I apologise, unreservedly - I assure you I’m not ‘sneering’, I’m just honestly interested in how the authors responded to your reasonable question. (And mea culpa for thinking the lake was in Fiji - I see now that that’s just the address of the PO Box).
Nevertheless, I think anyone reading that comment of yours would reasonably conclude that this intriguing mechanism whereby adding more CO2 to the atmosphere doesn’t add any more CO2 to the atmosphere was described somewhere in your Nature piece. Since it clearly isn;t, could you just tell us where it is?
No, but neither does 0.02, which is toxic. The point was that it was 0.00028 for millennia, and that doubling it is dangerous given what we know about the greenhouse effect of certain gases.
That may well be true, but if so, then either you don’t know much about climate science or you’re not very good at explaining it. Or both.
Dude, suggesting that other people may not be arguing honestly (and the “cheating at cards” expression was merely a metaphor for that, btw) is a legit practice in Great Debates. If you can accuse other people of using ad hominem arguments that are equivalent to racism, other people can question the honesty of your own arguments too.
No, that was DMC. (Perhaps this whole departing rant of yours is actually directed scattershot at all your opponents in this thread, but since I’m the only one you quoted, I’m replying to it.)
No, that was DMC.
I didn’t claim that you misrepresented it, I just questioned whether you may have misrepresented it. Do you have a cite for your claim that the Nature “Communications Arising” are in fact formally peer-reviewed?
No, that was SentientMeat. I did read the piece, and I happen to know that Lake Tanganyika is not in Fiji.
Now now, remember, you don’t care about other people’s credentials, right? You think a claim should stand or fall based only on the QUALITY OF THE SCIENCE. Naturally, you consider that the work other people have done is irrelevant to what they think of your work.
Another tragic breakdown by somebody way too thin-skinned to play in Great Debates.
But not convincingly, which is why I’ve been asking for a cite.
I think you’re confusing the “water level” metaphor (which you yourself introduced with your “swimming pool” analogy, btw) with a literal claim about CO2 “filling up” the atmosphere. Of course, nobody is arguing that the atmosphere is literally “full” of CO2, or is likely to get that way due to human carbon pumping. The question is, are we “filling up the swimming pool” in the sense of pushing the CO2 content over a safe limit?
Just because you showed a particular set of data and performed a particular calculation on it doesn’t prove that your model is accurate. Your math is only as good as the assumptions your model is based on, and several people here have made criticisms of your assumptions that you haven’t managed to convincingly refute.
Goodbye, and hope you feel better soon. Good luck with your move.
You know, I feel exactly the same way. I have a sort of “inner climate-change skeptic” who really does believe that the whole problem must be somewhat overblown, that popular-press alarmism is distorting a comparatively minor or self-limiting phenomenon, that the current climate equilibrium is actually very secure, and that in fifty years’ time we’ll be substantially reassured that everything’s going to be fine.
So every time an anti-ACC advocate like Beechnut or GreyMatters or intention comes along and pitches a new line about how the consensus is wrong, I may be rationally somewhat dubious, but my “inner skeptic” feels vindicated. I open up the thread with a feeling of hope, thinking that maybe this will be the time when we see the logical, conscientious, scientifically valid arguments that will seriously undermine the whole anthropogenic climate change hypothesis. And then we can all take a deep breath and stop worrying so much.
So I read the thread, and I read the questions and objections that other posters have, and I post the questions and objections that seem to make sense to my layperson’s perspective, and it always seems to turn out the same way. The no-ACC argument always gets stuck on inadequate explanations, insufficiently documented, irrational insistence on some particular assumption that never gets satisfactorily explained. I would assume that I’m just too stupid to understand the reasoning, except that nobody else in these threads ever seems to be persuaded by it either, and I don’t see how we can all be that stupid.
Another chance at climate system salvation, shot to hell. And you know what? It’s pretty damn disappointing. When are we going to get an anti-ACC argument that’s really capable of standing up to what Dopers can throw at it? Why do they always seem to founder on weaknesses and flaws that even measly I, with no more scientific training than a bachelor’s degree in math and some college-level physics, can see are unconvincing?
Because if none of the anti-ACC arguments are significantly better than this, then that probably means that the pro-ACC arguments are really true. And I don’t like that thought, because it means we’re probably fucked.
It would be such a relief to be able to respond to someone like Beechnut or intention with an astonished “You know, you’re right! That makes a lot of sense! I see how that significantly weakens the whole anthropogenic climate change hypothesis!” I would love to say that to an anti-ACC advocate, but damn it, they’re going to have to earn it. If they can’t genuinely convince me that they’re making a plausible case, I’m just going to have to stick with my gloomy forebodings about the possible climate future. Rats.
Just to tidy up, Sentient, you said you couldn’t read the reply to the abovementioned “Brief Communication”. I guess I must have an institutional subscription, because I can read it. Here are the main points:
intention: I agree with Kimstu that you are being way too sensitive and taking what was said here way too personally. I also wish you best of luck on your move.
And, if it makes you feel any better, I do see from your thought experiment how my hypothesis that the amount of CO2 sequestered will always be a fixed fraction of that emitted does seem too simplistic. On the other hand, from the little that I know about what is known about the carbon cycle (which you are motivating me to read up on in more detail as it is one aspect of climate science that I have really neglected), your view is too simplistic too.
Also, even if we are wildly optimistic and assume for the moment that you are right and that if we just keep our emissions constant then atmospheric CO2 levels will level off in the neighborhood of 480ppm, it seems that it would still be necessary to do the work of stabilizing our CO2 emissions so that we would level off around this level. So, it doesn’t really speak to issues so much of whether things like Kyoto are useful…In fact, if anything, it makes Kyoto look more useful in the sense that the job before us is less daunting than the idea that we first stabilize emissions as only a precursor of implementing some pretty massive cuts.
I know, however, that most scientists say that we will need to eventually make significant cuts (not all the way down to 0 but down a fair fraction from where we are now…I seem to very vaguely recall numbers like 60-70%) in order to stabilize CO2 levels at a new higher value like 500 or 550 ppm. I would like to better understand in what exact ways they feel an argument like yours fails.