Quote:
Originally Posted by Cato
You're funny, onon. You compare me to a creationist when you're the one making broad definitive statements on very little evidence.
|
It's not just me though is it. You are arguing with all the scientists out there. NASA, NOAA, every scientific body accepts the recent co2 rise is anthropogenic. I am not aware of any scientists who claims otherwise. I am not even aware of any prominent AGW skeptics denying the recent co2 rise is anthropogenic.
So yes it really is a creationism like position where you are going to have to imply that there is some massive hoax going on in the scientific (and skeptic) community that causes statements to be made such as:
Quote:
There is little doubt the air's CO2 concentration has risen significantly since the inception of the Industrial Revolution; and there are few who do not attribute the CO2 increase to the increase in humanity's use of fossil fuels.
CO2 Science
|
Co2science.org is a global warming skeptic site.
Quote:
|
You don't know the planet is sequestering more CO2 than it emits over any relevant time period.
|
Yes I do simply because co2 rise per year minus human emission per year is less than zero. That means nature is absorbing more co2 from the atmosphere than it is emitting into it. Otherwise co2 levels would be rising 4+ppm in the atmosphere. Also the oceans are getting more acidic due to more carbon disolving in them.
Quote:
|
In a system that transfers, naturally, billions of tons of carbon every year, with inputs and outputs still unknown and unknowable, being off a fraction in your estimates could well account for the 15 gigatons you claim.
|
I have shown repeatedly why this cannot be true - why nature being a net emitter contradicts observations. Forget all the unknown internal exchanges, what is nature doing overall? You claim above that the co2 rise can be explained by a nature emitting 15 billion tons co2 per year overall. Sounds ok but it seriously contradicts observations. Here is why again:
Premise to be disproven: Nature's net effect is emissions of 15 billion tons co2 into the atmosphere each year.
1) That would mean nature is adding 15 billion tons, and humans are adding another 28 billion tons. Agreed?
2) That would be 15 (natural) + 28 (human), ie a total of 43 billion tons entering the atmosphere each year. Agreed?
3) Therefore co2 levels should be rising at 43 billion tons per year. Agreed?
co2 levels are observed to be rising 15 billion tons per year, contradicting the premise. Ie the premise contradicts observations and cannot be true.
If you disagree with this then, well how can you? I cannot even imagine how someone could find fault with that progression. But if you do, which number is it, and why?
Nature is known to be a net absorber because anything else would violate observations in the same way. Compare it with this one:
Actual situation: Nature's net effect is absorption of 13 billion tons per year
1) That means nature is taking away 13 billion tons, and humans are adding 28 billion tons.
2) That means 28 (human) - 15 (natural), ie a total of 15 billion tons entering the atmosphere each year.
3) Therefore co2 levels should be rising at 15 billion tons per year.
That matches the observed rate of co2 rise - 15 billion tons per year.
That is why nature is known to be a net absorber. That is why it is known that humans have caused the recent co2 rise. That is why this is accepted as beyond doubt by all scientific bodies worldwide. That is why even skeptics of global warming don't deny it. This is one of the few things in climate science which is known with a degree of certainty.
Quote:
In reality, all you needed to do was amend your statements to:
Over the past 50 years, nature probably removed more CO2 from the atmosphere than it added.
|
Probably could be 80% or even 60% though, wheras I see the certainty as above the 99.9% level. Beyond doubt is the phrase I would use.