So there you have it - you've already figured out that natural sinks are somehow connected and coordinated. That implies that it's quite possible, if not probable, that any linear trend in any one of them is driven not by sources, but by some much more complex relationship.
The natural variability is just noise and averages out to 0 over the long run.
What if you've picked something that isn't "the long run":) Like 30 years, when there's a natural cycle of say, 60 years that has a trend:)
You can find any slope you want in a sine wave:)
Trend in the increase of natural sinks means, explicitly, that atmospheric CO2 levels (being what is left over after sources and sinks do their job), is at least one step removed from human CO2 emissions, or sources of any sort. Natural sinks, and the fact that they *react* to changes in sources, means that there is at least one, if not many, degrees of separation between increasing a single source, and seeing its effect in the atmosphere.
This is like saying you get fat because you ate too many calories, rather than you got fat because insulin levels drove your fat cells to accumulate fat.
There's no reason to believe that the natural sinks would have behaved exactly the same as observed (increasing in size) in the absence of human CO2 emissions. There's a reactive system here, that is non linear, and not closely coupled (at least not between the two variables "atmospheric CO2" and "human CO2 emissions").
Yeah, their figure 5 is exactly what I'm talking about - why would the oceans, and other natural sinks decide to increase their uptake of CO2 in seeming response to our emission?
They claim "The share absorbed by the land ecosystems varies greatly from year to year, depending on whether there were widespread droughts, for example, or whether it was a good growth year for the forests."
But it's not just varying from year to year - it's increasing as the years go by. There's a *trend* in the increase on the natural CO2 sinks.
Coincidence? Causation? Reaction? This seems like an open question, don't you think?
Exactly because human emissions of CO2 are so much greater than the increase.
Let's imagine two possible options
1) atmospheric CO2 and human CO2 emissions are uncoupled:
atmospheric CO2 levels would increase the same amount even if humans didn't emit CO2
2) atmospheric CO2 and human CO2 emissions are coupled:
atmospheric CO2 levels would increase more if humans emitted more CO2
The problem is that I think we can exclude #2, since even though humans have emitted more, and more, and more CO2 every year, atmospheric CO2 levels haven't increased in kind - additional CO2 sinks seem to be increasing, offsetting human CO2 emissions.
But ask yourself this question - if humans emitted 100gt of CO2 in 2017, and there were 90gt of new sinks in response, why didn't these 90gt of sinks exist when humans were only emitting 50gt of CO2 in a year?
Obligatory car analogy - you're rolling downhill. You push the pedal to the metal, and the engine revs at 7000, but your speed only increases as if you were revving the engine at 3000, slightly above idle. You push the engine to 14000, but your speed only increases as if you were revving the engine at 3500. You have to imagine that there is a seriously nonlinear and unpredictable relationship between ho much you're revving the engine and how much extra power goes to the wheels, or alternatively, the power going to the wheels is coming from somewhere else.
If there was a one-to-one human CO2 emitted, atmospheric CO2 increase, we'd have a much easier time assigning culpability.
CO2 increases tend to be higher during El Ninos and lower during La Ninas. This may be because the warmer ocean during El Nino events tends to drive more CO2 out of the ocean and vice versa during La Ninas.
I agree wholeheartedly. It aligns well with my suspicion that ocean temperatures have more to do with CO2 levels than any other factor, and that ocean temperatures are primarily driven by a combination of albedo variation (clouds) and deep current patterns.
No, noise by definition averages out to zero over the long run.
I stand corrected, of course you're correct - my argument is that it's possible that the noise to be so great that any signal (specific CO2 emission or otherwise) cannot be discerned. What happens if the noise is so great you need 1000 years to see a warming signal rise above the level of noise?
Anyway, always a pleasure chatting with you - I think it'll be really interesting how the next 30 years plays out:)
Now, I'd love to see the data, but there seems to be nearly zero correlation, even though the slopes are similar. I can't look at that graph and see any obvious tight correlation. You can see the rate of increase (rather than the total c02 in the atmosphere) being used as a metric - and there's a bunch of variation in that rate of increase that doesn't look at all like human emissions.
As far as temperature goes there is natural variability and some human factors that produce noise in the temperature record that is much greater than the year to year increase in forcing.
Which begs the question - maybe natural variability produces more noise than any proposed human effect:)
1) look at your graph again - it's rising, but that rise is definitely not consistent - it changes slope all the time, accelerating significantly at times
2) the keeling curve is also rising, but it is doing so consistently - it does not regularly change slope.
On what basis do you think the various carbon sinks are acting in an inconsistent way? I've never seen any evidence of that. The documented increase of carbon in the various carbon sinks matches well with the human contribution of carbon to the cycle.
Exactly what you said - increases of carbon sinks match human contributions.
The trick is, human contributions are dynamic - they change unpredictably all the time. It's surprising to see carbon *sinks* track that essentially in real time.
If a carbon sink always took 100gt/year, that would be consistent. I wouldn't expect the next year to be 200gt/year.
Or, if a carbon sink took 100gt/year, then the next year took in 110gt/year, then the next year took in 120gt/year, and so forth, that would at least seem consistent, driven by some other factor.
When a carbon sink takes in 100gt/year if humans emit 100gt that year, but then take in 200gt/year when humans emit 200gt that year, and then go back down to 150gt/year when humans emit 150gt that year - well that's just plain freaky. It's almost as if you have a system that doesn't care how much you put in, it will react to it precisely.
Even more puzzling is that CO2 continues on a gentle, consistent rise, despite human variation in emissions. If humans really drove it, you would think you would see plateaus during recessions when our CO2 emissions level off, and an acceleration during massive expansions of industry. But we don't:
Yes, there is a constant dynamic exchange of CO2 between the ocean and the atmosphere
Constant dynamic?:)
Here's the problem I have - using your example:
year 1: human CO2 == 7ppm, atmosphere = +3ppm, ocean +3ppm, soil +1ppm year 2: human CO2 == 10ppm, atmosphere = +3ppm, ocean +4ppm, soil +3ppm
The fact that the ocean, and soil, or other parts of the biosphere are reacting in an inconsistent way (that is to say, a dynamic way), it begs the question - could there be something else driving the atmospheric increase? Could it be that the atmosphere goes to a certain level, and anything left over gets "eaten" by the oceans, soil, etc - which means rather than human CO2 emissions being a cause, they are a completely irrelevant function.
The human emissions of CO2 are easily large enough to account for the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere and the neutralization of the oceans.
That's not the problem. The problem is that human emissions of CO2 are *larger* than enough, and have been getting larger all the time with no appreciable acceleration in atmospheric CO2 levels.
Let's rephrase the thought experiment:
1) assume natural sinks commensurate with the background CO2 level (pick 400ppm) - sinks in sources "in balance" 2) assume we emit enough CO2 in a year to bring the level to 500ppm, but we only see 425ppm 3) assume the natural sinks took up the "missing" 75ppm 4) stop all anthropogenic emissions
Possible outcomes: 1) natural sinks continue to take up 75ppm, atmospheric CO2 ends up at 350ppm, and then the natural sinks stop (implies natural sinks are independent of CO2) 2) natural sinks take up only the "extra" 25ppm, atmospheric CO2 ends up at 400ppm, and then natural sinks stop (implies a buffer independent of natural sinks) 3) natural sinks stop taking up "extra" ppm, atmospheric CO2 stays at 425ppm (implies an immediate adaptation/reaction from natural sinks to the new CO2 level)
In these terms, I think the AGW premise is that #1 is true - but I've never heard of any natural sink that can be triggered by a new CO2 source, and then continue sinking when that source disappears - and we know we've had plenty of times in history where new CO2 sources, even very large ones, have appeared, and we haven't had any sort of elastic bounce down in CO2 levels.
What say you? Does that track?
Once the level of CO2 in the atmosphere stops rising the oceans will start to release it.
The oceans already regularly release CO2 (and regularly sink CO2) - OCO2 has shown that specifically. It doesn't care about the global average CO2 when it releases, it cares about the partial pressure of CO2 over a specific area of water, and the temperature of that water.
So, you believe that given the chance more men would choose to be elementary school teachers, and it's only misandry that keeps them out?
So you give no agency to men or women:)
Fair enough - if you don't believe in free will, nothing I say will make you believe it...unless, of course, you're predestined to believe it because I said something predestined:)
That said, I'm still wondering:
1) have you ever gone through diversity training? 2) can you find any diversity training that admits that differences in representation can come about from free choices?
Men are underrepresented elementary school teaching positions.
If you want to make the argument against free will, and say that all of our preferences are ultimately generated by external influence, I suppose you can go that far, but for the purposes of this discussion of "free", I mean that nobody else has put a systematic barrier in the system against a specific sex.
So, for example, for elementary school teaching positions, I don't think anyone is asserting that men are explicitly excluded, based on their sex, during the hiring process.
The reason we don't assert this is sexism - we assume men have agency, and women don't. Someone who treats men and women with equal respect would not assume that the disparity in elementary school teaching positions is driven by misandry, nor would they assume that the disparity in CEO positions is driven by misogyny.
Now, let me give you a counter example: men are underrepresented in being granted physical custody of children after a divorce when they fight for physical custody.
This is explicitly *not* a free choice - this is the subset of men who are actually *fighting* for physical custody (we exclude the "free choice" males that abandon their children). The reason for this is also sexism - we assume that women are better caregivers than men. No court requires a "custody competition" for the opposing parties to prove the efficacy of their caregiving, and moreover, even when the man is significantly better off and can provide a empirically better living environment (house, school, etc), they still get custody less often. A woman has to be incredibly bad as a parent to lose physical custody - a man simply has to be male.
That said, I'm still wondering:
1) have you ever gone through diversity training? 2) can you find any diversity training that admits that differences in representation can come about from free choices?
I'm not clear on what you mean by natural oxidation of solid carbon sources but if you're talking about things like wildfires and burning coal seams there is some of that but it's still small compared to human sources.
Well, depends on your perspective, of course - these natural processes have been cycling carbon throughout the system, even "old" carbon, for an incredibly long period of time compared to the existence of humanity:)
Initially there would be a bit of drop in atmospheric CO2 because the oceans haven't reached full equilibrium yet.
I don't think you're getting it - you're pretending that CO2 emissions are independent variables from CO2 sinks - the point is that they're not.
Put another way, a buffer solution behaves in the following way:
1) neutralizes acids 2) neutralizes bases 3) remains at the same ph if neither is being added
Now, if you believe that a buffer solution will overshoot it's neutralization, and actually become *more* basic when acid *stops* being added, and will become *more* acid when base *stops* being added, that might behave as you suspect - with independent variables that take time to track each other - but that's not the way it has worked in the real world for CO2. Increases in CO2 sources have *immediately* been reacted to by increases in CO2 sinks. There's no lag in the response.
Now, this is completely separate from whether or not there is an underlying, natural trend in CO2 - caused by temperature, say.
You can also get falling temperatures by injecting aerosols into the stratosphere.
Okay - so if you accept there are natural aerosols in the stratosphere, you've identified yet another natural driver that drives temperature without even considering CO2. I'm not sure if that helps the argument that CO2 is the thermostat.
The oceans don't instantly cool (or warm). They don't instantly adjust to changes in CO2.
You're getting warmer:) The oceans don't change temperature instantly - but they will instantly absorb or release CO2 based on partial pressure.
This kind of thinking leads you down a path where it's ocean temperature that drives CO2, rather than the other way around:)
The supposed 800 year lag between CO2 and temperature has been reduced recently to 100 or 200 years by further research.
Which tends to get me thinking in the direction of temperature changes based on deep ocean currents.
Let's try another thought experiment - writing this out before thinking it all the way through, perhaps you can add some insight....
1) assume a level of plant growth commensurate with the background CO2 level (pick 400ppm) 2) assume we emit enough CO2 in a year to bring the level to 500ppm, but we only see 425ppm 3) assume the plants took up the "missing" 75ppm 4) stop all anthropogenic emissions
Possible outcomes: 1) plants take up 75ppm, atmospheric CO2 ends up at 350ppm, and then plants stop (implies plant growth is now a larger sink independent of CO2) 2) plants take up 25ppm, atmospheric CO2 ends up at 400ppm, and then plants stop (implies a buffer independent of plants) 3) plants stop taking up "extra" ppm, atmospheric CO2 stays at 425ppm (implies an immediate adaptation/reaction from plants to the new CO2 level)
I think we can exclude #1 (since we know that CO2 actually drives plant growth).
I think we can also exclude #3 (since plants should be affected by the extra 225ppm).
Let's put the shoe on the other foot - is there any diversity training course materials you can find that explicitly say "inequality can be caused by bias, and free choices of individuals"?
Have you ever *been* to diversity training before? Perhaps you could share the curriculum from what you've done.
Yes, technically the fossil fuels we dig up and burn are part of the total carbon cycle but they haven't been actively in the carbon cycle for (mostly) hundreds of millions of years.
Neither is the CO2 emitted by volcanoes, or any natural oxidation of of solid carbon sources:)
I don't see how you can say it's not a rough balance when the proportion of carbon in each of the various carbon sinks remains about the same.
That's not a rough balance, that's a dynamic, active biosphere.
If I think of a tub filled with 100 gallons of water, talking about rates of flow, when I pump 1 gallon/second, I expect the water in the tub to increase in volume by 1 gallon a second.
If I don't see any change after I start pumping, I might naively think "oh, maybe it leaks at exactly 1 gallon per second!"
Then I pump 2 gallons/second. Still no change. I go back down to 1/2 gallon/second. Still no change.
Now, I'm seeing something that doesn't care about how much I'm pumping - it's managing the level all on its own. My perturbations of the system have *nothing* to do with the level of water observed.
Imagine for a second, that humans all disappear tomorrow and all anthropogenic CO2 emissions stop. Would you expect that the increasing sinks we've observed during the past 40 years would *stop* sinking CO2, or would we suddenly see a massive drop in CO2 as these recently found sinks eat up all the CO2 in the atmosphere that they've been expecting us to pump in there?
acidification just means the pH is dropping
Only when it's 7 or below:) Until then, you're neutralizing a base:) Respect my pronouns:)
And you totally ignored the part about Milankovitch cycles.
So are you asserting that the only way we can see rising CO2 but falling temperatures is because of natural milankovitch cycles?
Can you explain how that happens? If we have falling temperatures, and more CO2 can dissolve in the oceans, how can CO2 levels rise during these periods? Shouldn't the oceans soak up more CO2 as they cool?
It seems if you believe that the milankovitch cycle drops the temperature, how does the CO2 resist dropping as well, for 800 years?
As we burn fossil fuels and produce carbon dioxide we increase the total carbon in the carbon cycle.
That's not true - the carbon cycle includes carbon from all sources, including natural petroleum products.
There is a rough balance between those things.
That's not true either - there's a dynamic system that is constantly changing and adapting. The natural response to human emissions is a clear example of that.
That doesn't mean adding more carbon to the cycle is a good idea.
Again, the carbon cycle includes carbon from natural petroleum products - but there's no reason to believe that changes in atmospheric CO2 is a bad thing either.
The CO2 in the atmosphere causes global warming and in the ocean it leads to acidification
Well, whether CO2 in the atmosphere is an effect or cause is an open question - and we prefer the term "neutralization" since the ocean is actually basic:)
The natural systems that we humans are utterly dependent on will be strained by these changes maybe to the point of causing our global civilization to collapse.
The natural systems that we humans are utterly dependent on are continually changing, and our global civilization, which leverages the power of cheap energy for the masses, is the hedge that lets us survive the dynamic environment that nature is.
At best it will be expensive to adapt to the changes.
The price of air conditioning is eternal extraction of natural resources for technology and energy:)
There may be a few places like that in those graphs but more often increase CO2 accompanies increased temperatures
A single black swan disproves the "all swans are white" theory:) I don't need to find your falsification criteria everywhere, I just need to find it once:)
I don't know how else you can interpret the statement - it literally says that it is "bias in recruitment, selection, promotion, development, and everyday workplace interaction *creates* inequality". It leaves zero room for "personal choices by free people".
As for a google specific reference, there are many in Damore's filing:
It's an explicit claim in the Google training - and corporate training all over the world - the insistence that disparities in outcome are due to bias against under-represented groups, conscious or unconscious.
The fact that a scientist believes that 10% differences aren't relevant to job performance, career prospects, OR PREFERENCES ON WHAT JOBS AND CAREERS PEOPLE PURSUE, shows a lack of imagination on their part. I suppose if you believe that you can't tell the difference between someone performing at 70% (C average) and 80% (B average), then that might make sense - but if you believe that we can discern that difference, it's clear that that alone can account for the vast majority of disparate representation.
If the yearly human emissions of CO2 are more than twice the year to year increase in atmospheric CO2 levels how can that not be significant in the level of CO2 in the atmosphere?
Actually, you've answered your own question - if atmospheric levels aren't rising as fast as they should given human emissions of CO2, it's obvious that there are dynamic processes that don't care if humans emit 100gt/year, or 200gt/year, and adapt to any change in that source. It *could* be that there is some residual effect, but at this point, there's no evidence that there is any sort of point where the natural climate system doesn't respond dynamically to perturbations in sources (and sinks for that matter).
In the same way a buffer solution neutralizes acids and bases, it's pretty clear to see that our CO2 levels in the atmosphere are likely balanced the same way.
Here's the reference for the 800 year lag in CO2 after temperature: http://joannenova.com.au/globa... There are multiple points on the graph where temp goes down while CO2 goes up.
Again, your quote tracks exactly with Damore - he's reacting to the SJW claim that it's 90% sexism, when in fact, it's individual variation, environment, upbringing, and 10% biological variation.
And their argument, that somehow differences cannot possibly lead to differential in handling stress or leadership positions, in the aggregate, is specious. Their "huge stretch" is "the obvious truth".
Heck, the wired article actually wraps itself into knots trying to discredit Damore:
"In fact, one recurring finding in sex difference research is that in cultures seen as more egalitarian, differences in preferences between men and women become more pronounced. With more opportunity, says one hypothesis, men and women are more likely to follow their respective blisses."
They accept that everything that he cited was true, but then ask the reader to ignore it in favor of their SJW dogma:)
No it's not. The evidence is quoted as being "pretty uncontroversial".
"That said, Damore’s assertion that men and women think different is actually pretty uncontroversial, and he cites a paper to back it up, from a team led by David Schmitt, a psychologist at Bradley University in Illinois and director of the International Sexuality Description Project. The 2008 article, “Why Can’t a Man Be More Like a Woman? Sex Difference in Big Five Personality Traits Across 55 Cultures,” does indeed seem to show that women rate higher than men in neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness."
The claim being made by the authors of those papers is different - they claim his citation of that evidence is "irrelevant":
"But trying to use that data to explain gender disparities in the workplace is irrelevant at best."
That's a completely different argument, and a specious one at best.
Odd, I see transgender as the ultimate in homophobia, insisting that phenotype match standard gender roles. Like in Iran where it's a death sentence to be gay, but if you're trans, it's okay for you to be born with a penis and want to suck on one too, as long as you cut off the penis and start wearing makeup and dresses.
As for women entering the tech industry, it's no problem as long as they can do the work. It's the ones hired simply because of their genitalia, who cannot compete against their peers, that should concern everyone. It demeans women as having any sort of competence or agency, requiring some white knight to give them a leg up, and pollutes the workforce with abjectly unqualified people.
Men and women are inherently different, and given equal opportunities and the freedom to choose, will make different choices based on their personal priorities, which will lead to disparate outcomes. Trying to socially engineering some arbitrary ratio that is predicated on the assumption that men and women have no differences, and that any disparate outcomes must be due to malice, just doesn't fly.
Try making the claim that men are underrepresented in nursing because of rampant sexism against men. Try making the claim that men are underrepresented in elementary school teaching because of rampant sexism against men. Try making the claim that men are overrepresented in workplace deaths because of rampant sexism against men. We don't make these claims because we assume men have agency, and are responsible for their own outcomes.
Slashdot Mirror
So there you have it - you've already figured out that natural sinks are somehow connected and coordinated. That implies that it's quite possible, if not probable, that any linear trend in any one of them is driven not by sources, but by some much more complex relationship.
What if you've picked something that isn't "the long run" :) Like 30 years, when there's a natural cycle of say, 60 years that has a trend :)
You can find any slope you want in a sine wave :)
Trend in the increase of natural sinks means, explicitly, that atmospheric CO2 levels (being what is left over after sources and sinks do their job), is at least one step removed from human CO2 emissions, or sources of any sort. Natural sinks, and the fact that they *react* to changes in sources, means that there is at least one, if not many, degrees of separation between increasing a single source, and seeing its effect in the atmosphere.
This is like saying you get fat because you ate too many calories, rather than you got fat because insulin levels drove your fat cells to accumulate fat.
Yeah, but observation shows that they're not.
There's no reason to believe that the natural sinks would have behaved exactly the same as observed (increasing in size) in the absence of human CO2 emissions. There's a reactive system here, that is non linear, and not closely coupled (at least not between the two variables "atmospheric CO2" and "human CO2 emissions").
Yeah, their figure 5 is exactly what I'm talking about - why would the oceans, and other natural sinks decide to increase their uptake of CO2 in seeming response to our emission?
They claim "The share absorbed by the land ecosystems varies greatly from year to year, depending on whether there were widespread droughts, for example, or whether it was a good growth year for the forests."
But it's not just varying from year to year - it's increasing as the years go by. There's a *trend* in the increase on the natural CO2 sinks.
Coincidence? Causation? Reaction? This seems like an open question, don't you think?
Exactly because human emissions of CO2 are so much greater than the increase.
Let's imagine two possible options
1) atmospheric CO2 and human CO2 emissions are uncoupled:
atmospheric CO2 levels would increase the same amount even if humans didn't emit CO2
2) atmospheric CO2 and human CO2 emissions are coupled:
atmospheric CO2 levels would increase more if humans emitted more CO2
The problem is that I think we can exclude #2, since even though humans have emitted more, and more, and more CO2 every year, atmospheric CO2 levels haven't increased in kind - additional CO2 sinks seem to be increasing, offsetting human CO2 emissions.
But ask yourself this question - if humans emitted 100gt of CO2 in 2017, and there were 90gt of new sinks in response, why didn't these 90gt of sinks exist when humans were only emitting 50gt of CO2 in a year?
Obligatory car analogy - you're rolling downhill. You push the pedal to the metal, and the engine revs at 7000, but your speed only increases as if you were revving the engine at 3000, slightly above idle. You push the engine to 14000, but your speed only increases as if you were revving the engine at 3500. You have to imagine that there is a seriously nonlinear and unpredictable relationship between ho much you're revving the engine and how much extra power goes to the wheels, or alternatively, the power going to the wheels is coming from somewhere else.
If there was a one-to-one human CO2 emitted, atmospheric CO2 increase, we'd have a much easier time assigning culpability.
I agree wholeheartedly. It aligns well with my suspicion that ocean temperatures have more to do with CO2 levels than any other factor, and that ocean temperatures are primarily driven by a combination of albedo variation (clouds) and deep current patterns.
I stand corrected, of course you're correct - my argument is that it's possible that the noise to be so great that any signal (specific CO2 emission or otherwise) cannot be discerned. What happens if the noise is so great you need 1000 years to see a warming signal rise above the level of noise?
Anyway, always a pleasure chatting with you - I think it'll be really interesting how the next 30 years plays out :)
Care to crunch the data on that? Doesn't look nearly as close a fit as I think you're imagining:
https://static.skepticalscienc...
https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...
Here's one that seems to have them side by side:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp...
Now, I'd love to see the data, but there seems to be nearly zero correlation, even though the slopes are similar. I can't look at that graph and see any obvious tight correlation. You can see the rate of increase (rather than the total c02 in the atmosphere) being used as a metric - and there's a bunch of variation in that rate of increase that doesn't look at all like human emissions.
Which begs the question - maybe natural variability produces more noise than any proposed human effect :)
1) look at your graph again - it's rising, but that rise is definitely not consistent - it changes slope all the time, accelerating significantly at times
2) the keeling curve is also rising, but it is doing so consistently - it does not regularly change slope.
It's even worse at matching temperature:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com...
Of course, as pattern seeking animals, we can look at the took curves and say "they look alike", but they really don't correlate that well.
Shall we break out R and see if we can get a few data sets to do some p-hacking? :)
Exactly what you said - increases of carbon sinks match human contributions.
The trick is, human contributions are dynamic - they change unpredictably all the time. It's surprising to see carbon *sinks* track that essentially in real time.
If a carbon sink always took 100gt/year, that would be consistent. I wouldn't expect the next year to be 200gt/year.
Or, if a carbon sink took 100gt/year, then the next year took in 110gt/year, then the next year took in 120gt/year, and so forth, that would at least seem consistent, driven by some other factor.
When a carbon sink takes in 100gt/year if humans emit 100gt that year, but then take in 200gt/year when humans emit 200gt that year, and then go back down to 150gt/year when humans emit 150gt that year - well that's just plain freaky. It's almost as if you have a system that doesn't care how much you put in, it will react to it precisely.
Even more puzzling is that CO2 continues on a gentle, consistent rise, despite human variation in emissions. If humans really drove it, you would think you would see plateaus during recessions when our CO2 emissions level off, and an acceleration during massive expansions of industry. But we don't:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/e...
http://www.freerepublic.com/fo...
Now, note, I'm not arguing humans have zero effect here - but all evidence makes it look like any effect we have is negligible - maybe 1-4% tops.
Constant dynamic? :)
Here's the problem I have - using your example:
year 1: human CO2 == 7ppm, atmosphere = +3ppm, ocean +3ppm, soil +1ppm
year 2: human CO2 == 10ppm, atmosphere = +3ppm, ocean +4ppm, soil +3ppm
The fact that the ocean, and soil, or other parts of the biosphere are reacting in an inconsistent way (that is to say, a dynamic way), it begs the question - could there be something else driving the atmospheric increase? Could it be that the atmosphere goes to a certain level, and anything left over gets "eaten" by the oceans, soil, etc - which means rather than human CO2 emissions being a cause, they are a completely irrelevant function.
That's not the problem. The problem is that human emissions of CO2 are *larger* than enough, and have been getting larger all the time with no appreciable acceleration in atmospheric CO2 levels.
Let's rephrase the thought experiment:
1) assume natural sinks commensurate with the background CO2 level (pick 400ppm) - sinks in sources "in balance"
2) assume we emit enough CO2 in a year to bring the level to 500ppm, but we only see 425ppm
3) assume the natural sinks took up the "missing" 75ppm
4) stop all anthropogenic emissions
Possible outcomes:
1) natural sinks continue to take up 75ppm, atmospheric CO2 ends up at 350ppm, and then the natural sinks stop (implies natural sinks are independent of CO2)
2) natural sinks take up only the "extra" 25ppm, atmospheric CO2 ends up at 400ppm, and then natural sinks stop (implies a buffer independent of natural sinks)
3) natural sinks stop taking up "extra" ppm, atmospheric CO2 stays at 425ppm (implies an immediate adaptation/reaction from natural sinks to the new CO2 level)
In these terms, I think the AGW premise is that #1 is true - but I've never heard of any natural sink that can be triggered by a new CO2 source, and then continue sinking when that source disappears - and we know we've had plenty of times in history where new CO2 sources, even very large ones, have appeared, and we haven't had any sort of elastic bounce down in CO2 levels.
What say you? Does that track?
The oceans already regularly release CO2 (and regularly sink CO2) - OCO2 has shown that specifically. It doesn't care about the global average CO2 when it releases, it cares about the partial pressure of CO2 over a specific area of water, and the temperature of that water.
Is that what you intended to say?
So, you believe that given the chance more men would choose to be elementary school teachers, and it's only misandry that keeps them out?
So you give no agency to men or women :)
Fair enough - if you don't believe in free will, nothing I say will make you believe it...unless, of course, you're predestined to believe it because I said something predestined :)
That said, I'm still wondering:
1) have you ever gone through diversity training?
2) can you find any diversity training that admits that differences in representation can come about from free choices?
Men are underrepresented elementary school teaching positions.
If you want to make the argument against free will, and say that all of our preferences are ultimately generated by external influence, I suppose you can go that far, but for the purposes of this discussion of "free", I mean that nobody else has put a systematic barrier in the system against a specific sex.
So, for example, for elementary school teaching positions, I don't think anyone is asserting that men are explicitly excluded, based on their sex, during the hiring process.
The reason we don't assert this is sexism - we assume men have agency, and women don't. Someone who treats men and women with equal respect would not assume that the disparity in elementary school teaching positions is driven by misandry, nor would they assume that the disparity in CEO positions is driven by misogyny.
Now, let me give you a counter example: men are underrepresented in being granted physical custody of children after a divorce when they fight for physical custody.
This is explicitly *not* a free choice - this is the subset of men who are actually *fighting* for physical custody (we exclude the "free choice" males that abandon their children). The reason for this is also sexism - we assume that women are better caregivers than men. No court requires a "custody competition" for the opposing parties to prove the efficacy of their caregiving, and moreover, even when the man is significantly better off and can provide a empirically better living environment (house, school, etc), they still get custody less often. A woman has to be incredibly bad as a parent to lose physical custody - a man simply has to be male.
That said, I'm still wondering:
1) have you ever gone through diversity training?
2) can you find any diversity training that admits that differences in representation can come about from free choices?
Well, depends on your perspective, of course - these natural processes have been cycling carbon throughout the system, even "old" carbon, for an incredibly long period of time compared to the existence of humanity :)
I don't think you're getting it - you're pretending that CO2 emissions are independent variables from CO2 sinks - the point is that they're not.
Put another way, a buffer solution behaves in the following way:
1) neutralizes acids
2) neutralizes bases
3) remains at the same ph if neither is being added
Now, if you believe that a buffer solution will overshoot it's neutralization, and actually become *more* basic when acid *stops* being added, and will become *more* acid when base *stops* being added, that might behave as you suspect - with independent variables that take time to track each other - but that's not the way it has worked in the real world for CO2. Increases in CO2 sources have *immediately* been reacted to by increases in CO2 sinks. There's no lag in the response.
Now, this is completely separate from whether or not there is an underlying, natural trend in CO2 - caused by temperature, say.
Okay - so if you accept there are natural aerosols in the stratosphere, you've identified yet another natural driver that drives temperature without even considering CO2. I'm not sure if that helps the argument that CO2 is the thermostat.
You're getting warmer :) The oceans don't change temperature instantly - but they will instantly absorb or release CO2 based on partial pressure.
This kind of thinking leads you down a path where it's ocean temperature that drives CO2, rather than the other way around :)
Which tends to get me thinking in the direction of temperature changes based on deep ocean currents.
Let's try another thought experiment - writing this out before thinking it all the way through, perhaps you can add some insight....
1) assume a level of plant growth commensurate with the background CO2 level (pick 400ppm)
2) assume we emit enough CO2 in a year to bring the level to 500ppm, but we only see 425ppm
3) assume the plants took up the "missing" 75ppm
4) stop all anthropogenic emissions
Possible outcomes:
1) plants take up 75ppm, atmospheric CO2 ends up at 350ppm, and then plants stop (implies plant growth is now a larger sink independent of CO2)
2) plants take up 25ppm, atmospheric CO2 ends up at 400ppm, and then plants stop (implies a buffer independent of plants)
3) plants stop taking up "extra" ppm, atmospheric CO2 stays at 425ppm (implies an immediate adaptation/reaction from plants to the new CO2 level)
I think we can exclude #1 (since we know that CO2 actually drives plant growth).
I think we can also exclude #3 (since plants should be affected by the extra 225ppm).
What say you? Does that track?
Let's put the shoe on the other foot - is there any diversity training course materials you can find that explicitly say "inequality can be caused by bias, and free choices of individuals"?
Have you ever *been* to diversity training before? Perhaps you could share the curriculum from what you've done.
Neither is the CO2 emitted by volcanoes, or any natural oxidation of of solid carbon sources :)
That's not a rough balance, that's a dynamic, active biosphere.
If I think of a tub filled with 100 gallons of water, talking about rates of flow, when I pump 1 gallon/second, I expect the water in the tub to increase in volume by 1 gallon a second.
If I don't see any change after I start pumping, I might naively think "oh, maybe it leaks at exactly 1 gallon per second!"
Then I pump 2 gallons/second. Still no change. I go back down to 1/2 gallon/second. Still no change.
Now, I'm seeing something that doesn't care about how much I'm pumping - it's managing the level all on its own. My perturbations of the system have *nothing* to do with the level of water observed.
Imagine for a second, that humans all disappear tomorrow and all anthropogenic CO2 emissions stop. Would you expect that the increasing sinks we've observed during the past 40 years would *stop* sinking CO2, or would we suddenly see a massive drop in CO2 as these recently found sinks eat up all the CO2 in the atmosphere that they've been expecting us to pump in there?
Only when it's 7 or below :) Until then, you're neutralizing a base :) Respect my pronouns :)
So are you asserting that the only way we can see rising CO2 but falling temperatures is because of natural milankovitch cycles?
Can you explain how that happens? If we have falling temperatures, and more CO2 can dissolve in the oceans, how can CO2 levels rise during these periods? Shouldn't the oceans soak up more CO2 as they cool?
It seems if you believe that the milankovitch cycle drops the temperature, how does the CO2 resist dropping as well, for 800 years?
That's not true - the carbon cycle includes carbon from all sources, including natural petroleum products.
That's not true either - there's a dynamic system that is constantly changing and adapting. The natural response to human emissions is a clear example of that.
Again, the carbon cycle includes carbon from natural petroleum products - but there's no reason to believe that changes in atmospheric CO2 is a bad thing either.
Well, whether CO2 in the atmosphere is an effect or cause is an open question - and we prefer the term "neutralization" since the ocean is actually basic :)
The natural systems that we humans are utterly dependent on are continually changing, and our global civilization, which leverages the power of cheap energy for the masses, is the hedge that lets us survive the dynamic environment that nature is.
The price of air conditioning is eternal extraction of natural resources for technology and energy :)
A single black swan disproves the "all swans are white" theory :) I don't need to find your falsification criteria everywhere, I just need to find it once :)
I don't know how else you can interpret the statement - it literally says that it is "bias in recruitment, selection, promotion, development, and everyday workplace interaction *creates* inequality". It leaves zero room for "personal choices by free people".
As for a google specific reference, there are many in Damore's filing:
https://www.scribd.com/documen...
Search for "Bias Busting".
Sure: https://cultureplusconsulting....
"Bias in recruitment, selection, promotion, development, and everyday workplace interaction creates inequality"
{mic drop}
It's an explicit claim in the Google training - and corporate training all over the world - the insistence that disparities in outcome are due to bias against under-represented groups, conscious or unconscious.
The fact that a scientist believes that 10% differences aren't relevant to job performance, career prospects, OR PREFERENCES ON WHAT JOBS AND CAREERS PEOPLE PURSUE, shows a lack of imagination on their part. I suppose if you believe that you can't tell the difference between someone performing at 70% (C average) and 80% (B average), then that might make sense - but if you believe that we can discern that difference, it's clear that that alone can account for the vast majority of disparate representation.
Actually, you've answered your own question - if atmospheric levels aren't rising as fast as they should given human emissions of CO2, it's obvious that there are dynamic processes that don't care if humans emit 100gt/year, or 200gt/year, and adapt to any change in that source. It *could* be that there is some residual effect, but at this point, there's no evidence that there is any sort of point where the natural climate system doesn't respond dynamically to perturbations in sources (and sinks for that matter).
In the same way a buffer solution neutralizes acids and bases, it's pretty clear to see that our CO2 levels in the atmosphere are likely balanced the same way.
Here's the reference for the 800 year lag in CO2 after temperature: http://joannenova.com.au/globa... There are multiple points on the graph where temp goes down while CO2 goes up.
Again, your quote tracks exactly with Damore - he's reacting to the SJW claim that it's 90% sexism, when in fact, it's individual variation, environment, upbringing, and 10% biological variation.
And their argument, that somehow differences cannot possibly lead to differential in handling stress or leadership positions, in the aggregate, is specious. Their "huge stretch" is "the obvious truth".
Heck, the wired article actually wraps itself into knots trying to discredit Damore:
"In fact, one recurring finding in sex difference research is that in cultures seen as more egalitarian, differences in preferences between men and women become more pronounced. With more opportunity, says one hypothesis, men and women are more likely to follow their respective blisses."
They accept that everything that he cited was true, but then ask the reader to ignore it in favor of their SJW dogma :)
No it's not. The evidence is quoted as being "pretty uncontroversial".
"That said, Damore’s assertion that men and women think different is actually pretty uncontroversial, and he cites a paper to back it up, from a team led by David Schmitt, a psychologist at Bradley University in Illinois and director of the International Sexuality Description Project. The 2008 article, “Why Can’t a Man Be More Like a Woman? Sex Difference in Big Five Personality Traits Across 55 Cultures,” does indeed seem to show that women rate higher than men in neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness."
The claim being made by the authors of those papers is different - they claim his citation of that evidence is "irrelevant":
"But trying to use that data to explain gender disparities in the workplace is irrelevant at best."
That's a completely different argument, and a specious one at best.
Odd, I see transgender as the ultimate in homophobia, insisting that phenotype match standard gender roles. Like in Iran where it's a death sentence to be gay, but if you're trans, it's okay for you to be born with a penis and want to suck on one too, as long as you cut off the penis and start wearing makeup and dresses.
As for women entering the tech industry, it's no problem as long as they can do the work. It's the ones hired simply because of their genitalia, who cannot compete against their peers, that should concern everyone. It demeans women as having any sort of competence or agency, requiring some white knight to give them a leg up, and pollutes the workforce with abjectly unqualified people.
Men and women are inherently different, and given equal opportunities and the freedom to choose, will make different choices based on their personal priorities, which will lead to disparate outcomes. Trying to socially engineering some arbitrary ratio that is predicated on the assumption that men and women have no differences, and that any disparate outcomes must be due to malice, just doesn't fly.
Try making the claim that men are underrepresented in nursing because of rampant sexism against men. Try making the claim that men are underrepresented in elementary school teaching because of rampant sexism against men. Try making the claim that men are overrepresented in workplace deaths because of rampant sexism against men. We don't make these claims because we assume men have agency, and are responsible for their own outcomes.
Given women the same respect.