FreeWilly
If I hadn't known better I'd think you were asking me a religious question. In a scientific dialog over data I find it difficult to enlist emotion. I'd recommend the same lest they betray you.
LOL. Maybe I am just used to people getting pissy when they find they have cited material that shows either they didn't read the quoted material properly, and/or failed to check its validity, and/or based their selection on whether it agreed with a preconception as distinct from agreeing with facts.
I'm glad you are immune to such behaviour. You seem instead to ignore the fact you have quoted a paper which has more holes in it than swiss cheese.
I do not dispute a human contribution to rising CO2 levels in our atmosphere. Although I believe it naive and presumptuous to attribute all of the ~80 ppm CO2a increase (pre-industrial/post-industrial age) to human activity, humans, nonetheless bear at least some of that responsibility. My comments to this point have been that of proportion and relavance. If this is not sufficient, or you would like me to elaborate more please ask.
Is doubting the 80ppm increase being wholey due to human activities the result of data analysis, if so, what? If not, how do you support your position?
Again, viewing the "extra CO2", or as you put it the "billions of tons" of CO2,
Don't do that. You yourself say it is "6 billion" tons a year. Thus using quotes around the above is making it appear as if you are quoting something that you maybe don't agree with, and you do.
Were we to go on you words a person would likely view the human contribution as a dispproportionately large component of our atmosphere or of the Greenhouse total.
Please quote anything I have said which could lead to either supposition. This, for example;
Total human-released CO2 of 1 x 10~18 g of CO2 in 200 years IS significant in light there is less than 3 × 10~18 g of
CO2 in the atmosphere.
... seem to be very clear on the proportions, far more so than the deceptive calculations of Khilyuk and Chilingar. They compare 4.5 billion years of CO2 outgassing to 200 years of human activity to make the percentage impressively small (0.00022%) but totally deceptive as regards the current situation. Human activity is currently responsible for 25% of all atmospheric CO2. They cook the figures (or are big enough idiots) to make it seem that human produced CO2 is 113,636 times less important than it is today. Your attempts to put CO2 "in context" are red herrings to avoid actually getting down to the nitty grity, or a result of simply not getting how the figures are being manipulated.
CO2 is a trace gas which represents a mere 0.038% of our atmosphere.
Preaching to the choir, no one is disputing CO2 being a small constituent part of the atmosphere. Time and time again you state facts which are not disputed as though you were setting matters straight; is this because you have so little facts to support your solar variation argument you have little else to do? You are still avoiding discussing the effect of the billions of tons of extra CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) in the atmosphere over and above what would be there without human activity.
I think this may be because of where you did your research; most climate change cynics do this so you doing the same is not really a surprise.
It's role as a "Greenhouse Gas" is best view in relation to it's peers. CO2 is dwarfed as a Greenhouse Gas (~3%) compared to Water Vapour (~95%) and other gasses. Only then can we best discuss it's effects.
You are repeating yourself. So I will be equally tedious and do the same.
No one says the increase in temperature is caused by water vapour, even if it is the major greenhouse gas. The fact that water vapour plays a larger overall role is irrelevent when it's role is more-or-less stable or responsive to other trends.
CO2 increase is NOT a response (on any significant scale) to other trends, it is a caused by human activity.
It has changed concentration, from c. 280ppm (pre-industrial) to c. 380ppm now. That is a 35% increase in 200 years or less, currently around 0.4% per year. It hasn't been that high in 20-25 million years, and it would not be that high now if it were not for human activity.
So then, how much is the additional ~80 ppm (arguably attributed to humans) in the grand scheme of things?
35% more CO2, = c. 0.48 Wm-2 extra forcing, with an additonal 0.29 Wm-2 forcing from CH4 increasing by 249%, 0.024 Wm-2 from N2O increasing by 16%, 0.0015 Wm-2 from CF4 doubling, and 0.326 Wm-2 from other gases produced soley by human activity. That is 1.1215 Wm-2 extra forcing from greenhouse gases due to human activity, excluding aerosols and particulates.
Thus total extra forcing due to human activity changing the concentrations of greenhouse gases is 114% more than it was before the Industrial era. The EFFECT is far more important than playing with small numbers to make-out the effect is small like this;
It represents a atmospheric change of ~0.008% of out atmospheric makeup. It constitutes a <1% change in the makeup of greenhouse gasses. From these points we need not draw any conclusions about CO2, only bear them in mind when considering the sensational, catastrophic effects that are being attributed to this fractional change.
Look you do realise discussions have a sort of format, a kind of flow? Assertion, rebutal? Ring any bells?
You asserted various facts about water vapour large role and CO2's low concentration; I rebutted this by saying such facts have no bearing on the incease in CO2 and increase in temperature that is happening at the same time. You just repeat your original point with no modification; it doesn't even 'evolve'. LOL.
You look at the mix of atmospheric gases and say, "Pwah, it's only 0.038% of the atmosphere". Yes, and, so, what? Look at iron; iron can have very different properties depending on tiny variations in the % of various additives or contaminents present in it. Saying; "Pwah, it's (say carbon) only a tiny percentage of the steel" is irrelevent if increasing that tiny perentage by 35% means the steel has a new set of properties.
You sound like my Mom who wonders why I won't fall in line with the JW's. She cook's up consiracies too! Don't drink the cool-aid!
LOL. I love reading comments like this. If someone starts with this it is a sure sign they have run out of relevent things to say. Miaow back at you.
I love your paste of a rebuttal to the findings of Khilyuk and Chilingar. I cannot be sure if your objections to the article are shared or borrowed.
Ah, so you come here with original science "what you thought up yourself"? LOL. Why don't you just address the faults pointed out? I know you grab at the extra paragraphs I stuck in for amusement value ("For example, is the cause of Earth's internal heat germane to our discussion?") as it then looks like your responding to the main points when you're actually not.
So, what have you got to say about their seeming to think there is 150,000 times more CO2 in the atmosphere than there actually is? I say this as they compare ALL CO2 from outgassing (4.5 billion years with no calculation of re-absorbtion) with 200 years of human activity, thus uder estimating current proportion of human activities on CO2 levels by over 100,000 times! That is spectacularly bad science, but I'm not sure if you understand it...
What comment have you about their major conclusions being unsupported allegations, e.g. “the major causes of currently observed global warming are: rising solar irradiation and increasing tectonic activity"?
Anything to say about them using superceded data? Failing to cite relevant literature in the fields they cover? Or refering to www.junkscience.com (are you gonna tell me that's peer-reviewed? Oh, hang on, that's where you get YOUR stuff from too! LOL)?
Now let's get down to the sun. Do you check to see something that agrees wih your opinion has been refuted before you use it? Or does your excitement get the better of you? I have to ask as citing Khilyuk and Chilingar could have been an honest mistake, but not knowing the concensus of opinion on solar variation when this is the kernal of 'your' theory make it look like your research is sloppy.
Variations of this magnitude are too small to have contributed appreciably to the accelerated global warming observed since the mid-1970s, according to the study, and there is no sign of a net increase in brightness over the period.
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Changes_In_Solar_Brightness_Too_Weak_To_Explain_Global_Warming_999.html
This article makes it clear there is no smoking gun where the sun is involved. The temperature change is greater than the influence the sun could have had using known models or measurements. Of course, there have been studies with different results. This wiki is a good discussion of the topic, highlights mine;
In 1991, Knud Lassen of the Danish Meteorological Institute in Copenhagen and his colleague Eigil Friis-Christensen found a strong correlation between the length of the solar cycle and temperature changes throughout the northern hemisphere. Initially, they used sunspot and temperature measurements from 1861 to 1989, but later found that climate records dating back four centuries supported their findings. This relationship appeared to account for nearly 80 per cent of the measured temperature changes over this period (see graph. [22] Damon and Laut, however, show that when the graphs are corrected for filtering errors, the sensational agreement with the recent global warming, which drew worldwide attention, has totally disappeared. Nevertheless, the authors and other researchers keep presenting the old misleading graph. [21] Note that the prior link to "graph" is one such example of this.
I suggest you read the whole of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#The_solar_variation_theory as a starting point; it contains many references and is not nearly as partisan as your choice of information, junk science. Taking your references from a source that appears to determine its opinion at the start of its analysis (just like Creationists who use Creationist websites) does not seem the best way of ensuring accuracy.
This is one such reference http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DamonLaut2004.pdf detailing the strange persistance of known errors, and convenient mathmatical errors.
CO2's role as a climate driver is woefully unsubstantiated and IMO presumpteous.
On the contrary, to the best of our knowledge rising CO2 levels is the cause of recent temperature increases.
The evidence of this increase, its cause, and the physical effects of this are well known and not subject to dispute. CO2 levels have risen by c. 100 ppm is a FACT. This is largely due to fossil fuel use is a FACT. Average global temperatures have risen is a FACT.
Unlike solar variance where there is no clear evidence of changes large enough to drive current temperature increases; most figures cluster around 25% of temperature change prior to the '70's and 15% thereafter, if that, due to solar variation.
Earth's temperatures HAVE increased 5*C since the last Ice age. Our Oceans HAVE risen 300 feet since then as well. The trend will likely continue. The glaciers will all melt and oceans rise as they have before. But fear not we will again retreat from this brief period of warm only to sink into another long predominant period of ice and cold that Earth is most accustomed to.
All of this until our dear sun expires. Climate stasis is a fallacy. Just look at the graph......:)
Do you realising you have a habit of mentioning arguments the person you're in discussion with has not advanced, Who says tempoeratures have not risen 5 C or sea levels 100m? Who says that there will ot be aother ice age? Who says there is such a thing as climate stasis? You talk about fallacies when your argumentative style seem to depend on fallacies such as ad hom and saw man.
All of these points over which there is no disagreement or straw man arguments have NOTHING to do with the current human-caused trend. It just evades the centre issue; that a 35% increase in levels of CO2 is changing the climate rapidly (the sun alone can't explain the change) and that the climate is warmer than it would be without such changes. These changes will in the next few decades have real impacts on humans, chiefly the poorest of the poor, but also including the prime areas for certain crops moving. We can make these changes less severe if we moderate our behaviour, but there will still be changes.
Now, will the predictable happen, or will I be pleaently surprised?
