20 Reasons To Be Skeptical of Human-Induced Global Warming

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

  1. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,637
    Likes Received:
    1,528
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You could educate me. This is your chance.

    How does CO2 being a biological toxin only in very high concentrations relate to global warming?
     
  2. Robert

    Robert Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    49,472
    Likes Received:
    10,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    WOW, is that what I told the forum what it means?

    Fine, show how i related it to warming. I give up on this matter.
     
  3. Robert

    Robert Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    49,472
    Likes Received:
    10,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That repeats what I said.
     
  4. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,637
    Likes Received:
    1,528
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I honestly have no idea. That's why I'm asking. Why did you feel it was necessary to post something about CO2's toxicity in a thread focused on global warming?
     
  5. Robert

    Robert Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    49,472
    Likes Received:
    10,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Because things are said that also do not relate to warming Such as wars in Syria.
     
  6. Robert

    Robert Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    49,472
    Likes Received:
    10,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Forget what I am thinking. Listen to this professional and what he thinks. Watch is face to see if one can detect any lies by the man.

     
    Nathan-D likes this.
  7. Robert

    Robert Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    49,472
    Likes Received:
    10,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Again ignore me. Do not accuse me. Watch this panel of experts.

     
    Nathan-D likes this.
  8. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,637
    Likes Received:
    1,528
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't think he's lying. I think he really believes what he's saying. He denies the link between CFCs and ozone and the link between HIV and AIDS so it's not surprising that he also denies the link between CO2 and global warming. I find that par for the course among hardcore deniers. They're denial runs deep spans multiple issues like the above plus others like the link between smoking and cancer, the link between sulfur dioxide and acid rain, and the list goes on and on. I also found it telling that he's denigrating climate scientists through much of his rant and essentially calling them stupid and then admits at the end that he has no academic experience in the climate scientists. Yet, he still thinks he's the expert and those that are actually doing real bona-fide research are just a bunch of pretenders. But aside from all of that his rant actually had little if any science in it. There's not a lot that can be challenged aside from maybe his claim that the CO2 concentration was 2700 ppm 40 million ago because he just simply rants most of the time instead of explaining via facts and evidence why he thinks AGW is a joke.
     
  9. Robert

    Robert Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    49,472
    Likes Received:
    10,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    For your information, I lauded you to the Curry Corner by calling you a heavyweight.

    After that bashing session, I may not tell them your sn.

    I saw nothing in the video about cancer, aids, etc. not sure why you added that in.
    As to his presentation, he used no video aids such as a chalkboard but if you stuck it out, he took some serious questions from the audience, some trying to bring him down, and handled himself well.

    Though you are a software engineer, who might not be active, I personally do not chose to smear your name the way you did to this man.

    My connection to climate is my passing a thorough course in what the FAA calls weather. I believe that course taught me a lot more about weather than the typical layperson knows.

    While climate is long range, if it will harm this country, it needs to speed it up so we can notice it.

    I for one question it will harm us or this country. And i think that man in the video feels the same way. Dr. Lindzen has his deep concerns that the sky if falling attitude among the alarmists does us more harm than good.

    Why did I speak of local weather at the time you wanted to know? Because in a large range of temperatures, one would think there would be a hint of damage to observe were damage going to happen. And you wanted to bug me over Carbon Dioxide in beverages. This was to prove how safe to humans Carbon Dioxide really is.

    As to smoking and cancer, my story is I was a late starter as a smoker. My vices were pipes and cigars. I rejected cigarettes. I am 80 and the damage to my body is limited to damage to my gums. But no cancer is evident and my doctor keeps an eye on that just in case. My last smoke was around 1985. My first at age 25.

    Sure, I wish I never smoked. But what is done is done. I advise others to not smoke.

    I know we are supposed to pour fecal matter into our jeans over warming, but I am just not able to do that. i am sure as devoted as you are, you scared the crap out others and you wish I was on that list. During my own research, i looked at super high temperatures all over this globe and have yet to see the damage we are warned about. When do you expect this apocalypse to take place?

    I remind you the Democrats started this crap by calling it global warming so do not move the goal posts by saying that is not the problem, that it is climate. LOL
     
    Nathan-D and Josephwalker like this.
  10. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,637
    Likes Received:
    1,528
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'd rather not have the debate over whether Kary Mullis is a credible source in this thread. The OP has a nice thread setup here and has been staying pretty focused (mostly anyway) so I'd don't want to be involved in having it further digress. Plus, you already posted this video to your Curry thread so maybe we should take this line of discussion over there. I'll it leave it that in this thread.
     
  11. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    4,638
    Likes Received:
    1,238
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It's not simple. Average earth temperature is increasing, so IR outgoing is increasing over most of the spectrum, but decreasing in the narrow greenhouse gas emission bands.
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2018
    iamanonman likes this.
  12. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    4,638
    Likes Received:
    1,238
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    http://euanmearns.com/whats-up-with-the-bomb-model/
    ---
    It has become a popular belief among climate sceptics that nuclear bomb test 14CO2 data falsifies the Bern model [1, 2010; 2, 2013]. The Bern model is used to link atmospheric rise in CO2 to manmade emissions and lies at the heart of IPCC projections for the future trajectory of global CO2. What could be more important?

    In this post I present a simple ocean surface water mixing model that explains why 14C cannot be used to predict the sequestration rate of CO2. Each year the ocean inhales about 92Gt of carbon from the atmosphere that is tagged with 14C. This inhaled CO2 mixes with the 1020 Gt carbon in surface ocean water before about 90 Gt is exhaled. The CO2 exhaled is not the same CO2 that was inhaled and is depleted in 14C. If the 14C tracer were to work, it would be necessary to assume that the CO2 exhaled had the exact same 14C ratio as that inhaled, the portion of 14C removed from the atmosphere residing in the 2Gt sequestered C. The CO2 exhaled is depleted in 14C and this gives an artificial false picture of rapid CO2 sequestration rates.
    ---
     
    iamanonman likes this.
  13. Nathan-D

    Nathan-D Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2018
    Messages:
    47
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    Increasing greenhouse gases don’t add extra energy to Earth’s system – they just recycle energy – so adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere shouldn’t increase the outgoing radiation (at TOA) of Earth simply because the greenhouse gases are not adding any extra energy to the system. Quote from a paper: “The greenhouse effect is well-established. Increased concentrations of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, reduce the amount of outgoing long-wave radiation (OLR) to space; thus, energy accumulates in the climate system, and the planet warms”.
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2018
  14. Robert

    Robert Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    49,472
    Likes Received:
    10,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I am surprised you used an oil man as an authority.

    About Euan Mearns
    [​IMG]
    I was born in India in October 1957 during the waning years of British colonialism. I returned home to native Scotland as a infant and grew up in the small country town of Kirriemuir, famous as the birth place of J. M. Barrie, the creator of Peter Pan, and of Bon Scott, lead singer with rock band AC DC.

    In 1979 I graduated from The University of Aberdeen with a BSc degree in geology and went on to defend a PhD in 1984 that examined Crustal Evolution in Western Norway based on radiogenic isotope data. In 1983, my wife and I moved to Norway where we both worked at The University of Oslo. In this period I worked on developing methods that employed natural radiogenic isotope ratio variations in rocks and fluids to help characterise the layering and connectivity of oil and gas reservoirs and have since published a number of papers on this topic.

    In 1993 we returned home to Aberdeen with a one year old infant and I would establish an isotope geochemistry analysis and consulting business that would eventually employ 12 people and operate 3 mass spectrometers. Business boomed during the early years with a spate of large new field developments that would fuel the second peak in UK oil production in 1999. But a glut of oil on the market would see the oil price fall below $10 / barrel in 1998 that would lead to one of the periodic busts in the industry which my company survived but would never fully recover from.

    On September 11th 2001 I decided to throw in the towel and sold the analytical part of the business but continued doing consultancy work for the oil industry until 2005. In 2003 I fortuitously invested some money in a range of small oil stocks and had become intrigued to understand why their value and the price of oil seemed to be set on an ever upwards trajectory. I had for a long while been fascinated by the concept of peak oil and read a few books including Richard Heinberg’s The Party’s Over, Matt Simmons’ Twilight in The Dessert and Daniel Yergin’s The Prize. And then one day in 2006 I stumbled upon The Oil Drum blog without realising at the time that this enterprise would consume the greater part of my time for the following 7 years.

    At that time The Oil Drum provided unique insight to the pandoras box of the energy world that society was struggling to understand. Escalating oil and energy prices meant spreading energy poverty through the poorer parts of OECD society and throughout the developing world. Politicians and policy makers were caught off balance and did not know how to respond. Not much has changed.

    I have two sons, both recently graduated from university, a wife who works for the oil industry and two dogs who take me for a long walk every afternoon. I am under a certain amount of pressure to contribute to family income and so undertake occasional consulting jobs for the energy industries. But my real passion is to try and understand the various components of how The Earth energy system works and to educate politicians, policy makers and the public on Energy Matters so that better choices can be made. I hope the articles I write for Energy Matters may one day build into a book and that I may somehow make a living from data analysis, writing and public speaking.

    In 2009 I was appointed as Honorary Research Fellow at The University of Aberdeen where I teach occasional courses.

    Share this:
     
  15. Nathan-D

    Nathan-D Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2018
    Messages:
    47
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    Interesting argument. I would have thought that the biggest factor in affecting the natural decrease of nuclear-Δ14C in the atmosphere would be our emissions. Because anthropogenic CO2 emissions are depleted in 14C (with a Δ14C value of -1000; the more negative the Δ14C value in a measured sample the fewer 14C atoms that there are in it) as anthropogenic CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere (due to the atmospheric CO2 mass increasing and as our emissions increase) it will appear to accelerate the sequestration of nuclear-Δ14C. The theory that the person in the article is suggesting implies that the 14C in the atmosphere is swapping places with CO2 that is depleted in 14C within the oceans. But are the oceans depleted in 14C? Below is a graphic from the NOAA showing the Δ14C values in the terrestrial biosphere, the ocean, the atmosphere and fossil fuels. Because fossil fuels have been in the ground for so long the 14C has decayed, and so they have a low Δ14C, but the oceans appear to have a positive Δ14C, not a negative/depleted one. The NOAA state: “If we add 1ppmv of CO2 from a forest fire (the terrestrial biosphere), the CO2 from the fire would have the same Δ14C value as the atmosphere (or very close to it). The Δ14C of the atmosphere would not change”. Thus the same would hold true for the ocean, which has a similar positive Δ14C value. Apparently exhaled CO2 from the oceans would not be depleted in 14C.

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2018
  16. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,637
    Likes Received:
    1,528
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The point mamooth brought up is essentially the one I'm making.

    Maybe this simple thought experiment helps illustrate the point. Consider a bucket that holds water. There is drain at the bottom that allows 100kg/hr of water to leave the bucket. There is hose (C) at the top that is adding clear water at the rate of 100kg/hr. Let's start the bucket out with 100kg of water. The amount of water in the bucket will remain constant at 100kg because there is just as much leaving as there is being added. Now throw a second hose (R) in the mix. This hose will deliver 10kg/hr of water, but the water it adds will be dyed red. Let this experiment run for 10 hours.

    1) How much water will be in the bucket after 10 hours?

    (100kg * 10) - (100kg * 10) + (10kg * 10) = 200kg

    2) How much water was added to the bucket?

    100kg

    3) How much of the water is red and thus came from hose R?

    This is where things get tricky. The drain at the bottom of the bucket does not preferentially select red water or clear water. The drain releases whatever water parcels happen to randomly appear at the drain. We can model this setup in Excel. When you do this you will find that at hour 0 the amount of red water is 0%. This percentage increases until about hour 2 when it peaks at 8.3%. After that the relative amount of red water begins declining even though the absolute amount keeps increasing. After 10 hours there will be 200kg of water in the bucket. 13.4kg will be red and 186.6kg will be clear. The amount of red water is now only 6.7%.

    4) Which hose was responsible for the 100kg increase in the water? C or R?

    Hose R is responsible for 100% of the increase.

    5) What percent of the total water is attributable to hose R's influence?

    100kg / 200kg = 50%

    6) What percent of the total water still has hose R's fingerprint on it?

    6.7% as derived above.

    This is the big take away from this thought experiment. Hose R that was tagging the water with red dye was responsible for 100% of the increase and 50% of the total water left in the bucket. But, only 6.7% of the water has hose R's fingerprint.

    Mother Nature is behaving in much the same way. She is mixing out the human signal by constantly exchanging CO2 molecules and thus removing the fingerprint. We are responsible for 100% of the increase (dC/dt) in CO2, 30% of the total CO2. But only 6-8% of the CO2 molecules are tagged with our signature. That is expected behavior.
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2018
  17. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    4,638
    Likes Received:
    1,238
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I can find no works by Aaron Donohoe or Noor Van Andel and saying OLR has increased.

    I can find this piece by Donohoe saying OLR went down and then back up, but it doesn't say it increased. It says increasing shortwave absorption brought it back up, and that the greenhouse theory is sound.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/11/05/1412190111

    Van Andel died in 2011, and was part of a Dutch chemical company, as opposed to being a climate scientist. His stuff is so old, I can't figure out where the data comes from. I'm guessing it's similar to what Thompson claimed, and that's addressed here.

    https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=144
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2018
  18. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    4,638
    Likes Received:
    1,238
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Those are current values, not values from shortly after nuclear testing.

    The "bomb spike theory of refuting global warming" relied on the values from shortly after nuclear testing. At that time, the oceans were depleted relative to the atmosphere.
     
  19. Nathan-D

    Nathan-D Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2018
    Messages:
    47
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    Of course atmospheric Δ14C was higher than it naturally was in the surface-ocean because it had been increased artificially in the atmosphere above its natural equilibrium level due to the nuclear bomb tests.
    See this blog-post here.
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2018
  20. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    26,308
    Likes Received:
    7,493
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I always find it fascinating to watch how deeply deniers look into any science they can find to support their position while avoiding the easily noted and understood data that suggest AGW effects.
     
  21. Nathan-D

    Nathan-D Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2018
    Messages:
    47
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    That is the “expected behavior” according to your analogy. You know, I could come up with a mathematically consistent analogy based on the isotopic data that shows humans have contributed only 6% to the CO2 greenhouse, instead of 30%. My issues with the IPCC’s claim of a long equilibrium time and that humans are responsible for 100% of the CO2 increase are 1) It ignores Henry’s law. The fast-equilibra of Henry’s law implies that 98% of human CO2 should be absorbed by the oceans. But the IPCC appear to ignore Henry’s law and have replaced it with the Revelle Factor which contradicts Henry’s law 2) I disagree that 100% of the CO2 increase is anthropogenic because the surface-ocean is assumed to have warmed by around 1C since 1850 and that should have outgassed CO2. This can be calculated as Jaworowski (1997) has done and he has found the CO2 increase due to the warming ocean to be considerable. For example, it would only take about a 1C warming of the Benguela Current to increase CO2 by about 12.5ppmv; as noted by Segalstad (1996) 3) The 14CO2 bomb-spike data shows how 14CO2 is exchanged between the terrestrial biosphere and the ocean with the atmosphere, making it an active tracer for how long it would take atmospheric CO2 to achieve equilibrium with other CO2 reservoirs, and it shows a half-life of about 10-12 years with equilibrium taking around 40-48 years. This means that anthropogenic CO2 should achieve equilibrium with other CO2 reservoirs by the same time (i.e. around 40-48 years), in contradiction of the Bern Model, which assumes equilibrium takes thousands of years.
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2018
  22. Blaster3

    Blaster3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2018
    Messages:
    3,221
    Likes Received:
    2,090
    Trophy Points:
    113
    well, pier corbyn has already showed how solar activity & temp rise are synonymous:
    here's a graph:
    upload_2018-10-28_10-49-57.png

    here's a graph that shows how co2 levels follow temp rise, that is, as temp rises then 800 years later co2 rises:
    upload_2018-10-28_10-52-23.png

    the 'take', solar activity causes global warming, the global warming causes co2 levels to rise...

    whats the most prevalent greenhouse gas? any guesses? well, it's water vapor which outnumbers co2 by a trillion+ times... the solar activity warms us up, lakes/rivers/oceans/ice evaporates, increasing water vapor, which then exasperates solar warming...
     
    Nathan-D likes this.
  23. Blaster3

    Blaster3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2018
    Messages:
    3,221
    Likes Received:
    2,090
    Trophy Points:
    113
    as for co2...

    like a drip from a faucet, humans exhale...

    it took approx 200,000 years for the population to reach 1 billion, and only another 200 years to reach approx 8 billion, thats 7 billion additional 'dripping faucets' added in just the last 200 years...

    future growth?
    upload_2018-10-28_11-26-29.png

    citation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
     
    Josephwalker likes this.
  24. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,637
    Likes Received:
    1,528
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This graph is not correct though. I believe it comes from the The Great Global Warming Swindle documentary. Aside from the fact that Svensmark & Christensen's work is not widely accepted by the scientific consensus the documentary actually used an earlier and incorrect version of their research. They had to make several corrections that effectively made the correlation disappear after 1960 which is about the time the anthroprogenic effect in the atmosphere really ramped up. The documentary selectively used their earlier incorrect data even they're own corrected version had been available long before production on the documentary began. Furthermore, the blue line (temperature) is now up to about 1.0C so it's way off the top of the graph and the red line (solar activity) keeps dropping. Cycle 23 was 12.3 years which is about as low as cycle 6 in 1810. So to review...draw the red line down to 12 and the blue line up to 1.0C. The divergence is so extreme you'll have to double the height of the chart to view it.

    It's true. CO2 concentrations really do lag the temperature trend in the paleoclimate record; well most of the time anyway. This is definitive proof that CO2 is in a feedback with the temperature. However, this fact is not inconsistent with CO2's ability to provide a radiative forcing and to also catalyze temperature changes. The lag only proves that most (thought definitely not all) warming events had a several hundred year period in which something else catalyzed the warming first. But these warming events as we transitioned from glacial to interglacial took several thousand years to play out. So although something else (likely Milankovitch cycles among other things) catalyzed the warming trend at it's beginning CO2 finished it off. Also, the fact that CO2's feedback lag is several hundred years is very interesting. What that tells us is that nature's emissions and absorptions take a really long time to play out. So even if the Earth were to cool (through another cause) to about 1850 levels it would still take 100 to 1000 years for the CO2 concentration to dieoff to 1850's levels. So this chart is consistent with the fact that CO2 is in a feedback with the temperature and that CO2 dieoff is on the order of hundreds of years. It is not, however, inconsistent with the fact that CO2 also catalyzes temperature changes. In fact, the paleoclimate record provides supporting evidence of this via it's nice solution to the faint young Sun problem.

    Actually WV concentrations are on the order of about 10,000 to 15,000 ppm. So it's about 40x as prevalent as CO2 at most.

    Yeah, I mean this is essentially correct. The only issue I have is that solar radiation isn't the only thing modulating the temperature. There are other factors that can cause cooling/warming. The paleoclimate record tells us that the net effect of the big four (solar radiation, greenhouse gas, aerosols, and albedo) explains a significant portion of the warming/cooling that has occurred. These aren't the only pieces of the puzzle, but they are the biggest pieces.

    Also, keep in mind that we know for an absolute fact that solar radiation isn't the only driver of climate change. We know this because the Sun brightens by about 1% every 100 million years. That may not seem like a lot, but consider that the total radiation flux from the Sun only varies by about 0.1% during a solar cycle. And of the spectrum that penetrates the troposphere it is actually less than 0.1%. So if the Sun were the only driver of climate change then you'd expect the Earth to be considerably warmer than it was during the hottest periods of the paleozoic and mesozoic eras. But, it's not. It's much cooler. This general class of problem is called the faint young Sun problem. How was it that the Earth wasn't a snowball in the past when the Sun was much dimmer?
     
  25. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,637
    Likes Received:
    1,528
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Just remember that if the net flux of ocean-to-atmosphere is positive then the pH of the ocean should have increased. Instead it decreased which is not consistent with the hypothesis that the ocean outgassing is responsible for the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.

    Then you need to figure out where all of that carbon we emitted into the atmosphere went if not into the ocean. The hypothesis that the net ocean flux was positive is not consistent with the mass accounting of the carbon that we dug up out of the ground.

    Then you need to figure out why the ocean suddenly increased it's net flux into the atmosphere that just happens to coincidentally align with the trajectory of human CO2 emissions. Is it possible? Sure, but considering this CO2 release is unprecedented in the 10,000 year history of the current interglacial era we are going to need to see some pretty convincing evidence that the CO2 release today is primarily natural.

    Futhermore, if the half-life of CO2 concentrations above and beyond the natural equilibrium really is on the order of 10 years then that means a huge percentage of human carbon emissions got removed from the atmosphere-hydrosphere budget and went somewhere else. Where did it go? And why are we expecting human-sourced concentrations to get removed from this budget with a 10 year half-life but nature-sourced concentrations don't? Or if you do accept that all concentration levels regardless of who sourced them have the same half-life then we need an explanation for why 280'ish ppm is the ideal equilibrium level by which to judge concentration half-life.

    Regarding point #14...

    Also, this is the first I've heard of the IPCC's use of the Revelle Factor (which happens to explain observations pretty well) contradicts Henry's law. Can you provide more explanation on that subject?

    Also, try to create a model (in Excel) where the half-life of the concentration (not individual molecules) is on the order of 10 years. It's pretty hard coming up with such a model to begin with, but once you do you'll see that the amount of ocean-to-atmosphere flux has to be huge and accelerating at an alarming pace to bring the concentration up from 280 ppm to 410 ppm. If humans aren't responsible for this 130 ppm increase then that's even more disturbing because that means there is a runaway feedback occurring that is completely mysterious. Nevermind the fact that such a model cannot be reconciled with observations..a la...the decreasing pH level in the ocean and the missing mass from human emissions that ended up in some as of yet unidentified carbon storage medium or just disappeared outright.
     
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2018

Share This Page