Quote:
The short of it is this admission by you:
Quote:
Nothing is provable but this stuff is certain to the point of 99.99%.
But you'll call that true scientific fact, so we'll have to move on.
|
|
Scientific facts are very certain but not necessarily 100% proofs. For example evolution is a fact. Yet it's not 100% certain. Big bang is a fact, yet not 100% certain.
I notice you don't address the simple 1,2,3 progressions I laid out. Again:
Quote:
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 which number is it, and why?
|
Quote:
|
1) How much carbon is sequestered on this planet today? Either in the air, ocean, biomass, or wherever you think it might be. Do you have all carbon sinks? Is it possible, in an open system, there are other sources and sinks of carbon we don't know about? When you tell me the number, tell me what the error band is. Make sure you include the error band for each source.
|
You don't need to know this to answer the question about the cause of
atmospheric co2 rise. For example in that contenxt how much carbon is locked away in the
deep ocean is irrelevant. You just need to know relevant facts about inflow and outflow into the atmosphere.
Quote:
|
2) How much carbon was sequesterd on this planet in 1750? I'll need the error band.
|
This again is an irrelevant question. Knowing this or not knowing this does not effect how we know the recent co2 rise is anthropogenic. It doesn't matter how much was in the deep ocean, or locked away in fossil fuels beneath the earth. It could be 100 trillion tons or 0 tons and it matters neither way. What matters is how much was in the atmsphere back then. The answer is known - about 280ppm. Error band: about +-10ppm.
Quote:
|
3) How much carbon has been released into the atmosphere due to Man since 1750? I'll also need the error band on that.
|
About 1100 billion tons. 750 billion tons since 1970. No error band available.
Quote:
|
4) How much carbon has been emitted naturally since 1750? This will also have an error band.
|
Unknown
Quote:
|
5) How much carbon has been absorbed naturally since 1750? Error band here, too.
|
Unknown
Quote:
|
6) How much more carbon is in the air today than in 1750? You guessed it, there should be an error band here.
|
About 100ppm more, +-10ppm max
Quote:
|
Given the error rates, there are no absolute conclusions we can come to.
|
The numbers we do have:
-human emissions
-atmosperic co2 increase
Are plenty accurate enough to reach a very certain conclusion.
You can even do this for any stretch of the 20th century you want to. For example only take into account the emission and co2 level rise since 1970 for example. Still you get a result that humans have emitted far more than the co2 level has risen. So where did it go? Nature must have absorbed some of it. That means nature must be a net absorber.
Quote:
|
1) How much carbon is sequestered on this planet really depends upon whether or not we know where it all is. Given that we're still unable to account for the carbon sink that would allow us to balance the carbon budget, my guess is we don't know where it all is. That 13 gigatons you claim the planet is absorbing? We don't know where it's going.
|
Actually we know about a quarter of it is going into the oceans (rising ocean acidity) and another quarter being uptaken by plants. The other half is the unknown. But I have to stress that it's irrelevant where it's going when we know that it's gone from the atmosphere.
Quote:
|
Therefore, either we made some mistakes with our estimates and it isn't going anywhere
|
That would require human emission estimates to be off by 50% (in which case human emissions would still be causing all the co2 rise, plus a 50% error is hugely unlikely), or that co2 level rise measurements to be off by 50%. Simply impossible. Might as well claim that measurements of light have been off by 50%.
Quote:
|
or we don't know as much about the carbon cycle as you repeatedly claim we do.
|
We know as much as I have been saying. We know more about it than you are implying. We know why atmospheric co2 rises. We don't know where all the co2 absorbed by nature goes. That isn't a contradiction.
Quote:
|
Even if we take just the known carbon sources and sinks, you'd better be pretty accurate. Because this is going to be a massive number. Being off a fraction of a percent will skew your answer dramatically.
|
We don't need to know that to calculate why atmospheric co2 rises.
Quote:
|
2) Same problem with figuring out how much carbon was sequestered on the planet in 1750, only much, much harder. There will be a big range of possible numbers on this.
|
Like I said before, we only need to know how much was in the atmosphere to calculate why atmospheric co2 rises.
Quote:
|
3) We could probably get fairly close to how much carbon Man has emitted since 1750. "Close" being a relative term. Perhaps within 5%.
|
Sure I accept it could be out by that much, perhaps even 10%. It would require at least a 50% error to make man's contribution to co2 levels questionable.
Quote:
4) How much carbon has been emitted naturally since 1750 really depends upon whether we know all the sources. Again, that whole open system problem rears its ugly head. But if we just stick to the known carbon sinks and sources we're still dealing with a huge number. Even an error rate of less than 1% would probably equate to being off by dozens of gigatons.
5) How much carbon has been absorbed since 1750 would have a huge error rate given that carbon sequestration depends upon so much - like the amount of sunlight, the quantity and type of aerosols, temperature, location, etc. Most of which we can only take an educated guess on to determine global sequestration 250 years ago.
|
These two are the big unknowns, but how much nature has contributed net can be known from the two knowns - the co2 rise - and human emissions.
Quote:
|
6) We could, of course, solve for this one; if we knew how much carbon was in the atmosphere in 1750 and how much is in the atmosphere today. And at least one of those numbers has a huge error band.
|
We know co2 levels in the atmosphere today are about 380ppm, error bands don't really make sense in this case because it is rising about 2ppm a year.
We know from ice cores that it was about 280ppm in 1750.
Quote:
|
We could actually solve for any of these numbers as long as we're willing to plug in some numbers. But those numbers are just going to be guesses. And since they are guesses, they have a low range and a high range. Do the error ranges give you the sense that your hypothesis is 99.99% correct? Or is it something else?
|
They give me the sense that it is correct. It would require massive errors in those numbers that I don't think are possible.
Quote:
|
I never claimed, nor implied, there was any hoax.
|
Well there would have to be for so many scientists to be saying it's certain that humans have caused the recent co2 rise.
Quote:
|
"In sum, a strategy must recognize what is possible. In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the prediction of a specific future climate state is not possible."
|
Note the word specific.