/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9810708
>The proof of its cause by humans is flimsy at best.
>Which part is flimsy?

>Is it the isotope analysis that tells us we are the only net source of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere?

As described above, the atmospheric half-life of CO2 is only about 5 years and 11/12 of emitted CO2 is absorbed by the (extremely large) waters of the ocean. The ocean, which is not a simple solution DOES NOT obey Henry's law.

And there is almost no correlation between anthropogenic CO2 flux and changes in the atmospheric CO2. Pic related, Jaworski 1997a.


Broecker, W. S. "Radioisotopes and large-scale oceanic mixing." The sea 2 (1963): 88-108. (Recalculated by Broecker & Peng, 1974)
CO2 Half-life: 8 years

Craig, H., The natural distribution of radio-carbon: Mixing rates in the sea and residence time of carbon and water, in Earth Science and Meteritics, F. G. Houtermans Volume, edited by J. Geiss and E.D. Goldberg, pp. 103-114, North Holland, Amsterdam, 1963.
CO2 Half-life: 5-15 years

Keeling, Charles D. "The carbon dioxide cycle: Reservoir models to depict the exchange of atmospheric carbon dioxide with the oceans and land plants." Chemistry of the lower atmosphere. Springer US, 1973. 251-329.
CO2 Half-life: 7 years

>>8710068
>I understand that there is significant scientific evidence to show that humans are a major contributor to the atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, and I understand that carbon dioxide is capable of trapping heat.

Actually there is not significant evidence that humans are a major contributor to the atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. The correlation between anthropogenic CO2 flux and the change in atmospheric CO2 is almost non-existent. Pic related. Source, Jaworowski (1997)

Also see:
Jaworowski, Zbigniew. "Ice core data show no carbon dioxide increase." 21st Century Science and Technology 10.1 (1997): 42-52.

And see Selegstad (1998)

Concerning the CO2 "Hockeystick," Selegstad said:
"A false representation of the CO2 atmospheric concentration trend scientific scandal of our time.
over the past 10,000 years. Values before 1958 do not represent the atmospheric concentrations, but the artifacts caused by depletion of CO2 from ice, and by arbitrarily changing the age of
samples."

Segalstad, Tom V. "Carbon cycle modelling and the residence time of natural and anthropogenic atmospheric CO2: on the construction of the" Greenhouse Effect Global Warming" dogma." Global Warming the Continuing Debate. Cambridge, UK. European Science and Environmental Forum. 1998.

>>8632747
>>>8632529
>>Clearly you are unaware that a warming ocean outgasses gigantic amounts of CO2
>Uh, no. The oceans are a net sink for CO2.
>http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/LDEO+Surface+Ocean+CO2+Climatology
>> Of the major ocean basins, the Southern Hemisphere oceans, south of 14°S to Antarctica, is the largest CO2 sink taking up about 1.1 Pg-C/yr, while the northern oceans north of 14°N take up about 0.7 Pg-C/yr. The equatorial oceans, 14°N–14°S, emit 0.7Pg-C/yr to the atmosphere. The net uptake flux for the global oceans is estimated to be 1.6 +/- 0.9 Pg-C/yr. Taking the pre-industrial steady-state ocean release of 0.4 +/- 0.2 Pg-C/yr into account, the total ocean uptake flux for anthropogenic CO2 emissions is estimated to be 2.0 +/- 1.0 Pg-C/yr in the reference year 2000.

Huh? If ocean CO2 uptake flues is 2.0 +/- 1.0 Pg-C/yr = 0.2 Gigatons (metric) +/- 0.1. Pg-C/yr. Sounds like a low ball estimate.

>Plus, you've completely ignored the drop in C13/C12, which is inexplicable if you assume that the ocean is the primary driver of modern atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
>>>8632531 (You)
No, the methods of measurement were tweaked to greatly exaggerate it. Anthropogenic CO2 comprises about 6% of atmospheric CO2.

No Correlation Between Anthropogenic CO2 flux and Change In Atmospheric CO2. Pic related. Taken from Jaworowski, Zbigniew. "CO~ 2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time." Executive Intelligence Review 34.11 (2007): 38.
There's a reason why CO2 always goes up AFTER temperatures. Yet warmists never mention that inconvenient truth.

>Jesus, those "papers" are something else. How do you even find shit that terrible?
then this shit like this:
>>According to Khilyuk and Chilingar (2006), the total anthropogenic CO2 emission throughout human history constitutes less than 0.00022%

Clearly you're ignoring the fact that they're talking about the history of the earth. So yes, that statement is in the ball park.

>>8246840
>For instance, if we found that atmospheric CO2 isotope balance hadn't changed since the start of the industrial revolution, that would imply that human CO2 emissions weren't a significant cause

Great, so if the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere does not correlated to anthropogenic CO2 flux, that's a nice falsification of the theory.

So here's your reminder. Mass change of atmospheric CO2 DOES NOT correspond to the flux of anthropogenic CO2. Jaworski 1997, pic related. That's right, the increase of atmospheric CO2 is linked mostly to a warming world, not anthropogenic CO2. Despite all the paid shills, atmospheric CO2 has a very short half-life. About 5 years, here's a few of MANY references.

CRAIG, H. (1957), The Natural Distribution of Radiocarbon and the Exchange Time of Carbon Dioxide Between Atmosphere and Sea. Tellus, 9: 1–17. doi: 10.1111/j.2153-3490.1957.tb01848.x
CO2 Half-life: 7 +/- 3 years

REVELLE, R. and SUESS, H. E. (1957), Carbon Dioxide Exchange Between Atmosphere and Ocean and the Question of an Increase of Atmospheric CO2 during the Past Decades. Tellus, 9: 18–27. doi: 10.1111/j.2153-3490.1957.tb01849.x
CO2 Half-life: 7 years

ARNOLD, J. R. (1957), The Distribution of Carbon-14 in Nature. Tellus, 9: 28–32. doi: 10.1111/j.2153-3490.1957.tb01850.x
CO2 Half-life: 10 years

Siegenthaler, Ulrich. "Carbon dioxide: its natural cycle and anthropogenic perturbation." The role of air-sea exchange in geochemical cycling. Springer Netherlands, 1986. 209-247.
CO2 Half-life: 4-9 years.

Also, C-12 to C-13 carbon:
"Indeed it is not directly possible to make a distinction between 13C depleted fossil fuel burning and 13C depleted vegetation decay. The fingerprint of d13C changes by vegetation over the seasons is much larger than from fossil fuel burning (~60 GtC vs. 8 GtC, with about the same average d13C level)." Roy Spencer, evil denier.

>>8120763
C-12 in the atmosphere is increasing while percentage of C-13 is decreasing
Rubbish. "Indeed it is not directly possible to make a distinction between 13C depleted fossil fuel burning and 13C depleted vegetation decay. The fingerprint of d13C changes by vegetation over the seasons is much larger than from fossil fuel burning (~60 GtC vs. 8 GtC, with about the same average d13C level)." Roy Spencer, evil denier.

And the mass change of CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't correspond to anthropogenic emissions. Pic related, source is: Jaworowski 1997. CO2 has a 5 year atmospheric half life, rendering that impossible. Here's a few of MANY references.

CRAIG, H. (1957), The Natural Distribution of Radiocarbon and the Exchange Time of Carbon Dioxide Between Atmosphere and Sea. Tellus, 9: 1–17. doi: 10.1111/j.2153-3490.1957.tb01848.x
CO2 Half-life: 7 +/- 3 years

REVELLE, R. and SUESS, H. E. (1957), Carbon Dioxide Exchange Between Atmosphere and Ocean and the Question of an Increase of Atmospheric CO2 during the Past Decades. Tellus, 9: 18–27. doi: 10.1111/j.2153-3490.1957.tb01849.x
CO2 Half-life: 7 years

ARNOLD, J. R. (1957), The Distribution of Carbon-14 in Nature. Tellus, 9: 28–32. doi: 10.1111/j.2153-3490.1957.tb01850.x
CO2 Half-life: 10 years

Siegenthaler, Ulrich. "Carbon dioxide: its natural cycle and anthropogenic perturbation." The role of air-sea exchange in geochemical cycling. Springer Netherlands, 1986. 209-247.
CO2 Half-life: 4-9 years.


>Nights are warming faster than days
More urbanization, more people turn on their heaters in winter. Gosh, who would have known?

>>8103985
>http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818113000908
>>Humlum et al.'s conclusion of natural CO2 rise since 1980 not supported by the data
>>Their use of differentiated time series removes long term contributions.

False debunking. Where was conservation of mass violated? It wasn't except by a circular argument of "only anthropogenic CO2 causes atmospheric CO2 increase, therefore conservation of mass is violated."

>Further analysis shows that the natural contribution is indistinguishable from zero.
More crap. Climate "Science" purports that the majority of atmospheric CO2 increase is from anthropogenic emissions. If this were true, the the yearly mass increase of atmospheric CO2 would strongly correlate to the yearly output of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. It doesn't! Instead it strongly correlates to temperature changes.

Temperature Changes are the best predictor of CO2 mass increase changes, not anthropogenic CO2 flux. Pic related. Source: Jaworowski, Zbigniew. "Ice core data show no carbon dioxide increase." (2007), Fig. 9.

Human CO2 emissions =/= correlate to atmospheric CO2 mass increase.
Climate Change theory falsified.