atmospheric CO2 from human activity are causing increasing global temperatures and climatic change and the melting of glaciers and ice caps.

And it ain't over till the permafrost has melted and released all the stored CH4 and the global temperatures increase even more from the increased green-house effect of CH4, and New York is under water and renamed New Atlantis, and the fat lady sings Amen.

 

That's your issue, not mine.

 

Great. Keep those fossil fuels coming.

 

Which is why there are more and more roof top solar systems and solar farms and wind generators and electric cars, and coal-fired power stations are being shut down.

 

That'll change shortly when EPA loses its ability to regulate CO2.

Then you and the other environazis will have to either get a proper piece of legislation through Congress or find another way to cheat. Unfortunately, once the last con game falls apart, the next one will be much more difficult to push.

 

Yes, I know. There is also mud cores from the ocean. Where they generally use the skeletons of plankton in each of the various layers to extrapolate the conditions of the past.

But here is the thing, much like examining strata of the earth the farther back you go, the less accurate it is for a great many reasons. First of all you have compression of that ice, and not all the gasses remain where they should because of that pressure. And the more pressure you get, the finer the layers become. Besides, how accurate do you think ice cores are for global climates?

And here is something else that those of us who study geology know about, yet most others seem to absolutely ignore or pretend never existed. You see, we know about uncomformities.

Now this is a bit of basic Geology, but one thing that all who study the science know about, and that is the simple fact that a great deal of the record is simply not there. That is known as an "unconformity", where say 500 million year old rock sits on top of 1 billion year old rock, and the 500 million years of rock that should be between the two is simply not there. One of the most well known is the "Great Unconformity" of the Grand Canyon. Where over 1.3 billion years of the history of the planet is just gone. And it is not just there, over most of the planet from 1-2 billion years of our geological history simply does not exist.



And this type of unconformity has happened countless times throughout the history of our planet. Even much more recently, in the last tens of thousands of years. And if that has happened to huge chunks of rock, why is it not believable that it has happened to ice? One reason myself and many others reject the "absolute acceptance" of things like ice cores is many. For one, it is impossible to tell if there have been unconformities in the history recorded. We know for a fact they have happened, as we have seen proof through geology that the main ice sheets they use (Antarctica and Greenland) have indeed shrunk in the past. So accepting them without knowing for a fact when such events happened is sloppy science.

As I said already, the group of scientists that are often fighting the most against the climate alarmists are the geologists. Because they are literally using the exact same techniques, and know for a fact how unreliable and open for interpretation they are. And the very fact that every time I have brought this up I always get denials that there has ever been an unconformity in any ice sheet core data. Which needless to say almost immediately gets me to thinking it might almost border on junk science. Not as in it is junk, but the data collected is because they deny the possibility of any kinds of gaps existing in the record.

But all of this is exactly what I said it was, extrapolation. Not hard actual data, it is attempting to extrapolate the data from what evidence there is. And people should know that extrapolation is not an exact science, it can actually be not unlike reading tea leaves. And the data is in no way precise enough to determine what many of us question, if the CO2 leads the temperature rise, or if the temperature rise leads the CO2. There is simply nowhere near enough detail present in extrapolated data that old, and once again anybody that tries to claim there is is peddling snake oil.

Now in geology, there are occasional hard data points we can and do use. For example, where I am in the PNW that is often volcanic ash. Because they know when most of the eruptions are in this region for the past 30 kya, and through chemical analysis determine where an ash layer originated from and when that eruption occurred. This has been especially helpful in dating things like tsunamis and ice age floods.

And I have studied with interest the evidence of a similar nature in the WAIS, in examining 11,000 years of evidence of volcanic eruptions in the ice. However, want to know what is missing? The actual results where they could point at a layer and say "This is from this eruption, that happened at this date at this location". We do that all the damned time in ash layers geologically, but they just can't do it with the ice cores. Once again, not enough data remains in the ice.

https://antarcticsun.usap.gov/science/4453/

 

And global temperatures will keep rising and ice caps will keep melting.
https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/climate-change-impacts/predictions-future-global-climate

 

Fortunately responsible countries are replacing fossil fuels with more sustainable energy sources. But what will global temperatures be in 75 years, and will New York be under water?
https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/climate-change-impacts/predictions-future-global-climate

 

No doubt throughout the world, there are different challenges to meeting renewable goals, but most are slowly chipping away. Can’t argue with progress!

 

Just like the end of the last ice age when the glaciers and ice caps melted without any man made CO2 from burning fossil fuels.

 

More manageable than the mile and a half of ice that used to cover it.

 

"Immunity to a specific disease" is preferrable to "protection from a specific disease". "Immunity" to smallpox, measles and polio is more effective than the "protection" from covid.

 

And will they use gondolas to the Broadway theatres and to hear the fat lady sing Amen?