Bombshell Claim: Scientists Find "Man-made Climate Change Doesn't Exist In Practice"

Gordon_R said:
Both C12 and C13 are stable isotopes, and are neither created nor destroyed in normal biochemical processes. The partitioning of C12 and C13 in the biosphere and atmosphere is a result of metabolic pathways in photosynthetic organisms: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractionation_of_carbon_isotopes_in_oxygenic_photosynthesis




The long answer is a bit more complex:
1. The percentage of C13 relative to C12 is very small, about 1.1%.
2. Nobody measures the absolute quantity of C13 in the atmosphere, only the ratio of C13/C12.
3. The amount of C13 does increase, but less than the rate of increase of C12.
4. The ratio of C13/C12 decreases with fossil fuel emissions.
You have to get your terminology right, and 'levels' is not meaningful with isotopes...

Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_carbon
Click to expand...

So, here is the issue I have with this "tactic" used by those that favour AGW. It is used to try and "prove" which source of CO2 is in the main causing the rise of CO2 in the "air". I say it is just trying to distract attention away from "natural" sources CO2 in the "air".

It would be just as easy to acknowledge that there ARE natural sources of CO2 and THEN fully quantify the effect of those natural sources are having on the increase in temperatures. In fact, IF anyone bothers to take the trouble to READ AR5 (you cant watch it on a video, you DO have to read it), you will find a pretty lame attempt to take naturally occurring CO2 into account. The fact that the current reporting of this effect is so poorly addressed in AR 5 can be interpreted in two ways - One, it is insignificant and does not have a large impact on GW (Increasing or decreasing), OR, Two, (as the detractors and the deniers are doing), it is a cover-up.

Now, to take the next step, to, in part, address the issues raised in the article as a result of the paper, it is all about the CO2 cycle involving the Atmosphere and the Oceans.

It is wrong to deny that CO2 is BOTH dissolving IN the Oceans and evaporating OUT of the Oceans. The balance is important. At the moment, there is plenty of research and evidence to say the oceans are a "sink" for CO2. There is almost nothing in AR 5 to address the reverse! So, again, it is a gap in the AR 5 that is now open to be exploited by the deny'ers. Trying to tell them their theory is not true is not going to work. Everyone that opens a can of cooldrink knows that CO2 escapes a carbonated drink. The AR 5 just does not address this properly. It does not even sufficiently well, acknowledge that CO2 IS also evaporating out of the oceans.

Presumably, that is the aspect covered by reference 6 (yet to be published) in the paper the article in OPs post refers to. (For the purists it is all about Henry's Law and Boyles/Charles Law. P1*V1/T1 = P2*V2/T2).

In chemistry, Henry's law is a gas law that states that the amount of dissolved gas in a liquid is proportional to its partial pressure above the liquid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry's_law
Click to expand...

You can't just write off that paper that easily without doing a proper job of reviewing their research, analysis and then their conclusions. Just calling the paper and the researchers names, is in itself, not at all Scientific. The current commentary on their papers is actually terrible, very poorly motivated and in itself full of assumptions. Not a quality peer-review at all, mostly just a knee-jerk reaction.
 
Last edited:
Geoff.D said:
So, here is the issue I have with this "tactic" used by those that favour AGW. It is used to try and "prove" which source of CO2 is in the main causing the rise of COs in the "air". I say it is just trying to distract attention away from "natural" sources CO2 in the "air".

It would just as easy to acknowledge that there ARE natural sources of CO2 and THEN fully quantify the effect of those natural sources are having on the increase in temperatures. In fact, IF anyone bothers to take the trouble to READ AR5 (you cant watch it on a video, you DO have to read it), you will find a pretty lame attempt to take naturally occurring CO2 into account. The fact that the current reporting of this effect is so poorly addressed in AR 5 can be interpreted in two ways - One, it is insignificant and does not have a large impact on GW, OR, two, (as the detractors and the deniers are doing), it is a cover-up.

Take the next step to in part address the issues raised in the article as a result of the paper, it is all about the CO2 cycle involving the Atmosphere and the Oceans.

It is equally wrong to deny that CO2 is BOTH dissolving in the Oceans and evaporating OUT of the Oceans. The balance is important. At the moment, there is plenty of research and evidence to say the oceans are a "sink" for CO2. There is almost nothing in AR 5 to address the reverse! So, again, it is a gap in the AR 5 that is now open to be exploited by the deny'ers. Trying to tell them their theory is not true is not going to work. Everyone that opens a can of cooldrink knows that CO2 escapes a carbonated drink. The AR 5 just does not address this properly. It does not even sufficiently well, acknowledge that CO2 IS also evaporating out of the oceans.
Presumably, that is the aspect covered by reference 6 (yet to be published) in the paper the article in OPs post refers to.

You can't just write off that paper that easily without doing a proper job of reviewing their research, analysis and then their conclusions. Just calling the paper and the researchers names is not at all Scientific.
Click to expand...
I agree.
People that are not familiar with science are easily misled by "scientists".
The trick is to distinguish between actual/true/real science and bogus/fake science.
It is however not so easy to distinguish between true and bogus science.
 
Geoff.D said:
You can't just write off that paper that easily without doing a proper job of reviewing their research, analysis and then their conclusions. Just calling the paper and the researchers names is in itself, not at all Scientific. The current commentary on their papers is actually terrible, very poorly motivated and in itself full of assumptions. Not a quality peer-review at all, mostly just a knee-jerk reaction.
Click to expand...
Ironically, I basically bought into the whole CO2 narrative entirely until I started being confronted by this kind of emotional response to anyone who attempted to investigate the topic seriously, because that's what first made me start to think that maybe the "science" wasn't all it was cracked up to be.

Some people are their own worst enemies.
 
Hellhound105 said:
No no, thats the actual Doomsday clock. I was referring to the morons clock. Last I heard it was 2012.

This idiot:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Camping

But hes dead now, so who took up his position?
Click to expand...

Seriously !! o_O Please dont post links like that :mad:
One cannot unsee what is read , :eek: luckily i stopped myself after reading Christian Evangelist
Warn a man in future
I mean its Monday FFS and i have only had 2 cups of coffee, not prepared for that stuff yet. :)
 
Nanfeishen said:
Seriously !! o_O Please dont post links like that :mad:
One cannot unsee what is read , :eek: luckily i stopped myself after reading Christian Evangelist
Warn a man in future
I mean its Monday FFS and i have only had 2 cups of coffee, not prepared for that stuff yet. :)
Click to expand...

My bad, was expecting you have had done your due diligence hence the specific topic and thread. :)

I still want to know the new date for end of the earth though.
 
"new data suggests the amazon only makes enough oxygen to support the creatures it contains" :D
 
Hellhound105 said:
My bad, was expecting you have had done your due diligence hence the specific topic and thread. :)

I still want to know the new date for end of the earth though.
Click to expand...
What does your favourite "climate scientist" predict.
Alternatively, what does the majority of "climate scientists" say.
What is it you think science says.
Because we all know that "scientists" are never wrong about anything.
 
Ponderer said:
What does your favourite "climate scientist" predict.
Alternatively, what does the majority of "climate scientists" say.
What is it you think science says.
Because we all know that "scientists" are never wrong about anything.
Click to expand...

All I know is that if our ancestors didnt pollute and drive cars 2000 years ago we wont be in this mess. We would still be living with ice everywhere.

*Read it slowly
 
So, here is a simple experiment you can do at home about the CO2- water cycle.
If you have a soda stream machine at home, try and take an ice-cold bottle of water out of the fridge and try and carbonate it. Result --- very little COs will dissolve in the water. Mostly the nozzle will just freeze up as the CO2 turns into dry ice and blocks the nozzle. Simple conclusion --- cold water does not absorb much CO2.
Now take a bottle of tap water a repeat the experiment - Conclusion -- the warmer the water is the easier it is to get it to absorb CO2.

Then next time you are enjoying that Whiskey and Soda, watch what happens when the bubbles escape.
Congratulations, you have just demonstrated the CO2/water cycle taking place in the oceans.
 
Geoff.D said:
So, here is a simple experiment you can do at home about the CO2- water cycle.
If you have a soda stream machine at home, try and take an ice-cold bottle of water out of the fridge and try and carbonate it. Result --- very little COs will dissolve in the water. Mostly the nozzle will just freeze up as the CO2 turns into dry ice and blocks the nozzle. Simple conclusion --- cold water does not absorb much CO2.
Now take a bottle of tap water a repeat the experiment - Conclusion -- the warmer the water is the easier it is to get it to absorb CO2.

Then next time you are enjoying that Whiskey and Soda, watch what happens when the bubbles escape.
Congratulations, you have just demonstrated the CO2/water cycle taking place in the oceans.
Click to expand...

Sorry, that is flat out misleading!

The temperature solubility curve for CO2 is well known: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_(data_page)#Solubility_in_water_at_various_temperatures
Temperature
Dissolved CO2 volume per volume H2O
grams CO2 per 100 ml H2O
0 °C 1.713 0.3346
5 °C 1.424 0.2774
10 °C 1.194 0.2318
15 °C 1.019 0.1970
20 °C 0.878 0.1688
25 °C 0.759 0.1449
30 °C 0.655 0.1257
Click to expand...
 
Ponderer said:
I agree.
People that are not familiar with science are easily misled by "scientists".
The trick is to distinguish between actual/true/real science and bogus/fake science.
It is however not so easy to distinguish between true and bogus science.
Click to expand...
Usually I look out for agenda's and people repeatedly caught in ideological deception, the one makes me doublecheck everything they say and the other makes me throw out whatever they give me..... climategate killed all the trust I had left for these people and nothing they have done since has restored it.
 
Geoff.D said:
So, here is a simple experiment you can do at home about the CO2- water cycle.
If you have a soda stream machine at home, try and take an ice-cold bottle of water out of the fridge and try and carbonate it. Result --- very little COs will dissolve in the water. Mostly the nozzle will just freeze up as the CO2 turns into dry ice and blocks the nozzle. Simple conclusion --- cold water does not absorb much CO2.
Now take a bottle of tap water a repeat the experiment - Conclusion -- the warmer the water is the easier it is to get it to absorb CO2.

Then next time you are enjoying that Whiskey and Soda, watch what happens when the bubbles escape.
Congratulations, you have just demonstrated the CO2/water cycle taking place in the oceans.
Click to expand...
To (somewhat tangentially) add to your post.
The ocean/s be a gigantic CO2 scrubber - where (ocean) algae "fixes" (scrubs) the absorbed/dissolved (atmospheric) CO2.
The higher the levels of atmospheric CO2, the higher the levels of CO2 in the ocean/s, the faster it is "fixed" (scrubbed from the atmosphere).
 
rambo919 said:
Usually I look out for agenda's and people repeatedly caught in ideological deception, the one makes me doublecheck everything they say and the other makes me throw out whatever they give me..... climategate killed all the trust I had left for these people and nothing they have done since has restored it.
Click to expand...
Yeah.
As a general rule of thumb, I tend to (by default) distrust most things.
The exception is when somebody tries to convince me of something, and claims that something is a "scientifically proven" fact, in which case it is invariable (almost always) some or other BS.

I consider all politicians to be liars, and almost all religious leaders to be politicians.
As of late, I also consider the majority of "scientists" and "scientific studies" as political instruments.
 
Ponderer said:
Yeah.
As a general rule of thumb, I tend to (by default) distrust most things.
The exception is when somebody tries to convince me of something, and claims that something is a "scientifically proven" fact, in which case it is invariable (almost always) some or other BS.

I consider all politicians to be liars, and almost all religious leaders to be politicians.
As of late, I also consider the majority of "scientists" and "scientific studies" as political instruments.
Click to expand...
Almost the entire acedemic arena and almost all "christian" institutions worldwide has been infected with some kind of marxism.... marxism and deception for the ideological cause is pretty much synonomous in practice.
 
rambo919 said:
Almost the entire acedemic arena and almost all "christian" institutions worldwide has been infected with some kind of marxism.... marxism and deception for the ideological cause is pretty much synonomous in practice.
Click to expand...
True.
Truth is empirical - the truth is the truth.
The question is exactly what is the truth, and/or exactly who is telling the truth.
In the end, it always boils down to what/who you choose to believe.
 
Gordon_R said:
Sorry, that is flat out misleading!

The temperature solubility curve for CO2 is well known: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_(data_page)#Solubility_in_water_at_various_temperatures
Click to expand...
Yes it is misleading because pressure and volume is left out. The soda bottle experiment I have described only really works because of the pressure the CO2 is under.
But so is that solubility table without context. In fact, that table plays right into the hands of those that support the theory that the oceans are a source of atmospheric CO2 ------- What is the average surface temperature of the Oceans? This is precisely the point the detractors are making when criticising the current studies as tabled and reported in the AR 5.
It is all about undertaking a complete study taking into account, ALL the variables.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X