It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

AGW questions

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 04:25 AM
link   
Ok, so I am on the fence about this whole thing. I see "empirical data" constantly in the form of graphs and representations. I personally don't think manmade AGW is as significant as it is being played up to be. I would like to see those that propose the AGW theory to present the raw data. Not the charts provided by who or whatever, but the actual studies of raw data used to come to current conclusions.

My questions I would like to pose if anyone would like to answer

-When did global temperature mapping begin, and how was this determined.
-When did man-made global CO2 be determined to be a factor
-When did man-made global CO2 output begin being measured
-When did Arctic and Antarctic sea-ice levels begin being recorded

I understand our carbon footprint can be recognized in the form of carbon-14 emissions. What is the ratio of carbon-14 emissions to other forms of carbon release?

This thread is for anyone willing to provide me with raw data regarding AGW, or on the same note anyone who would like to ridicule me for not knowing. I'm really interested in the raw data, thanks in advance for civil discussion.




posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 08:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

I’ll give it a shot.



When did man-made global CO2 be determined to be a factor

The idea that humans increasing CO2 could increase temperature can be traced back to the Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius who in 1896 published his paper ‘On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in The Air upon Temperature’ stating that “if the quantity of CO2 increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression”. Arrhenius’s finding of this apparently regular mathematical relationship between CO2-concentration and surface-temperature has been taken as the basis for the “Arrhenius greenhouse law”.



When did man-made global CO2 output begin being measured

The first measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere I think date back to 1812. Between 1812-1961 there were over 90,000 measurements with a 3% margin-error (Georg Beck 2007) showing CO2 as high as 440ppmv, although some have argued that these measurements are unreliable due to ‘local circumstances’ (Ferdinand Engelbeen 2010). The so-called ‘Keeling Curve’ is usually referenced as the official start of direct CO2 measurements. These measurements started in 1958 at the Manua Loa Observatory in Hawaii and according to Wikipedia the measurements “are made with a type of infrared spectrometer called a capnography”.



When did global temperature mapping begin, and how was this determined

According to Wikipedia’s ‘Temperature Record’ page, “Detailed information exists since 1850, when methodical thermometer-based records began”. Not quite sure what constitutes ‘detailed information’.



I understand our carbon footprint can be recognized in the form of carbon-14 emissions. What is the ratio of carbon-14 emissions to other forms of carbon release?

I am not sure if there are any ‘C14 emissions’ apart from nuclear power plants. C14 is continually produced by the bombardment of cosmic rays in the stratosphere and only makes up a very small percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere. C12 makes up 99% of CO2 molecules and C13 makes up about 1%, with C14 existing in negligible trace amounts. The current C12/C13 ratio shows that there is around 6% of human CO2 residing in the atmosphere today, or about 24ppmv (including any biogenic CO2) with the rest (i.e. 94%) being isotopically indistinguishable from nature.



When did Arctic and Antarctic sea-ice levels begin being recorded

Wikipedia’s ‘Measurement of Sea Ice’ page says “The amount of sea ice coverage in the arctic has been of interest for centuries… There is a longstanding history of records and measurements of some effects of the sea ice extent, but comprehensive measurements were sparse till the 1950s and started with the satellite era in the late 1970s”.



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 08:37 AM
link   
This page explains why there is about 6% human CO2 in the atmosphere today.



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 08:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Nathan-D

Reading a lot right now, thank you for making me find my own sources. This will take a bit.

Starting with this
edit on 13-1-2016 by Vector99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 09:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

Atmospheric C14 levels have been gradually dropping, indicating the presence of more CO2 (ie CO2 is 'diluting' the C14 component of the atmosphere).

Quite how this makes anthropogenic CO2 culpable though I can't imagine.



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 10:03 AM
link   
a reply to: CJCrawley
It's because fossil fuels do not contain 14C. Here's a run through:
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 11:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

Really, you arent supposed to question it.
AGW is settled science and those who deny it are climate terrorists.



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 01:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Yes, i remember you pointing that out on one thread.

Thanks for that.



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 06:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
Ok, so I am on the fence about this whole thing. I see "empirical data" constantly in the form of graphs and representations. I personally don't think manmade AGW is as significant as it is being played up to be. I would like to see those that propose the AGW theory to present the raw data. Not the charts provided by who or whatever, but the actual studies of raw data used to come to current conclusions.


You will find that it's much more complex than you believe. I suggest you read up on the efforts by Richard Mueller.



My questions I would like to pose if anyone would like to answer

-When did global temperature mapping begin, and how was this determined.



globally? Not until the modern period, 1950's and later with direct measurements. Before that, temperature has been directly measured with instruments since 1600's most likely in industrialized areas. They use physical proxies otherwise.

-When did man-made global CO2 be determined to be a factor

1960's, with Keeling's results showing that CO2 is not being fully absorbed by the ocean.

-When did man-made global CO2 output begin being measured

1950's to 1960's as a comprehensive scientific endeavor.

-When did Arctic and Antarctic sea-ice levels begin being recorded

Don't know, but there have been records since the 1800's by ship captains which can be mined for information. In the Arctic, as there has been significnat military value, there probably has been direct measurements pretty systematically.

There is a whole subject on inferring these kinds of values through physical proxies.



This thread is for anyone willing to provide me with raw data regarding AGW, or on the same note anyone who would like to ridicule me for not knowing. I'm really interested in the raw data, thanks in advance for civil discussion.


I think you may want to contact the scientific specialists on paleoclimate and ask, respectfully, how the datasets are constructed. If anything I've written is corrected by the actual experts, then believe them.

Again, you might want to contact Richard Mueller's group---he did a full (years long) re-analysis of raw data from a skeptical initial position, and outside the climatology community. He and co-workers came to the conclusion that the results are confirmed and that humans are primarily responsible.
edit on 14-1-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-1-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 06:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nathan-D
This page explains why there is about 6% human CO2 in the atmosphere today.


and yet CO2 levels in the atmosphere is 40% higher due to human influence, and that's what matters climatically.


edit on 14-1-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 07:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: Nathan-D
This page explains why there is about 6% human CO2 in the atmosphere today.


and yet CO2 levels in the atmosphere is 40% higher due to human influence, and that's what matters climatically.

Well of course that's debatable, but okay.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 12:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nathan-D

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: Nathan-D
This page explains why there is about 6% human CO2 in the atmosphere today.


and yet CO2 levels in the atmosphere is 40% higher due to human influence, and that's what matters climatically.

Well of course that's debatable, but okay.


Which part? The part of being 40% higher? That's experimental fact.

The part about being due to human influence? What's the alternative theory more compatible with facts? (none)

The amount of emissions from fossil fuel is substantially higher than that necessary to to get from pre-industrial level to today, and there is no other source of CO2 which did that, and no reason to suppose any other non-human source would start at the same time and in same magnitude as burning of fossil fuels.

Carbon in the ocean is also increasing from the same source. Molecules are indistinguishable, and so interchange from ocean to atmosphere and biosphere is expected.

The part about climatic influence? The greenhouse effect is also a scientific fact, and existed before human influence on climate.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 02:52 PM
link   



Which part? The part of being 40% higher? That's experimental fact.

The part about being due to human influence? What's the alternative theory more compatible with facts (none)

Both. You would have to read the post in the link above to understand why. All the arguments warmists use as evidence that increasing CO2 is human-induced, from the C12/C13 ratio, to C14 decreasing, to the ice-core data, to CO2 increasing in the oceans, to the mass-balance argument, to the Revelle Factor, etc, are all addresed in that post above quite comprehensively and the evidence points more towards the CO2 increase being natural. You would have to read the post and comprehend it fully into your understanding. Of course, I don't expect that to happen. It's more wishful-thinking on my part. What I do expect is a misguided retort on your part, and me not being bothered to reply.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Nathan-D

Where is the large amount of fossil fuel burnt exhaust in CO2 going?



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join