Engelbeen on why he thinks the CO2 increase is man made (part 3)

Here is the graph of CO2 increase compared to population increase over the same time period. Increased use of fossil fuels does not show the same hockey stick shape and I can’t find a 2000 year graph.
http://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/climate/information-and-resources/clivar/gases
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2005/12/18/1387/0641

Ferdinand,
1. The carbon deposits to call “fossil fuels” are not derived from recycled biomass or fossils – unless the laws of thermodynamics have changed.
2. The Carbon isotope ratios cannot discern biogenic from non biogenic sources, especially when an archaen diamond has “observation by Giardini & Melton6 that such cannot be considered a reliable criterion for ascertaining the origin of petroleum. Giardini & Melton took a primoridial natural diamond of 8.65 carats and measured the carbon isotope ratio of the CO2 entrapped in its inclusions. The results were an isotope ratio of –35.2% on the standard PeeDee scale. Previously the carbon isotope ratios more negative than – 18.0% had been assigned a biological origin. The diamond tested by Giardini & Melton was measured to be of an age of crystallization of at least 3.1 x 10^9 years, well before any record of biological life on Earth. The observation by Giardini & Melton destroyed any claimed validity of the carbon isotope ratio as a determinant of the origin of petroleum, – and probably of any other carbon compound.”
There is an outstanding prize of US$10,000 for anyone who can demonstrate empirically and experimentally that petroleum can spontaneously form from subjecting biomass to the pressures and temperatures typical for the bottom of sedimentary basins.
However, experimental evidence of the spontaneous production of hydrocarbons from a mixture of CaCO3, FeO and H20 has been published and replicated. The fossil fuelers, however, continue their assertions by resort to rhetoric or applying the logical fallacy of arguing the consequent.
QED.

Jean Parisot says:
September 16, 2010 at 7:17 pm
How is the uneven distribution of atmospheric CO2 factored into various IPCC models?
It isn’t. The models assume that the atmospheric gases are “well-mixed” and that distribution of mass is uniform, but they do take into account that the density of the
atmosphere decreases with altitude
As I mentioned above, high pressure cells have more mass than low pressure cells.
Water vapor lowers the density of air and there is no uniforn distribution of it in the lower atmosphere, i.e. below 30,000 ft.
The water droplets of clouds contain atmospheric gases including CO2 and the clouds can transport these gases to various locations. The amount of CO2 held in clouds would be difficult to estimate but it is not zero. Rain can “wash” CO2 out of the atmosphere.

John Whitman:
“Steven Mosher,
“I think your statement is not quite right. It appears to be that you are claiming that GHGs (all of them) combined with all other known and unknown processes involved in the earth system warm the planet. I do not think this has ever been demonstrated scientifically. By themselves in a simplified (non-realistic) scenarios without the total earth system processes included there have been discussions about possibility of GHGs warming the planet, maybe that is what you are thinking . . . . but they are just discussions. Your claim is often assumed / postulated /implied / believed . . . . . all those yes but demonstrated scientifically . . . no. If you can show it scientifically or cite papers that show it then please do so for everyone’s benefit. Then we will provide falsifications. Until then there is nothing for us to falsify.”
1. we know from physics that GHGs warm the planet.
2. There is no physical theory to even suggest that they cool the planet
3. The question is, how much
A. so small as to be non measureable
B. large enough to be measurable
Further, like many people you utterly misunderstand the the notion of “falsification.” no theory is falsified. Theories have to be “falsifiable.” That speaks only to this: they have to make statements that can be measured against observations. So simply the theory that holds that increasing GHGs will warm the planet is confirmed ( never proven) by our observations. Since 1850 ghgs have increased, so has the temperature. Further, if we try to predict the course of temperature from 1850 to today and hypothecate no forcing from C02 our predictions go horribly wrong. (see ch09 ar4) Absent any evidence or theory that GHGs cool the planet, and in light of theory and evidence that consistently claims they will, the balance of the evidence warrants the rational belief that they do. Theory predicts they will. they have.
“By just looking at the climate data (temps) there is nothing in it that proves GHGs warm the planet. It needs a theory to be developed and be stated as a hypothesis and be tested against the climate data.”
The theory that GHGs (like water vapor) warm the planet is well established and well developed. It’s been stated as a hypothesis for over a hundred years. the data confirms the theory. no theory is EVER proven. ever. We only have degrees of certitude. Is it logically possible that GHGs could not cause warming? sure. Is there any theory that suggest this? no. if there WAS, then that theory would be at odds with the last 160 years of data.
“As for natural variability, prior to man’s hypothesized influence , the climate sure did vary widely. The data shows that. No need for a theory and hypothesis to see that climate varied significantly before man’s influence . . . just look at the data. It had to be natural, no man influence. A hypothesis is only needed if you wish to understand why it varied and what natural variability consists of by mechanisms.”
i’m far more skeptical of data before 1900 than any of the so called skeptics here. nevertheless, as you point out, merely pointing to variability is no theory. For the incurious, I suppose one could observe that people get old and die. its natural. for the scientist, for the curious, its human nature to wonder why and to try to explain it. So, merely pointing at variability and grunting “nature” is not very interesting in my book but it seems to be enough for some folks. go figure.
John

intrepid_wanders says:
While I do understand the hypothesis that is being presented, there still remains the issue of “understanding” of isotopes specifically, carbon.
C-12 -> Stable
C-13 -> Stable
C-14 -> beta decay + N14
N-14 + n -> C-14 + H-1
B-13 -> C-13 + beta decay
So, the first thing that comes to mind is the source of C-13 is B-13 with an electron ejection (decay is tens of millisecs).
You’d also need something producing the boron 13 to decay to carbon 13. This production of carbon 13 would appear to be more likely to happen in stars than on the surface of Earth.
Conversion of nitrogen to carbon happens in the upper atmosphere, which is mostly nitrogen anyway. However carbon 14 has been found in fossil fuels. Coal is mostly carbon, oil is mostly carbon and hydrogen. So it appears that other nuclear reactions an create this isotope of carbon. If this is neutron capture such coal or oil may well contain more heavy carbon (and hydrogen) isotopes. But that not exposed to a source of neutrons would contain carbon from the original organic sources. These sources likely to be random and variable anyway.

Harvey says:
quote
I say ok, fine, show me your theory about what ELSE is causing CO2 increase, if not humans?
unquote
Reduced pull-down into deep ocean rather than increased output by humans. Pulldown mechanism tending towards heavier isotopes as diatoms and C4 phytoplankton take more of the load. You can find a recent report of phytoplankton population decline by Googling “Global phytoplankton decline over the past century
Daniel G. Boyce1, Marlon R. Lewis2 & Boris Worm1” and a general search will show you the carbon metabolic response of starved phytoplankton. The effects of human-induced dust increases can be found by searching for “Increasing eolian dust deposition in the western United States linked to human activity”, and further searches on the limitation of diatom populations by silica availability is easily done. From this information you may easily show that a) starved phytoplankton will pull down relatively more 13C and 14C b) diatom populations will increase relative to the calcareous phytos in an ocean which is being fed with more silica c) diatoms pull down more heavy isotopes of carbon compared to well-fed calcareous phytos.
Or:
Minute warming of deep ocean methane deposits by currents responding to the MWP. Increased metabolic activity by methanophages in response, emitting light isotope CO2. See graphs of warming followed by CO2 increase in many articles about historical CO2 levels, with the lag being hundreds of years.
Or:
Methane deposits in polar regions responding to reduced acid rain levels as pollution controls reduce sulphate emissions. More light signal methane emitted and metabolised by bacteria.
Or:
Oil and surfactant pollution of ocean surface means fewer breaking waves, less efficient entrainment of CO2 by bubbles and reduced dissolving of CO2. (Note that matches of ocean and atmosphere CO2 levels have been done in shallow water where mixing by wave action is assured.)
Or:
something we haven’t thought about.
Steven Mosher: you pride yourself on your rigorous take on the science, excoriating (rightly in my view but what do I know?) those who try to reject basic scientific facts like the greenhouse effect. Can I ask you to do something for me? Examine the graph above, (Fig 4, the sponge isotope data) and simply post here the dates at which you see the light isotope signal beginning. Three dates, of course, Jamaica, Pedro Bank and atmospheric.
Do any of your dates match Ferdinand’s assertion that :
quote
What we can see, is that the d13C levels as well as in the atmosphere as in the upper oceans ***start to decrease*** from 1850 on, that is at the start of the industrial revolution. In the 400 years before, there is only a small variation, probably caused by the temperature drop in the Little Ice Age.
unquote
TIA
JF
*** my emphasis

Steven mosher says:
September 16, 2010 at 10:40 pm
1. we know from physics that GHGs warm the planet.
2. There is no physical theory to even suggest that they cool the planet
3. The question is, how much
Wrong, wrong and wrong again!
http://www.spinonthat.com/CO2_files/The_Diurnal_Bulge_and_the_Fallacies_of_the_Greenhouse_Effect.html

mkelly says:
September 16, 2010 at 6:43 am
More molecules of water are added to atmosphere by at least 2:1 and reducing O2.

So if you are looking to prove AGW it would be sensible to monitor and track the levels of oxygen, carbon dioxide and water vapour in the atmosphere… simples… atmospheric changes would reflect the chemistry of burning fossils… simples… but no… the AGW argument seems to rest upon dubious measurements and proxies of unknown validity… I just don’t get it… more to the point: I just don’t buy it… and if the AGW theory was right then the real story would be about declining oxygen levels… so again I just don’t get it and I just won’t but it.
The oceans are massive temperature sensitive depositories of CO2… they absorb CO2 when they cool… and outgas CO2 when they warm… if the earth is warming then we should expect atmospheric CO2 levels to rise… and looking at the official data this is exactly what is happening… no surprise.. no problem.. and even if you think it is a problem (which is very unfortunately for you) it is a problem you can’t resolve because mankind is just too insignificant… as King Canute proved many centuries ago – man can’t command the tide. Now I have a lot of respect for King Canute… he didn’t use the tides – not a proxy for tides… he used actual observations – he didn’t fiddle with the high and low water mark readings… if only the AGWers had the same integrity as King Canute.
The more AGW tracts I read the more convinced I am that we are dealing with missionaries from the Victoria age… in those days white men wearing dog collars would sail away to some far flung continent and start talking to the indigenous heathens… there they would try to terrorise the uneducated locals with stories of a fiery hell and eternal damnation… and if they still didn’t convert then they would buy off the chief with some western trinkets.
In this day and age the AGW missionaries believe in their moral and intellectual superiority… they cloak themselves in the white coat of the scientist… and then they set sail to talk to the sheeple… again they try to terrorise the sheeple with their stories of how the earth is being turned into a fiery hell… and again if that doesn’t convert the indigenous heathens they start buying off leaders with money so the leaders can buy more western trinkets.

Ferdinand,
If it is possible to measure the changes in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to better than 0.1 ppm, why is it not possible to do the same for O2?

Louis Hissink,
“However, experimental evidence of the spontaneous production of hydrocarbons from a mixture of CaCO3, FeO and H20 has been published and replicated.”
While the abiogenic hypothesis is an intriguing one, and chemically plausible, opponents do have one serious criticism. That is, at the high temperatures associated with this inorganic reaction, the hydrocarbons rapidly breakdown. If true, I would say this is a serious problem.

Steven mosher,
“Similarly, I could predict that if you apply the brakes the car will slow down. Its not a counter argument for you to point out that other things can slow a car down, or that some cars in the past slowed down because they hit walls or ran out of gas, or ran out if gas while the brakes were being applied. GHGs warm the planet.”
Clever, but false analogy. We know that the car will slow down and stop if you apply the brakes. We don’t know that adding more CO2 will warm the planet at all because we don’t know the sign and magnitude of the feedbacks.
Pursuing your car analogy, we should envisage a car where the hydraulic cable feeding the brakes have holes, and the brake is connected to the throttle by some complex serious of interconnections, the aggregate result of which is unknown, and the driver is sitting on a chair affixed to the roof of the car and attempting to press the brake peddle with the handle of a broom (the last part thanks to Mr Bean).
That is the true CO2 analogy.

Dave Springer says:
September 17, 2010 at 5:56 am
when you know you have a valid … but he can dodge it….

Without a doubt anything can be dodged in the land of smoke and mirrors.