Reply To: Cap and Trade

[HermannH]

Brian. In an earlier post I stated this:

HermannH wrote:
… CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have risen from 320 ppm to 380 ppm in the last 50 years alone. These are actual measurements not predictions or speculation. The pre-indusrial level has been estimated to have been around 280 ppm. The oceans also absorbed a significant amount of CO2 in that time frame. That is a 20% increase since 1960 and I don’t think that anybody seriously disputes the numbers nor the claim that the lion share (if not all) of the increase is the result of human activity. This number is 160 times higher than your stated value of 0.125% human contribution (unless you only count the air that we exhale). In the graph you can also see that seasonal swings are much smaller than the long term trend and diurnal variations are invisible. Where do your numbers come from? ….

From your subsequent quotes I have gathered that you fundamentally dispute the above statement. Let me try to paraphrase your beliefs as I understand them now:

The daily and seasonal flux back and forth of CO2 between air/ocean/biomass is so huge that the comparatively tiny flux from human activity can’t possibly make a difference. Therefore, the observed 20% CO2 increase in the atmosphere is the result of a (temporary?) fluctuation of that naturally occurring exchange.

If this interpretation does not reflect your views please set the record straight. If, on the other hand, it is a fair representation I hope you are aware enough of the global climate change discussion to realize that your view is not the generally accepted one.

In order to have a meaningful conversation you have to start from some common ground. If two people can’t agree that 2+2=4 there is no point in starting a discussion about higher algebra.

In my initial statement I presented what I thought was ‘common ground’. I even specifically stated that I thought it was ‘common ground’.

Instead of clarifying that you disagree with what I presented as a basic assumption your response was:

Brian H wrote:
The numbers don’t even begin to add up. The hooman output in toto is a minute fraction of that change in concentration. And the lab results don’t reflect atmospheric dynamics. …

And I was left scratching my head, wondering ‘what the heck does he mean?’ When I asked for clarification the response was this:

Brian H wrote:
3.5% of GH gas is CO2. 3.5% of CO2 fluctuation is hoomon (as the Ferengi say it) output. 3.5% of 3.5% is 0.125%. All covered in earlier posts.

Again: ‘What the heck… ‘

I went on a wild goose chase on the Internet and through dozens of your earlier posts on this forum trying to reconstruct where you are coming from. It took all this, two posts from Eric and another two from you until I finally began to understand your views on changes in CO2 levels in the atmosphere. At least I believe I understand them now; and it takes two sentences to summarize them.

So why the hell did you not clarify your (very unconventional) position from the start?