https://climatechangedispatch.com/carbon-isotope-data-undermine-theory-that-humans-are-primary-drivers-of-co2-increases/
Please outline any flaws in this reasoning or conclusions.
The thing about that is… we know roughly how much extra CO2 we produced during the industrial era. We have records of our own activity, it is not as though we are aliens just swooping in now to check things out. We know how much coal and oil we’ve burned, we know how much forest we’ve cleared. Any ballpark estimate of the amount of CO2 so produced is more than an order of magnitude higher than the CO2 that Kotsoiyannis says is attributable to human activity. That should be a big red flag to him that there’s something wrong with his isotopic methodology.
I note that the platform that published this piece, MDPI, is on the list of predatory open access journals.
“MDPI’s warehouse journals contain hundreds of lightly-reviewed articles that are mainly written and published for promotion and tenure purposes rather than to communicate science.”
dv said:
The thing about that is… we know roughly how much extra CO2 we produced during the industrial era. We have records of our own activity, it is not as though we are aliens just swooping in now to check things out. We know how much coal and oil we’ve burned, we know how much forest we’ve cleared. Any ballpark estimate of the amount of CO2 so produced is more than an order of magnitude higher than the CO2 that Kotsoiyannis says is attributable to human activity. That should be a big red flag to him that there’s something wrong with his isotopic methodology.I note that the platform that published this piece, MDPI, is on the list of predatory open access journals.
“MDPI’s warehouse journals contain hundreds of lightly-reviewed articles that are mainly written and published for promotion and tenure purposes rather than to communicate science.”
Yeah I thought that MDPI was probably not the most reliable journal.
ChrispenEvan said:
dv said:
The thing about that is… we know roughly how much extra CO2 we produced during the industrial era. We have records of our own activity, it is not as though we are aliens just swooping in now to check things out. We know how much coal and oil we’ve burned, we know how much forest we’ve cleared. Any ballpark estimate of the amount of CO2 so produced is more than an order of magnitude higher than the CO2 that Kotsoiyannis says is attributable to human activity. That should be a big red flag to him that there’s something wrong with his isotopic methodology.I note that the platform that published this piece, MDPI, is on the list of predatory open access journals.
“MDPI’s warehouse journals contain hundreds of lightly-reviewed articles that are mainly written and published for promotion and tenure purposes rather than to communicate science.”Yeah I thought that MDPI was probably not the most reliable journal.
Looks like you are both correct in your thinking.
Thanks for your comment DV.
One of the people I work for (conspiracy theory nut) trotted this one out on Monday.
I had a look at Koutsoyiannis, seems to be OK in his field of expertise but his tone gets a smidge histrionic when it comes to writing about climate change.
Climate change aside, all the various substances we expel by whatever method into or onto the Earth isn’t good.
It seems to get forgotten that pollution is detrimental regardless of if it warms the planet
This is something we would have known from the onset
ruby said:
Thanks for your comment DV.
One of the people I work for (conspiracy theory nut) trotted this one out on Monday.
I had a look at Koutsoyiannis, seems to be OK in his field of expertise but his tone gets a smidge histrionic when it comes to writing about climate change.
I don’t like to lean too heavily on fault-finding the source. The first paragraph I posted here is really the important one: that’s a doozy of an oversight.
After all I’m not a climatologist or atmospheric physicist either. But the very fact that the great amount of extra GHG during the industrial era is anthropogenic is not controversial among climatologists and atmospheric physicists, so there is no need to give significant weight to a civil engineer posting in an offbrand slipshod platform.From the “about” page of Climate Change Dispatch:
“Our goal is not to change your mind but to share with you all the studies and papers that consistently contradict the theory of CO2-driven global warming. And to have a little fun when we can.”
They are Climate Change Pseudo-Skeptics.
dv said:
The thing about that is… we know roughly how much extra CO2 we produced during the industrial era. We have records of our own activity, it is not as though we are aliens just swooping in now to check things out. We know how much coal and oil we’ve burned, we know how much forest we’ve cleared. Any ballpark estimate of the amount of CO2 so produced is more than an order of magnitude higher than the CO2 that Kotsoiyannis says is attributable to human activity. That should be a big red flag to him that there’s something wrong with his isotopic methodology.
Totally agreed.
And even if it was true that all human CO2 emissions were mysteriously being absorbed, and that the increase in CO2 comes from some unknown natural source that just happens to match the human CO2 emissions in quantity, the only thing we have control over is the human emissions.
So we need to reduce them anyway.
The Rev Dodgson said:
From the “about” page of Climate Change Dispatch:“Our goal is not to change your mind but to share with you all the studies and papers that consistently contradict the theory of CO2-driven global warming. And to have a little fun when we can.”
They are Climate Change Pseudo-Skeptics.
Well at least they are having fun
The Rev Dodgson said:
From the “about” page of Climate Change Dispatch:“Our goal is not to change your mind but to share with you all the studies and papers that consistently contradict the theory of CO2-driven global warming. And to have a little fun when we can.”
They are Climate Change Pseudo-Skeptics.
Other publications by KENNETH RICHARD says it all.
https://notrickszone.com/author/kenneth-richard/
The Rev Dodgson said:
From the “about” page of Climate Change Dispatch:“Our goal is not to change your mind but to share with you all the studies and papers that consistently contradict the theory of CO2-driven global warming. And to have a little fun when we can.”
They are Climate Change Pseudo-Skeptics.
not a bit of hoodoo in that quoted below
“..“Our goal is not to change your mind but to share with you all the studies and papers that consistently contradict the theory of CO2-driven global warming. And to have a little fun when we can.”…”
“…to have a little fun….”
Goodo, you’re not to be taken seriously, we understand.
Climate Change: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
“Carbon dioxide concentrations are rising mostly because of the fossil fuels that people are burning for energy. Fossil fuels like coal and oil contain carbon that plants pulled out of the atmosphere through photosynthesis over many millions of years; we are returning that carbon to the atmosphere in just a few hundred.”
IMO:
the last straw was both Fracking & the Melting of the so called “PERMA Frost”
(the sudden release of Methane into the atmosphere which crossed the Tipping Point)
as for the conversational distraction amounting to Word Salad meant to confuse the issue is
easily explained once you understand the dynamics of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation
(AMOC)
ooops
I was referring to this “Mini Ice Age” bull pucky
the climate deniers toss out there meant to confuse the issue
dv said:
The thing about that is… we know roughly how much extra CO2 we produced during the industrial era. We have records of our own activity, it is not as though we are aliens just swooping in now to check things out. We know how much coal and oil we’ve burned, we know how much forest we’ve cleared. Any ballpark estimate of the amount of CO2 so produced is more than an order of magnitude higher than the CO2 that Kotsoiyannis says is attributable to human activity. That should be a big red flag to him that there’s something wrong with his isotopic methodology.I note that the platform that published this piece, MDPI, is on the list of predatory open access journals.
“MDPI’s warehouse journals contain hundreds of lightly-reviewed articles that are mainly written and published for promotion and tenure purposes rather than to communicate science.”
Last time I checked, the carbon dioxide balance sheet in the atmosphere doesn’t quite balance correctly. Adding up the carbon dioxide produced by humans comes to considerably more than the amount by which the atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing. The defecit should obviously be the sum of carbon dioxide absorbed by plants and the carbon dioxide absorbed by the ocean. The carbon dioxide absorbed by plants ought to balanced by the oxygen released by plants, so the amount of oxygen increase in the atmosphere will tell you the proportion of excess carbon dioxide absorbed by plants and the balance should be absorbed by the ocean.
But I found that the balance sheet doesn’t quite balance. Last time I looked, which was about a decade ago, so I need to go back and look at it again. It could be that there are other sources of oxygen capture or release that don’t involve carbon dioxide that we’re not properly taking into account.
mollwollfumble said:
The carbon dioxide absorbed by plants ought to balanced by the oxygen released by plants, so the amount of oxygen increase in the atmosphere will tell you the proportion of excess carbon dioxide absorbed by plants and the balance should be absorbed by the ocean.
Why should it?
If that was the case, where did fossil fuels come from?
And limestone?
mollwollfumble said:
But I found that the balance sheet doesn’t quite balance. Last time I looked, which was about a decade ago, so I need to go back and look at it again. It could be that there are other sources of oxygen capture or release that don’t involve carbon dioxide that we’re not properly taking into account.
If any human calculated balance sheet balanced exactly it would strongly suggest that all the inputs had been adjusted to ensure that. It’s just too complicated with too many unknowns to get a precise solution.
mollwollfumble said:
These observations make Koutsoyiannis’s paper even more wrong.Last time I checked, the carbon dioxide balance sheet in the atmosphere doesn’t quite balance correctly. Adding up the carbon dioxide produced by humans comes to considerably more than the amount by which the atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing.
Ogmog said:
Climate Change: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide“Carbon dioxide concentrations are rising mostly because of the fossil fuels that people are burning for energy. Fossil fuels like coal and oil contain carbon that plants pulled out of the atmosphere through photosynthesis over many millions of years; we are returning that carbon to the atmosphere in just a few hundred.”
IMO:
the last straw was both Fracking & the Melting of the so called “PERMA Frost”
(the sudden release of Methane into the atmosphere which crossed the Tipping Point)
It seems to me that where it gets mixed up is ones ownership of Responsibility
in as much as they’d only considering the Burning of FOSSIL Fuels which plants
had converted from Co2 into Carbon sequestering it safely out of the Carbon Loop
but overlooking the fact that once it was set free into the atmosphere it increased the
temperature enough to have effected other carbon sinks such as permafrost & methane
hydrates formed from terrestrial run-off that was stored off shore around every continent.
…and while man may not have yet BURNT the “natural” gas released into the atmosphere
by both fracking and drilling, we are never the less responsible for releasing it into the Co2.