J. Clarke writes:

On 26 Feb 2007 22:19:26 -0600, D Smith wrote:

J. Clarke writes:

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 04:24:23 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 02:49:02 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:

So, given that everything observed is evidence of global warming,
the
thing to ask the proponents of this theory, is "what evidence would
be required to refute this theory?" When everything is cited as
evidence of a theory and nothing as evidence to dispute it, then one
needs to start questioning the person postulating the theory.


Facts:

1. CO2 reflects infrared radiation.

2. The earth gives off infrared radiation.

3. When infrared radiation reflects back to earth, the global
temperature rises

4. Human produced CO2 can be distinguished from that produced by other
sources.

How?

Determining the carbon isotope ratios.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87

And what we have from there is that humans are producing some
quantityt of CO2 from fossil fuels. Well _duh_.

...and that quantity is about twice the current rate of increase in
atmospheric CO2.

So?

Are you really that dense, or do you just play an idiot on the net?

So if you want to argue that the atmospheric rise is NOT
the result of burning fossil fuels, you need to:

1) give an explanation as to why all (or at least most) the CO2 from
fossil fuels is being removed.

Huh? What does a removal mechanism have to do with identifying a
source?

If you want to pretend that the source (burning fossil fuels) is not
causing an increase in atmospheric CO2, you're going to have to find
somewhere else to put it, which requires removing it from the atmosphere.
You can't just ask Scottie to beam it out of there.

2) give another (currently unknown) source of CO2 that is adding enough
to the atmosphere to give the observed rise.

What source has prior to the advent of human industry brought about
the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere?

I don't care. I dont' have to. We're talking about WHAT IS HAPPENING
NOW. We can take measurements of what is happening now.

3) explain why the mechanism you postulate for 1) succeeds with CO2
from fossil fuels, but fails to remove the CO2 source you postulate in 2).

Again, what relevance does a removal mechanism have to do with
identifcation of a source?

...because if you want to claim that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is
from a DIFFERENT source, you need to explain why the source from fossil
fuels is NOT a factor (how it gets removed), and the one from your source
IS (why it doesn't get removed).

This is like examining the functioning of
the drain to determine whether the puddle in the tub came out of the
tap or the dog.

...which is exactly what you would have to do if you are claiming that
the drain knows how to get rid of the tap water but isn't removing the
dog's **** (or vice-versa).

Again, if CO2 from fossil fuels IS being removed (all or most, not just
the half I mention) from the atmosphere (which is implicit in your claim
that the observed increase is NOT attributable to fossil fuels), then
where does to extra CO2 come from and why is this other source _not_
subject to the same removal mechanism you postulate for CO2 from fossil
fuels.

4) demonstrate that the source you postulate in 2) has an isotope
combination that makes it look exactly the same as CO2 from fossil fuels.
(Note that this means it is difficult to develop an explanation for 3)
that is based on isotope ratios.)

First you need to demonstrate that the isotopic composition of
atmospheric CO2 is completely consistent with a human source bringing
about the observed increase. The Web site that was linked earlier
does not demonstrate this.

1) what do you mean by "complete"?

2) which web site? There have been two given - RealClimate.org, and Bob
Grumbine's. Please be specific with what you diagree with on those sites.
Saying nothing more than "does not demontrate this" just looks like more
"I disgree with the conclusion, so it must be wrong" from you.


It's a long way from there to "humans have caused a massive increase
in CO2 levels in the past 150 years",

Well, it's easier if you put numbers on it. The increase is about 40%.
Do you consider that "massive", or are you using "massive" as a debating
tactic?

Straw man. It's a long way from the information in the site that was
referenced to humans causing the increase you claim.

So saying "massive" was just a debating tactic.


and it's an even bigger stretch
from there to "human should immediately and forthwith cease to produce
CO2"

Who is saying that? Kyoto only calls for reductions, not elimination.
Besides, what to do about something is a distinct step from "is the
climate science right?"

Figured that out, did you?

I figured out that you are deliberately obfuscating the two.

and then there is the main point of the econuts which is that
"The United States should immediately and forthwith cease to produce
CO2

A clear strawman.

To you perhaps, not to most of the econuts who rave about global
warming.

while China and the rest of the world massively increase _their_
pollution", which is basically what the "Kyoto accords" require.

The US produce about 25% of the WORLD total. Why shouldn't it show some
global citizenship and take the lead in trying to clean up a problem that
it has taken the lead in creating?

Why should the US be held to a different standard than China?

...oh, perhaps it is still interested in being a world leader?

Right now, the US looks like the older brother who has been stealing
cookies for years, and gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar by Mom.
He's claiming he shouldn't be asked to stop because his little brother
might steal some later.

No, he's claiming that he shouldn't be forbidden to eat cookies
forever while baking them in quantity for Junior.

Mom has her hands full dealing with the older son. Once he gets his
hand out of the cookie jar, Mom can start trying to sort out distributing
the coolies equally to all. Until then, the oldest son is just being
spoiled and acting like a brat.

It sounds to me like you're using the "I don't want to make any
changes, so I'll choose to ignore climate science" approach. Works right
up to the point that Mother Nature bites you in the ass.

Yep, I figured you'd get to that one eventually. Typcal econut, come
up with a bunch of irrelevancies, pretend that they are profundities,
and when challenged then launch a personal attack.

Coming from the person that dismisses anyone that disagrees with him as
"an econut", this is both ironic and hypocritical. Classic.


plonk

You're welcome.