Hi John. This website answers your points better than I could https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-increase-is-natural-not-human-caused.htm
Electric Car Drivel
- Thread starter flameport
- Start date
Sponsored Links
Indeed.
If one assumes that petrol is entirely octane (C8H18), then 228 Units (lbs, g, kg or whatever) of petrol combines with 800 units of oxygen to produce 704 units of CO2 and 324 units of water. 228 units of petrol therefore would produce 704 units of CO2, hence 7lbs of petrol would produce about 21.6 lb of CO2 (and consume about 24.6 lbs of oxygen from the air). There is thus a 'loss' of about 10 lbs (7 + 24.6 - 21.6), that being the water produced.
[if anyone wants the equation for the reaction ... 2C8H18 + 25O2 = 16CO2 + 18 H2O ]
Kind Regards, John
I'm not sure what you mean by that. If it is that proxies and thermometers agree then you are wrong. The temperature reconstructed from tree rings did not agree with (was lower than) the thermometers in the 20th century and so "Mike's Nature trick" was used to splice on the thermometer data the help create the hockey stick.
That link won't load so I don't know what data you are trying to supply. I have seen studies saying that there is a large difference.
No, there is no significant causal link between CO2 & recent global warming. There is a relatively weak correlation, and there is the fact that CO2 can delay the release of heat to space. This does not mean that atmospheric CO2 is a significant cause of recent warming.
The globe has been warming for several hundred years, since the Little Ice Age, well before there was a significant amount of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere.
IME the most commonly quoted period is the 17 years from 1997 to 2016, see
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2016/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2016/trend
when not only was there no correlation but the trend was flat. That is longer than any of the models predicted beforehand and longer than the 15 years that experts said could be expected when that pause started.
Subsequently models have been changed so that they can hindcast this sort of pause, essentially admitting that they were wrong before this.
Yes, but all of the good data is for a short period. Anything longer than 30-40 years is either poor quality of not global. All of the really long-term 'data' is inferred from things that are not just measuring temperature, e.g. tree rings.
The original figure came from Doran & Zimmerman and people have tried to confirm that rather than looking for an answer from scratch. AFAIUI all of these studies have been flawed. For example, Cook et all got a hand picked group of amateurs to review paper abstracts and when half the reviewers quit and the the others could not pick up the slack they let them look up the the paper's authors (totally against the published protocols) to help them decide what the authors thought.
That study came up with a 97% figure but when the data was independently reviewed it was found the true number was 1.6%. The rest were papers that had 'implicitly supported' the idea. Basically if the paper did not say NO then it was counted as a yes, even though most papers actually did not comment.
And, as I said before, science is not a popularity contest. All of the experts have been wrong before and they can be wrong in this case.
Also, at the moment the only way to get funding in this area is to promote the CAGW line. Anyone who does not want to do that will not do research in that field.
Sponsored Links
I would, pardon the pun, be extremely sceptical of anything from that site. It is way out on the alarmist side on this matter. The site founder, John Cook, has no post-graduate scientific training and was a cartoonist before (and in the early years) of this site,
http://web.archive.org/web/20080213042858/http://www.skepticalscience.com/page.php?p=3
It's interesting that the website you link to states that co2 is the main driver of climate change.
Large difference in the values or trend?
I would imagine there is a large difference in the values, as would most rational people, but the papers I have read show similar trends.
So what is responsible for the trend?
Ah, the old line about funding. I am sure there are plenty of organisations willing to fund studies to disprove ACC.
If he was publishing his own research then that would alarm me, however he seems to aggregating others work, as well as significant contributions from very well qualified climatologists.
You quote that 17 year period that shows a flat trend, and mention 40 years as a limit for accurate data.
If you extend your 17 year period back to 1976, so nice accurate data from within 40 years, it shows quite a strong correlation. Almost as if a flat period (or even a drop!) during a longer upwards trend doesnt disprove the trend?
I suppose that must because Saudi Arabia, the other OPEC countries, Russia and the Oil majors are practically penniless and incapable of buying politicians and researchers or influencing policy.
No, wait....
Countries like the US and the UK have fought wars, at great cost in blood and gold, to gain dominance over oil. You think there are no rich and influential people who will gain from the fossil fuel trade?
I've just had a very quick glance, and there seems to be a fair bit of nonsense written on that page ...
For a couple of examples I have so far noticed:
Maybe I'm being dim, but I don't see how it follows from the fact that plants tend to avoid an isotope present in "1 in 1 trillion molecules" that ("thus"!) they have a "lower carbon-13 to carbon-12 ratio"!!
and ...
Whilst what they say is true as far as it goes, if a rise in atmospheric CO2 were (partially) due to plants etc. removing less CO2 from the atmosphere, then they would consequently putting less oxygen into the atmosphere, so atmospheric O2 levels would fall (as well as CO2 levels rising). That's how photosynthesis works - for each molecule of CO2 removed from the atmosphere, one molecule of oxygen is released into the atmosphere - so each molecule of CO2 not removed from atmosphere means one less molecule of O2 put into the atmosphere. The atmospheric CO2/O2 changes due to decreased photosynthetic activity would therefore be the same as those due to burning fossil fuels - which rather invalidates their argument.
I'll have a proper look at the article later but, in view of the above, I will probably be hesitant to take too seriously anything else they have to say !
Kind Regards, John
I think they are making a different argument, as they talk about a release, not a change. There is no evidence for a dramatic reduction in photosynthetic activity
I dont think you are dim. I think that final point should read "thus they have a lower carbon 14:12 ratio" a typo I think rather than a flawed point (or you being dim- it doesn't make any sense to me as it's written)
DIYnot Local
Staff member
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
Sponsored Links
