Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Co2 Acquittal


  • Please log in to reply
129 replies to this topic

#1 pmaust

pmaust

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 86 posts

Posted 27 November 2007 - 01:20 PM

Has anyone read this or commented on it yet? I'd be interested in seeing what you all think.

CO2 ACQUITTAL (Rocket Scientist's Journal)

#2 InfiniteNow

InfiniteNow

    Suspended

  • Members
  • 9,148 posts

Posted 27 November 2007 - 02:41 PM

Yet another article trying to show that global climate change due to human activity is nothing more than politics. It's bunk, and the claims in this (un peer reviewed / un published journal) that we don't understand the effect of CO2 on our atmosphere and climate are fallacious.

#3 Buffy

Buffy

    Resident Slayer

  • Administrators
  • 8,018 posts

Posted 27 November 2007 - 02:52 PM

Yet another example of the insidious pseudo-scientific method of "teaching the controversy"....

He misses what is meant by epigram - who thinks it only frivolous flimflam, :)
Buffy

#4 Zythryn

Zythryn

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1,539 posts

Posted 27 November 2007 - 04:21 PM

He commits a number of false arguments.
i.e. my opponents says this, which is false so my opponents argument is false.
This of course all falls apart when you realize his 'opponent' doesn't claim any such thing;)

#5 Pyrotex

Pyrotex

    Slaying Bad Memes

  • Members
  • 5,690 posts

Posted 27 November 2007 - 04:30 PM

Has anyone read this or commented on it yet? I'd be interested in seeing what you all think....

I read the article, "Acquittal of CO2" from beginning to end. Most of it made good sense to me, especially the correlation charts, and the solubility chemistry of CO2.

But it didn't make perfect sense. I finished the article with a sense that something was being hidden from me, that my attention was being directed one way, to divert me from... what? I dunno. The article isn't "complete" in a sense that I cannot describe. Perhaps it was the lack of recent CO2 measurements. Or maybe some interpretation of the Vostok data that the author did not wish to unconceal. Again, I dunno. I am left uneasy and dissatisfied.

#6 pmaust

pmaust

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 86 posts

Posted 27 November 2007 - 06:04 PM

Yet another article trying to show that global climate change due to human activity is nothing more than politics. It's bunk, and the claims in this (un peer reviewed / un published journal) that we don't understand the effect of CO2 on our atmosphere and climate are fallacious.


The problem is that there is always "yet another article" trying to prove a point one way or another. The political aspect of this whole thing is unfortunate. Science shouldn't be political in my view but it is. The author raised several issues. Most of the replies here have been very high level. Can you offer some specific challenges or suggestions that might help me to better understand the errors contained in his analysis? He doesn't seem like a run of the mill dummy and he has some pretty impressive credentials.

Thanks

Paul

#7 pmaust

pmaust

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 86 posts

Posted 27 November 2007 - 06:11 PM

He commits a number of false arguments.
i.e. my opponents says this, which is false so my opponents argument is false.
This of course all falls apart when you realize his 'opponent' doesn't claim any such thing;)


Thanks for th reply. Can you provide some specific examples of his false arguments?

Thanks

#8 pmaust

pmaust

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 86 posts

Posted 27 November 2007 - 06:21 PM

I read the article, "Acquittal of CO2" from beginning to end. Most of it made good sense to me, especially the correlation charts, and the solubility chemistry of CO2.

But it didn't make perfect sense. I finished the article with a sense that something was being hidden from me, that my attention was being directed one way, to divert me from... what? I dunno. The article isn't "complete" in a sense that I cannot describe. Perhaps it was the lack of recent CO2 measurements. Or maybe some interpretation of the Vostok data that the author did not wish to unconceal. Again, I dunno. I am left uneasy and dissatisfied.


As a laymen, I am trying to be fair and open minded in regards to AGW. If I come across something that argues intelligently against it, I am just as interested as I should be for arguments for. It is a very important issue and I am trying to clearly understand the arguements from both sides. I pretty much always feel like there might be something that is being hidden from me. :turtle:

Thanks for the reply.

#9 Zythryn

Zythryn

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1,539 posts

Posted 27 November 2007 - 07:18 PM

Thanks for th reply. Can you provide some specific examples of his false arguments?

Thanks


Here is an interesting one:

Carbon dioxide, a benign gas, is now the hyper–volatile fuel of public policy, media hype, and world politics. Climatologists, undeterred by their inability to predict even the dominant features of the earth’s climate record – the ice ages and the glacial periods – have nonetheless scored a political coup by cobbling together three selected bits of science into a cataclysmic prediction: man is on the verge of destroying life on the planet.


Rather than a scientific paper, this feels more like someone with an axe to grind. What are all these adjetives doing in an introduction of a scientific paper?
He suggests climatologists haven't been able to 'predict even the dominant features of the earth's climate record'.
Actually, models have been able to predict very accurately global climate. However, I suspect he is right that some of these climate changes events can't be predicted (I don't know that, but I am giving him the benifit of the doubt). But just because cataclismic events aren't predicted, doesn't mean very good predictions of trends aren't.

As for the prediction he attributes to climatologists "man is on the verge of destroying life on the planet" that is patently false. I have never heard of nor read any scientific paper stating that AGW is going to lead to the end of life on our planet.

He seeds the reader with this thought in a very clever way. The reader is lead to think: 'of course, how absurd, this guy must be right if the other guys think all life is about to end'

I do have to say, he does sound very impressive. I am disappointed that he refuses to submit his paper to any peer reviewed journals as I would love to hear the authors of the articles he cites throughout the paper respond to his submission.

#10 Zythryn

Zythryn

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1,539 posts

Posted 27 November 2007 - 07:29 PM

Here is another one I like:

The author of Figure 1 employs a bit of marginally acceptable, subjective chartsmanship to underscore a point. He selected scale factors and data ranges to emphasize the correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature. The peak to peak swings in the chart traces are arbitrarily made to look alike. This is subjective and artificial, but harmless here.
What is not harmless, though, is climatologists seizing on the lock-step rising and falling of temperature and carbon dioxide as evidence, if not proof, of their greenhouse gas theory: increased CO2 allegedly causes increased temperatures.


Sure, newsweek, time, and other media may offer this irrefutable proof. The scientific papers I have read note a correlation. They do not 'seize' on this as proof and then go home and say job well done. They look for additional information, more correlations and other evidence to support the relationship.

Every time he talks of climatologist he portrays them as incompetant, quick to jump to conclusions and conspiricists.

#11 InfiniteNow

InfiniteNow

    Suspended

  • Members
  • 9,148 posts

Posted 27 November 2007 - 08:22 PM

The problem is that there is always "yet another article" trying to prove a point one way or another. The political aspect of this whole thing is unfortunate. Science shouldn't be political in my view but it is. The author raised several issues. Most of the replies here have been very high level. Can you offer some specific challenges or suggestions that might help me to better understand the errors contained in his analysis?


Hi Paul - Here are a few at just cursory examination. I can continue if needed.


Sentence #1:

Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the product of oceanic respiration due to the well known but under appreciated solubility pump.


Opens the entire presentation from a premise which clearly ignores the known contributions to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from human activity.


Notwithstanding that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, atmospheric carbon dioxide has neither caused nor amplified global temperature increases.

Look here for more on why the above quote is wrong. If you question the data, view the references and point out specifically what data you challenge:

http://www.ipcc.ch/p...g1-chapter7.pdf


Carbon dioxide, a benign gas, is now the hyper–volatile fuel of public policy, media hype, and world politics.

Where’s the science supporting this assertion? I see none. Show me what part of the data is wrong. He has not done this, and is instead trying to sew the seeds of doubt using classic denialist tactics.


Climatologists, undeterred by their inability to predict even the dominant features of the earth’s climate record – the ice ages and the glacial periods – have nonetheless scored a political coup by cobbling together three selected bits of science into a cataclysmic prediction: man is on the verge of destroying life on the planet.

This is ad hominem and a strawman. These are both logical and argumentative fallacies.

Also, I can show you why the opening premise that “climatologists cannot even predict the dominant features of earth’s climate record” is false… using evidence, not rhetoric. The IPCC does a far better job than I can of showing the most current evidence, and they are an amazing place to start. I encourage you to view the references section, beginning on page 484 of the Paleoclimate section of the latest report. I have linked Chapter 6 of that report (which includes the 13 pages of paleoclimate citations which I referenced above... ) below:

http://www.ipcc.ch/p...g1-chapter6.pdf

And here is the full report for other supporting data:

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Working Group I Report "The Physical Science Basis"


I believe these links to climatology studies more than adequately indicate the fault in the above premise.



The author of Figure 1 employs a bit of marginally acceptable, subjective chartsmanship to underscore a point. He selected scale factors and data ranges to emphasize the correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature.
<…>
This analysis has no further call for the start and end marks. The graphs are just for human visualization of the data. At its roots, the information in the data is arithmetical.

Here is the source of figure 1:

TRENDS: TEMPERATURE

Your author is not arguing the data, but the way it’s been presented. The data still shows an strong correlation between CO2 and temperature, as do the scores of references I shared above.


Another observer of current climatology examined Vostok data in a similar coordinate system. He is Ferdinand Engelbeen, a gadfly and regular commenter to RealClimate.org, a major public outlet for the climatologists.

Appeal to authority. Still no data.


Moreover and to the contrary, climatologists dismiss the oceans as the source. Gavin A. Schmidt (NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), New York, New York; and Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Columbia University, New York, New York.) and his blog group at RealClimate believe …
The oceans cannot be a source of carbon to the atmosphere, because we observe them to be a sink of carbon from the atmosphere.

This is another strawman, and somewhat of an appeal to ignorance. Regardless, it still does nothing to discount the effects of atmospheric CO2 on climate nor the evidence that we are increasing the atmospheric CO2 significantly (37% over 20 years ago IIRC).


The phrase “change in the solubility” can be read several ways. Regardless, the analysis here shows that the well–known, fixed and constant physics of the temperature–dependent solubility of CO2 in water accounts for all the Vostok CO2 concentration measurements.

Another misrepresentation of the argument. Ignores knowledge of anthropogenic sources of atmospheric CO2. Also, recent studies have shown that the ocean’s ability to absorb CO2 is decreasing, and it seems to be saturating. See Science (DOI: 10.1126/science.1136188 and 10.1126/science.1136221) for more.

If you don’t have a subscription, you can look here for a write-up:

Southern Ocean Carbon Sink Weakened


Climatologists by their Greenhouse Catastrophe Model assume, and attempt to prove, that temperature is the dependent variable.

Another ad hominem without support.


Carbon dioxide is dependent on temperature, and not the reverse. The reason is not just the fact that concentration lags temperature changes, but because it is a physical consequence of the ocean temperature distribution.

It doesn’t matter how many times he says the same thing. It’s still unsupported and without basis in evidence.


Because there is no trace of build–up of CO2 from forest fires, volcanoes, or the oceans themselves, cold waters must be scrubbing CO2 out of the air.

Another baseless conclusion.


Since there is no difference between manmade and natural CO2, anthropogenic CO2 is sure to meet the same fate.

See May 2007 article in Science listed above for evidence to the contrary. If you want more, it won't be hard to find.


Thus, CO2 is a proxy for global temperature, and attempting to control global temperatures by regulating anthropogenic CO2 is unfounded, futile, and wasteful.

Still no data to support this conclusion has been offered. He may as well be saying that purple unicorns cause erections in leprechauns.


Climatologists claim that the increases in CO2 are manmade, notwithstanding the accounting problems. Relying on their greenhouse gas theory, they convinced themselves, and the vulnerable public, that the CO2 causes global warming. What they did next was revise their own embryonic global climate models, previously called GCMs, converting them into greenhouse gas, catastrophe models. The revised GCMs were less able to replicate global climate, but by manual adjustments could show manmade CO2 causing global warming within a few degrees and a fraction.

Another claim invalidated by the data. Shall I show it, or am I doing a fair job of making my point? I will show it if you ask me. It’s easy, and it’s abundant.

This whole presentation is wrought with appeals to authority, ad hominem attacks, and appeals to shame. Further, the primary focus of the entire linked article is an attack on the graphs presented in one single study (a study which was presented among several others relating to ice core samples taken from Vostok… I remind you that these samples were analyzed and reported upon by several other scientists in the field. The author of the article you linked referenced none of these).

The general approach taken here is that this one single study is all that we have which demonstrates the impact of human activity on atmospheric CO2, and how atmospheric CO2 impacts climate, and that this study is faulty due to their graphing techniques. That is wrong since the data itself is consistent across research fields and remains to be refuted. Again, the studies that show this relation between human activity, atmospheric CO2, and global climate are both peer reviewed and consistent.

Show me where the data is wrong and I will listen. Show me data which clearly proves that humans don’t impact global climate change, and that our contributions of carbon to the atmosphere are of no concern. Enough of this character attack, “It’s all politics and conspiracy” hand waving garbage. Show me the science that proves your position. Until then, you don’t know enough about the issue to argue against it.

The whole thing was basically an attack against graphing methods (not the data itself) and a bunch of conclusions from false premises.

How much longer do we need to keep disproving these mistaken claims against the data?

Global warming deniers are like creationists. They are both a special form of retarded.

#12 pmaust

pmaust

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 86 posts

Posted 27 November 2007 - 10:44 PM

Awesome replies! Thanks. I did pick up on his apparent disdain for climate scientists. Perhaps he is a victim of, and a bit ticked off at the politicalization of the subject matter who knows. I mean there is no shortage of hype surrounding this very politically sensative subject. However, I was also able to detect a fairly high degree of technical expertise as well with regards to the related physics. He certainly does display some core competencies in those areas. He welcomes comments to his work on his web site. I will bring up some of the issues that you folks have brought to the table and see how he replies. Perhaps some of you could chime in there as well. He seems to be inviting reasoned rebuttle or questions. The benefit for folks like me is that I get to learn from it all. I don't post here often but I read quite a bit here. I am very appreciative of this web site and although you don't know me that well, I know most of you because I read your writings and replies here.

Thanks so much,

Paul

#13 pmaust

pmaust

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 86 posts

Posted 28 November 2007 - 12:42 AM

Hi Paul - Here are a few at just cursory examination. I can continue if needed.

Sentence #1:

Opens the entire presentation from a premise which clearly ignores the known contributions to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from human activity.


Okay, I'll play the devils advoacte here a little. In other writings he does talk about human produced Co2. My initial reaction to his first paragraph was that he is just explaining Co2 processing in general regardless of the source. In other writings on the same site, he points out that Co2 is Co2 and is exactly the same regarless of the source. And if you look at B under Carbon Dioxide Stream he argues as follows:

B. CARBON DIOXIDE SHOULD NO LONGER DRIVE PUBLIC POLICY
-> Contents …
The discovery that the Vostok CO2 record is an effect of the oceanic solubility pump has profound effects on the science and on public policy.

Over those 420,000 years, warm ocean water has regulated the concentration of CO2 by release of this gas into the atmosphere. Because there is no trace of build–up of CO2 from forest fires, volcanoes, or the oceans themselves, cold waters must be scrubbing CO2 out of the air. Since there is no difference between manmade and natural CO2, anthropogenic CO2 is sure to meet the same fate.

To the extent that the analyst’s Vostok temperature trace represents a global atmosphere temperature, so does the concentration of CO2. Thus, CO2 is a proxy for global temperature, and attempting to control global temperatures by regulating anthropogenic CO2 is unfounded, futile, and wasteful.



Look here for more on why the above quote is wrong. If you question the data, view the references and point out specifically what data you challenge:

http://www.ipcc.ch/p...g1-chapter7.pdf


One thing that has me a little baffled is that if Co2 follows higher temperatures rather than creates them, would it not make sense that if temperatures are naturally rising that an increase in atmospheric Co2 would naturally follow as well? There seems to be some debate over what causes what to happen here. Does Co2 cause global warming or does global warming cause an increased amount of Co2 to be released from the ocean?

Where’s the science supporting this assertion? I see none. Show me what part of the data is wrong. He has not done this, and is instead trying to sew the seeds of doubt using classic denialist tactics.


He claims to NOT be a global warming denialist. In fact, he states that global warming is happening. What he agrues against is the cause. As I understand it, he insist that Co2 is not the cause of global warming but increased atmospheric Co2 is the result because regardless of ongoing souces of Co2 such as humans, volcanos, forest fires, et cetera, higher global temps will eventually warm the sea enough that it will release more Co2 into the atmosphere which happens naturally anyway. He goes on to argue that the evidence does not support a run-away green house affect. Instead, he argues that as the temperatures rise, atmospheric water vapor will increase which is a stronger greenhouse gas but as the cloud cover increases more solar ratiation will be reflected back out into space thereby causing a cooling effect. So if I understand him correctly, these conditions will regulate global temperatues and a run-away green house will not occur.

This is just my interpretation. Please consult the source artifacts to confirm this.

This is ad hominem and a strawman. These are both logical and argumentative fallacies.

Also, I can show you why the opening premise that “climatologists cannot even predict the dominant features of earth’s climate record” is false… using evidence, not rhetoric. The IPCC does a far better job than I can of showing the most current evidence, and they are an amazing place to start. I encourage you to view the references section, beginning on page 484 of the Paleoclimate section of the latest report. I have linked Chapter 6 of that report (which includes the 13 pages of paleoclimate citations which I referenced above... ) below:

http://www.ipcc.ch/p...g1-chapter6.pdf


As you know, this is a hot topic. I suspect that his rhetoric is at least partly a reaction out of frustration. However, I am not an apologist for him so that is something I will bring up to him. However, I've noticed the same sort of thing from both sides of the argument. How many times have we seen someone who has a reasoned opposing point of view to AGW called an denialist and so on. I'm trying to sort the the political BS name calling and such to get closer to the nitty gritty of the issue.
And here is the full report for other supporting data:

Your author is not arguing the data, but the way it’s been presented. The data still shows an strong correlation between CO2 and temperature, as do the scores of references I shared above.


But how data is presented is everything! Is it not? That is exactly the issue I am trying to chase down. Which liar am I to believe?

.... it still does nothing to discount the effects of atmospheric CO2 on climate nor the evidence that we are increasing the atmospheric CO2 significantly (37% over 20 years ago IIRC).


Does Co2 cause global warming? That is the question. If Co2 does not accumulate in the atmosphere then how can it multiply the green house effect? See here===> http://http://www.ro...not_to_hav.html

Another misrepresentation of the argument. Ignores knowledge of anthropogenic sources of atmospheric CO2. Also, recent studies have shown that the ocean’s ability to absorb CO2 is decreasing, and it seems to be saturating. See Science (DOI: 10.1126/science.1136188 and 10.1126/science.1136221) for more.


Based on what I read, I don't agree that he ignores anthropogenic sources. As for the ocean's ability to absorb Co2 I don't know what he thinks so will ask him.

If you don’t have a subscription, you can look here for a write-up:

Southern Ocean Carbon Sink Weakened


I don't. Thanks, I'll check it out.

This whole presentation is wrought with appeals to authority, ad hominem attacks, and appeals to shame. Further, the primary focus of the entire linked article is an attack on the graphs presented in one single study (a study which was presented among several others relating to ice core samples taken from Vostok… I remind you that these samples were analyzed and reported upon by several other scientists in the field. The author of the article you linked referenced none of these).


Point taken. I'll ask him about them.

The general approach taken here is that this one single study is all that we have which demonstrates the impact of human activity on atmospheric CO2, and how atmospheric CO2 impacts climate, and that this study is faulty due to their graphing techniques. That is wrong since the data itself is consistent across research fields and remains to be refuted. Again, the studies that show this relation between human activity, atmospheric CO2, and global climate are both peer reviewed and consistent.


Peer reviewed by whom? If it is political, how can peer review itself be above suspicion? Again, just playing devils advocate here but, he has argued that the IPCC report itself is not peer reviewed and yet, it is being used to drive public policy. He has put his views on the internet in a very public place and has invited anyone who wants to to go there and raise their concerns, comment, or question him, or even peer review his work to do so. You can comment on his work right there.

Show me where the data is wrong and I will listen. Show me data which clearly proves that humans don’t impact global climate change, and that our contributions of carbon to the atmosphere are of no concern. Enough of this character attack, “It’s all politics and conspiracy” hand waving garbage. Show me the science that proves your position. Until then, you don’t know enough about the issue to argue against it.


I think you are both saying the same thing but from opposit points of view. I would like to see some knowlegable folks to debate these things with him. I'll do the best that I can but I am no subject matter expert so all I can do is ask questions.

The whole thing was basically an attack against graphing methods (not the data itself) and a bunch of conclusions from false premises.

How much longer do we need to keep disproving these mistaken claims against the data?


Global warming deniers are like creationists. They are both a special form of retarded.


It should not be GW denier but rather AGW denier or Co2 denier. A good healthy dose of skepticism is a good thing. And I am not prepared just yet to lump Glassman into the same category as a creationist because unlike the latter, he does appear to have some subject matter expertise coupled with a very strong physics background. So unlike creationism, this has all the ear marks of being a scientific debate as apposed to a science versus thelogical debate.

Thanks for taking the time Infy.

:cheers:

Paul

#14 InfiniteNow

InfiniteNow

    Suspended

  • Members
  • 9,148 posts

Posted 28 November 2007 - 11:31 AM

In other writings on the same site, he points out that Co2 is Co2 and is exactly the same regarless of the source. And if you look at B under Carbon Dioxide Stream he argues as follows:

I agree that CO2 has the same effect regardless of source, but his argument is that since the ocean absorbed most of the natural causes of CO2 in the past several millennia that it will also absorb the human causes of CO2. This blatantly ignores the scope of the increase, as well as the quickness with which atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are rising due to human activities.

While source is not relevant, amount and magnitude of increase are. This is where that particular point fails. Additionally, as the May 2007 article from the journal Science which I shared in my previous post indicates, the ocean’s ability to act as a CO2 sink appears to be decreasing (which is not helpful since that decrease in the ocean's ability to absorb CO2 is also being coupled with all other indicators pointing to continued and unchecked increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations).



One thing that has me a little baffled is that if Co2 follows higher temperatures rather than creates them, would it not make sense that if temperatures are naturally rising that an increase in atmospheric Co2 would naturally follow as well? There seems to be some debate over what causes what to happen here. Does Co2 cause global warming or does global warming cause an increased amount of Co2 to be released from the ocean?

There is no debate among those who actually study this. The debate is all in the media and those who seek to deny global climate change. I point to the following in support of my point that the disagreement/confusion does not exist (the quote comes from an interesting source, but summarizes very clearly my point. I'd be glad to find a .edu or .gov reference if needed), and it shows in bullet-point form why the above claim is yet another denialist tactic to sew the seeds of doubt:


NSAA : National Ski Areas Association : The Environment

What is the science on climate change?
Many scientists predict that unless global warming pollution is curbed, there could be a significant increase in global temperatures and decrease in average snow pack in the decades ahead. Scientists do not necessarily agree on the precise consequences of warming however, such as what will happen to global weather patterns, crop yields, regional temperatures or rainfall patterns. Five points that are not disputed in the scientific community include:

  • CO2 is a greenhouse gas and increased atmospheric concentrations of CO2 warm the earth
  • CO2 levels are increasing rapidly, and the current rate will have doubled over pre-industrial times by 2100
  • Climate tracks CO2 levels, as demonstrated by ice core samples dating back 400,000 years; as CO2 concentrations increase, climate warms
  • Human activity causes a significant amount of CO2 to be released
  • The planet is currently warming, and global average surface temperature has increased 1degree F over the last century.




As I understand it, he insist that Co2 is not the cause of global warming but increased atmospheric Co2 is the result because regardless of ongoing souces of Co2 such as humans, volcanos, forest fires, et cetera, higher global temps will eventually warm the sea enough that it will release more Co2 into the atmosphere which happens naturally anyway. He goes on to argue that the evidence does not support a run-away green house affect. Instead, he argues that as the temperatures rise, atmospheric water vapor will increase which is a stronger greenhouse gas but as the cloud cover increases more solar ratiation will be reflected back out into space thereby causing a cooling effect. So if I understand him correctly, these conditions will regulate global temperatues and a run-away green house will not occur.

Yes, he does argue these things, but as I have shown already, his initial premise that atmospheric CO2 does not cause warming is wrong. His next premise that the ocean’s will absorb all of the CO2 is also wrong. Conclusions grounded in false premises are themselves false. To put the final nail in the coffin, the data also completely refutes his claims.


Your author is not arguing the data, but the way it’s been presented. The data still shows an strong correlation between CO2 and temperature, as do the scores of references I shared above.

But how data is presented is everything! Is it not?

No. It’s the data itself which matters. The fact that certain people change the way a graph or chart looks does NOTHING to change the data itself. The data is what’s important, and the data shows consistently, across research modalities and across time that our contributions to atmospheric CO2 are impacting global climate and that this impact on climate has other (domino) cascading effects.


Does Co2 cause global warming? That is the question.

This question has been answered, and that answer is a resounding... Yes. I have already supported this assertion above, but here is more information on the carbon cycle itself to explain in simpler terms how this happens:


Hadley Centre: The carbon cycle: a simple explanation

Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a 'greenhouse gas' - it traps some of the radiation that would otherwise be lost to space, and causes the Earth's atmosphere to be warmer than it would otherwise be. Man-made emissions of carbon dioxide have caused the amount in the atmosphere to increase by about 30% since pre-industrial times, and this is a major cause of global warming. Therefore it is important for us to understand how the carbon cycle works in order for us to be able to predict how it may behave in the future.

Carbon is continuously cycled between reservoirs in the ocean, on the land, and in the atmosphere, where it occurs primarily as carbon dioxide. On land, carbon occurs primarily in living biota and decaying organic matter. In the ocean, the main form of carbon is dissolved carbon dioxide and small creatures, such as plankton. The largest reservoir is the deep ocean, which contains close to 40,000 Gt C, compared to around 2,000 Gt C on land, 750 Gt C in the atmosphere and 1,000 Gt C in the upper ocean. The atmosphere, biota, soils, and the upper ocean are strongly linked. The exchange of carbon between this fast-responding system and the deep ocean takes much longer (several hundred years).


I encourage you also to look at the following which helps round out the above data:

NASA GISS: NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies


...or here, which speaks more closely to the points in the link you originally shared:

NASA Oceanography - Climate Variability


If Co2 does not accumulate in the atmosphere then how can it multiply the green house effect?

But it does accumulate in the atmosphere. See how this accumulation has changed below:


Recent Climate Change - Atmosphere Changes | Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA

Carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations in the atmosphere increased from approximately 280 parts per million (ppm) in pre-industrial times to 382 ppm in 2006 according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Earth Systems Research Laboratory, a 36 percent increase. Almost all of the increase is due to human activities (IPCC, 2007). The current rate of increase in CO2 concentrations is about 1.9 ppmv/year. Present CO2 concentrations are higher than any time in at least the last 650,000 years (IPCC, 2007).





Peer reviewed by whom?

Well, by peers, of course. Other experts in the field who have the knowledge and background to validate what is being shared as accurate and honest. Peer review is the basis of scientific literature, and if you wish to argue against that, then you’re truly grasping at straws.


Again, just playing devils advocate here but, he has argued that the IPCC report itself is not peer reviewed and yet, it is being used to drive public policy.

This is only a half-truth, and, to be honest, I am really giving that claim the benefit of the doubt to call it such.

The report itself is based on thousands of studies which are themselves peer reviewed. The conclusions are pulled from the data itself, and that data HAS BEEN peer reviewed. Further, I submit that the IPCC has been organized as one large peer review, primarily since each section of the report and each chapter within was authored by scores of scientists all working together. The most significant chapters I've seen in the reports have two reviewing editors, roughly 10 lead authors, and nearly 150 contributing authors. This represents a lot of peers for review.

Again, the report is not just one guy with an axe to grind, someone who is cherry picking his data and trying to persuade great masses based on false claims. The report is a consensus view based on consistent data across research modalities and across time. To suggest that the report is not peer reviewed is, at best, a half-truth.


It should not be GW denier but rather AGW denier or Co2 denier. A good healthy dose of skepticism is a good thing.

Yes, skepticism is a good thing, but not if you hold to that same skepticism once your challenges have been proven false. Do you still believe the earth is flat? Do you still believe the universe revolves around the earth? Do you disagree with evolution by natural selection? There are some things which have been consistently proven true and accurate, and anthropogenically induced global climate change is one of them.

I suggest, and whole-heartedly encourage, you continue validating the data you see, and hope that you will never discontinue questioning the sources of your information… To be clear though, if one continues disagreeing with the conclusions which illustrate the significant human impact on climate in the face of mountains of supporting evidence, then I contend that this person is no longer engaged in skepticism, they are instead engaged in ardent denialism. In my eyes, this makes them no better than creationists.


Cheers. :hihi:

#15 Zythryn

Zythryn

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1,539 posts

Posted 28 November 2007 - 12:24 PM


Originally Posted by pmaust
Again, just playing devils advocate here but, he has argued that the IPCC report itself is not peer reviewed and yet, it is being used to drive public policy.

quoted from InfiniteNow
This is only a half-truth, and, to be honest, I am really giving that claim the benefit of the doubt to call it such.

More information about the review process of the IPCC reports can be found here: IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

#16 Pyrotex

Pyrotex

    Slaying Bad Memes

  • Members
  • 5,690 posts

Posted 28 November 2007 - 12:34 PM

I personally, find InfiniteOne's arguments reasonably convincing. Although part of that may be the fact that I have met Inf-1 and to a degree "know" him well enough to trust his judgement. ;) Well... at least his judgement in choosing restaurants. :):):)

I was impressed (admittedly) by the chartsmanship of the AGW denier. But charts alone do not decide the issue. And his failure to include and correlate modern era temp/CO2 data was the deciding factor for me. He ignored that data, and that's what made my mind up.

#17 InfiniteNow

InfiniteNow

    Suspended

  • Members
  • 9,148 posts

Posted 28 November 2007 - 06:12 PM

I personally, find InfiniteOne's arguments reasonably convincing. Although part of that may be the fact that I have met Inf-1 and to a degree "know" him well enough to trust his judgement. :) Well... at least his judgement in choosing restaurants. :hihi::):)

You are far too kind. I could have picked an even better restaurant had I more time and not been shopping for counter tops when you called ("hey, we'll be in town in 10 minutes... let's eat!). I am honored and humbled by your comments. :D


It's somewhat strange, I guess, because I am no expert in climatology, and I do certainly keep my eyes open for new information and contrary views which are well supported. It's just that some (okay, most) of them "smell" wrong, or don't "feel" right, and when I check them out my suspicions are generally confirmed. This was definitely one of those times. :)



Cheers. ;)