crickets...

crickets...

If you have hypertension, why does your doctor tell you to cut down on your salt but not your water intake? Pretty much the same idea.

Mark

I don't think you understand the point - of course it is a very small percentage of the total atmospheric C02. The total C02 concentration in the atmosphere itself is a very small percent of the total atmosphere. In fact the atmosphere is greater than 99% nitrogen and oxygen (mostly nitrogen). The amount of ALL the C02 in the atmosphere is much less than 1%. Something like 350 parts per million.

Now you say wow 350 parts per million. Thats such a tiny number compared to the whole atmosphere thats only 0.0035%. of the total atmosphere - using your logic - that its a very small number and therefore not important - you could argue that it wouldn't make a difference if this was 0.0035% or 0.0%. Right after all - its only 0.0035% of the total atmospheric content - how can that amount of anything be important to anything? Explain how it is.. and so on..

Of course - all plant life would die if you didn't have that 0.0035% of C02 as it is essential to photosynthesis - the process of converting C02 , water, and sunlight into sugar + oxygen.

Just because something is a small number doesn't mean it isn't important. As for how this number - the man made contribution can make a difference - I encourage you to go to library and check out books on chemistry, biology, and atmospheric science.

Of course it is a small effect in the absolute numbers - nobody is saying that the human made C02 is the primary cause of the temperature on the earth. That is of course the sun. This is small variation estimated to have risen global temperatures a few degrees C or an increase in the temperature of something of a little less than 0.5%. None of this means that this doesn't have big implications on the life on the planet.

If you know the science you can see that this guy is just playing numerology games. Here is a simple example- take blood alcohol content - if the average person has 2 drinks this increases your blood alcohol content to 0.05%. So if you had someone that had 8 more drinks that would increase your blood alcohol content by 0.2%. So now the difference in the blood alcohol content is only 0.15%. With a difference in BAC of only 0.15% how can that possibly make a difference to the person.

Well you tell me - is there a difference between a person who has had 2 and 10 drinks? Sometimes small percentage differences have a huge effect. Your meteorologist is doing nothing different. There is no science in anything he is saying - just playing with small numbers.

Some people say it's a joke...others say it's a genuine threat. And so far, those people far outnumber the naysayers.

Besides, consider the consequences, if it's a joke, then we'll have reacted for nothing, and the consequences will be......
someone tell me.

But in the other scenario, the one that you're proposing, we do nothing. If global warming is a joke, then, fine, you were right, and we took the right course of action. But if it is real, and we don't act, the consequences are incredibly catastrophic.

Weigh the impacts.

Also, weigh the fact that the VAST MAJORITY of scientists, and even politicians (around the world, not just in the US) agree that global warming is happening, and it is a man-made event.

Given those facts, you really can't take your position; at least, if you do, you must be a complete...shall we say...an ignorer of the facts.

ThELefTYFoOL

"Of course it is a small effect in the absolute numbers - nobody is saying that the human made C02 is the primary cause of the temperature on the earth."

The problem is, kblack77, is that the majority of those backing global warming, climate change, whatever, do, in fact, state that Man is the primary culprit. People like Al Gore, Laurie David, and Barbara Boxer.

I am glad you take the opinion, surely based on facts, that the Sun is the primary culprit, though I do think you have to add "natural Earth forces" in as well.

Does Man have an effect? Personally, after all I have read, I would say "yes." Though it is tiny.

kblack77,

Of course it is a small effect in the absolute numbers - nobody is saying that the human made C02 is the primary cause of the temperature on the earth.

Of course they are saying that. Read the papers, listen to the radio, watch the television, browse the Internet... It's all the same message from the "Algorians"... Earth is coming to an end and humans are the reason! Liberals conveniently ignore the other facts and concentrate solely on humans... because that suits and supports their agenda!

If you know the science you can see that this guy is just playing numerology games.

It takes one to know one. Liberals (Democrats) are pro's at playing numerology and every other type of game!

There is no science in anything he is saying - just playing with small numbers.

That's the same old story we get from the Left anytime someone disagrees with "their" views and agenda... it's not "science" when the figures support the opposing views... regardless of what those figures may show. After all, science is one of the "gods" in the religion of Liberalism!

Well you tell me - is there a difference between a person who has had 2 and 10 drinks?

Let's say that a person has 2 drinks of water and increases that to 10 glasses of water. What will the effect be? A gain in water weight and more trips to the restroom!

Now, let's say we add 0.0035% alcohol to those drinks. What will the effect be? They will cost a little more but there won't be enough alcohol in them to notice and we will still need those restroom breaks!

Let's leave all this global warming hype to the scientists so they have something to keep them busy and worried. While they are working on that, let's work to solve the problem by producing the clean, cheap, and renewable energy we all need and want. No taxes. No automobile restrictions. No mileage restrictions. No carbon credits. NONE of the Democrat's "global warming" agenda!

That clean, cheap, and renewable energy will take a little time to accomplish, and while we are working on that solution, let's get those drills working in ANWR, off the coasts of Florida and California, and let's start building those refineries we need!

Instead of trying to blame humans for global warming, let's worry about those high oil prices and start blaming those responsible... the DEMOCRATS who have blocked our oil drilling, coal gasification, oil (tar) sand extraction, nuclear energy, and of course those refineries which the Democrats and environmentalists have blocked. and which are contributing to the high gas prices.

And don't forget those trillions of dollars that have gone to other countries (including our enemies like Iran) along with the jobs, taxes, and economic growth...

All to keep the DEMOCRATS and their liberal enviro-nut supporters happy!

AAR

If you have hypertension, why does your doctor tell you to cut down on your salt but not your water intake? Pretty much the same idea.

This analogy is valid only if both water and salt contribute to hypertension, with water being the greater contributor. (Boy, that dihydrogen monoxide shows up in the worst places, doesn't it?)

The analogy concerning blood alcohol likewise misses the mark. In both analogies, there is only one substance (salt or alcohol) that contributes to the troublesome effect. Instead, is there a system in which at least two substances contribute to a certain effect, one of which contributes by far the most, and far more than the second, but a minor (say, 5%) fluctuation in the already small amount of the second drives the system haywire? Fat and sugar contributing to obesity, maybe?

If anyone wants to believe that a 0.12 per cent change in the greenhouse effect is going to significantly alter the earth's climate, they have the right to do so. But they might want to make their protest in front of the Chinese embassy, because in a few years, China will be making more CO2 than the U.S.

"Man's contribution to the greenhouse gases was so small we couldn't change the climate if we tried, he maintained"

Well, I guess that gives us the green light to continue business as usual. No need for responsible conservation practices, no need to get rid of that second SUV or cut back on energy use, let's rescind all those nasty restrictions we have placed on industrial polluters; it's time to celebrate the fact that no matter how hard we abuse our natural environment, we can't change the climate, one iota. Yeah!!!

kblack,

You ignore his actual contention - that most of the temperature is driven by water vapor. This tends to make most sense to me while the CO2 element of it, given that it is such a tiny fraction of the atmosphere and that mankind's contribution is a tiny fraction of that tiny fraction, has never made sense to me.

And if you think we're going to buy an argument that GW alarmists aren't saying that man-made CO2 is the primary culprit, then you've really got rocks in your head. All we hear, day in and day out, is how man-made CO2 is the primary culprit.

No one is saying that, Canadian Observer. However, would you care to discuss the actual science of the post?

would you care to discuss the actual science of the post?

Posted by William Teach at May 19, 2007 06:35 PM

Why? As the gentleman said "That ought to be the end of the argument, there and then,"

Mark - its not about what "makes sense to you" its about what the scientific evidence supports. In my wildest dreams I would have never thought that quantum mechanics or general relativity makes "the most sense". But every experiment proves that they are correct. Thats what you fundamentally don't seem to understand - you can't argue science with your intuition...

I ignore his contention - because it is not based on any scientific facts. Anyone can come up with a possible explanation that could make sense - but only those who back it with scientific research are worth listening to

Nice dodge, CO!

I rarely post on these threads because, and I will admit it, I'm not up on the topic (as much as I should be?). However, with that being said, I think every single person should do what they can by driving less, ride sharing, taking public transportation, recycling ... Now, if we could get Gore to follow his own advice, that would definitely made some difference. :-P

The libs don't think tax cuts increase revenue even though it is a proven fact time after time. Yet trust them, 0.12% manmade contribution to the greenhouse effect is creating a global disaster. Can't we just get along? Trust the self annointed intellectually superior. Just trust them.

Trust their genuine concern for the deaths of our soldiers. 3400 have given their lives in 4 years. Yet 3500 abortions per day for 30 years does not bother them. Pro choice, not for the victim however. Just trust them! Can't we all get along?

Their superior intellect is blantantly obvious based by the posts on this board.

Not.

Mark,

If you care to educate yourself on the contribution of water vapor on the greenhouse effect, you can find a good description here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142

I know it's not written in sound bites, but if you focus really hard I think you'll be able to get through it.

When I was a kid, the big thing then was that we were headed into another ice age. Then the next big thing after that was the ozone layer and aerosol cans were killing us all. If it wasn't for the lib media pushing the global warming "you are a victim" nonsense, this would be laughable.

One of the really cool things about the Internet is that even a semi-computer-literate old fart like me has access to an incredible amount of information at the click of a mouse button.

RealClimate.org is one of the sites most often referred to by climate change alarmists (like Winowhead) as being an impartial site run by “true” climate scientists. If there’s one thing I’ve learned in my life, it’s that things are not always as they seem, and RealClimate.org is no exception. While contributors to the site do indeed include climate scientists like Michael Mann, author of the infamous “Hockey Stick” chart that, almost single-handedly, ignited the present level of alarmist hysteria nearly a decade ago, (more about the “Hockey Stick” later) the story behind the RealClimate blog and its founder, Betsy Ensley is fascinating one. Who the hell is Betsy Ensley, you might ask? A domain search yields the following information:

Domain ID:D105219760-LROR
Domain Name:REALCLIMATE.ORG
Created On:19-Nov-2004 16:39:03 UTC
Last Updated On:30-Oct-2005 21:10:46 UTC
Expiration Date:19-Nov-2007 16:39:03 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:eNom, Inc. (R39-LROR)
Status:OK
Registrant ID:B133AE74B8066012
Registrant Name:Betsy Ensley
Registrant Organization:Environmental Media Services
Registrant Street1:1320 18th St, NW
Registrant Street2:5th Floor
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Washington
Registrant State/Province:DC
Registrant Postal Code:20036
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.2024636670

Just as an aside, other blogs founded by Betsy Ensley include BushGreenWatch.org and WomenAgainstBush.org, but that’s not even the interesting part. When I saw the registering organization’s name, Environmental Media Services, it was like a giant “NOW I GET IT” neon sign lit up. It turns out that EMS is listed as a project of The Tides Center. Sound familiar? It should; it’s parent organization, The Tides Foundation, is one of Teresa Heinz Kerry’s favorite charities. In the interest of full disclosure, Snopes.com points out that the Heinz Foundation’s contributions (in the $ millions) are not ear-marked for any of the numerous left-wing projects funded through Tides, and, indeed, all transactions between the Heinz Foundation and Tides appear to be legal and above board. But the Tides Center and its relationships with The Tides Foundation, EMS and Fenton Communications is one of the most interesting stories you will ever hear. The whole article is an incredibly interesting read – here is just a sample:

EMS is the communications arm of leftist public relations firm Fenton Communications. Based in Washington, in the same office suite as Fenton, EMS claims to be “providing journalists with the most current information on environmental issues.” A more accurate assessment might be that it spoon-feeds the news media sensationalized stories, based on questionable science, and featuring activist “experts,” all designed to promote and enrich David Fenton’s paying clients, and build credibility for the nonprofit ones. It’s a clever racket, and EMS & Fenton have been running it since 1994.

(snip)

It’s called “black marketing,” and Environmental Media Services has become the principal reason Fenton Communications is so good at it. EMS lends an air of legitimacy to what might otherwise be dismissed (and rightly so) as fear-mongering from the lunatic fringe. In addition to pre-packaged “story ideas” for the mass media, EMS provides commentaries, briefing papers, and even a stable of experts, all carefully calculated to win points for paying clients. These “experts,” though, are also part of the ruse. Over 70% of them earn their paychecks from current or past Fenton clients, all of which have a financial stake in seeing to it that the scare tactics prevail. It’s a clever deception perpetrated on journalists who generally don’t consider do-gooder environmentalists to be capable of such blatant and duplicitous “spin.” (emphasis – mine)

The first rule of this game is that it’s strictly pay-for-play. For a price, you too can promote your product by maligning the competition with junk-science smear tactics. To Fenton Communications, you’ll be a “client”; down the hall at EMS, though, you’ll join the ranks of its “project partners.” And nobody will be the wiser.

(snip)

The big picture, then, is a quasi-money-laundering scheme worthy of a name like “Tides” (apologies to Procter & Gamble). Fenton Communications’ for-profit and foundation clients put massive amounts of cash into Tides, and enjoy a healthy tax write-off for their trouble. Tides turns around and makes huge “grants” to Fenton’s nonprofit clients, including the Environmental Working Group, Natural Resources Defense Council, and SeaWeb (just to name a few). Tides also funds EMS, which David Fenton uses as a mouthpiece in order to promote fear campaigns which benefit his other for-profit clients. EMS makes good use of the “experts” who haunt the halls of Fenton’s nonprofit clients. Tides pays everyone’s salary, and even sends the odd half million dollars to Fenton Communication for its trouble. (emphasis – mine)

One of the integral factors in the current level of alarmism that has attached itself to one side of the Global Warming/Climate Change debate is the “Hockey Stick” temperature chart mentioned earlier in this post. In spite of the fact that numerous studies have debunked both the science and the math behind the “Hockey Stick” chart, it remains the lynchpin of the “sky is falling” crowd. It has become such a firmly entrenched part of the alarmist dogma that a devastating 2006 National Academy of Sciences review and assessment of Michael Mann’s work barely made a ripple in either the national media or among the alarmist community.

The NAS agreed to the science committee's request, but only under terms that precluded a direct investigation of the issues that prompted the original dispute -- whether Mann et al. had withheld adverse results and whether the data and methodological information necessary for replication were available.
In February, 2006, the NAS appointed a panel of 12 eminent academics involved in climate science but not directly involved in the temperature reconstructions of the past 1,000 years. They were not an entirely "independent" panel, as some were occasional co-authors with the Hockey Stick authors. But even this limited independence was a major departure from procedures of the IPCC, which permits authors actively involved in scientific controversy to summarize the research -- even if they end up acting as reviewers of their own work! (emphasis – mine)

In March, 2006, the NAS panel held meetings in Washington at which we made a presentation (along with Mann and seven other scientists in the field).

On July 6, the panel issued a 155-page report, which managed the delicate feat of accepting virtually all the criticisms of the Hockey Stick while still saying polite things about it. A European climate scientist, who understood the balancing act, wrote us afterwards to point out it was the most severe criticism of the Hockey Stick nowadays possible.

At the NAS panel, we said that Mann's principal components were biased toward producing hockey stick-shaped series; the NAS agreed. We said that bristlecones were not a reliable temperature proxy; the NAS agreed and said they should be "avoided." We said that Mann's reconstruction failed important verification tests; the NAS agreed. We said that more than one test statistic should be reported when assessing statistical validity; the NAS agreed. We said that current methods underestimated the inherent uncertainty; the NAS agreed. On and on. On no occasion was any claim of ours refuted.

Our original articles argued that Mann's data and methodology did not permit him to claim with confidence that 1998 was the "warmest year" of the millennium or that the 1990s were the warmest decade. The NAS panel even agreed with this. After observing that little confidence could be placed in reconstructions before 1600, they stated: Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that "the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium ..." (emphasis – mine)

Based on some other studies, they conceded that Mann's reconstruction was still "plausible" but, contrary to the IPCC, they said it was impossible to put confidence intervals on this opinion.

(snip)

The NAS panel drew attention to other recent studies claiming that the 20th century was warmer than the Medieval Warm Period. We've attempted to replicate these other studies as well, only to run into one obstacle after another in identifying data and methods -- similar to the problems that led to the original congressional questions about the Mann study. In one case, the authors even refused to identify the sites from which data was collected for their study! (emphasis – mine)

Despite these pointless obstacles, we know enough about the "other studies" to be confident that none of them meets the methodological standards now recommended by the panel. In fact, somewhat remarkably, two of the most recent studies even continue to use Mann's discredited principal components series. (emphasis – mine)

(snip)

At the NAS press conference, the panel was asked about "overselling" of the warmest-in-a-millennium claim and whether any lessons could be learned. Panel chairman Gerry North noted that the Mann paper was very recent when this claim was made and observed that it was "very dangerous to pull one paper out of the literature fresh before it's had time to season." However, the panel did not comment on IPCC procedures that invited this problem. (emphasis – mine)
The IPCC lead author who selected Mann's reconstruction for prominent display in the review of millennial temperature history was none other than Mann himself. At the time, he was a fresh and ambitious PhD, an odd choice to write the "consensus" review of climate history. (emphasis – mine)

One of the chief rhetorical weapons used by climate alarmists is to ignore any opposing message and attack the messenger as being a “political hack” (oddly, Al Gore escapes this label), or an “energy industry whore or shill” who accepts large sums of money to parrot the talking points from “Big Oil” and “Big Coal”. Sites like RealClimate.org, they insist, are based on honest science presented by honest scientists, and, in fact, even have a comment forum for readers to voice dissent. Yeah, right. Go read a few threads at RC, and see if you detect the same smug, condescending, elitist air from both the writers and the majority of commentors that I do. See how they treat the few dissenting voices that they allow through their censorship filter. (comment #293 if the link doesn’t take you directly to it) Better yet, see how they treat a fellow scientist. Pay particular attention to the comments after the linked article.

And, last but not least, when alarmists like the ones at RealClimate debate skeptics, the alarmists lose. Ouch! that’s gotta hurt.

Excellent post, RS!!

Spook, the stuff you say are not in the Snopes.com citation. In fact, Snopes seems to indicate something completely different. Am I missing something?

Thank you, Kimberly; it was fun doing the research and exposing the fat, white-haired guy behind the curtain.

Rico, I simply pointed out that Tides is a favorite charity of the Heinz Foundation. Snopes debunked an email letter that made the rounds a while back that claimed that Teresa Heinz Kerry funneled a lot of money to left-wing causes through Tides. Snopes debunked that claim, and, in my post I said so. What part do you find to be incorrect?

There is a statement in the Snopes rebuttal, provided, interestingly, by Maxwell King, President of Heinz Endowment, that I got a chuckle out of:

Second, the Tides Center is a provider of management and administrative services, and we have used it only for those services, not to advance Tides’ grantmaking agenda. Foundations from all across the country-many, like Heinz, with strong centrist agendas (emphasis - mine - ROTFLMAO) -use these services to incubate an array of nonprofit programs.

Retired Spook....

you're a brilliant man. Excellent, excellent research and post.

Follow the money old chap.

I bow to your brilliance

kblack,

A nice dodge on your part, too.

And, actually, quantum mechanics and general relativity make sense, though relativity still leaves a bit unexplained. Anthropogenic global warming makes no sense at all.

"If you know the science you can see that this guy is just playing numerology games. Here is a simple example- take blood alcohol content - if the average person has 2 drinks this increases your blood alcohol content to 0.05%. So if you had someone that had 8 more drinks that would increase your blood alcohol content by 0.2%. So now the difference in the blood alcohol content is only 0.15%. With a difference in BAC of only 0.15% how can that possibly make a difference to the person.

Well you tell me - is there a difference between a person who has had 2 and 10 drinks? Sometimes small percentage differences have a huge effect. Your meteorologist is doing nothing different. There is no science in anything he is saying - just playing with small numbers. "

NEWS FLASH: Science IS numbers! Science is LOGICAL. Science is not just something you just belive in really strongly! In science you MEASURE things! When you measure something, you assign it a value, the value being a NUMBER!

Atmospheric content
nitrogen -78%
oxygen -20%
H20 -~3%
CO2 - 0.04%
other trace gases (ie methane 0.48 parts per BILLION)

NOT GREENHOUSE GASES
homonuclear diatomic molecules such as N2 and O2 (>95% of gases )neither absorb nor emit infrared radiation.

GREENHOUSE effects
H20 - 36-70%
C02 9-26% (human 40% increase)
methane 4-9%
It is not possible to state that a certain gas causes a certain percentage of the greenhouse effect, because the influences of the various gases are not additive. Low-highs numbers based on interactive or non-interactive calculations.

The Earth receives energy from the Sun in the form of radiation. The Earth reflects about 30% of the incident solar flux; the remaining 70% is absorbed, warming the land, atmosphere and oceans.

To the extent that the Earth is in a steady state, the energy stored in the atmosphere and ocean does not change in time, so energy equal to the absorbed solar radiation must be radiated back to space. Earth radiates energy into space as black-body radiation, which maintains a thermal equilibrium.

The equilibrium is as such (btw -this has been measured observationally, experimentally many many times)

239.7 watts per square meter are absorbed by the atmosphere from solar irradiation

239.7 watts per square meter are emitted by earth in the form of infrared radiation

Hence stable temperatures.

But....
Human effects on greenhouse gases (since 1860)

H20- none (water vapor levels are directly linked to temperature)
CO2- Humans have increased CO2 40%
Methane- increased 150%"

Human caused increase in greenhouse effects

H20 - none
CO2 - 1.5 W/m2
methane - 0.5 W/m2

If you add 2 W/m2 (which is what is happening due to increased greenhouse gases)

WHAT HAPPENS ??????????

Spook, I was wondering what article(s) you were quoting in the body of your long post -- the one about EMS, Fenton, et. al. -- the one you told us to check out. I didn't see any of that on Snopes, or in the FrontPageMag cite either.

I didn't have to check out the NAS article, because I already read it. In fact, I cited it in defense of you a few months back when the discussion revolved around the medieval maximum and the little ice age (please don't ask me to cite it again, lol!). I'm not inclined to take what the Financial Post had to say about the panel review as gospel, though. Mann and his science certainly had their critics, but in balance I wouldn't call it devastating. Rather, I remember it as pretty much par for the course as scientific review panels go -- tough, but fair. If anything, the big criticism was that he didn't have a deep enough knowledge of the statistics he used (or should have used). Unfortunately (or perhaps I should say predictably?) when viewed through the lens of a statistician's mind, that's a common problem with many scientific studies -- perhaps even most. Then again, statisticians generally don't understand the vagaries of the discipline, or the data, that other scientists have to deal with, either. And often the most appropriate statistical approach depends upon the details of the nature of the data and how it was obtained. At any rate, I got the impression that the discrepancies affected the quality of the data, but not the fundamental substance of the conclusions.

And I believe it was me that alerted you to the fact that RealClimate was run by Mann and his boys, so you had to remain cognizant of their point of view. Nonetheless, I argued, it offered something of a counterpoint to some of the other sites you (we) were visiting. Further, the advantage I saw in the RealClimate site was the fact that they didn't just tell you their interpretation of a study or article (something about which I am always suspect), they presented the piece when they could and "apparently" offered a lively comment section -- sometimes including one or more authors of the piece they were discussing. I learned a lot from their comment sections. Or so I thought -- until I read your Pielke link. That was VERY disturbing - RC edits their comments! And it wasn't just Pielke making that charge, either. Several commenters on the Pielke thread said the same thing. That's disturbing. I don't have a problem with arrogance or condescention (one thing you find in spades in academia is ego), but editing the comments section?? That truly sucks. It's getting so NO ONE wants to have a fair fight on a level playing field that is open to all comers.

Bigfoot: This analogy is valid only if both water and salt contribute to hypertension, with water being the greater contributor.

I hope you don't take this the wrong way, because I'm sure there are things you know a lot more about than me. But it appears you know as little about physiology as you do the physics and chemistry of gases. If you did I suspect you might think my analogy was brilliant, lol! Seriously, one side of the analogy has all of the elements you need to understand the other side. It's got your active forcers, your passive positive feedback elements, and even equilibrium set points. Of course, if you don't understand either one you're SOL. lol!

I've tried to explain this water vapor concept before using a couple of different analogies -- one in electronics and the other in... I don't remember, lol! I thought it was going to be an easy task because, quite frankly, if the role of water vapor is a struggle for you to understand, then the rest of the science underlying climate change is likely to be unapproachable, even in qualitative terms. Anyway, and in spite of what I just said in my previous comment about my disappointment regarding Spook's revelation about RealClimate.org, I do urge you to check out winnowhead's citation. The explanation they offer there is neither controversial or rocket science.

Mark -the facts and figures you requested

The Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC), which includes the World Data Center for Atmospheric Trace Gases, has served as the primary climate-change data and information analysis center of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) since 1982

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/faq.html#Q7

Q:What percentage of the CO2 in the atmosphere has been produced by human beings through the burning of fossil fuels?

A:Anthropogenic CO2 comes from fossil fuel combustion, changes in land use (e.g., forest clearing), and cement manufacture. Houghton and Hackler have estimated land-use changes from 1850-2000, so it is convenient to use 1850 as our starting point for the following discussion. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations had not changed appreciably over the preceding 850 years (IPCC; The Scientific Basis) so it may be safely assumed that they would not have changed appreciably in the 150 years from 1850 to 2000 in the absence of human intervention.

In the following calculations, we will express atmospheric concentrations of CO2 in units of parts per million by volume (ppmv). Each ppmv represents 2.13 X1015 grams, or 2.13 petagrams of carbon (PgC) in the atmosphere. According to Houghton and Hackler, land-use changes from 1850-2000 resulted in a net transfer of 154 PgC to the atmosphere. During that same period, 282 PgC were released by combustion of fossil fuels, and 5.5 additional PgC were released to the atmosphere from cement manufacture. This adds up to 154 + 282 + 5.5 = 441.5 PgC, of which 282/444.1 = 64% is due to fossil-fuel combustion.

Atmospheric CO2 concentrations rose from 288 ppmv in 1850 to 369.5 ppmv in 2000, for an increase of 81.5 ppmv, or 174 PgC. In other words, about 40% (174/441.5) of the additional carbon has remained in the atmosphere, while the remaining 60% has been transferred to the oceans and terrestrial biosphere.

The 369.5 ppmv of carbon in the atmosphere, in the form of CO2, translates into 787 PgC, of which 174 PgC has been added since 1850. From the second paragraph above, we see that 64% of that 174 PgC, or 111 PgC, can be attributed to fossil-fuel combustion. This represents about 14% (111/787) of the carbon in the atmosphere in the form of CO2

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/faq.html#Q7

Hope that answers your question but if not take a look here

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads06/06ES.pdf

Ok, for you global warming alarmists out there, can you dispute this man's numbers? Is the human-caused CO2 greater than 0.12% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere? If it is that small, can you describe precisely how this very small amount of CO2 is making such a massive change?

Like most of you folks, I'm neither a meteorologist nor a scientist, so I can only respond by digging up controverting evidence on the web. One rebuttal I found makes does a good job of explaining the logical fallacy in Augie's argument.

In a nutshell, Augie is right about the proportion of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses to water vapor - it's really, really small. The logical fallacy is that water plays the same role in retaining the earth's heat as any other molecule up there. In fact, water vapor blocks heat rays radiating from earth only within a certain spectrum. CO2 and other gasses block the rays in other parts of the spectrum where water vapor lets the heat escape. If these water vapor "windows" in the spectrum are blocked, less heat can escape the atmosphere and the earth heats up. The ratio of water vapor to other greenhouse gases is therefore not relevant.

The author of the rebuttal makes a good analogy:

"To come back to the example of the house: Imagine that you have 6 windows through which you can see out. 4 are covered by a mile high stack of thick black blankets (water vapour). Now somebody darkens one of the last two open windows with a thin sheet of dark fabric. How would that affect your house?"

That, is how a small amount of CO2 can make a massive amount of change.

Mark...

A dodge? Thats funny - that just proves how absolutely and completely scientifically ignorant you really are. Here are a few quotes on understanding quantum mechanics from a few of the most prominent physicists of the 20th century - each who made seminal contributes to quantum mechanics:

"If quantum mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked you, you haven't understood it yet.” Neils Bohr

“I think I can safely say that nobody understands Quantum Mechanics" R.P. Feynman

``I myself . . . only came to believe in the uncertainty relations after many pangs of conscience. . . . '' Werner Heisenberg

But they must just not be smart enough to understand it like Mark does. Good grief Mark - from your original post you demonstrate a complete and utter lack of understanding of basically anything scientific. Your post comes down to - "thats a small number so it can't be important" Bravo... Bravo...

You do realize that your posts on evolution and global warming are panned across the internet.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=7270

I say this not to be mean - but to advise you that that your quickly becoming a freak show for others to mock...

The 369.5 ppmv of carbon in the atmosphere, in the form of CO2, translates into 787 PgC, of which 174 PgC has been added since 1850. From the second paragraph above, we see that 64% of that 174 PgC, or 111 PgC, can be attributed to fossil-fuel combustion. This represents about 14% (111/787) of the carbon in the atmosphere in the form of CO2

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/faq.html#Q7

Our cut and paste scientific liberals are merely regurgitating data that does support the earths warming of nearly .07 degrees over the last three decades. They will then extend that pattern out to show catastrophic consequences. To surmise an overal global temperature as well is nonsense in that there exist a myriad of ecosystems througout the planet all in varying degrees of flux. It is equilavent to surmising an average telephone number out of the phone book.

The other problem is that the earth is in a fluid state, not a static state as mentioned by one poster up thread. The other glaring, almost blinding statisitc of them all is that we have been recording these events since the early 1800's at best. Let's see, that gives us not quite 200 years of observation on a planet that is millions of years old and we're drawing specific, undeniable conclusions from that 200 year old data.

For all of you liberal science freaks, explain how you would square that. Would you draw undeniable conclusions from a sampling of a very small group of people out of a population of 350 million people?

Oh wait......never mind.

I say this not to be mean - but to advise you that that your quickly becoming a freak show for others to mock...kblack

Pot, meet kettle.

Spook, I was wondering what article(s) you were quoting in the body of your long post -- the one about EMS, Fenton, et. al. -- the one you told us to check out.

Rico, it was this one.

Neologizer, isn't it true that a number of paleoclimatological studies have shown that rises in CO2 concentration have historically followed rises in temperature, not caused them?

Google
the global warming MYTH and watch the movie about 1-1.5 hrs long.
The SUN is the culprit, and water vapor.

NOT co2
co2 FOLLOWS the warming trends
it does NOT!!!!!! cause them.
JUNK science by MARXISTS to destroy our economy/nation.

RS..You rock!!!
and kb....get a job or a girlfriend..it's not hard to do...well um, maybe!!!!

Dear Neocon and Frmmarine and Mark,

If you add 2 W/m2 (which is what is happening due to human caused increased greenhouse gases)

What happens?????????????????

Until that question is addressed no skeptic is being serious about refuting global warming. Which curiously they will never answer so.......

I'll answer for you....

Answer: You have an imbalance, and what happens when you have an energy input imbalance?

When you have such an energy imbalance on your stove - the water heats up.

When you have such an imbalance in a greenhouse - it gets warmer inside

When you have such an energy imbalance by using a magnifying glass on an ant - the ant gets real warm

And when you have such an energy imbalance in the atmosphere ..... you get warming. No matter what you may believe.

BTW
Solar irradiance has decreased not increased and Water vapor content hasn't changed. Try again!

Spook
Not sure about your questions but paleoclimatological studies are correlative. Atmosphereic gas concentrations will alow you to understand the relative retention of solar energy in the atmosphere historically. To understand the historic cause of climate shifts you would need to know all the driving forces and how they changed prior to during and after climate shift.

CO2 is only one potential driving force of climate change. But it appears to be the only one increasing at this point in history

extramedium

"That, is how a small amount of CO2 can make a massive amount of change."

That, extramedium, is absolute BS. There is no relationship whatsoever. However, Algore and Fat Michael might buy it. That would be worth a sales pitch! The goofier the better, and that is quite goofy.

Spook

Not sure about your questions but paleoclimatological studies are correlative.

I thought the question was pretty clear. IS IT NOT TRUE THAT, ACCORDING TO A NUMBER OF PALEOCLIMATOLOGICAL STUDIES, A RISE IN ATMOSPHERIC C02 CONCENTRATION HAS HISTORICALLY FOLLOWED A RISE IN TEMPERATURE, NOT PRECEDED IT? And, if that is the case, it would seem that CO2 is not as much of a "driving force" for climate change as those on your side of the debate would have us believe. In fact, in your own post, you refer to it as "only one POTENTIAL driving force. The fact that you say "it appears to be the only one increasing at this point in history" simply indicates to me that, (a) you are not nearly as smart as you'd like everyone to think, or (b) you have dismissed an awful lot of studies about a number of other climate driving forces. Which is it?

Spook,

try choice C) It actually shows that CO2 is a potential major driving force and can actually amplify the effects of other forces
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/

Spook, others,

Man has caused an increase of greenhouse gases. This increase causes the atmosphere to aborb more solar energy. Where did/does this energy go?

If you can't answer that then you can't refute global warming. Because the data shows the extra energy is manifesting as a temperature increase.

Opps I forgot to add this but here it is

"IS IT NOT TRUE THAT, ACCORDING TO A NUMBER OF PALEOCLIMATOLOGICAL STUDIES, A RISE IN ATMOSPHERIC C02 CONCENTRATION HAS HISTORICALLY FOLLOWED A RISE IN TEMPERATURE, NOT PRECEDED IT?"

To answer your question Historically - No, your generalization is incorrect. There is one example in the last 50,000 years that temp preceded CO2 increase but over the last multi-millenia time scale most of the time CO2 correlates with temperature.

The reason I ask what you meant is because It's well understood that by itself paleoclimate correlation cannot be used to quantify the effect of CO2 on a climate change.

The question still stands if current CO2 increases are driving an energy imbalance -where is the energy going? answer - global warming

SEW - absolute BS? What's BS? That CO2 blocks a different spectral range of radiant heat? Bit of a lazy refutation...

Extramedium

Your comparison of apples to oranges is BS, actually comparing fish to oranges. Or more libtard "science" there? Get a clue!

There is one example in the last 50,000 years that temp preceded CO2 increase but over the last multi-millenia time scale most of the time CO2 correlates with temperature.

Neo, on the outside chance that you're still monitoring this thread, here is what I found that somewhat contradicts your statement, given your caveat "in the last 50,000 years".

Direct observations from the last ice age were not possible. We were not here. Temperatures and CO2 concentrations have been indirectly deduced from samples of air from former ages locked in the ice of Greenland or Antarctica. The results do not provide a basis for reliable estimates of the earth’s sensitivity to extra CO2: they show that increases in CO2 do not precede increases in temperature – they follow it.

Petit et al. (1999) reconstructed surface air temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration
profiles from Vostok ice core samples covering 420,000 years, concluding that during
glaciation “the CO2 decrease lags the temperature decrease by several thousand years" and
"the same sequence of climate forcing operated during each termination.”

Using sections of ice core records from the last three inter-glacial transitions, Fischer et al.
(1999) decided that “the time lag of the rise in CO2 concentrations with respect to temperature change is on the order of 400 to 1000 years during all three glacial-interglacial
transitions.”

On the basis of atmospheric carbon dioxide data obtained from Antarctic Taylor Dome ice
core samples, and temperature data obtained from the Vostok ice core, Indermuhle et al.
(2000) looked at the relationship between these two variables over the period 60,000-20,000
years ago. A statistical test on the data showed that movement in the air’s CO2 content
lagged behind shifts in air temperature by approximately 900 years, while a second
statistical test yielded a mean lag-time of 1200 years.

Similarly, in a study of air temperature and CO2 data obtained from high time resolution
samples at the Antarctic Concordia Dome site, for the period 22,000-9,000 ago, covering the
last glacial-to-interglacial transition, Monnin et al. (2001) found that the start of the CO2
increase lagged the start of the temperature increase by 800 years.

In yet another study of the 420,000-year Vostok ice-cores, Mudelsee (2001) concluded that
variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration lagged behind variations in air temperature by
1,300 to 5,000 years.

In a study using different methodology, Yokoyama et al. (2000) analyzed sediments in the
tectonically stable Bonaparte Gulf of Australia to determine the timing of the initial melting
phase of the last great ice age. Commenting on the results of that study, Clark and Mix (2000) note that the rapid rise in sea level caused by the melting of land-based ice that began approximately 19,000 years ago preceded the post-glacial rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration by about 3,000 years.

Caillon et al. (2003) focused on an isotope of argon (40Ar) that can be taken as a climate
proxy, thus providing constraints about the relative timing of CO2 shifts and climate change.
Air bubbles in the Vostok ice core over the period that comprises Glacial Termination III -
which occurred 240,000 years ago - were studied. They found that “the CO2 increase lagged
behind Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years.”

We conclude that there is plentiful evidence in the scientific literature that increases in
atmospheric CO2 have followed increases in temperature in former ages and cannot have
been the cause of those increases. In this respect, ice-core studies can tell us no more than
that there may be a small climate feedback from increased atmospheric CO2 in response to
temperature.

Could you provide references to ANY studies that indicate that "over the last multi-millenia time scale most of the time CO2 correlates with temperature."