FAQ
It is currently Tue Oct 24, 2017 7:45 am


Author Message
anticorncob28
Post  Post subject: My proof of global warming?  |  Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2017 4:08 am
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 10:31 pm
Posts: 42
Location: Nebraska, USA

Offline
I'd like to present an argument (or sketch of) to show that humans are warming the planet. It won't work on out-right deniers since most of them cannot be convinced through data and scientific arguments, but hopefully it can sway people who are on the fence.
I start out by showing that CO2 can warm the planet. I do this by pointing to peer-reviewed papers showing climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2. If CO2 did not warm the planet then climate sensitivity would be zero, contradicting every study ever done on the issue. For example,
https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v518/n7537/abs/nature14145.html
(Although, this particular article has an extremely high range of sensitivity- 1.5 to 4.5, the lower end which is very reassuring, and the higher end which is very worrisome. Anybody have a better one?)
Then you show that humans are responsible for CO2 levels going up. For this you note the total mass of CO2 in the atmosphere. I used information from:
https://micpohling.wordpress.com/2007/03/30/math-how-much-co2-by-weight-in-the-atmosphere/
It says the mass of CO2 in the atmosphere is 3 * 10^12 tonnes. This was when carbon concentration was 383 ppm. Dividing the figures show that one part per million equates to 7.8 billion tonnes of carbon for each ppm*, and we are emitting over 36 billion tonnes per year.
Under the (false) assumption that plants and the oceans are not absorbing any extra CO2 from humans, we would expect carbon concentrations to rise at 4.6 ppm per year. Starting at 300 ppm (pre-industrial times), it will take 600/4.6 = 130 years to double CO2. CO2 has not doubled yet, but we have made significant progress toward it.
This is definite proof that humans are capable of warming the planet, no?
But CO2 concentrations are not rising that fast- they are "only" rising at 2 ppm per year because around 40% of our emission are absorbed by the oceans and there it will take 300 years for a doubling of CO2. But emissions are increasing, and there are positive feedback mechanisms that will also drive more CO2 into the atmosphere.
*I understand that not every ppm will be the same amount of carbon, but at concentrations below 1% it makes a good enough approximation.

So, is this good?

_________________
"Climate change is the canvas on which the history of the 21st century will be painted."
-Mark Lynas, Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet


Top
Lynx_Fox
Post  Post subject: Re: My proof of global warming?  |  Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2017 4:44 am

Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2015 5:17 am
Posts: 251
Location: US Pacific NorthWest

Offline
The decreasing 13C/12C Carbon isotope ratio, towards fossil fuels is actually the best fingerprint of man-made emissions burning being the primary contributor to overall carbon rise.


Top
anticorncob28
Post  Post subject: Re: My proof of global warming?  |  Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2017 8:17 pm
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 10:31 pm
Posts: 42
Location: Nebraska, USA

Offline
Lynx_Fox wrote:
The decreasing 13C/12C Carbon isotope ratio, towards fossil fuels is actually the best fingerprint of man-made emissions burning being the primary contributor to overall carbon rise.

Well I wasn't quite sure of that.
At https://skepticalscience.com/its-not-us.htm
in the comments section, #20, a user named Julian Flood said,
Quote:
It is trivially easy to think of other causes of a 12C signal -- disruptions of the biosphere will alter the flux of isotopes and change the absolute values, a minute warming will enable methanophages to devour clathrates which have been building up for millennia. Etc -- if I remember correctly I found five possible changes which could give this signal - six if you count the burning of fossil fuels. So, without post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning, how do we know that the signal is anthropogenic?

I noticed that one of the workers at skepticalscience responded with this paper,
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/iso-sio/iso-sio.html
the best I got from this is
Quote:
The 13C isotope is stable and heavier than the normal form of carbon (12C), and plants tend to selectively assimilate the lighter isotopes during the photosynthetic process. This results in the following features of the 13C/12C ratio in the atmosphere: (1) a seasonal cycle occurs with the heavier isotope at relatively high concentrations during the summer, as plants selectively remove the lighter isotope from the atmosphere, and (2) a general decrease with time, as more fossil carbon (which originally was plant material, and consequently biased toward the lighter isotope) is injected into the atmosphere from the combustion of fossil fuels. Additionally, about 95% of fossil-fuel carbon emissions are from the Northern Hemisphere, and there is a 6-12 month time lag before this material is transported by the atmosphere to the various stations in the Southern Hemisphere. The seasonal cycle reverses and its amplitude decreases in the Southern Hemisphere, where the seasons are opposite those in the Northern Hemisphere and there is much less land area to support a terrestrial biosphere.

If I understand correctly, there are alternate explanations for the ratio decrease (such as plants emitting more carbon), and the response to those explanations is to simply point out that those events are not happening, which brings you back to square one if a contrarian is arguing for the alternative explanation. You can also bring up the difference between northern/southern hemisphere data.

The following comment on the skepticalscience page said that we know humans are responsible for the CO2 increase because we can measure our output vs the input from plants and the oceans, and our output is bigger. The discussion turned to the data on that.

_________________
"Climate change is the canvas on which the history of the 21st century will be painted."
-Mark Lynas, Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet


Top
Lynx_Fox
Post  Post subject: Re: My proof of global warming?  |  Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 6:43 pm

Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2015 5:17 am
Posts: 251
Location: US Pacific NorthWest

Offline
anticorncob28 wrote:
If I understand correctly, there are alternate explanations for the ratio decrease (such as plants emitting more carbon), and the response to those explanations is to simply point out that those events are not happening, which brings you back to square one if a contrarian is arguing for the alternative explanation. You can also bring up the difference between northern/southern hemisphere data.


Such as? The answer to the annual flux is probably best answered by https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/outreach/ ... llsus.html. I won't repeat the entire article, but it's very clear that overall trend of ratio towards those successfully modelled from fossil fuel emissions is dropping and much more than seasonal variations.


Top
alec33
Post  Post subject: Re: My proof of global warming?  |  Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2017 12:57 pm

Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 12:48 pm
Posts: 1

Offline
You don't have to be a climate [SPAM LINK REMOVED] scientist to comprehend a warming planet, especially near the poles, will lessen the movement of air, flatten the jet stream. The contrast in temperatures are a key force to our weather, the jet stream, the ocean currents.

The despicable republican party is playing a very dangerous game with Mother Nature, all in the name of protecting the profits of corporate polluters, the fossil fuel industry which donate heavily to the GOP campaign coffers.

The saddest part about this GOP greed and insanity, we have green alternatives that will create jobs, save endless $billions in healthcare costs. How many trillions do you think man-made global warming will cost the global economy in the coming decades in the form of droughts, floods, rising oceans, disease, crop failures, fires, et cetera?

_________________
working on some science assignments ))


Last edited by iNow on Fri Jul 14, 2017 7:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I'm tolerant of many things, but spam is not one of them


Top
PhDemon
Post  Post subject: Re: My proof of global warming?  |  Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2017 3:05 pm

Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2013 10:44 am
Posts: 515
Location: Newcastle-upon-Tyne

Offline
Nice try, but your spam link is still obvious. It will probably be deleted soon so find somewhere else to pull this shit.

_________________
"The big trouble with dumb bastards is that they are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being smart"

- Kurt Vonnegut, The Sirens of Titan


Top
Lynx_Fox
Post  Post subject: Re: My proof of global warming?  |  Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:29 pm

Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2015 5:17 am
Posts: 251
Location: US Pacific NorthWest

Offline
alec33 wrote:
The despicable republican party is playing a very dangerous game with Mother Nature, all in the name of protecting the profits of corporate polluters, the fossil fuel industry which donate heavily to the GOP campaign coffers.


There's insanity on both sides. The US mostly Democrats anti-GMO and Organic push is nearly as costly--adding to millions of acres that need to farmed to compensate for lower yields and crop waste. There push away from plastic grocery bags is almost useless, when they should be pushing things like vegy one day a month--to save 10 times as much fossil fuel burning as ridiculous packaging rules.


Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Print view

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
Jump to:   
cron

Delete all board cookies | The team | All times are UTC


This free forum is proudly hosted by ProphpBB | phpBB software | Report Abuse | Privacy