Timothy Birdnow

An argument over climate change with your standard-issue idiot:

Bob Sundahl

Tim Birdnow Try to keep up. We know with absolute certainty, from the changes in the C12/C13 ratios that the excess CO2 is from ancient fossil CO2.

There are no other POSSIBLE explanations.

Tim Birdnow

Hal Hagenson And you know this with such certainly how? We don't really even know where the carbon dioxide is coming from. We guesstimate the amount and look at what we think the natural outputs are then subtract that from what we are recording and say the discrepancy is all from burning oil and gas and coal. But we don't know that; there are a lot of other possible explanations.

1d

Reply

Share

Bob Sundahl

Tim Birdnow Try to keep up. We know with absolute certainty, from the changes in the C12/C13 ratios that the excess CO2 is from ancient fossil CO2.

There are no other POSSIBLE explanations.

1d

Reply

Share

Tim Birdnow

Bob Sundahl

I think you are the one who needs to keep up. Carbon 12 accounts for 98.9% of atmospheric carbon dioxide with another 1.6% of carbon 13. Your argument is that carbon 12 levels have increased in the upper atmosphere and that "proves" climate change is caused by Man and is warming the Earth (both assumptions you cannot necessarily make; correlation is not causality). But is that the case? The reality is the Earth's albedo has been decreasing and there is more plant growth. we don't know for sure if the new plant life on Earth is respirating in the same fashion that old growth does, as just one possible example.

In fact there are a number of natural phenomenon that mimic the "signature" of which you speak so glibly. https://climatechangedispatch.com/new-evidence-questions.../

Permafrost melting releases carbon dioxide low in c14 and c13, as does the weathering of sedimentary rocks and it is entirely possible upwelling from the oceans releases similar isotopes. In fact, a study of ice cores showed no change in isotopic ratios since the Little Ice Age. https://www.mdpi.com/2413-4155/6/1/17

So once again you guys jump to conclusions with inadequate evidence and believe you have a "smoking gun" when in reality what you have is a theory that may or may not have some scientific validity. It was a nice try though.

Bob Sundahl

Tim Birdnow No. YOU don't know these things. WE have a very good measure as to how much fossil fuels we burn each year and ANY person with a high school background in chemistry can calculate directly how much CO2 we dump into the atmosphere.

Some of it is absorbed by the ocean, making it more acidic. That, too tells us how much CO2 went into the ocean.

Tim Birdnow

Bob Sundahl Careful; your arrogance and ignorance are showing. We do NOT "have a very good measure of how much fossil levels we bur each year". We have some guesstimates based on how much the atmospheric carbon dioxide is rising. But I'm glad your high school diploma prepared you to expound on this as if you are an expert. Oh, and the freaking oceans are not acidic; they are alkaline. There has been a very minor drop in alkalinity in SOME places and you think that is a general principle because you cannot graps how large the Earth is and how little of it we have good data on. BTW we can't even explain where the "missing heat" went into the deep oceans, or how it happened but by all means your high school chemistry class gives you unique expertise on the field. Grow up for crying out loud! If you were either honest of smart you would know that so much of the data we've accumulated is fudged or erroneous and we don't really know what is happening. So where is the missing heat? Argo probes can't find it. Why is ice growing in Antarctica, both on land and in the sea? Why are may atolls actually growing and not shrinking as climate alarmists contend? Why are the low-lying Maldives building multiple new airports? https://maldives-magazine.com/.../maldives-develops-six... Where is the tropical tropospheric hot spot? Why, despite warming, are we not seeing an increase in planetary precipitation or cloud cover? In fact it's going the opposite direction in violation of the basic theory. (Drownings are down worldwide and have been declining despite claims of rising seas and more extreme weather events.) Why are hurricanes and tornadoes down? We were told they should be rising in frequency and strength yet neither is true. Why did Canada and Alaska undergo an unusually cold winter season this year? I could go on but if you were an honest person you would look all this up for yourself. You are free to believe in anthropogenic climate change or not but you should at least move out of your smug comfort zone and look at the evidence - which is exactly what I did. I watched this from the beginning and believed in it at first but then saw how much manipulation was occurring and how politicized it was and realized we all were being played. I remember the Global Cooling scare from the seventies and I read many of the papers written back then arguing aerosols were going to trigger another ice age. The same people pushing that switched to global warming without missing a beat. You should be an honest enough person to at least consider that this theory is wrong - and so many of the model predictions suggest it is, or at least it doesn't work the way we think. These models cannot even predict current climate conditions using past data.

End

This guy stopped responding after I spanked him in this fashion. No doubt he'll be blathering on somewhere else about carbon ratios and how we know with absolute certainty we are destroying the atmosphere and are all going to die.

Hide Comments | Add Comment