No Evidence That Global Warming is manmade

Ok...the claim made by speaker is worse than that of melatonin...

CO2 levels do not exist "mainly from breathing".... The oceans are the major regulators of CO2, then "decay" from plants, animals and bacteria, forest fires, volcanoes, all of which are natural factors, then anthropogenic CO2, and the last and least important is exhaled CO2...

Please do us a favor and if you are going to make any claims about a topic do some research first, thank you.

Originally posted by Muaddib
If anyone is "obfuscating" the topic it is you...

This is supposedly your infallible math calculation...

If we take Ramanathan & Coakley's figures, 12% of the GE effect remains when CO2 is removed. Just for CO2, the human contribution to the current GE is well over 0.28%. The current rise in CO2 is predominately anthropogenic, making it about 26% of current CO2 forcing.

0.26 x 12 = 3.12%

The rise of CO2 in the last 150 years has been 0.01%, and most of it is not anthropogenic in origin...

I really would like to know from where did you pulled the 26% anthropogenic CO2....

Are you really trying to claim that the 25% CO2 increase since 1850 is all anthropogenic?... BS.... prove it...

OK, I'll try.

The first thing to note is that the oceans are taking up CO2, they are becoming more acidic becuase of this. So we know they are not the source of the CO2 increase. Otherwise they would be losing CO2.

We have burned enough fossils fuels and cleared enough forests etc to take the atmospheric concentration to around 500ppm. The extra has been taken up by the biosphere (oceans & other), as they are sinks. Quibble about those numbers if you like, that's not the important stuff.

1. Decline of the 14-C/12-C isotope ratio. We are seeing an increase in 12-C in the atmosphere. Fossil fuels do not contain 14-C.

2. Decline of the 13-C/12-C isotope ratio. We are seeing an increase in 12-C. Fossil fuels and other biological sources (photosynthetic) of CO2 contain little 13-C.

3. Decline on the oxygen content of the atmosphere. Due to oxidation of C.

These are clear fingerprints of human activity.

Science 22 June 2001:
Vol. 292. no. 5525, pp. 2261 - 2263
DOI: 10.1126/science.1061077
CLIMATE CHANGE:

Enhanced: Where Has All the Carbon Gone?
Steven C. Wofsy [HN14] *

Emission rates of CO2 [HN1] from combustion of fossil fuel have increased almost 40 percent in the past 20 years, but the amount of CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere has stayed the same or even declined slightly [HN2]. The reason for this discrepancy is that increasing amounts of anthropogenic CO2 are being removed by forests and other components of the biosphere (1) [HN3].

Science 2 November 2001:
Vol. 294. no. 5544, pp. 1012 - 1013
DOI: 10.1126/science.1065307
Prev | Table of Contents | Next

Perspectives
CLIMATE CHANGE:
Storing Carbon on Land
R. J. Scholes and I. R. Noble*

Each year, about 120 PgC (1 PgC = 1015 g of carbon) is exchanged in each direction between terrestrial ecosystems and the atmosphere; another 90 PgC is exchanged between ocean and atmosphere. For comparison, 6.3 PgC is emitted by burning fossil fuels, about half of which is taken up again by the biosphere within years to a decade (1). This net uptake, or "sink," is currently fairly evenly split between land and ocean, but the uptake processes are different, as are projected future behaviors of the two sinks.

The ocean sink is projected to increase from the current 1.7 ± 0.5 PgC/year to around 5 PgC/year by 2100 (2). The land, believed to have been a net carbon source before 1950, is currently a net sink of 1.4 ± 0.7 PgC/year. Given that deforestation is thought to be a source of 1.6 PgC/year, the land not undergoing deforestation must be a sink of 2 to 4 PgC/year (3). Models project that the land sink excluding deforestation will increase to around 5 PgC/year by 2050 and then level off or decline, possibly steeply (4).

Science 10 January 2003:
Vol. 299. no. 5604, pp. 235 - 239
DOI: 10.1126/science.1077429
Prev | Table of Contents | Next

Reports

Anthropogenic CO2 Uptake by the Ocean Based on the Global Chlorofluorocarbon Data Set
Ben I. McNeil,1* Richard J. Matear,2 Robert M. Key,1 John L. Bullister,3 Jorge L. Sarmiento1

We estimated the oceanic inventory of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) from 1980 to 1999 using a technique based on the global chlorofluorocarbon data set. Our analysis suggests that the ocean stored 14.8 petagrams of anthropogenic carbon from mid-1980 to mid-1989 and 17.9 petagrams of carbon from mid-1990 to mid-1999, indicating an oceanwide net uptake of 1.6 and 2.0 ± 0.4 petagrams of carbon per year, respectively. Our results provide an upper limit on the solubility-driven anthropogenic CO2 flux into the ocean, and they suggest that most ocean general circulation models are overestimating oceanic anthropogenic CO2 uptake over the past two decades.

The biosphere is acting as a sink for anthropogenic CO2. What it can't take up accumulates in the atmosphere.


I'll let your new fave contrarian, Lindzen (he is a little more credible than others), point it out for you:

There is good evidence that man has been responsible for the recent increase in CO2, though climate itself (as well as other natural phenomena) can also cause changes in CO2.

www.publications.parliament.uk...

Now don't be getting excited about the latter part of the statement, I agree with it as well. Other natural phenomenom can cause increases in atmospheric CO2, however, he doesn't suggest this is the cause of the recent increase, he says there is good evidence man is responsible.

So, are we agreed that man is predominately responsible for the current increase in CO2?

If so, I'll go for 95% of the current increase, then we'll work from that, it would be 95ppm. Then that would make the calculation:

95/383 x 12 = 2.98% increase in GE due to human activity, minimum.

Lets not forget we are using the lower end CO2 attribution for GE. We could have up to 26%.

This would be 95/383 x 26 = 6.45% minimum.

So, we have 2.98% to 6.45% of the GE for human activities for CO2. This is just rough, I admit that. But we are an order of magnitude above the disinforming 0.28% provided by the Kansas dudes.

Where am I wrong?

......

I'm not going to answer everything at this point, I'd like to focus on a point at a time. When we've sorted this, we'll move on to Roger Pielke Sr's comment on the tropics.

[edit on 12-4-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by TheAvenger
Briefly, in my opinion, There is no proof that compels me to believe that CO2 is a driving mechanism for climate change. All things considered, IF global warming has had any anthropogenic causation, I decided it is at most 1/3 the usual value of 0.6 degrees C or a 0.2 degrees C rise over the past century. There is no crisis.

FAREWELL.

Glad to see you have come round to the idea that we may be having at least some effect.

Whether there is a crisis is a pretty much open question. The only way to know this is to make predictions using the knowledge we have, and scientists are trying to do this. But we have people just saying this science is 'insufficient' or 'garbage'.

No-one proposes the models are perfect, or that we know everything about the dynamics of the climate system, far from it. But at least people are trying to acquire more understanding and use the knowledge we do have.

Anyway, cheers for the discussion. Take care

[edit on 12-4-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by Muaddib


Now, since in the stratosphere the contribution of total heating of carbon dioxide is higher than that of water vapor, the conclusion would be that there should be more warming in the stratosphere than in the troposphere right?... Well, is that what we are seeing "melatonin"?....

i had a discussion on the topic a while ago, but it looks like this base is covered somehow, see

www.abovetopsecret.com... and following posts for more


===============================================

Originally posted by melatonin
I think I said earlier that clouds have both reflective and absorbant properties. But I am specifically talking about GE effect, which is a result of absorbance of longwave radiation.

Clouds can reflect shortwave and absorb longwave. The incoming radiation is mainly shortwave, the outgoing is mainly longwave.

So, they still add to the GE.

wait, wouldn't the net effect (reflected energy vs. absorbed) be more important than focusing on a one effect while just casually mentioning the other? clouds are something everyone knows and their effect has got to be massive compared to GHGs (though localised), because they affect a large spectrum instead of a few spectral lines.

[edit on 12.4.2007 by Long Lance]

Originally posted by Long Lance
wait, wouldn't the net effect (reflected energy vs. absorbed) be more important than focusing on a one effect while just casually mentioning the other? clouds are something everyone knows and their effect has got to be massive compared to GHGs (though localised), because they affect a large spectrum instead of a few spectral lines.

If you want to completely go off from what I am discussing, then, yes, to fully understand the climate system we need to account for positive and negative forcings. Positive forcing will drive warming, negative forcings drive cooling. When totted up we have the observations - warming. So we obviously have overall net positive forcings.

For the wavelength GE effects, as the article you quoted earlier mentioned, clouds have less effect on CO2 than on water vapour. The issue is that clouds and water vapour, although in massive quantities, take up around 66-85% of the GE effect - the other GHGs are much less abundant, they still account for 15-34% (this is using Gavin's NASA-GISS figures).

So, clouds and WV do have larger GE effects overall. But the other GHGs are not insignificant.

[edit on 12-4-2007 by melatonin]

OK, maybe it was a mistake to make such a generalisation, so, as requested, I have done a little bit of research and noticed that since the industrial revolution the co2 levels have increased by about 30%! At their peak they seem to be around 300ppm and now they are about 400ppm. I fail to see how this increase could not be inextricably linked with industry emmissions.

At any rate I didn't think that 400ppm was significant enough to effect the climate until I noticed that when there levels were just below 200ppm, we had an ice age!

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems pretty obvious from this data the global warming is definitely manmade and man's problem to fix. The biggest mystery now is why there is so much debate over something seemingly so straight forward?

Originally posted by melatonin

OK, I'll try.

The first thing to note is that the oceans are taking up CO2, they are becoming more acidic becuase of this. So we know they are not the source of the CO2 increase. Otherwise they would be losing CO2.

The oceans have been always absorbing and releasing CO2, and these changes fluctuate and are not always the same... In fact the oceans hold 98.5% of all ocean/atmosphere CO2 that exists on Earth.

BTW, the warmer the oceans are, the more acidic they become, not only because of CO2, but because of the temperature effect, alkalinity changes which is not only caused by CO2 changes, and salinity changes too, all of which warm the oceans more.

Underwater volcanic eruptions which cause warming and release of gases from the ocean floor, from the oceans and from deep under the Earth's crust. Among those gases, underwater volcanos do release CO2 btw, and also change the pH of the oceans.

BTW, the last 200 years the oceans have decreased 0.1 unit of pH, and you should know by now that anthropogenic CO2 is not the main cause for this, since natural CO2 fluctuations during warming events increase naturally. The current average acidity of our oceans are a bit more than 8.

Let's see how acidic the oceans can be near thermal vents and underwater volcanoes.

What is the pH of ocean water near thermal vents?
The actual high temperature (~300 Celsius) venting fluid typically has a pH of 2.8-5.9 -- pretty acidic! The pH of the surrounding deep ocean water is about 8.1-8.3 -- slightly basic, and about the same pH as your blood...

www.ocean.washington.edu...

Originally posted by melatonin
We have burned enough fossils fuels and cleared enough forests etc to take the atmospheric concentration to around 500ppm. The extra has been taken up by the biosphere (oceans & other), as they are sinks. Quibble about those numbers if you like, that's not the important stuff.

Me?...it is you "quibbling about those numbers"...

The acidity of the oceans have changed ever since Earth came into existance. During warming cycles the acidity of the oceans increase, pH decreases, and guess what?.... the oceans are warming...

Originally posted by melatonin
1. Decline of the 14-C/12-C isotope ratio. We are seeing an increase in 12-C in the atmosphere. Fossil fuels do not contain 14-C.

Levels which are also controlled by the humidity in Earth's atmosphere, the higher the humidity the less C14 isotopes that can be produced, the amount of cosmic rays also changes the production of C14, or (14)C... We have already gone through this before.

The Earth and the entire solar system is experiencing changes in it's environment which have not happened for at least 2,000-10,000 thousands of years and which not only affect Earth but also affects the rest of the planets in the solar system....

Originally posted by melatonin
2. Decline of the 13-C/12-C isotope ratio. We are seeing an increase in 12-C. Fossil fuels and other biological sources (photosynthetic) of CO2 contain little 13-C.

Plants, animals that eat grasses, and organic compounds have in some measure C13....in lesser amounts than C12, but we still got it, and yes humans do have a small amount of C13 because we also eat plants or animals that eat plants and grasses.

Originally posted by melatonin
3. Decline on the oxygen content of the atmosphere. Due to oxidation of C.

Oxygen declines in densely cloudy weather.....but on the overall any changes in oxygen content on Earth's atmosphere that would affect lifeforms on Earth, will take quite a bit of time...

Originally posted by melatonin
These are clear fingerprints of human activity.

If you hate humant actyivity so much, stop using your computer, you are helping emit more of that evil CO2 into the air, and the more you keep using your computer the more you show you are unwilling to make any changes yourself...

Stop using your AC in summer in your house and car, and stop heating your house during winters...

Stop using your car/truck/SUV, and in fact you can help a little too if you stop breathing.

Science 22 June 2001:
Vol. 292. no. 5525, pp. 2261 - 2263
DOI: 10.1126/science.1061077
CLIMATE CHANGE:

Enhanced: Where Has All the Carbon Gone?
Steven C. Wofsy [HN14] *

Emission rates of CO2 [HN1] from combustion of fossil fuel have increased almost 40 percent in the past 20 years, but the amount of CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere has stayed the same or even declined slightly [HN2]. The reason for this discrepancy is that increasing amounts of anthropogenic CO2 are being removed by forests and other components of the biosphere (1) [HN3].

Lol...and you think the above article helps your cause?...

Originally posted by melatonin
The biosphere is acting as a sink for anthropogenic CO2. What it can't take up accumulates in the atmosphere.

As it has done so for 4.2 to 4.5 billion years during the existance of Earth.... The atmosphere has had higher levels of CO2 and life has thrived, not only plants but animals too...

You also do forget that higher levels of CO2 will be good for all plant life, and as long as the levels of CO2 don't go to 15% in the atmosphere, which won't happen anytime soon, animal life will thrive as well. Also the fact that for CO2 levels to change to 15% or any levels which would really affect animal and plant lifeforms will take hundreds, if not thousands of years if it happens again....

CO2 is as needed for life as water, oxygen and nitrogen, among other gases, is needed for life to exist on this planet.

If you want to help the environment, then fight for the right cause...to help the environment... CO2 is not the cause, and neither will it cause any of the Climate Changes so many "scaremongers" keep claiming will happen. These changes are part of the natural evolution the Earth goes through, a natural cycle which neither you, nor Mann nor Hansen will stop or "mitigate"....

Originally posted by melatonin
I'll let your new fave contrarian, Lindzen (he is a little more credible than others), point it out for you:

There is good evidence that man has been responsible for the recent increase in CO2, though climate itself (as well as other natural phenomena) can also cause changes in CO2.

www.publications.parliament.uk...

Now don't be getting excited about the latter part of the statement, I agree with it as well. Other natural phenomenom can cause increases in atmospheric CO2, however, he doesn't suggest this is the cause of the recent increase, he says there is good evidence man is responsible.

Of course mankind has increase CO2 levels, but not to the extent that some want to claim mankind has done, more so when such people want to dismiss the fact that in warming cycles in the past, CO2 levels have increased as much and even 4-6 times more than it has done now, yet life was thriving.

Climate Changes do cause changes in CO2 levels, as well as changes in other GHGs, but there is not one iota of evidence that the mayority of the CO2 increase in the last 150 years is mainly anthropogenic. More so when in past Climate Changes the levels of CO2 have changed as much, and even more than they have been changing during the current Climate Change.

Originally posted by melatonin
So, are we agreed that man is predominately responsible for the current increase in CO2?

Is that what you call proof?....

Originally posted by melatonin
Where am I wrong?

You are making up figures and puting the values you think account for anthropogenic CO2.... That's what is wrong...

Originally posted by melatonin
I'm not going to answer everything at this point, I'd like to focus on a point at a time. When we've sorted this, we'll move on to Roger Pielke Sr's comment on the tropics.

Oh right, you are going to claim these experiments were wrong and you are right... Well sorry to tell you that link does prove that water vapor contributes more heating to Earth than CO2 ever will, and by far more than a factor of 3 like you wanted to claim.

An increase of CO2 levels to 400ppm above the current levels would cause an increase of 0.18 W/m2. While a mere 5% increase in water vapor levels would cause an increase of 0.7 W/m2...

So...what causes more warming, a 400ppm increase of CO2 from the current levels, that's more than double the amount of CO2, or a 5% increase in water vapor levels?

Remember, something people like melatonin want to ignore and dismiss, during warming events water vapor, CO2, methane and other trace gases increase naturally, and this causes more warming, mostly from water vapor, and more warming causes more levels of these gases to be released and so on and so forth......

Yes, mankind has been releasing some CO2 in the atmosphere, but neither has mankind contributed most of the CO2 increase and neither does CO2 causes the warming some are claiming it causes...

Let's not forget also that the sun's output has increased during the last 60 years more than during the past 8,000 years...the Earth's magnetic field is weaker now 10% in most areas and up to 30% in other areas more than it has in 770,000 years.

Appart from the fact that research has shown the oceans are warming from holocene sea level rise/warming, and some other natural factors which contribute to Climate Chnage and Global Warming have been increasing during the current period the Earth has been experiencing the current Climate Change.

[edit on 13-4-2007 by Muaddib]

The oceans have been always absorbing and releasing CO2, and these changes fluctuate and are not always the same... In fact the oceans hold 98.5% of all ocean/atmosphere CO2 that exists on Earth.

Except that the oceans are not losing carbon dioxide, which is what we need to assess, they are taking increasing amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere. Same goes for other regions of the biosphere. They are acting as sinks, they are NOT losing CO2.

Originally posted by Muaddib

Science 22 June 2001:
Vol. 292. no. 5525, pp. 2261 - 2263
DOI: 10.1126/science.1061077
CLIMATE CHANGE:

Enhanced: Where Has All the Carbon Gone?
Steven C. Wofsy [HN14] *

Emission rates of CO2 [HN1] from combustion of fossil fuel have increased almost 40 percent in the past 20 years, but the amount of CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere has stayed the same or even declined slightly [HN2]. The reason for this discrepancy is that increasing amounts of anthropogenic CO2 are being removed by forests and other components of the biosphere (1) [HN3].

Lol...and you think the above article helps your cause?...

Yes, I do. If you parse it correctly it is saying that we are adding increasing amounts. But the amount accumulating (rate) in the atmosphere is staying the same. This is because the biosphere is taking CO2 from the atmosphere in increasing amounts.

I can't believe you are actually arguing against this, muaddib. I think if I said water is wet, you'd argue the point.

Climate Changes do cause changes in CO2 levels, as well as changes in other GHGs, but there is not one iota of evidence that the mayority of the CO2 increase in the last 150 years is mainly anthropogenic

As Lindzen says, there is good evidence that man is responsible for this increase. Maybe he has the ability to understand the evidence.

Science 2 November 2001:
Vol. 294. no. 5544, pp. 1012 - 1013
DOI: 10.1126/science.1065307
Prev | Table of Contents | Next

Perspectives
CLIMATE CHANGE:
Storing Carbon on Land
R. J. Scholes and I. R. Noble*

Each year, about 120 PgC (1 PgC = 1015 g of carbon) is exchanged in each direction between terrestrial ecosystems and the atmosphere; another 90 PgC is exchanged between ocean and atmosphere. For comparison, 6.3 PgC is emitted by burning fossil fuels, about half of which is taken up again by the biosphere within years to a decade (1). This net uptake, or "sink," is currently fairly evenly split between land and ocean, but the uptake processes are different, as are projected future behaviors of the two sinks.

Stable CO2 for 800 years, then a change during the industrial revolution. Same for methane, same for nitrous oxide.



For 650,000 years, doesn't really make it above 300ppm. But we get to the last 200 years, the exact time we have been releasing millions of tonnes of CO2, and then a change.

Between 1991 and 1997, combustion of fossil fuels added roughly 6.2 gigatons of carbon per year (GtC/year) (1, 2) to the atmosphere in the form of CO2. During this same period, the atmospheric burden of CO2 increased by only 2.8 GtC/year. The balance of the CO2 was taken up by the oceans and the land biosphere. Determining the ocean-land partition of carbon uptake (and the temporal variability of the partition) is essential for any mechanistic understanding of carbon storage.

Battle et al., (2000). Science Vol. 287. no. 5462, pp. 2467 - 2470

We added 6.2 gigatons of carbon every year between 1991 & 1997, yet the atmosphere only increased by 2.8 gigatons per year. Where did the rest go? The biosphere - oceans and terrestrial.

Where do you think the atmospheric carbon increase is coming from? Where do you think the carbon we are releasing going?

6.2 GtC per year 1991-1997 anthropogenic release. Where did it go?

2.8 GtC per year 1991-1997 increase in atmosphere. Where did it come from?

I like the AC comment, obviously you don't know much about weather in the UK. Although, last year was pretty balmy. And I don't even drive, so a car would be wasted on me.

[edit on 13-4-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
If you want to completely go off from what I am discussing, then, yes, to fully understand the climate system we need to account for positive and negative forcings. Positive forcing will drive warming, negative forcings drive cooling. When totted up we have the observations - warming. So we obviously have overall net positive forcings.
....

obviously, you are discussing, carbon dioxide, the 15µ wavelength and warming....


what i don't get is that picking one part of the spectrum is somehow a valid train of argument. yes, if the chart they listed for clouds (depsite the fact that report explicitly said that they vary) is fully correct, clouds have little to no influence on CO2's greenhouse effect, granted.

too bad our original question was whether the effect of CO2 was enough to derail atmospheric balance, ie. 'overpower' any regulating mechanisms, which is, imho, still open to debate, which i should have made clear by now. the next issue i see is that i heard people say that surface measurements were skewed by nearby cities and changes in land use and that satellite data showed a different (much cooler) picture, so your point that warming does in fact occur on a disturbing scale may not even be true, but if it is, your foregone conclusion about its cause is only valid if you eliminate all other involved factors, like solar influence.

reference for satellite data claim: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Long Lance
what i don't get is that picking one part of the spectrum is somehow a valid train of argument. yes, if the chart they listed for clouds (depsite the fact that report explicitly said that they vary) is fully correct, clouds have little to no influence on CO2's greenhouse effect, granted.

Well, the point is that CO2 has a significant effect on climate and the GE. If you follow the train of discussion back, that is what I'm trying to establish.

Radiative energy comes at different energies - the electromagnetic spectrum. GHGs absorb strongly at particular wavelengths. The wavelengths that are not absorbed, or not so strongly absorbed, are readily emitted back to space. When H2O absorbs at a particular wavelength, it emits at a lower wavelength. One of the lower wavelengths is at 15 microns. CO2 holds back some of this energy, if you increase CO2 it holds back more energy, which is emitted at a longer wavelength (which is cooler). Water vapour and clouds are not so active at these wavelenghts. If you hold back the energy, you get warming.

that satellite data showed a different (much cooler) picture, so your point that warming does in fact occur on a disturbing scale may not even be true, but if it is, your foregone conclusion about its cause is only valid if you eliminate all other involved factors, like solar influence.

reference for satellite data claim: www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is from Lindzen (and others), he is using uncorrected satellite data, and is quite a misleading claim. He said recently that satellites show warming stopped in 1986, but only if you use the uncorrected data.

en.wikipedia.org...:Satellite_Temperatures.png

Abstract
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.

www.climatescience.gov...

John Christy, who was one of the authors of the original erroneous data set, was a main author on this summary.

And solar influence is assessed, we don't need or want to eliminate it. At most it seems to be around 25-35% of the recent warming, but more likely around 10%.

[edit on 13-4-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
...............
Except that the oceans are not losing carbon dioxide, which is what we need to assess, they are taking increasing amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere. Same goes for other regions of the biosphere. They are acting as sinks, they are NOT losing CO2.

First you were complaining that the small amount of CO2 that mankind is releasing is going to cause problems, and now you are complaining that the oceans are stabilizing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and that's a problem?.....

Originally posted by melatonin
Yes, I do. If you parse it correctly it is saying that we are adding increasing amounts. But the amount accumulating (rate) in the atmosphere is staying the same. This is because the biosphere is taking CO2 from the atmosphere in increasing amounts.

Well, if the oceans have 98.5% of all CO2 that exists in the atmosphere/oceans, perhaps the reason the oceans are taking more CO2 is because it is the job of the oceans to do so.

Originally posted by melatonin
I can't believe you are actually arguing against this, muaddib. I think if I said water is wet, you'd argue the point.

I won't argue that water is wet.... I do argue that you can't make your mind up...first you want to claim that mankind puting a small amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is bad and then you argue that the oceans are taking too much CO2....

Originally posted by melatonin
As Lindzen says, there is good evidence that man is responsible for this increase. Maybe he has the ability to understand the evidence.

And as he also said nature has produced CO2 too, and the fact is that we know that nature provides more CO2 than mankind does...

Here is what another scientist, Prof Ian R. Plimer, has to say about GLobal warming.

In more recent times, there has been debate about greenhouse, a phenomenon of the atmosphere. Greenhouse gas emissions trap heat in the lower atmosphere and the resultant surface warming of the Earth is called the greenhouse effect. Greenhouse gases do not warm the surface directly, the atmosphere must heat up first. If there is no prior warning of warming in the lower atmosphere, then there can be no consequent greenhouse effect attributable to it.

For 80% of time, Earth has been a warm wet greenhouse planet. The history of Earth shows that climate, sea level, life and the atmosphere have always changed. They continue to change. If there was not sea level change, climate change, mass extinctions of life and changes to the atmosphere of Earth, then life on Earth would indeed be doomed. Earth is dynamic, the rates of change are variable and the lithosphere, hydrosphere, atmosphere and biosphere all interact. Maybe the global warming of the 20th century is just a measure of variability on a dynamic evolving planet or an actual measurement of an orbital change in 1976-1977.

Current public political concern about global warming and sea level change are blissfully unconstrained by an understanding of the history of planet Earth. We live in the last days of our normal ration of 10 000 years of benign climate in a 100 000 year cycle driven by orbital changes. The orbital driver of our current greenhouse/icehouse cycle is well past its zenith and summer reflection of solar energy at higher latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere is now waning. The Armageddon we humans face is not a pleasant greenhouse warming but a bitter and prolonged icehouse. The 14th century AD was our wake up call.

nsw.royalsoc.org.au...

Here is a recent article where Prof Plimer talks once again about GLobal Warming.

Mankind 'can't influence' climate

By Simon Kirby

April 11, 2007 11:47pm

Solar activity a greater climate change driver than man
'0.1 per cent of carbon dioxide due to human activity'
Geologist says he doesn't care if no-one agrees - Video

MANKIND is naive to think it can influence climate change, according to a prize-winning Australian geologist.

Solar activity is a greater driver of climate change than man-made carbon dioxide, argues Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology at the University of Adelaide and winner of several notable science prizes.

www.news.com.au...

Here is another statement from Prof PLimer which mirrors my own thinking.

“When meteorologists can change the weather then we can start to think about humans changing climate,” Prof Plimer said.

“I think we really are a little bit naive to think we can change astronomical and solar processes.”

And here is another statement as to what Prof Plimer has to say about "being part of a minority of scientists".

The professor, a member of the Australian Skeptics, an organisation devoted to debunking pseudo-scientific claims, denied his was a minority view.

“You'd be very hard pushed to find a geologist that would differ from my view,” he said.

All of the above excerpted from the last link.

I have also worked with several different geologists, not only from the U.S., some have PhDs, some have masters or Bachelors, and the minority are those who believe "mankind is at fault for Global Warming/Climate Change".

Originally posted by melatonin
Stable CO2 for 800 years, then a change during the industrial revolution. Same for methane, same for nitrous oxide.

Humm...wonder why is it that CO2 lags temperature at the max 800 years?... While sometimes the lag is less. The geological record shows that the lag can be as small as 80 years, so there are other factors which influence the lag of CO2 after temperatures increase.

Originally posted by melatonin
For 650,000 years, doesn't really make it above 300ppm. But we get to the last 200 years, the exact time we have been releasing millions of tonnes of CO2, and then a change.

And during this time that we are seeing these changes the sun's output has been increasing, for the last 60 years the output of the sun is greater than the last 8,000 years.

At this exact exact time we are seeing these changes the Earth's magnetic field has been weakening since 1845 and today it is 10% weaker in most areas and up to 30% weaker on other areas, a change that hasn't happened in 770,000 years....

The Solar system is absorbing more interstellar particles and according to ESA and NASA this absorbtion is going to increase exponentially until 2012...

We also have several other natural factors which affect the climate happening right now, but melatonin and others want to blame mankind and "nature too" since natural factors are also to blame for the increase of 0.01% CO2 in the atmosphere for the past 150-200 years....

Originally posted by melatonin
We added 6.2 gigatons of carbon every year between 1991 & 1997, yet the atmosphere only increased by 2.8 gigatons per year. Where did the rest go? The biosphere - oceans and terrestrial.

As a total there has been an increase of both natural and anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere of an immense 0.01% CO2 in 150-200 years..... WOW... Yep, you really made your point....

Originally posted by melatonin
I like the AC comment, obviously you don't know much about weather in the UK. Although, last year was pretty balmy. And I don't even drive, so a car would be wasted on me.

First I didn't know where you lived... second, STOP USING YOUR COMPUTER, YOU ARE CAUSING MORE CO2 TO BE RELEASED INTO THE ATMOSPHERE YOU EVIL MAN.......

[edit on 13-4-2007 by Muaddib]

Explain an alternative cause of the 30% rise in co2 since the industrial revolution if man is not the reason?

Originally posted by melatonin
...........
Well, the point is that CO2 has a significant effect on climate and the GE. If you follow the train of discussion back, that is what I'm trying to establish.

I just gave a link to experiments done on which GHG would affect the climate more and the winner is water vapor which with only a 5% increase in it's levels there would be an increase of heat trapping effect by H2Ov of 0.7 W/m2... Meanwhile increasing the present levels of CO2 400ppm, more than double it's present values and which would raise CO2 levels to 780ppm, it would produce an increase of CO2 heat trapping efficiency of 0.18 W/m2....

The winner by far?.... water vapor... and during warming cycles water vapor and other natural occurring GHGs increase in the atmosphere... another little bit of fact that people like melatonin want to dismiss....

[edit on 13-4-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by speaker
Explain an alternative cause of the 30% rise in co2 since the industrial revolution if man is not the reason?

Read this thread and you will find it explained.

Please if you are going to get involved in the debate it would do good for everyone if you at least read everything that was written in that thread you are posting at.

Originally posted by Muaddib
As a total there has been an increase of both natural and anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere of an immense 0.01% CO2 in 150-200 years..... WOW... Yep, you really made your point....

We added 6.2 gigatons of carbon every year between 1991 & 1997, yet the atmosphere only increased by 2.8 gigatons per year.

6.2 GtC per year emissions. Where did it go?

2.8 GtC per year atmospheric increase. Where did it come from?

First I didn't know where you lived... second, STOP USING YOUR COMPUTER, YOU ARE CAUSING MORE CO2 TO BE RELEASED INTO THE ATMOSPHERE YOU EVIL MAN.......

Nah, I have some dastardly technology - a thousand hamsters on wheels produce the power for my supergreen laptop...

Originally posted by melatonin

We added 6.2 gigatons of carbon every year between 1991 & 1997, yet the atmosphere only increased by 2.8 gigatons per year.

Which is a small percentage of the amount which has increased for the last 150-200 years. You can throw around those numbers all you want, you know well that the only people who will be fooled by those numbers are those who don't understand how much CO2 exists in the atmosphere, and how small those numbers you keep throwing around really are...

Noone can say for certain what the percentage is, the "let's blame mankind crowd" uses the largest percentage they can throw out, while those who don't believe mankind is at fault say the percentage is smaller.

Prof Plimer thinks the amount of anthropogenic CO2 amounts to 0.1% of the total CO2 being emitted by nature.

It is very possible he is right. Fluctuations in the oceans on CO2 can vary between 10 to 100 times the amount emitted by all anthropogenic sources.

Originally posted by melatonin
Nah, I have some dastardly technology - a thousand hamsters on wheels produce the power for my supergreen laptop...

Well, at least you do have a sense of humor and that is a plus.

[edit on 13-4-2007 by Muaddib]

Hello, cousin, its been too long.

I beleive its helped along by man but is cyclical and we just have to deal with it. Its happened before. I just dont see why this is such a fascinating discussion that goes on and on and on. I'm in the mountains in Maine and right in front of me is one of the biggest paper mills in the US. You should see the smoke coming out of that place! *cough* Bu i'm with you, i dont think we are the sole cause, but i do think we do help it along.

BTW, get a Maine Lobster- WoW!!!!!!!

Originally posted by dgtempe
Hello, cousin, its been too long.

I beleive its helped along by man but is cyclical and we just have to deal with it. Its happened before. I just dont see why this is such a fascinating discussion that goes on and on and on. I'm in the mountains in Maine and right in front of me is one of the biggest paper mills in the US. You should see the smoke coming out of that place! *cough* Bu i'm with you, i dont think we are the sole cause, but i do think we do help it along.

BTW, get a Maine Lobster- WoW!!!!!!!

Hello cousin.

I didn't know you were in Maine, are you there on vacation or did you move there? I "might" be moving to Washington state, it depends if i accept a job I am being offered there, but dunno, it requires a lot of travelling for that job, and i am tired of travelling.

Anyways, yes, mankind is adding CO2 and other gases, and chemicals. I am more concerned for the toxic chemicals being release than for CO2. Even though I am saying mankind is not the cause of Climate Change/Global Warming, i know and have stated several times mankind can change and can have an impact in the environment, but not change the global climate.

I am in for being more concious for our environment and finding new ways to stop the dumping of toxic chemicals in our oceans, but we only have two choices, either find a way to neutralize those chemicals, or we might have to start sending those toxic chemicals into the sun, which would pretty much take care of them, and those toxic chemicals won't do a thing to the sun. Well, there is a third choice, finding other sources that will not give out toxic chemicals, but that might take a while.

Anyways good to see you again.

[edit on 13-4-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
Which is a small percentage of the amount which has increased for the last 150-200 years. You can throw around those numbers all you want, you know well that the only people who will be fooled by those numbers are those who don't understand how much CO2 exists in the atmosphere, and how small those numbers you keep throwing around really are...

Noone can say for certain what the percentage is, the "let's blame mankind crowd" uses the largest percentage they can throw out, while those who don't believe mankind is at fault say the percentage is smaller.

And the important thing is that oceans and terrestrial biosphere are removing CO2. The increase is human sourced. If you don't want to accept 100%, which it is, then 95% is a fair number.

Prof Plimer thinks the amount of anthropogenic CO2 amounts to 0.1% of the total CO2 being emitted by nature.

It might well be, but that isn't so important. If you check the figures I posted above, the biosphere exchanges similar amounts (the amount released is taken up back up). We are adding an extra chunk, that is where the increase is coming from, a lot of the anthropogenic emissions are taken up in the biosphere. The rest is accumulating.

Just look at the numbers again.

6.2 GtC emitted. 2.8GtC increase. Leaving 3.4GtC which has been removed by the biosphere.

The increase is anthropogenic. The isotope data supports it. The fact the oceans are not losing CO2 supports it. The fact terrestrial sources are not losing CO2 supports it. The fact we are releasing more than is accumulating supports it.

Anyway, my hamsters need a break, I'll answer any reply manana.

Just visiting, Muaddib.

Any way, be talking to you some other time.

Back on topic.