Yours truly to be the voice of the Climate Change Skeptic

mkpdavies · 23-12-2006, 06:03 PM

Point me to the information. But you know I am going to say what about the years before that. I'll also ask why just the last two decades, what about the decades before the 80's, when factories and cars were much dirtier and less efficient.

Besoeker · 23-12-2006, 07:35 PM

The rate of change was lower.

mkpdavies · 24-12-2006, 06:29 AM

You've lost me again now/

Besoeker · 24-12-2006, 06:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkpdavies

You've lost me again now/

The rate of change was lower before the 80s.

mkpdavies · 24-12-2006, 06:46 AM

Can you give me the data you are looking at. I am interested to see why the rate would change so much, when man produces such a tiny fraction of the co2 in comparison to nature and why it was only the 80's that started the big change.

Besoeker · 24-12-2006, 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkpdavies

Can you give me the data you are looking at. I am interested to see why the rate would change so much, when man produces such a tiny fraction of the co2 in comparison to nature and why it was only the 80's that started the big change.

It was an article about ice cores. CO2 has risen by 30 ppm in the last 17 years. Previously such changes happened over a period of 1,000 years.
The 80's didn't start a big change. It's a big rate of change.

I don't know the answer to the second part of your post. I could speculate if you want.

mkpdavies · 24-12-2006, 07:13 AM

Go on then, speculate away.

Besoeker · 24-12-2006, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkpdavies

Go on then, speculate away.

CO2, as you rightly say, is produced naturally. It is also absorbed naturally. There are both sources and sinks. Given the slow rates of changes in the past, the sources and sinks must have been very close to equilibrium.
Consider a new source and, even if it is relatively small, it could upset that equilibrium.
It's a bit like a reservoir. As long as the volume of water flowing in is close to the volume flowing out the level will change only slowly. Increase the volume flowing in and the level will inexorably rise.
(best analogy I could think of at short notice)

CO2 has risen by about 30 ppm in 17 years to about 380ppm - roughly 8%. That wouldn't need a huge change in the equilibrium. It also illustrates just how very close to equilibrium it has been in the past.

I am not inferring anything from this. And, as I said, it is idle speculation born on a Sunday morning. It is not anything I have pondered deeply about.

mkpdavies · 24-12-2006, 08:08 AM

Quote:

CO2, as you rightly say, is produced naturally. It is also absorbed naturally. There are both sources and sinks. Given the slow rates of changes in the past

When you say past though, we are talking recent past (in the planets history terms).

Quote:

the sources and sinks must have been very close to equilibrium.

Not a must, a maybe, a dubious maybe to me.

Quote:

Consider a new source and, even if it is relatively small, it could upset that equilibrium.

Maybe. Though again when you look at the scale of the amount of co2 produced by nature for all these years, I find it highly unlikley that our meagre efforts just so happened to push it over the edge. Especially considering the past levels of co2 on this planet have varied so wildly over the history of this planet.

Quote:

It's a bit like a reservoir. As long as the volume of water flowing in is close to the volume flowing out the level will change only slowly. Increase the volume flowing in and the level will inexorably rise.

Again with the history of the planet, it suggests the reservoir is no where near capacity and the humans tiny dribble isn't going to make a major difference.

Quote:

CO2 has risen by about 30 ppm in 17 years to about 380ppm - roughly 8%. That wouldn't need a huge change in the equilibrium. It also illustrates just how very close to equilibrium it has been in the past.

False assumption. It completely ignores the fact that levels have been higer, much higher in the past and the planet was fine. With all myriad of huge influences on the planets equalibrium, I think you are putting way too much emphasis on a relatively tiny one, especially when you look at the full picture and not just selecting one period of time.

8% of **** all, is still **** all on the historical scales we should be working on.

Besoeker · 24-12-2006, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkpdavies

When you say past though, we are talking recent past (in the planets history terms).

I already told you that the data is based on 800,000 years of ice-core samples and that is what my post addresses. If you have data that can give it for earlier times to the same degree of resolution, then I will look at that too but in the meantime, don’t go moving the goalposts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Besoeker

the sources and sinks must have been very close to equilibrium.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkpdavies

Not a must, a maybe, a dubious maybe to me.

From simple arithmetic, 60 times closer than now. Changing by a maximum of 0.03 ppm compared to nearly 2 ppm now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Besoeker

Consider a new source and, even if it is relatively small, it could upset that equilibrium.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkpdavies

Maybe. Though again when you look at the scale of the amount of co2 produced by nature for all these years.

Produced and absorbed. In very nearly equal amounts. Don’t forget that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Besoeker

It's a bit like a reservoir.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkpdavies

Again with the history of the planet, it suggests the reservoir is no where near capacity

Irrelevant. My post wasn’t about capacity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Besoeker

CO2 has risen by about 30 ppm in 17 years to about 380ppm - roughly 8%. That wouldn't need a huge change in the equilibrium. It also illustrates just how very close to equilibrium it has been in the past.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkpdavies

False assumption. It completely ignores the fact that levels have been higer, much higher in the past and the planet was fine.

Irrelevant to my point. It’s not about level. Nor the condition of the planet.

Clearly, all you want to do is to try to pull my post to pieces.
All I can suggest is that you try again. And try to keep it relevant next time.
Have fun.
:wink:

23-12-2006, 06:03 PM	#61 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 30,604	Point me to the information. But you know I am going to say what about the years before that. I'll also ask why just the last two decades, what about the decades before the 80's, when factories and cars were much dirtier and less efficient. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

24-12-2006, 06:29 AM	#63 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 30,604	You've lost me again now/ __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

24-12-2006, 06:46 AM	#65 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 30,604	Can you give me the data you are looking at. I am interested to see why the rate would change so much, when man produces such a tiny fraction of the co2 in comparison to nature and why it was only the 80's that started the big change. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

24-12-2006, 07:13 AM	#67 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 30,604	Go on then, speculate away. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

23-12-2006, 07:35 PM	#62 (permalink)
Besoeker Uber Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 4,851	The rate of change was lower.