You are here: Home > Solar Producer > Solar Producer: Why Are So Many People So Sure Of Themselves About CO2? (3/30/2012)

Peter J March 30, 2012 at 1:50 am

I think you’re on target, but I sure hope you like the title “denier” for noticing some inconsistencies.

Reply

James E March 30, 2012 at 2:16 am

To understand what is happening would require considerable reading on your part to get up to date. So far I have materials starting back in the late 1800s when this movement first separated from the american branch of the anglican church and went on its own way to rule the world and its economy. Some of the materials I have studied over the last 50 plus years are only marginally related works providing background to what is happening and the theological philosophy it is based on. It comprises some 150 books by more than 50 authors to reach the detail of understanding of the problem I currently have and there are gigantic hunks missing that I have not found detail to fill.

So right now my view of the whole picture is like a giant jigsaw puzzle that you can see and understand the picture and what it represents but there are some ragged windows that would have to be filled in to see all the details. To really understand the scope one needs to be a very good historian with broad knowledge of earth and atmospheric science. Want some comprehensive book titles and I will try and oblige. Try these on line books as a sampler to the extent of what is involved.

http://www.nss.org/settlement/ColoniesInSpace/index.html
http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/

Reply

Dawei March 30, 2012 at 2:54 am

“others solar flares, some say it is a cycle of the earth such as ice age”

Who? Any peer reviewed studies which you can provide that say either of those?

The “cycle” that causes ice ages only causes warming if we’re at the end of an ice age. We haven’t been in an ice age for 10,000 years. That cycle has been causing us to slowly cool since then, towards the next ice age.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/207/4434/943

Humans are the main cause of the current increase of CO2. Nature emits more but it also absorbs more, which creates a balance and keeps levels constant. Look at the fluxes, the ocean and terrestrial biosphere absorb and emit roughly equal amounts. Then you have 5.5 Gt/ yr from fossil fuels and 1.6 Gt/ yr from deforestation.This, and only this, causes atmospheric concentrations to rise.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/images/content/174212main_rn_berrien2.jpg

2007 was the 2nd warmest year on record. 2008 was cooler, but this is because temperature is influenced on such short timescales by other factors, like oceanic cycles, solar activity, etc. 2009 is already looking to be much warmer again now that we have switched back into El Nino.
http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-03/pronouncement-global-warming%E2%80%99s-demise-thin-ice

97% of climatologists agree that humans are warming the planet. The debate lies in the extent and the effects; there is very little debate going on in regards to the cause.
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Also, recognize that “theory” in this case does not mean guess. It does not mean it is waiting to graduate to something else. A theory will always be a theory. It just means “a set of facts in their relation to one another”.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory

Reply

bucket22 March 30, 2012 at 3:03 am

“1st Climate change is real but the root cause is debatable. Some proclaim CO2 is the cause, others solar flares, some say it is a cycle of the earth such as ice age, a combination of factors etc. ”

A combination of factors is always the correct answer when looking at very long timescales. Human activities are the primary and now dominant driver in recent decades.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

“2nd Humans are not the main producers of CO2 and greenhouse gases. It has been shown a large majority comes from methane on agricultural farms and other sources such as animal waste.”

CO2 does not come from methane. The increase in atmospheric CO2 is primarily from burning fossil fuels and land use changes. Animal waste from farming does contribute methane to the atmosphere, but that can be considered a human activity.

“3rd If you look at the global temperature you will notice the globe has actually been cooling in the past 3 – 5 years rather than “warming”.”

Not exactly.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

Recently…

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090814_julyglobalstats.html

3-5 years doesn’t tell us much, though. Factors such as ENSO tend to have large influence on such short timescales. Global climate models with greenhouse gas forcing often show much larger time periods of flat or cooling temperatures.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/what-the-ipcc-models-really-say/

Most global warming “skeptism” originates from politics and ideology. Conflicts of interest from large entrenched industries and irrational fear of government solutions is what drives many to reject the scientific consensus.

EDIT

“CO2 vs. Temp – weak”

Huh?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-CO2-Temperature-correlation-over-the-20th-Century.html

But I agree – correlation isn’t causation.

EDIT2

“1st Quoting wikipedia is a very poor source and can be easily manipulated by users. As a grad student wikipedia is not a credible source.”

A Wikipedia entry is as good as its references. Check the references. You can verify that they are quoted accurately. If you’re dead-set against Wikipedia, you can confirm it here:

http://logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htm

EDIT3

“Don’t bust my chops about the website — every assertion/graph/claim is backed by legitimate sources you can readily check at the originating website.”

Great. Then check and post those “legitimate sources” rather than accepting and parroting assertions from political sites. A first red flag can be found by simply noting that their “correlation” is allegedly dervied from using the U.S. temperature record (an area that makes up less than 2% of the Earth’s service), as opposed to the global one. That alone would cause such assertions to fail any legit peer-review from a reputable journal.

EDIT4

“I didn’t parrot anything — I posted the source where I received my information.”

You still haven’t posted those “legitimate sources” you claimed the analysis is backed by. And note that simply posting a link to data doesn’t validate the flawed analysis. I already indicated a glaring flaw which you ignored. How inane is it to claim CO2 isn’t correlated well to global mean temperature and use only the U.S. temperature record as evidence?

“The point is — the science is flawed.”

The arguments that disputes the significant human influence is demonstrably and fatally flawed, in orders of magnitude more than the science itself.

EDIT5

“This was only a question to get information from both sides.”

I’m a bit of a stickler for accurate information, or at least information that is not demonstrably false. It goes well beyond a mere difference of opinion in some cases.

EDIT6

“The following figure compares the PDO+AMO with the US average annual temperatures.”

Now ask yourself why D’Aleo is only comparing U.S. mean temperature, an area that makes up less than 2% of the globe, to CO2. Such would make sense if CO2′s impact was confined to the U.S.. See Dawei’s answer. This is a point you keep ignoring.

“Again — “sound science” it is not.”

Your source is definitely not “sound science”.

EDIT7

“My claim revolves around flawed assertion that there IS a significant human influence w/o the science to back it and a scientific community reaching an overall consensus.”

There’s a strong consensus within the scientific community and science to back the consensus. I strongly recommend sticking to the peer-reviewed science and synthesis reports. If the blogosphere is your thing, be willing to challenge counter-arguments too.

“Again, it’s a HYPOTHESIS at best and the “sound science” argument originates more from those who are aligned to profit in the billions from “green” legislation (namely Gore and his ilk) or ruminating from D.C….those w/ a combined IQ of 110 whose opinions are subject to the mouth-pieces closest to their ears.”

Global warming wasn’t invented by Al Gore. I strongly recommend this book for anyone to obtain a good perspective.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/

“IPCC has openly been criticized for making too many assumptions in their models. Their ‘science’ has been refuted and there has been no counter reply.”

I hope you don’t think your D’Aleo argument is an example of “refutation”. Most arguments I’ve seen against the science have been soundly refuted.

“But we don’t jump from hypothesis to “the science is resolved” when the variables involved w/ climate are infinite (many of which are unknowns — the results of cloud feedback is one example).”

Unknowns are quantified. Cloud feedback, for example, results in bulk of the range of climate sensitivity.

EDIT8

“Since the U.S. is a primary component in the expulsion of CO2, it would seem reasonable to make the measurements closest to the problem and intuitively, it seems like if anything, it would INCREASE the correlation b/n CO2 vs. temp..”

CO2 emitted is not confined to where it’s emitted. It’s dispersed throughout the global atmosphere, and thus affects the globe, not just the United States.

“I’m no climatologist but it would seem reasonable that if the Global temperature was increasing, the localized temperature around the world would be increasing in lock-step.”

Comparing the trends in U.S. temperature and global temperature is in itself a clear refutation of this argument. There are clearly variations from region to region. If the Earth’s surface wasn’t warming, the variations would still exist. Heat does not stay uniformly in one spot. Nonetheless, it would be very easy for D’Aleo to do the correlation analysis on the global mean temperature trend, as Dawei has done, something that doesn’t rely on having to make further dubious assumptions. You might contact him and ask what the R^2 value is for the global mean temperature record. Expect him to dodge your question.

EDIT9

“The conflict of interest that lies w/ Gore is reason enough to remove him from the discussion completely.”

“No, I was talking more about the NIPCC report”

The conflicts of interest from the NIPCC report (not independently peer-reviewed) is enough reason to remove it from the discussion completely. It’s put together by the Heartland Institute, a political organization who have already reached a pre-determined conclusion. This is as anti-science as it gets.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute

“Exactly my point — temperature isn’t confined either so why would it matter if he took his measurements from U.S. Temps vs. say China’s Temps or The global temps? Seems to me if the global temperatures increase, so do the localized ones.”

Examine local temperature trends in various locations over the last century. Compare them to global trends. While positively correlated somewhat, they clearly differ. Thus, your argument is refuted. If you and D’Aleo are so confident about the correlation value, what harm is it to do the correlation for the global mean temperature? It doesn’t require the assumption you’re making above.

Reply

triphip2 March 30, 2012 at 3:44 am

1. Climate change and it’s causes differ depending on the period you’re talking about. Sometimes it’s volcanic activity, sometimes it’s ocean activity, more recently it’s human activity. The root cause may be “debatable”, but the science is pretty clear cut. It’s simple to look at some graphs and make a correlation with human emissions and the warming trend that’s been happening. Pretty convincing if people actually took the time to research it.

2. That methane from “agrictultural farms” you’re talking about… That’s humans work too. Agriculture was created by humans. Those animals producing that methane were domesticated by us. We are just as responsible for that methane as we are for the CO2 from our cars…

3. The globe hasn’t been cooling in the last 3-5 years… It’s been variable, and yes some years were cooler than the one before. But 3-5 years is really irrelevant to the big picture. The climate is suppose to be variable. If 20 years down the line and we are cooling consistantly, then I may entertain that claim. I don’t believe that is going to happen though…

As far as small portions go, the earth works in delicate systems. Small changes can have drastic effects, we see this all the time in environmental sciences. To claim that 7 billion people don’t have much effect on the climate on earth is arrogant in my opinion.

Finally everyone thinks it’s the government that is so involved with all this… Scientists have been warning about this phenomena for years, it is only recently that the government has been getting involved. The claim that this is some sort of government conspiracy is outrageous, not to mention it has absolutely no credibility.

I don’t usually give sources because I like to debate these things from my knowledge alone. But this source about myths and facts about global warming is fairly accurate, and answers a lot of questions I have seen in this section of yahoo answers… I encourage people to navigate the page to find out more information on this subject. This is science. Not a government conspiracy, not a liberal wet dream, it’s pure science just like gravity and genetics. It just hasn’t been around long enough to weed out people that want to deny what they consider to be “bandwagon science”. All of the theories of the past had to go throught this same thing, however. Just look at how long it took for people to accept the fact that the earth is round… Same scrutiny when E=Mc^2 came out, same when gravity came out.

Reply

D.C. March 30, 2012 at 4:10 am

IT’S ONE OF THE LATEST BANDWAGONS TO JUMP ON —-AND YOU KNOW SHEEP WILL FOLLOW ANY LEADER GOOD OR BAD —-RIGHT OR WRONG ——OBAMA PLANS ON TAXING THE HELL OUT OF US ON THE CARBON CAP —–IT’S A WAY OBAMA AND THE COMMIE DEMOCRATS CAN INSTALL A BIG BROTHER GOVERNMENT TO CRAM ANY AGENDA THEY WANT DOWN YOUR THROAT IN THE NAME OF HELPING OUR PLANET AND MAKING YOU SOUND LIKE A HEEL IF YOU SPEAK AGAINST THE B.S. THEY ARE UP TO —–BY 2010 EVERY AMERICAN HAD BETTER GET THERE HEAD OUT OF THERE TAIL-FEATHERS AND VOTE EVERY DEMOCRAT OUT THEY CAN BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE ——AFTER THAT THE ONLY RECOURSE IS A CIVIL ARMED UPRISING TO TAKE BACK OUR COUNTRY FROM THE TYRANTS AND PUT OUR COUNTRY IN THE HANDS OF PATRIOTS TO RUN .

Reply

jim z March 30, 2012 at 4:12 am

I am not sure how accurate the estimates are about human emissions of CO2 but I assume they are probably exaggerated and discount things such as not taking into account CO2 produced from agricultural land versus what whould have been produced naturally. In addition, natural outgassing of CO2 and methane is probably underestimated. That being said, it seems to me that human emissions of CO2 would still have increased the concentration more than 100 ppmV in the last 100 years except that it was apparently absorbed by the ocean. That doesn’t alarm me as it does some alarmists. They cry acidification. I assume it probably simply results in more carbon compound precipitation, sedimentation, and storage in natural carbon sinks. I don’t think humans are causing significant warming but I do think we have caused significant CO2. There are negative and positive effects. I agree, the effects of CO2 are largely unknown at this time.

Note: I am probably one of the few actual scientists here. Dana, aka Paul, etc are generally pretty clueless about science in general. You will find that these types are extremely politically motivated, (extreme leftists), hence the downarrows.

Reply

Obamanable Faux Man March 30, 2012 at 4:49 am

There is no clear-cut science — the variables are great and models inadequate. AGW is a hypothesis at best.

And for the guy who talks about warming only occurs after an ice-age…10,000 years is a drop in the bucket considering the length of climate variations in the past — WE HAVE BEEN coming out of an ice-age.

Correlation b/n:
CO2 vs. Temp – weak = r^2 approx. 0.44
temp vs. Solar Irradiation – strong
temp vs. Oceanic Oscillators – strong = r^2 approx. 0.85

Certainly correlation doesn’t imply causation but it surely paints a different picture than the one being touted.

We can throw around static numbers all you like — the fact remains, nobody knows and to claim “sound science” is naive at best.

It’s a noble cause to clean up the atmosphere — but lets do it for the right reasons…not junk science. Lots of money to be made w/ Cap & Trade and “GREEN” technology.

Edit:
“everyone thinks it’s the government that is so involved with all this… Scientists have been warning about this phenomena for years, it is only recently that the government has been getting involved. The claim that this is some sort of government conspiracy is outrageous, not to mention it has absolutely no credibility.”

Was this before or after the great ice-age “freeze to death” scare of the 70′s?

The fact that the Government is pushing the agenda when it’s clear the science is incomplete speaks volumes. No reproducible results — no scientific consensus — no consensus on the direction of our climate…”sound science” is a marketing slogan, not an objective assessment of the issue.

Edit:
C02 vs. Temp – weak “goodness of fit” in regression r^2=.44
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/PD…

Don’t bust my chops about the website — every assertion/graph/claim is backed by legitimate sources you can readily check at the originating website.

EDIT:

“Don’t bust my chops about the website — every assertion/graph/claim is backed by legitimate sources you can readily check at the originating website — Great. Then check and post those “legitimate sources” rather than accepting and parroting assertions from political sites.”

I didn’t parrot anyone — I posted the source where I received my information. Your attempt to discredit that information based upon the site I posted is either:
1. You being lazy
2. Disheartening b/c it discredits your beliefs and you don’t want to jump through a few hoops to hit a website like Nasa’s — Hawaii’s Institute where they actually take the CO2/temp readings — the University of Washington where the Dr. who created the PDO still works/teaches — the IPCC models where they received their information.

Here’s a breakdown “in a nutshell”. If this interests you, which it should, then you can follow the links. If not, maybe I’m not the one being political here?

http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW…

The point is — the science is flawed. I wonder in which class they taught that “reproducible results” actually meant emotional leaps of faith, concealed data under lock & key and the inability of proponents and skeptics to discuss their claims, and concerns, as a scientific community rather than adopting an either/or mentality. Seems to me the either/or mentality is a political one.

Edit:
“You still haven’t posted those “legitimate sources” you claimed the analysis is backed by. And note that simply posting a link to data doesn’t validate the flawed analysis. I already indicated a glaring flaw which you ignored. How inane is it to claim CO2 isn’t correlated well to global mean temperature and use only the U.S. temperature record as evidence?”

The sources are within the website — if you fail to open the link and look for yourself, that’s not my prob-bob.

“The following figure compares the PDO+AMO with the US average annual temperatures. D’Aleo calculated an r-squared of 0.85 between the two – an extremely good correlation.The next figure compares the same temperature data with atmospheric CO2. D’Aleo calculated an r-squared of 0.44 between the two – a fair correlation, but poor in comparison to the PDO+AMO correlation. Although correlation does not prove causation, lower correlation is evidence of lower probability of causation.”

“Weak” = Fair

Lots of variables included in temperature — PDO+AMO seems to be more of a factor than C02 by a long shot. And as I stated before, correlation doesn’t imply causation…it could very well be that CO2 has very little effect on temperature and the “weak correlation” over the past 100 years could be coincidence. Maybe the real culprit is the variations found in the oceans?

Again — “sound science” it is not.

“The arguments that disputes the significant human influence is demonstrably and fatally flawed, in orders of magnitude more than the science itself.”

Yes — and that’s not my claim. My claim revolves around flawed assertion that there IS a significant human influence w/o the science to back it and a scientific community reaching an overall consensus. Again, it’s a HYPOTHESIS at best and the “sound science” argument originates more from those who are aligned to profit in the billions from “green” legislation (namely Gore and his ilk) or ruminating from D.C….those w/ a combined IQ of 110 whose opinions are subject to the mouth-pieces closest to their ears.

IPCC has openly been criticized for making too many assumptions in their models. Their ‘science’ has been refuted and there has been no counter reply. Instead, those proponents of AGW have acted as steam-rollers whose sole purpose is to discredit the skeptics — not unlike the politics taking place in D.C. right now. Is AGW a legitimate hypothesis? Absolutely. But we don’t jump from hypothesis to “the science is resolved” when the variables involved w/ climate are infinite (many of which are unknowns — the results of cloud feedback is one example).

Edit:
“Bucket already pointed out to you that the correlation is using US temperatures. Don’t you think that’s a bad idea? ”

I’m not sure I understand the difference. If the GLOBE acts like a greenhouse, what’s the difference if I take average mean temperatures in the center of the greenhouse or at the back by the tulips? Seems to me the heat w/in the greenhouse would be disseminated evenly throughout the entire structure/system. Certainly there’s a strong correlation b/n the heating/cooling of the entire globe. Unless of course there are other variables at work isolating increased temperatures to certain areas not affecting the U.S.? Since the U.S. is a primary component in the expulsion of CO2, it would seem reasonable to make the measurements closest to the problem and intuitively, it seems like if anything, it would INCREASE the correlation b/n CO2 vs. temp.. I’m no climatologist but it would seem reasonable that if the Global temperature was increasing, the localized temperature around the world would be increasing in lock-step.

Edit:
“There’s a strong consensus within the scientific community and science to back the consensus. I strongly recommend sticking to the peer-reviewed science…”

A strong skepticism also persists and can be found in peer-reviewhttp://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?… science. Seems to me if another scientist agrees with you, you can damn near publish anything and call it “Sound”.

“Global warming wasn’t invented by Al Gore.”

The conflict of interest that lies w/ Gore is reason enough to remove him from the discussion completely. Yet D.C. seems to take his gibberish as fact.

“I hope you don’t think your D’Aleo argument is an example of “refutation”"

No, I was talking more about the NIPCC report — the challenges against the hockey-stick graph — the lawsuits being waged against AGW folks (John Coleman) — the growing belief that the earth is cooling regardless of the increases in CO2 expulsion — the growing ice shelf in the Antarctic and dwindling shelf in the Arctic consistent w/ the PDO, etc. etc.. Plenty of new developments to entertain. Maybe they’re worked into AGW? Who knows…again, that’s the point.

“Unknowns are quantified.”

Up to this point, they’ve been quantified negatively (IPCC)…an assertion that’s also being challenged.

Would love to continue the discussion but it’s time to learn some Spanish. Feel free to write me a short e-mail if you’d like to continue. I’ll respond w/ my e-mail address and an answer (if I have one?).

I’ll check out the book you recommended. Thanks all for keeping the discussion a civil one…a welcomed departure from typical YA! debates.

LAST Edit:

“CO2 emitted is not confined to where it’s emitted. It’s dispersed throughout the global atmosphere, and thus affects the globe, not just the United States.”

Exactly my point — temperature isn’t confined either so why would it matter if he took his measurements from U.S. Temps vs. say China’s Temps or The global temps? Seems to me if the global temperatures increase, so do the localized ones.

“You might contact him and ask what the R^2 value is for the global mean temperature record. Expect him to dodge your question.”

Haha — certainly. Will look at Daw’s regression later. For now, espanol.

Thanks for the fruitful discussion.

Reply

ixtasis March 30, 2012 at 5:13 am

The U.N. has put a lot of energy into making the case for anthropogenic global warming. The government has learned to use the psychological manipulations of Edward Bernays to force their agenda. The Kyoto Protocol has prevented 3rd world countries from developing economically feasible sources of energy, giving developed nations the ability to dominate resources.

Belief in anthropogenic global warming is justification for a global carbon tax.

REGARDLESS,

if you believe co2 levels drive global climate change, then aren’t you morally obligated to become vegan?

“Much of livestock’s contribution to global warming come from deforestation, as the growing demand for meat results in trees being cut down to make space for pasture or farmland to grow animal feed. Livestock takes up a lot of space — nearly one-third of the earth’s entire landmass. In Latin America, the FAO estimates that some 70% of former forest cover has been converted for grazing. Lost forest cover heats the planet, because trees absorb CO2 while they’re alive — and when they’re burned or cut down, the greenhouse gas is released back into the atmosphere.”

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1839995,00.html

Reply

Keith P March 30, 2012 at 5:45 am

FIRST POINT:
The causes of climate change are many, but the cause of the Current climate change, the warmth we’re in now, is primarily anthropogenic greenhouse gases (mostly CO2, but also methane and nitrous oxide). Natural causes have been looked at closely, and have been disproven.

1. Ice ages, and interglacial periods, are triggered by small changes in Earth’s orbit called Milankovitch cycles by astronomers, which cause what climatologists call “orbital forcing” of the climate. But Earth’s orbit can be accurately predicted for thousands of years into the past and future. Therefore we know that orbital forcing peaked in the Holocene Maximum, about 6000 years ago, and has been slowly cooling the planet since then.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/207/4434/943

2. If the Sun is causing the current warmth, then we’re getting more energy, and the whole atmosphere should be getting warmer. If it’s greenhouse, then we’re getting the same amount of energy, but it’s being distributed differently: more heat is trapped at the surface, and less heat is escaping to the stratosphere. So if it’s the Sun, the stratosphere should be warming, but if it’s greenhouse, the stratosphere should be cooling.

In fact, the stratosphere has been on a long-term cooling trend ever since we’ve been keeping radiosonde balloon records in the 1950′s. Here’s the data:
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadat/images/update_images/global_upper_air.png

3. If it’s the Sun, we’re getting more energy during the day, and daytime temperatures should be rising fastest. But if it’s greenhouse, we’re losing less heat at night, and nighttime temperatures should be rising fastest.

In fact, minimum nighttime temps have risen about twice as fast as maximum daytime temps during the last 100 years. Here’s the data:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/gcag/GCAGdealtemX?mon1=1&monb1=1&mone1=12&bye1=1880&eye1=2006&graph=Lineplot&klu=1&dat=GHCNX&mon2=00&bye2=00&eye2=00&mon3=00&ye=00&param=Temperature&proce=80&puzo=0&ts=6&non=1&begX=0&begY=0&endX=71&endY=35&sbeX=0&sbeY=0&senX=71&senY=35

4. Total solar irradiance has been measured by satellite since 1978, and during that time it has shown the normal 11-year cycle, but no long-term trend. Here’s the data:
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/solarda3.html

5. Scientists have looked closely at the solar hypothesis and have strongly refuted it. Here’s the peer-reviewed science:
http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf

6. CO2 levels in the air were stable for 10,000 years prior to the industrial revolution, at about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv). Since 1800, CO2 levels have risen 38%, to 385 ppmv, with no end in sight. Here’s the data:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3006/2615754069_97bee84a0d_o.png

7. We know that the excess CO2 in the air is caused by burning of fossil fuels, for three reasons. First, because the sharp rise in atmospheric CO2 started exactly when humans began burning coal in large quantities (see the graph linked above); second, because the atmosphere’s gain in CO2 is mirrored by an identical decline in atmospheric O2, as would be expected from carbon burning; and third, because when we do isotopic analysis of the CO2 we find increasing amounts of “old” carbon combined with “young” oxygen. Here are the peer-reviewed papers:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984JGR….8911731S
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mksg/teb/1999/00000051/00000002/art00005
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/256/5053/74

The carbon in animal methane is taken from the air to begin with (via plant growth), so there can be no net long-term CO2 increase from that source. Only buring of fossilized carbon can explain the rapid increase of carbon in the air.

Not only has this been proven true using isotopic analysis, but it is also the only way to explain the fact that atmospheric oxygen has been declining at the same rate that atmospheric carbon dioxide has been rising. That means O2 is becoming CO2 — so where is the extra carbon atom coming from? Considering that the total mass of carbon in the biosphere is about a third of the total mass of carbon in the atmosphere, and that carbon in the atmosphere has increased by 38% since 1750, that increase would have depleted the entire biosphere by now, if it were a biosphere source.

Third, it’s very odd that you start by accepting completely that the climate is changing, then end by denying it. It’s also odd that you invoke natural climate change constantly in the first two paragraphs, yet manage to ignore it entirely in the third. You can’t judge what the climate is doing by looking at five years or even ten years. You have to take a long term view. Here’s a long term view: 2008 was the tenth-warmest year on record, i.e., it was a top-ten year for warmth. And, 2008 was the twenty-third year in a row when we have had a top-ten year for warmth. The last time we had a top-ten coolest year was 1912. That’s the long view. That’s global warming. That’s climate change.

Reply

Didier Drogba March 30, 2012 at 6:04 am

2007 was the second warmest year on record??????

Huh?

Reply

andy March 30, 2012 at 6:40 am

The biggest reason is that most of the sites that I have seen from the AGW crowd puts all green house gases but water vapor under the man made side. They don’t break it down between natural and man made so it looks like man’s input is more than it really is. I have seen a site link to a West Virginia University report showing how much of each gas is caused by man, what the concentrations are, and the effect of this gas.

What I like is some of the newest IPCC reports and other scientific reports that show if we reduce CO2 by 80% we will drop it below the baseline of 280 ppm by 60 ppm.

Got to love the people who bring up peer reviewed reports or articles. These people think that a peer reviewed report is indisputable evidence. It is not, it just means that people with similar ideas agree with what has been wrote. Some scientists have actually asked for the data that other scientists have used to create these reports and were told that they can’t have it. If another scientist can’t recreate your report with your information then it is not correct. By withholding this information you do not allow others to verify the claims made.

Reply

Dr Jello Doctor of Science March 30, 2012 at 7:05 am

co2 has increased such a small amount that it shouldn’t even be considered as a cause for anything. Co2 has increased from 0.03% concentration in the atmosphere to 0.04% concentration in the atmosphere or a scant 0.01% increase over the last 100 years.

This would be like giving someone who makes $ 100,000/yr a $ 10/yr raise.

Reply