Quote:
Originally Posted by onon
Who said anything about geologic conclusions? I am simply pointing out that the current co2 rise seen year on year has an anthropogenic cause.
|
For the past ten years. Even if your argument weren't logically flawed, so what? What would this knowledge add to the debate?
Quote:
|
co2 concentrations can increase naturally, but in this case there is good evidence it is an anthropogenic cause.
|
What evidence is that? What are all the natural causes for CO2 concentration fluctuations?
Quote:
|
Yes it does because it is only when you include human emissions that co2 sources worldwide are more than co2 sinks worldwide. Take out the human source and co2 sinks will then be absorbing more than the sources are emitting.
|
No, they won't, according to your logic. You wrote:
Quote:
300 years ago nature was emitting as much as it absorbed.
As human activity started emitting more co2, nature started absorbing more in response.
|
You reiterated this several times:
Quote:
|
The reason nature is absorbing more co2 than it is emitting is because there is an abundance of co2 in the atmosphere at this time.
|
(Which has its own logical fallacy, but we'll stick to the current one.)
Ergo, if there were no human activity, CO2 levels would remain level at 280ppm. Do you believe CO2 levels would be at appr. 280ppm today if there were no human emissions?
Quote:
|
How can co2 in the atmosphere continue rising if human emissions stopped, when nature is absorbing more than it emits?
|
How can nature absorb more than it emits if you've already asserted the only reason it's absorbing more in the first place is because humans are emitting CO2?
Quote:
|
And notice that unlike other sources in nature, the human source has only appeared significantly in the past 200 years, correlating with the co2 rise..The evidence is more than compelling.
|
Are you familiar with post hoc, ergo propter hoc arguments? Let me give you an example:
Everytime I walk out of the house with an umbrella it's raining. Can I therefore conclude my umbrella causes it to rain?
Correlation does not prove causation.
Quote:
|
Nature would still be absorbing more co2 than it emits. It's absorbing more co2 than it emits because there is an abundance of co2 in the atmosphere.
|
How so? Does CO2 absorption always increase when there's an abundance of CO2 in the atmosphere? If so, then that either indicates: 1) an eventual reduction to 0ppm of CO2, or 2) a self-regulating system that maintains relatively general stability. Did we have 0ppm of CO2 prior to 300 years ago? Were CO2 concentrations always relatively generally stable prior to 300 years ago? Of course, the answer to both questions is, "No." CO2 concentrations go up and down naturally, sometimes violently. You want to presume since Man is here and emitting CO2 that somehow all the other natural causes of fluctuating CO2 concentrations stop. Since Man is here, and CO2 concentrations have risen, Man has caused CO2 concentrations to increase. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.
Quote:
|
But in no way is co2 going to continue rising without human emissions.
|
Because CO2 doesn't rise naturally?
Quote:
|
There's just too much evidence that the rise is man caused:
|
For some, I suppose. However, your argument still fails a priori.
Quote:
|
Any one of many of these points can be argued as a coincidence. But the chance of so many coincidences... Especially the last one there which alone is enough. It's simply unexplainable how a 28 billion ton/year emission rate cannot be the cause of a 15 billion ton/year co2 rise.
|
Assuming your numbers are correct. But quick assumptions really are the life-blood of this debate, aren't they?