We already know that all of the increase in CO2 is due to humans.
quote:
A drop of the Carbon 12 Carbon 14 ratio of atmospheric CO2. The Suess effect,first observed and accounted for, by Hans Suess in the early 1950s. The Suess effect happens because fossil fuels do not contain Carbon 14 precisely because they are fossil so they are much older than 10 half-lives of Carbon 14.
A drop of the Carbon 13 / Carbon 12 ratio of atmospheric CO2. Because fossil fuels, forests, and soil carbon come from photosynthetic carbon, which is strongly depleted in Carbon 13.
A drop in the oxygen concentration of the atmosphere, the signature of an oxidation of carbon. Were ocean warming responsible for the CO2 increase, we would also observe an increase in atmospheric O2.
And the oceans are becoming more acidic because they're soaking up most of our emissions.
Thanks Cobbly. The .03% figure came from the depths of my memory. The new BBC doc appears to be guilty of many of the same problems that I have with the GW alarmists.
Originally posted by moonbird99: if it is less than 1% what the hell are we woried about?
Moonbird99, first notice how your question was subtly avoided - the pro-AGW 'sex up' the role of CO2 and particularly the so called human contributed CO2.
To show some scale of CO2 in our atmosphere:
Nitrogen 78% Oxegen 21% water vapour between 1% and 4% (highly variable) CO2 0.038%
The CO2 figure is already a very low ratio in comparison to water vapour as a GHG.
If this is too much then where CO2 contribution is concerned they conclude: On balance of available evidence then the current model-estimated range of warming from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide should probably be reduced from 1.4 - 5.8 °C to about 0.4 °C to suit observations or ≈ 0.8 °C to accommodate theoretical warming -- and that's including ΔF of 3.7 Wm-2 from a doubling of pre-Industrial Revolution atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, a figure we suspect is also inflated.
Note the 0.4 - 0.8C is the total CO2 contribution doubling the pre-industrial 280ppmv to 560ppmv the 36% figure quoted is a third increase in CO2 so this temperature range reduces to between 0.133C – 0.266C to represent the increase in temperature from the pre-industrial value to today's.
If all this 36% increase is the human CO2 contribution as the pro-AGW would like everyone believe the actual temp rise is still very small compared to the pro-AGW that try and say the total GHG GW effect amounts to ~0.7C i.e. all the pre-industrial warming.
Also note all the uncertainties not only in the explanation above but this one also: Water vapour: feedback or forcing? .. in fact for any other GW (scientific not political) explanation for that matter and ask yourself would you accept any decision based of such uncertainties?
Originally posted by moonbird99: if it is less than 1% what the hell are we woried about?
Moonbird99, first notice how your question was subtly avoided - the pro-AGW 'sex up' the role of CO2 and particularly the so called human contributed CO2.
To show some scale of CO2 in our atmosphere:
Nitrogen 78% Oxegen 21% water vapour between 1% and 4% (highly variable) CO2 0.038%
The CO2 figure is already a very low ratio in comparison to water vapour as a GHG.
If this is too much then where CO2 contribution is concerned they conclude: On balance of available evidence then the current model-estimated range of warming from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide should probably be reduced from 1.4 - 5.8 °C to about 0.4 °C to suit observations or ≈ 0.8 °C to accommodate theoretical warming -- and that's including ΔF of 3.7 Wm-2 from a doubling of pre-Industrial Revolution atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, a figure we suspect is also inflated.
Note the 0.4 - 0.8C is the total CO2 contribution doubling the pre-industrial 280ppmv to 560ppmv the 36% figure quoted is a third increase in CO2 so this temperature range reduces to between 0.133C – 0.266C to represent the increase in temperature from the pre-industrial value to today's.
If all this 36% increase is the human CO2 contribution as the pro-AGW would like everyone believe the actual temp rise is still very small compared to the pro-AGW that try and say the total GHG GW effect amounts to ~0.7C i.e. all the pre-industrial warming.
Also note all the uncertainties not only in the explanation above but this one also: Water vapour: feedback or forcing? .. in fact for any other GW (scientific not political) explanation for that matter and ask yourself would you accept any decision based on such uncertainties?
CO2 is a tiny proportion of the atmosphere, yet it has well known properties that essentially insulate the earth. Oxygen and Nitrogen do not insulate the earth.
Without CO2 the earth would be below freezing. So it has a very strong greenhouse impact (measured in 10s of degrees).
That said, if you double the CO2, you don't double the warming. Maybe there is an analogy that says if you have no blankets on your bed you are freezing cold, if you have one blanket, you are comfortably warm. If you add a second, you will be warmer still but not twice as warm.
Although man's emissions seem quite small, they build up over the decades, where as the natural cycle is in balance. Eg. if you overspend your income by 5 quid each month, after 10 years you will be 600 quid in debt. That applies whether you earn 50 quid a month or whether you earn 50,000 quid a month.
CH4 and NOx are also important man-influenced gases. Water is the strongest greenhouse gas but is not influenced by man (it hasn't changed in the last 100 years, so can't be a cause of the warming).
Hello Sceptical Yank, CO2 is over 380ppm, pre industrial was 280ppm. it's about a 36% increase so far.
Cobblyworlds, I'm no scientist or mathematician but when I was at school 36% of nothing was nothing! I also recall that "to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" which seems to fit LoveLocks Gaia Theory (Daisyworld) etc. If man has done anything to contribute to CO2 imbalance it is to have cut the trees down and started farming the continental shelves. Lets stop doing that, plant a few forests, start reversing population growth. Things we can really control?
Also, as I noted elsewhere on this forum, thanks to GW they can now sell you light bulbs for £5+ - that is all I need to know !!
Originally posted by Steve_M: CH4 and NOx are also important man-influenced gases. Water is the strongest greenhouse gas but is not influenced by man (it hasn't changed in the last 100 years, so can't be a cause of the warming).
Neither is CO2 the ice core patterns show that. The pro-AGW view has yet to explain why CO2 (if a driver) in the 20th century has risen so dractically yet tempratures have not followed suite as seen in the ice core patterns?
Here's the deal guys. 186 billion tons of CO2 enters the earth's atmosphere every year. Man accounts for less than 7 billion tons of this. Why are we accepting our politicians views on cthe need to curb emissions will be the solution? When we are all back in mud huts there will still be 179 billion tons created from other sources!
The answer is that it is currently in the range of 3% to 5%.
Of that private vehicles contribute about 13%. So driving your car will add 0.65% to the annual global output of CO2. Not this is the annual global output, NOT increase.
Originally posted by Paul C001: Here's the deal guys. 186 billion tons of CO2 enters the earth's atmosphere every year. Man accounts for less than 7 billion tons of this. Why are we accepting our politicians views on cthe need to curb emissions will be the solution? When we are all back in mud huts there will still be 179 billion tons created from other sources!
And where does it all go to (4 aeons worth of the stuff)? The answer to this surely provides the solution to the problem, if it is a problem.
Carbon (in the form of CO2) is continuously exchanged between the atmosphere and oceans, and between the atmosphere and biosphere. Human contributions are about 6% of the total flow, but nearly all in one direction (into atmosphere) and in the case of fossil fuels, from underground where it has not been actively circulated for millions of years. The human contribution is also continuous and increasing fast. The effect on the concentration in the atmosphere is as stated above : about 280ppm before the industrial revolution, about 380ppm now, and increasing at about 2ppm/year.
Remember the effect of other anthropogenic greenhouse gases is sometimes stated as equivalent to extra ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Originally posted by ed gardener: Carbon (in the form of CO2) is continuously exchanged between the atmosphere and oceans, and between the atmosphere and biosphere. Human contributions are about 6% of the total flow, but nearly all in one direction (into atmosphere) and in the case of fossil fuels, from underground where it has not been actively circulated for millions of years. The human contribution is also continuous and increasing fast. The effect on the concentration in the atmosphere is as stated above : about 280ppm before the industrial revolution, about 380ppm now, and increasing at about 2ppm/year.
Remember the effect of other anthropogenic greenhouse gases is sometimes stated as equivalent to extra ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Hi Ed, and at the same time we cut down the rain forests and farm the continental shelves. Pressure of population ? Is that the fix?
The other big problem with the greenhouse effect is if it were happening the troposhere would be warmer then surface temperatures - it is a given if you accept the theory behind the greenhouse effect- and current readings show that the troposphere is cooler than surface temps. So are we being told the whole truth? I just raise the issue for debate by interested parties.
Who cares where CO2 comes from. It is ufortunately not making the world warmer and a warmer world is hardly a problem, rather an overall improvement of the conditions for biological life as we know it on this planet.
Just compare Antarctica with the Amazonas...
All we can hope for is that that great fusion reactor in the sky is turned up a bit so we can get out of this dreadful ice age already. I want to see coconut palm trees on Greenland. If emitting carbon dioxide doesn't help, we better find something that does!
Originally posted by ed gardener: Carbon (in the form of CO2) is continuously exchanged between the atmosphere and oceans, and between the atmosphere and biosphere. Human contributions are about 6% of the total flow, but nearly all in one direction (into atmosphere) and in the case of fossil fuels, from underground where it has not been actively circulated for millions of years. The human contribution is also continuous and increasing fast. The effect on the concentration in the atmosphere is as stated above : about 280ppm before the industrial revolution, about 380ppm now, and increasing at about 2ppm/year.
Remember the effect of other anthropogenic greenhouse gases is sometimes stated as equivalent to extra ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere.
But although their appears to be a correlation in temp/CO2 cycles in the pre-industrial history this anthropogenic CO2 increase in the 20th centry is not being matched by an equivelent rise in temperature. Which suggests that CO2 is not the driver of GW as the pro-AGW lobby would like everyone to believe.
You are using two unrelated numbers. The first is co2 total emissions; the second is carbon. co2 does not equal carbon. From whatI can gather, 220B tons of co2 are emited by natural processes. About 24B tons of co2 (7B in carbon equivalent terms) is emited from the burning of fossil fuels alone. If you add deforestation, livestock, industrial chemical production,... I think I've the most recent estimates show about 40B tons for all human activities. Most natural emissions of co2 have other natural processes that absorb this emission.
quote:
Originally posted by Paul C001: Here's the deal guys. 186 billion tons of CO2 enters the earth's atmosphere every year. Man accounts for less than 7 billion tons of this. Why are we accepting our politicians views on cthe need to curb emissions will be the solution? When we are all back in mud huts there will still be 179 billion tons created from other sources!
Originally posted by ed gardener: Carbon (in the form of CO2) is continuously exchanged between the atmosphere and oceans, and between the atmosphere and biosphere. Human contributions are about 6% of the total flow, but nearly all in one direction (into atmosphere) and in the case of fossil fuels, from underground where it has not been actively circulated for millions of years. The human contribution is also continuous and increasing fast. The effect on the concentration in the atmosphere is as stated above : about 280ppm before the industrial revolution, about 380ppm now, and increasing at about 2ppm/year.
Remember the effect of other anthropogenic greenhouse gases is sometimes stated as equivalent to extra ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere.
But although their appears to be a correlation in temp/CO2 cycles in the pre-industrial history this anthropogenic CO2 increase in the 20th centry is not being matched by an equivelent rise in temperature. Which suggests that CO2 is not the driver of GW as the pro-AGW lobby would like everyone to believe.
While you can not conclude that co2 concentration is irrefutably a cause of temp change, you also can not dismiss it either. With any causal relationship, especially in such large and complex systems, you must account for lagged effect.
Originally posted by Paul C001: The other big problem with the greenhouse effect is if it were happening the troposhere would be warmer then surface temperatures - it is a given if you accept the theory behind the greenhouse effect- and current readings show that the troposphere is cooler than surface temps. So are we being told the whole truth? I just raise the issue for debate by interested parties.
from realclimate.org [Answer - This argument comes from antiquated satellite and weather balloon data that has since been corrected. In 2003, Dr. John Christy, professor at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, published a paper that was the result of almost 25 years’ worth of collected satellite and weather balloon data, which seemed to suggest that not only was there almost no warming, there was possibly even cooling occurring in the tropical regions of the planet. This data also seemed to show a discrepancy between the warming at the surface and in the troposphere. Since that time, other scientists have published papers that served to correct Christy’s data to the point that it basically mirrored that of the predictions of models that most other climate scientists used. As RealClimate says, Christy even admitted as much:
Christy (naturally enough) features in this section, though he seems to have forgotten the US CCSP report, and the executive summary which he authored says, “Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human induced global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies.”
I do not know why Christy would appear on this documentary and make claims that contradict his own corrected research and his own written statements, but that doesn’t matter. What matters is what the data shows, and according to the data, this is yet another false claim.]
Originally posted by jjhs: While you can not conclude that co2 concentration is irrefutably a cause of temp change, you also can not dismiss it either. With any causal relationship, especially in such large and complex systems, you must account for lagged effect.
Even if to accept CO2 is a driver of increases temperaturestThere is a huge difference in accepting CO2 may raise global temperatures and that it is a main cause.
And yes I do understand complex systems even to be able to accept that CO2 could be the result of temperature rise and not the cause - the amount of times that interchange of cause and effect has mislead and fooled analysts.
That aside the ice core patterns are a powerful indicator of a relationship between CO2 and temperature except for the 20th century where CO2 appears to exceed pre-industrial maximums by quite a margin yet temperature has not followed - which says that the hypothesis that CO2 is the driver is wrong - or the 20th century CO2 values are wrong either way it's not good news for the pro-AGW group.
With respect to the effects of CO2 lagging behind this is only really feasible if we were talking about an instantaneous injection of CO2 into the atmosphere, but this is not the case CO2 has gradually increased over the last century by quite a margin and therefore we would have seen a corresponding increase in temperature if it were a driver. As far as I am aware the only lag ever been mentioned is the 600-800 year lag associated with the view that temperature causes a rise is CO2 not the other way around.
