Why should we pay attention to anyone on the internet?Why should anyone pay any attention to him?
Why should we pay attention to anyone on the internet?Why should anyone pay any attention to him?
Do you have any papers to back up your assertions or have they been banned by the liberal elite global renewable cabal?Not really, as it is the same website that you quoted, but an older version before he tried to hid the fact that he is a cartoonist.
I misread your comment. The trend (at UHI-affected and non-affected sites) being similar (albeit not the same) is not surprising, no-one is denying that the world has got a tiny bit warmer over the past decades. The problem is that the UHI-affected sites bias the overall figures upwards. Especially when data is homogenised.
I don't know and nor does anyone else. Some will be due to CO2 slowing down the escape of heat to space. Most of the warming since the Little Ice Age happened before 1950, so anthropogenic CO2 can't be the cause of that and so is highly unlikely to be the main cause of recent warming.
If you are so sure then I am certain that you can name 30 or so such organisations. Care to do so?
And how about listing how much money they have put in. In the last two decades the US government has spent c. $150 billion, virtually all on the CAGW side.
While you are at it would you care to list all of the university climate science departments where CAGW is not the accepted paradigm?
So he is a guy on the net with a website. Quite possibly misunderstanding & misinterpreting the science. Why should anyone pay any attention to him?
And if his background is so benign why is he trying to hide it and pretending to be a scientist now?
Also, that site has a, well deserved, reputation for 'playing the man not the ball'. Scientists who take a contrary view are abused, comments asking questions about posts are attacked rather than answered or just made to disappear.
l'm not at all sure what point you are trying to make.
The CAGW idea is based on computer models. Those models failed to predict a flat period of even 15 years but there was a flat period of 17 years. Ergo those computer models were wrong. What other errors are there in those computer models?
As for a correlation between CO2 & temperature, there really is not one. The CO2 graph looks like this
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2
but the temperature graph looks like this
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from
You can draw a linear trend line on that but I doubt it has any physical meaning. To me that graph looks like a flatish period, then a jump at the El Nino, then another flatish period, then another jump at the next El Nino. And if we plot those two periods outside the El Ninos we get
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/to:1995/plot/rss/to:1995/trend
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/plot/rss/from:1998/trend
Both of those show a tiny rise (0.1°C or less over 17), whereas the period in between them
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1995/to:1999/plot/rss/from:1995/to:1999/trend
shows a 0.5°C rise over 4 years.
So no, basically no correlation with CO2 rising the same amount each year.
Indeed, and if it all works perfectly, that's carbon neutral - but you seem to have missed my point, which was about the isotope ratio of the CO2 - which will be the same for anything that originated in plants. In any event ....But these animals eat plants that have absorbed carbon to create sugar, we eat the sugar and then release some of the carbon by respiration. More plants grow to feed the animals, lowering the co2 level during photosynthesis t's a key part of the natural carbon cycle.
In what sense is it not still part of the natural cycle? It will still be photosynthesised by (other) plants - and, in relation to what I said, the CO2 will have the same isotope ratios as any other plant-derived CO2. As go go on to say ....Burning fossil fuels releases carbon that is not part of the natural cycle (anymore)
So why are you saying that it makes a difference whether the tree died today or a million years ago?It's the same way that burning trees is nearly carbon neutral- the tree absorbs the carbon, which is then released back into the atmosphere as it is burnt, to be absorbed back by future trees (assuming they are replaced).
Yes, as that carbon has been removed from the carbon cycle (millions of years ago) and the earth became balanced. Introducing the carbon back into the cycle at the rate that we are is unbalencing the carbon cycle and the earth cannot adapt fast enough to remove it from the atmosphere. It has adapted before, but these changes took millions of years.Indeed, and if it all works perfectly, that's carbon neutral - but you seem to have missed my point, which was about the isotope ratio of the CO2 - which will be the same for anything that originated in plants. In any event ....
In what sense is it not still part of the natural cycle? It will still be photosynthesised by (other) plants - and, in relation to what I said, the CO2 will have the same isotope ratios as any other plant-derived CO2. As go go on to say ....
So why are you saying that it makes a difference whether the tree died today or a million years ago?
Kind Regards, John
I get your point, the main thrust of the argument is evidence that the co2 is not from a geological source, however the evidence shows that plants have not caused such a massive shift in co2 levels in all the time it's taken from us to move from a glacial to an interglacial period, a major geological change, and the rapid change seen in the past 200 years is strongly linked to the release of carbon that is not part of the carbon cycle, e.g. carbon that was sequestered millions of years ago.but you seem to have missed my point, which was about the isotope ratio of the CO2 - which will be the same for anything that originated in plants.
I don't really understand that argument.Yes, as that carbon has been removed from the carbon cycle (millions of years ago) and the earth became balanced. Introducing the carbon back into the cycle at the rate that we are is unbalencing the carbon cycle and the earth cannot adapt fast enough to remove it from the atmosphere. It has adapted before, but these changes took millions of years.
Indeed, that was my point - that if atmospheric CO2 levels rise because of an input of CO2 from anything other than a geological source, then the 13C:12C ratio in the atmosphere will decrease.I get your point, the main thrust of the argument is evidence that the co2 is not from a geological source ...
What evidence? As I've said, if the shift in CO2 levels has been associated with a fall in the 13C:12C ratio, then it must ultimately derive from a plant source, and I'm not sure how one could distinguish between the various (direct and indirect) flavours of that..... however the evidence shows that plants have not caused such a massive shift in co2 levels in all the time it's taken from us to move from a glacial to an interglacial period ....
Yes, but that really takes us back to the simple (and strong) circumstantial evidence that the changes in atmospheric CO2 has largely mirrored the anthropogenic production of CO2, such that the former is very probably (at least largely) the consequence of the latter - and I don't really see that things like the isotope ratios really give specific support to that hypothesis. For example, a small reduction in the efficiency of photosynthesis (maybe due to 'anthropogenic' introduction of toxins into the environment since the industrial revolution started) could have had a similar effect, increasing the change in atmospheric CO2 due to burning carbon.... a major geological change, and the rapid change seen in the past 200 years is strongly linked to the release of carbon that is not part of the carbon cycle, e.g. carbon that was sequestered millions of years ago.
, today, I burn 1,000 trees which were alive this morning, I have, at least for a good while, 'unbalanced' the situation in that there are now 1,000 less trees to deal with the CO2 produced by that burning - and I would think that would be at least as true if I had waited a million years after chopping down the trees before burning them.
Well yes, given a million years the ecosystem may well recover from all of the carbon we have introduced into the atmosphere, unfortunately we keep pumping it out and the ecosystem has no chance to balanceOn the other hand, the ecosystems have had a million years to recover from the loss of the trees which were turned into fossil fuel, so might be in a better position to respond to an input of CO2 into the atmosphere (which has no associated immediate loss of plant life).
What evidence? As I've said, if the shift in CO2 levels has been associated with a fall in the 13C:12C ratio, then it must ultimately derive from a plant source, and I'm not sure how one could distinguish between the various (direct and indirect) flavours of that.
Fair enough, but that's a substantial move of the goalposts - and I still don't see how the time-lag is relevant. If one is going to replace the tree once it has been burnt, then I don't see why it matters whether the tree died on the day it was burnt or a million years earlier.I think I didn't explain my premise regarding carbon neutral tree burning correctly. It assumes a cyclical process where the tree is grown (absorbing carbon), burnt (releasing carbon), and another tree is grown in its place (absorbing carbon) etc. Obviously if the trees are not replaced, it isn't carbon neutral!
That's what I said - that the isotopic data seems to indicate that, whatever details of the source, the ultimate source of the increased CO2 in the atmosphere must have been 'organic'. That's why I asked what you meant when you wrote: ".... however the evidence shows that plants have not caused such a massive shift in co2 levels in all the time ...". As we have both said, it seems that plants have (ultimately) been responsible for all the increased CO2 - but it's difficult to be sure how different variations on the 'plant' theme (including the burning of fossil fuels) contribution to the observed total.Ice core analysis of Co2 levels and isotopes from the last ice age onwards shows that organic CO2 was responsible for around 0.015% changes. Analysis from post 1850 show 0.06% from organic carbon. Given there hasn't been any serious geological events, the increase in carbon must come organic sources.
Indeed - but, as I have said, for example, traces of toxins (probably introduced into the environment by man) could easily reverse all that. Some groups of herbicides can, at herbicidal levels, totally kill photosynthesis, so it's not unreasonable to assume that, at low levels, some chemical environmental pollutants could result in markedly impaired photosynthesis. Pure speculation/hypothesis, but certainly not impossible. If the toxins were introduced by man, I suppose that would count as 'ACC', albeit nothing to do with the burning of fossil fuels.Has another mechanism been proposed that actually stands up to scrutiny? No. Your hypothesis about decreased photosynthesis has a number of issues, as I have mentioned (more Co2 in the atmosphere, increased temperatures and global dimming have all been shown to increase photosynthesis, not decrease it.
Of course, particularly if the subject is historical. However, that does not alter the fact that it is essentially circumstantial, which, even if often inevitable, is not ideal, and makes 'certainties' difficult/impossible to get.You say its circumstantial, but in science you cannot always measure things empirically.
Why should we pay attention to anyone on the internet?
Do you have any papers to back up your assertions or have they been banned by the liberal elite global renewable cabal?
Well, over the millennia, tress have been growing up, dying, and then either rotting away (releasing the carbon "a few" years after sequestering it) or ending up as peat/coal/oil/etc. In the latter case, the CO2 sequestered during growth is now locked away "permanently". The earth has gone on like this for a long long time, with this sequestering and long term storage of CO2 being part of the CO2 cycle & balance.If one is going to replace the tree once it has been burnt, then I don't see why it matters whether the tree died on the day it was burnt or a million years earlier.
Fair enough, but that's a substantial move of the goalposts - and I still don't see how the time-lag is relevant. If one is going to replace the tree once it has been burnt, then I don't see why it matters whether the tree died on the day it was burnt or a million years earlier.
it's difficult to be sure how different variations on the 'plant' theme (including the burning of fossil fuels) contribution to the observed total.
environmental pollutants could result in markedly impaired photosynthesis. Pure speculation/hypothesis
I don't really understand. If you burn, say, 1 tonne of 'tree' it will put the same amount of CO2 into the atmosphere whether it is from a current tree or one which turned into fossil fuel a million years ago - and if one is, in either case, going to plant a new tree, that new tree will grow, and start participating in the carbon cycle, in exactly the same way (and speed) in both cases. What is the difference?I geological terms, growing a tree, cutting it down, and growing another one isn't even a blink of an eye. So it is indeed carbon neutral (ignoring things like fuel burnt to cut it down and transport it) in terms of today's ecosystem. However, if you burn the trees that grew and died a million years ago (by burning coal/oil/etc) then you are releasing into TODAY's ecosystem, carbon that was locked up from the ecosystem of a million years ago.
Yes, it was me who did that hinting, but I don't get your point. Yes, chopping down a tree and doing nothing with it takes carbon out of circulation, but a living tree is a net remover of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, so, far from what you suggest, cutting down trees should tend to increase (not decrease) the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.There is another option hinted at earlier. If you grow a load of trees, chop them down, but DON'T burn them - then you've taken a load of carbon out of circulation (principally by removing CO2 from the atmosphere).
Carbon which is out of circulation is not really relevant to this discussion - whether it be chopped down trees or the bricks and wood in our houses. As above, all one will achieve by chopping down trees is a fractional decrease in the ability of the ecosystem to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.And that carbon will remain out of circulation for as long as the wood remains as wood. The trick is to prevent the wood rotting away, or getting burnt later when someone finds a stash of nicely seasoned firewood
I don't really understand. If you burn, say, 1 tonne of 'tree' it will put the same amount of CO2 into the atmosphere whether it is from a current tree or one which turned into fossil fuel a million years ago - and if one is, in either case, going to plant a new tree, that new tree will grow, and start participating in the carbon cycle, in exactly the same way (and speed) in both cases. What is the difference?
And removing carbon from the active carbon cycle, which is a key point.As above, all one will achieve by chopping down trees is a fractional decrease in the ability of the ecosystem to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local