'The CO2 rise is natural'

How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic

Posted by Coby Beck (Guest Contributor) at 10:40 AM on 23 Dec 2006

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide)

Objection: It's clear from ice cores and other geological history that CO2 fluctuates naturally. It is bogus to assume today's rise is caused by humans.

Answer: We emit billions of tons of CO2 into the air and, lo and behold, there is more CO2 in the air. Surely it is not so difficult to believe that the CO2 rise is our fault. But if simple common sense is not enough, there is more to the case. (It is worth noting that investigation of this issue by the climate science community is a good indication that they are not taking things for granted or making any assumptions -- not even the reasonable ones!)

It is true that CO2 has gone up on its own in the past, most notably during the glacial-interglacial cycles. During this time, CO2 rose and fell by over 100 ppm, ranging between around 180 to 300ppm. But these rises, though they look steep over a 400Kyr timeframe, took 5K to 20Kyrs, depending on the glacial cycle.

By contrast, we have seen an equivalent rise of 100ppm in just 150 years! Check this plot for a dramatic juxtaposition of the slow glacial termination versus the industrial revolution.

There is still more to the case. By analyzing the isotopes of the carbon and oxygen atoms making up atmospheric CO2, in a process similar to carbon dating, scientists can and have detected a human "fingerprint." What they have found via the isotope signatures can be thought of as "old" carbon, which could only come from fossil fuel deposits, combined with "young" oxygen, as is found in the air all around us. So present day combustion of fossilized hydrocarbon deposits (natural gas, coal, and oil) is definitely the source of the CO2 currently accumulating -- just as common sense tells us.

For more of the nitty gritty technicalities straight from the climate scientists, including links to the actual research that established this, visit RealClimate's article on how we know the CO2 is ours.

Of all the pillars holding up the theory of anthropogenic global warming, this is one of the most unassailable.

For story: 'The CO2 rise is natural'
13 Comments | Post a Comment

CO2 Levels

Hi, very interesting collection of information you have about GW. Most important, it's sourced to scientific data. But today I found something that disturbed me:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1806245/post ...

Is the data shown there valid? Has this paper been confirmed/rebutted? I will appreciate your input on this one. Thanks

by ginin at 10:25 AM on 29 Mar 2007

bunk from beck

Hi ginin,

This stuff is really ridiculous. I refered to an earlier and similar paper of his here:
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/10/definately-not- ...

In that article are links to more scientific opinions about his conclusions and methods.

I would just add that if he were correct we would require a couple of pretty serious follow up explanations. Firstly, if global CO2 really jumped all over the map as he claims occured in the early 20th century, why did it suddenly stop jumping and become so smooth and steady since? Secondly, by what mechanism is CO2 so rapidly removed from the atmosphere? Adding it is not such a problem, there are many places it can come from, but where did it go so rapidly? CO2 spikes take centuries to flux out of the atmosphere.

No, this is pure unadulterated bunk.

Sorry for such a tardy reply.

"What if this weren't a hypothetical question?" -- unknown

by Coby Beck at 2:43 AM on 02 Apr 2007
[ Parent ]

Newbie here

Please indicate your scientific credentials that would compel one to believe your assessment of the merit of that article rather than the views of the author.

by theavenger at 2:11 PM on 04 Apr 2007
[ Parent ]

you want credentials?

If you want scientific credentials I refer you to the fine and highly qualified people who have authored the IPCC chapters on atmospheric CO2. I apologize for not producing a link but I am out of town, busy, and without my bookmarks.

I ask no one to take my word for anything, but I do think a little common sense of your own should dispatch 95% of the contrarian talking points out there, this one included. The rest you must either think hard about or rely on the vast majority opinion of relevant experts.

"What if this weren't a hypothetical question?" -- unknown

by Coby Beck at 1:50 AM on 05 Apr 2007

Alarm bells

The alarm bells start going with parts like this:

"Modern greenhouse hypothesis is based on the work of G.S. Callendar and C.D. Keeling, following S. Arrhenius, as latterly popularized by the IPCC. Review of available literature raise the question if these authors have systematically discarded a large number of valid technical papers and older atmospheric CO2 determinations because they did not fit their hypothesis? Obviously they use only a few carefully selected values from the older literature, invariably choosing results that are consistent with the hypothesis of an induced rise of CO2 in air caused by the burning of fossil fuel."

That's not the writing of scientific article but the kind of writing you find in conspiracy novels. Suggestive questions and huge leaps in conclusions followed by the conclusion that the entire scientific community has been wrong, devious or fraudulent. Extraordinary claims ask for extraordinary evidence.

If there is one thing scientists like it is finding mistakes in each other's papers... I've been there. If scientists had really published such bad, bad research it would by now have been thrown out.

by MarkUK at 4:48 AM on 05 Apr 2007

Credentials in the hard sciences please?

I see. You do not wish to answer a valid question asked by a new reader? Links would make no difference anyway. I asked about YOUR credentials that will make me want to believe your posts, not the credentials of others who do not offer their wisdom here.

by theavenger at 11:21 AM on 05 Apr 2007
[ Parent ]

if you want credentials

read from the primary sources and the IPCC report. You are clearly stating that you want credentials so that you will feel comfortable believing what you read. I do not want you to just believe what I write, I want you to follow up on my sources. I do not produce any research of my own on these issues, and you should not blindly trust in my (or anyone's) opinions.

We all have two and only two choices in this issue: read alot and think hard or trust well established institutions.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/13/221250/49

"What if this weren't a hypothetical question?" -- unknown

by Coby Beck at 1:39 AM on 07 Apr 2007

Here we go

Sad we have stonewalling at this much of a fundamental point.

Anyways this should solve things pretty easily:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtNdVDom0GU

Even Martin Durkin agrees that the CO2 rise is manmade. :P

by GreyFlcn at 9:11 PM on 08 Apr 2007
[ Parent ]

Isotopes, or Just Dopes?

There is still more to the case. By analyzing the isotopes of the carbon and oxygen atoms making up atmospheric CO2, in a process similar to carbon dating, scientists can and have detected a human "fingerprint."
The amount of CO2 released from permafrost is enourmous.
Which isotope is it?
Second question. If the CO2 from fossil fuel burning is not the same isotope as atmospheric CO2, how can you be sure it has the same greenhouse gas effect as the natural CO2?
Maybe this is why the hockey stick for CO2 rise is not reflected in a parallel temperature rise.

by jabailo at 10:34 AM on 21 May 2007

Natural Beats Anthropogenic, Every Time!

This article clinches it:

The Holocene CO2 Rise: Anthropogenic or Natural
http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~stocker/papers/broecker06eos ... ...

It is evident that MIS11 was a long interglacial that was not brought to an end by the precession cycle nor will the Holocene be (MIS 1). Hence the cause for the CO2 rise during the last 8000 years was natural and not anthropogenic.

by jabailo at 8:56 AM on 24 May 2007

CO2 Natural

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/ ...

Clearly, to repeat some of the concluding words of Broecker, "we can state with some confidence that natural Holocene temperature fluctuations have been on the same scale as the human-caused effects estimated to result from greenhouse gases." Hence, as he continues, "we cannot assume that in the absence of human intervention, earth's temperatures would have remained stable." It would thus appear to be our common conclusion that we cannot unequivocally attribute any of the temperature rise of the past century and a half to CO2-induced global warming. And that is why, as Broecker states in an earlier paper (Broecker, 1999), there exists "adequate room for maneuvering ... for those who doubt that the buildup of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases constitutes a substantial threat."

by jabailo at 10:24 AM on 24 May 2007

Interesting

It was an interesting post well worth reading. We humans sure destroys very much when it comes to the environment. I just hope we'll improve and get better on this matter.

Linda, IT Professional currently working on the 10 pounds to lose project.

by Linda B at 1:49 PM on 26 Feb 2008

Thaks for this!

Thanks so much for this! This is exactly what I was looking for

mirc mýrc eski mirc script indir irc komutlarý mirc indir mirc indir mýrc indir mirc mýrc mirc yükle mirc download islami sohbet dini sohbet islami site islami chat kelebek kelebek script kelebek mirc kelebek indir mirc zurna kameralý sohbet chat chat yap chat sohbet chatsohbet çet çet sohbet çet odasý sohbet kanallarý Getright sohbet odalarý aþk sohbet odalarý chat odalarý soru cevap sevgili sevgili bul arkadaþ arkadaþ ara arkadaþ bul arkadaþlýk bedava sohbet arkadaþlýk sitesi arkadaþlýk siteleri partner erkek arkadaþ bayan arkadaþ oto araba mp3 astroloji zoydak nedir cep telefonlarý gazete marifetname bedava domain ücretsiz domain bayii parça kontör bayiliði bayii online kontör

by ircdns at 9:18 AM on 29 Jun 2008

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.