Is ten years really an effective time frame to base geologic conclusions upon?
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

CO2 concentrations fluctuate naturally. Therefore, there must be some mechanism by which CO2 concentrations increase naturally. Therefore, it is possible that CO2 concentrations are increasing naturally. Definitive statements like the one I quoted are therefore false.

Furthermore, you're arguing that CO2 concentrations are increasing because humans are emitting CO2. You argue that nature sequesters more CO2 than it emits, and further claim that this is because there is "extra" CO2 in the atmosphere. You then conclude, erroneously, that were there no human emissions, CO2 concentrations would fall. This conclusion does not follow from your premises.

If the only reason nature is absorbing more CO2 than it emits is because humans are emitting CO2, and you took humans out of the equation, then nature would not be absorbing more CO2 than it emits. CO2 concentrations would remain stable. Yet, CO2 levels have not remained stable (in any real geologic sense) for the entire history of this planet.

In reality, you can't say with any certainty why CO2 concentrations are increasing, nor whether removing human emissions would have either a positive or negative net effect.

Who said anything about geologic conclusions? I am simply pointing out that the current co2 rise seen year on year has an anthropogenic cause.

co2 concentrations can increase naturally, but in this case there is good evidence it is an anthropogenic cause.

Yes it does because it is only when you include human emissions that co2 sources worldwide are more than co2 sinks worldwide. Take out the human source and co2 sinks will then be absorbing more than the sources are emitting.

Global co2 emissions per year (nature and man): X + 28
Global co2 absorption per year (just nature): X + 13

(X+28) - (X+14) = +15 (rise of 15 tons co2 per year in atmosphere)

Now take away the human source (the 28), and you get:

X - (X+14) = -14 (loss of 15 tons co2 per year in atmosphere)

How can co2 in the atmosphere continue rising if human emissions stopped, when nature is absorbing more than it emits?

And notice that unlike other sources in nature, the human source has only appeared significantly in the past 200 years, correlating with the co2 rise..The evidence is more than compelling.

Nature would still be absorbing more co2 than it emits. It's absorbing more co2 than it emits because there is an abundance of co2 in the atmosphere. Turn off human co2 emissions tommorow and you still have that same abundance in the atmosphere. The rate of co2 absorption by nature will be the same. It will only lower over time as the co2 is absorbed. But in no way is co2 going to continue rising without human emissions.

There's just too much evidence that the rise is man caused:

-co2 levels today are about 35% higher than at any point in the 700,000 years of ice core records available.

-the co2 rise has been exponential, just like human co2 emission trends

-the co2 rise correlates in time with human co2 emission trends

-preceeding the co2 rise levels were relatively flat at 280ppm for hundreds of years

-carbon isotope ratios in the atmosphere are compatible with the source of co2 being from fossil fuels, while ruling out some other sources

-humans emissions more than explain the rate of co2 rise observed year on year

Any one of many of these points can be argued as a coincidence. But the chance of so many coincidences... Especially the last one there which alone is enough. It's simply unexplainable how a 28 billion ton/year emission rate cannot be the cause of a 15 billion ton/year co2 rise.

For the past ten years. Even if your argument weren't logically flawed, so what? What would this knowledge add to the debate?
What evidence is that? What are all the natural causes for CO2 concentration fluctuations?
No, they won't, according to your logic. You wrote:
You reiterated this several times:
(Which has its own logical fallacy, but we'll stick to the current one.)

Ergo, if there were no human activity, CO2 levels would remain level at 280ppm. Do you believe CO2 levels would be at appr. 280ppm today if there were no human emissions?
How can nature absorb more than it emits if you've already asserted the only reason it's absorbing more in the first place is because humans are emitting CO2?
Are you familiar with post hoc, ergo propter hoc arguments? Let me give you an example:
Everytime I walk out of the house with an umbrella it's raining. Can I therefore conclude my umbrella causes it to rain?

Correlation does not prove causation.
How so? Does CO2 absorption always increase when there's an abundance of CO2 in the atmosphere? If so, then that either indicates: 1) an eventual reduction to 0ppm of CO2, or 2) a self-regulating system that maintains relatively general stability. Did we have 0ppm of CO2 prior to 300 years ago? Were CO2 concentrations always relatively generally stable prior to 300 years ago? Of course, the answer to both questions is, "No." CO2 concentrations go up and down naturally, sometimes violently. You want to presume since Man is here and emitting CO2 that somehow all the other natural causes of fluctuating CO2 concentrations stop. Since Man is here, and CO2 concentrations have risen, Man has caused CO2 concentrations to increase. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.
Because CO2 doesn't rise naturally?
For some, I suppose. However, your argument still fails a priori.
Assuming your numbers are correct. But quick assumptions really are the life-blood of this debate, aren't they?

Global Warming enthusiasts have long-since adjusted the "theory" of global warming to fit any change of any type and of any proportion to any geographic location.

Human-induced Global warming (According to its enthisiasts) is responsible for:

1. Hot weather

2. Cold Weather

3. El Nino

4. Polar ice melts and ice calving

5. Polar icecaps getting thicker

6. Rises in ocean depth, freshwater rivers, lakes, etc

7. Receding waters to include ocean depth, freshwater rivers, lakes, etc

8. Increased solar radiation

9. Decreases in solar radiation

10. Increases in drought

11. Increases in floods

12. Increased ground temperature

13. Decreases in ground temperature

14. Increases in hurricane activity

15. Decreases in hurricane activity


and the list goes on and on.

It is a one-size-fits-all fear-instilling frenzy, and it is all due to the bad people of the world (Americans) and specifically George Bush.

/chuckle

__________________

Al-Gore claimed that we only had 10 years Left. But, that was like 8 years ago or something. We are doomed.It's good someone recognizes that co2 is not exclusively human manufactured.Co2 rose to 2,000 bits per million naturally in the past.Exactly. Besides, there are other factors to consider as well.

__________________
United We Stand.

1) That co2 levels are rising. If co2 levels were not rising, they couldn't be a candidate for the recent warming.

2) That the co2 rise is anthropogenic.

Mainly temperature change. Ice cores show that co2 starts rising when temperature rises, and also show that during the little ice age co2 levels dropped about 10ppm. The basis of this is that the efficiency of processes like ocean absorption of co2 are dependant on temperature.

Which is true

I don't see how that can be seen as a logical fallacy. The equillibrium level of co2 in the atmosphere is largely a product of temperature. At this current time the level of co2 in the atmosphere is far greater than the level at which temperature can maintain it. All things equal co2 should be filtering out of the atmosphere in current conditions. It's only human contribution of an extra 28 billion tons co2 per year that is keeping the co2 rising.

Yes

I am talking about if humans stopped emitting today. In that case there is still an abundance of co2 in the atmosphere and levels will start falling. I am not talking about if humans didn't emit in the first place. In that case co2 levels would most likely have remained near the preindustrial level of 280ppm to this day.

We know umbrellas don't cause rain, there's no mechanism for them to do so. But we know that co2 emissions can cause co2 rises. "correlation does not prove causation" is a popular phrase but in reality when it is also coupled with mechanism, correlation can have a statisitical fit beyond chance, so becomes excellent evidence.

0ppm would be a shortage. There is a level of equilibrium which is largely determined by temperature (about 280ppm over the last few hundred years). If co2 levels are above this equillibrium level then absorption tends to outweigh emission, if they are below the level then the opposite is true.

Quite the contrary. The fact is that natural causes of fluctuating co2 concentrations haven't stopped. At the moment nature is absorbing more co2 than it emits, so left alone nature would be pulling co2 from the atmosphere causing levels to drop. Ie rising levels at this time are not natural. It is the human source which is enough to mean more co2 is entering than leaving the atmosphere.

That's not the argument. It would be better phrased as:
co2 concentrations rise due to more co2 being emitted into the atmosphere than is absorbed. Since man is here, extra co2 is being emitted into the atmosphere. Because co2 levels are only rising about half the rate man is emitting co2, nature must be a net sink of co2. Ie man is emitting twice as much co2 as co2 levels are rising. Therefore man has caused co2 concentrations to rise.

No, because nature is absorbing more co2 than it is emitting. Take 2006 as an example - over that year nature took more co2 out of the atmosphere than it put in. Therefore without humans emissions you cannot have co2 levels rising in 2006. How could that possibly not be true?

They are correct.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/maunaloa.co2
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2003.ems

What do you think would happen to atmospheric co2 levels if human emissions stopped tommorow? Don't you agree there would be 28 billion tons less co2
going into the atmosphere each year? Don't you agree that would turn the ~15 billion tons rise in atmospheric co2 levels each year into a 13 billion ton loss? I can't see how you could claim otherwise. mathematically it is impossible to subtract a larger number from a smaller number and remain with a number above zero.

The evidence is beyond doubt that co2 is rising, and the the rise is human caused.

Why does atmospheric CO2 rise

HOLD IT RIGHT THERE. What is the scientific basis (if any) for your claim (if you actually believe this) that the Earth has "warmed 0.6 degrees C over the past 100 years"?

The reason I ask is that I have actually seen advocates of the global warming hoax point to ice core samples as their "evidence" of the mythical "global warming"!

How convenient.

First they claim "ice core samples show evidence of global warming", then they turn right around and say "ice cores show that CO2 starts rising when temperature rises".

IOW, those advocates of the global warming hoax are basing their claim on a circular argument!

Get real, sir.

Actually it's closer to 0.8C. The warming trend over the 20th century has been complied by multiple scientific bodies from the surface record:
Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Graphs
NCDC: Global Surface Temperature Anomalies
Temperature data (HadCRUT3 and CRUTEM3)

I have seen people say that too. But I have never done that, and I have never seen any climate scientists say that either.

The ice core records show co2 rising 100ppm from glacial to interglacial periods, and this rise starts after the temperature starts rising, and takes many thousands of years. The warmings out of glacial periods are not primarily caused by co2.

Actually it's closer to 0.8C. The warming trend over the 20th century has been complied by multiple scientific bodies from the surface record:
Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Graphs
NCDC: Global Surface Temperature Anomalies
Temperature data (HadCRUT3 and CRUTEM3).[/QUOTE]

OK, so you think it's 0.8 degrees C. Now answer the question. (HINT: that means you explaining your thoughts on the matter, not mindlessly regurgitating a link to a web page. If you lack the ability to even attempt to explain it in your own words, just say so.)

What is the scientific basis (if any) for your claim that the Earth has "warmed 0.8 degrees C over the past 100 years"?

Yes, I know you keep claiming the "temperature is rising". I am asking you to explain what upon what scientific basis (if any) you base that belief of yours! If you lack the ability to even attempt to explain it in your own words, just say so!

It's that the trend in surface temperature records is upwards over the last century. Taking the records from various stations around the world, and combining them into a single global trend. That trend is upwards.

Over the span of ten years, which would mean absolutely nothing.
Hmmm, well let me use some of your logic. Rising temperature causes CO2 concentrations to increase, the temperature has risen over the past 10 years, therefore, the rise in CO2 concentrations is entirely natural.

But back to the point, until you know all the natural causes for the fluctuation of CO2 concentrations, and have ruled them out as possible causes for the current rise in CO2 concentrations, you can't definitively claim the increase in CO2 concentrations is anthropogenic, nor can you claim that nature would take any particular course were man not around.
If you suspend reason and logic.
What? I thought the equilibrium level of CO2 in the atmosphere was entirely a product of human emissions. Which is it? Do CO2 concentrations increase because of temperature, or because of human emissions.

Your statement basically resolves to this: The atmosphere will absorb more CO2 than it emits if there is more CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb, therefore, the atmosphere will always have a contant level of CO2 concentrations. Which is not true.
According to what? What "things" need to be equal? Are you arguing the atmosphere is an ordered system?
Really? Why? What happened to all the other forcings that alter CO2 concentrations? Given that CO2 concentrations fluctuate naturally, why do you believe they simply stop when humans are around? Do they just not like to be watched? What about temperature? Since temperature has increased over the past 150 years (assuming we accept that premise), shouldn't CO2 concentrations have increased commensurately?
Then they would reach their pre-industrial levels and stop? Because the planet likes the 280ppm number?
You first need to understand the mechanism. Do we?
Really? Well, that makes sense. Temperature started increasing naturally, therefore CO2 concentrations rose naturally. Looks like my erroneous conclusion is getting stronger every minute. Yours, however, is suffering. Unless you're arguing that Man somehow increased the temperature of this planet?
Then there could be natural reasons why CO2 concentrations are increasing. Until we got to zero.
Which logically means: either the absorption rate decreased, or the emission rate increased. You can't state specifically which.
Correct, in so far as "extra" means "non-natural".
Your conclusion still does not follow. Assuming your numbers for how much CO2 Man is emitting and how much CO2 is added to the environment every year are correct, the most you could argue is that Man is a cause of rising CO2 concentrations.

Furthermore, you would not be able to argue CO2 concentrations would decrease if Man stopped emitting CO2 because climate is not a linear, ordered system. You don't know what would happen, just as you don't know what's happening now. You can come up with very plausible theories, none of which will have the definite statements you keep wanting to make, but they will still be just theories.
When did it decide to do that? Did it decide after temperatures started rising? If so, how come CO2 levels have reached such extreme levels in the past and stayed there long after temperature began to decline?
Really? What do you have, some sort of little toll booth the CO2 molecules have to go through so you can count them? How do you know how much CO2 "nature" put into the system and how much it took out?
Who knows? Climate is a non-linear, chaotic system that we don't know near enough about in order to make claims like, "If A, then B."
Lest anyone be tricked into thinking these links show something they don't, the first is a link to measured CO2 concentrations from one observatory. (One observatory to conclude that CO2 concentrations are rising globally. I'll let the more intelligent among us decide if that seems right.) If you graph this data you'll see a slight uptrend from about 320ppm in 1958, to about 380 in 2004. An increase of about 19%. Which, considering that increasing temperatures cause CO2 concentrations to rise, is wholly consistent with my erroneous conclusion that temperatures are currently causing CO2 concentrations to rise.

But let's look at onon's theory. Since the only numbers he likes to repeat are the 15 extra tons of CO2 Man is pumping into the air, 15 tons over 46 years (1958-2004) comes out to be 690 tons of CO2. 690 tons of CO2 caused an increase of 19% in CO2 concentrations. Do I have that right, onon? This relatively paltry amount (when compared to 750-830 gigatons already in the atmosphere) would cause an increase of 19%?

The second link takes you to a table of estimates for anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Estimates that, as even the short blurb up top tells us, aren't even close to actual. Where did they get these estimates? How did they arrive at those numbers?

What neither of these links tell us are: 1) how much CO2 is being emitted naturally, or 2) how much CO2 is being absorbed naturally. Both of which we would need to know in order to make any assumptions about whether the net effect of nature is to absorb CO2.
I have no idea. Unlike you, I understand that climate has many, many, many, many dependent variables. And I also understand that if I change one of these variables today, I won't necessarily get the same results if I changed that variable tomorrow. You keep imagining that climate has only a few variables and you can make definitive predictions based upon changing some of those variables. That's simply not true. Climate is a non-linear, chaotic, vastly interconnected system that we don't know nearly enough about to claim changing A will result in B.
I have no interest in making you believe otherwise. However, your logic is flawed.

No co2 levels have been directly measured for 50 years, and the rise of human emissions during that time period have been more than enough to explain that increase.
The Keeling curve and rise in CO2 in the atmosphere

Rising temperatures don't cause co2 to rise as much as they have since pre-industrial times. co2 rises 100ppm from 10C warming in the ice core record (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/gra...vostok.co2.gif), and that's after thousands of years of increase. So 100ppm increase since preindustrial average (ie 280ppm to 380ppm) is not going to be caused by a <1C temperature rise in that time.

Plus the little ice age was at least 0.5C cooler than 1900 temperature, yet co2 levels were only about 10ppm lower. Temperature does dictate the equillibrium level of co2, but it isn't sensative enough to explain the 100ppm rise in the last 200 years.

They have been ruled out because nature is absorbing more co2 than it emits. So it cannot be the cause of the recent rise.

It cannot be proven, but it's extremely unlikely that it would have risen this far this century without our contribution, and I cannot emphasize how unlikely it would be. Take the bottom graph on this page for context of the recent rise in the past 1000 years:
The Keeling curve and rise in CO2 in the atmosphere

And this one again for context over the past 450,000:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/gra...vostok.co2.gif

Currently levels are 380ppm and rising about 2ppm per year. They can't even fit that value on either of those graphs it is so off the scale.

You are confusing "equillibrium level" with the level co2 is actually is at. The actual level of co2 can be above or below the equillibrium level, and whether it is above or below determines whether nature will absorb more or emit more. The equillibrium level is determined by temperature. During the little ice age the equillibrium level was slightly lower (about 275ppm), and so co2 levels fell slowly to that level.

Currently co2 is far above the equillibrium level, which is why nature is currently a net absorber of co2.

Both. But currently co2 concentrations are rising primarily due to human emissions.

The atmosphere will absorb more co2 than it emits if atmospheric co2 is above a certain level - a level determined by temperature. Humans have pushed co2 well above this level, which is why nature is absorbing more co2 (and the rate of absorption has been increasing over the past 50 years)

If humans were not currently emitting co2 (ie if stopped tomorow), co2 levels would be falling. It's simply not the case that nature would "notice" humans had stopped emitting co2 and would start emitting more co2 elsewhere to make up the 28 billion tons less.

From the second image in the link I posted you can see they did "stop" during the past few hundred years and co2 levels were floating around 280ppm throughout with no significant change (even the little ice age only bought it down about 10ppm). What do you think happened in the 20th century which would have changed that trend if only humans hadn't emitted any co2?

co2 concentrations do fluctuate naturally, mainly when temperatures fluctuate. The ice core record dramatically shows how co2 follows temperature (ie temperature is determining the equillibrium level that co2 moves towards). But it shows a 100ppm increase in co2 requires about 10C increase in temperature.

Given the warming in the early 20th century occured naturally, without human emissions co2 would probably be today a bit higher than the pre-industrial baseline at about 285ppm. But not 380ppm which from the ice core records is an unprecedented level for co2 in at least the last 700,000 years.

You say that in a joking way, but the climate has consistantly found this 280ppm level during interglacial periods:



It appears that the temperatures of interglacial periods do dictate a equillibrium level for co2 at around 280ppm.

The mechanism for co2 emissions (from any source) causing co2 rises is pretty self explainatory. You just need the new emission source to tip the balance towards more in than out.

As explained above, the co2 rise has far exceeded the sensitivity of co2 to temperature.

No, the nature at this time is the act of absorbing more co2 than it is emitting. So no nature is actually absorbing some of the co2 concentration increase. If it wasn't then the full 28 billion tons of human emissions would cause a 4ppm rise in the atmosphere each year. Rates are only rising at 2ppm, showing that nature is not acting as a cause of the increase, but is actually countering it to a degree.

Until we got to approximately 280, and as co2 levels approach that value nature will absorb at a slower rate.

If the absorption rate decreased then co2 levels would be rising far faster than they are, so we do know it's rising because the emission rate has increased.

Take man's emissions out and there would be no rise because there would be less co2 entering the atmosphere than leaving it.

Nothing is provable but this stuff is certain to the point of 99.99%. A man could get fried on less evidence.

It "decided" to do that once co2 rose above the level that could be supported by temperature.

Because it takes time for co2 to fall, a long time. The rate of absorption is proportional to how far co2 is above the equillibrium point. The measured co2 trends show that nature is absorbing co2 at a faster pace as the co2 levels in the atmosphere increase.

CO2 rise = Natural Contribution + Human Contribution

two of these are known - co2 rise, and human contribution. So the third can be calculated.

Natural Contribution = CO2 rise (2ppm) + Human Contribution (4ppm - ie ~28 billion tons co2)

So Natural Contribution is about minus 2ppm, so nature is absorbing more than it emits.

Not everything in climate is unknowable. Lots of things are well understood and known. The carbon cycle happens to be something better understood. But also in other cases - eg "If sun doubles in output, then earth warms" and "If el nino year, then warmer global temperatures" are very certain "if A, then B" statements to do with climate.

I don't know why, but almost with anything raised you try and find the smallest little detail to nit-pick over.

The Mauna Loa observatory has prominence only because it stretches back the furthest. But there are also global stations that measure co2 levels, and the trend from those match the Mauna Loa records well:

Global Monitoring Division
But it isn't. A 10C rise was required to cause a 55% co2 rise.

No that's not right at all. Humans are emitting 28 billion extra tons of co2 today. Not 15 tons.

As this site mentions:
Now 305 billion tons of carbon is equivalent to 1128 billion tons of co2 (a co2 molecule weighs 3.7 times more than a carbon atom).

So humans since 1751 have emitted 1128 gigatons of co2 into the atmosphere (an atmosphere that currently holds about 2800 gigatons).

That's a quantity of 40% of the current atmospheric concentration of co2 has been emitted by man over the past 250 years, most of which was emitted in the last 50 years.

Nothing in the "short blurb" even suggests that. It reads:
Which part tells us the figures aren't even close to accurate?

The method is given here: TRENDS: CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS

As I said you can derive the total natural contribution from the knowns. What you cannot easily do is split that up into how much co2 is being absorbed naturally and how much is emitted naturally, but you can easily tell that more is being absorbed than emitted by nature. That is overall nature is absorbing about half the rate of human emissions.

It's not true that everything in nature is chaotic and unpredictable. Certainly the seasons are a prime example of the most predictable aspects of climate. The carbon cycle is fairly simple at a macro level, and is fairly well understood. It's not true that we know nothing and cannot reach a good conclusion on this subject of the cause of co2 rise. It is beyond doubt that co2 levels are rising, and beyond doubt that human activity is the cause.

Oh, you wrote 10 years before. So, I guess I better change my argument, too.

In that case, so what? CO2 concentrations rose for 50 years. It's a blip on the geologic time scale. It means nothing to machinations which take thousands, even millions of years.
What do you think this proves, if anything?
Where did you get that idea? And what is the purpose of the graphic you provided? Did you think it showed a 100ppm CO2 increase for every 10C temperature increase?
And your ability to actually juxtapose such a ridiculous claim and try to support it with this is really remarkable. Let's see, in your example .5C correlated with 10ppm of CO2. Ergo, 1C would be 20ppm, and 10C would be 200ppm. So, you claim that 10C correlates with 100ppm CO2, then give an example demonstrating that 10C correlates with 200ppm CO2. Which is it? Does 10C correlate with 100ppm CO2, or 200ppm CO2? Because, that's a pretty big error rate.
How do you know this? Let me give you another example. There is a box. This box has between 650 and 750 million red marbles in it. There are holes all over the box, so some of the marbles are falling out. You don't know how many are falling out. It's somewhere between 100 and 200 million every minute. Also, someone keeps adding marbles to the box. You don't know how many they are adding, or even who they are. You can estimate they are adding between 200 and 300 million marbles every minute. Now, I'm going to add some marbles to the box. After one minute, there are between 675 and 775 marbles in the box. Can you figure out how many marbles I added to the box? Do the math and I'll tell you if you're right or wrong.
Yes, very dramatic. I'm sure it's quite effective at bringing in the contributions. Why is it so "extremely unlikely that it would have risen this far this century without our contribution"? Hasn't this happened before, naturally?
Ahh, yes, it has happened before - naturally. Your favorite graph shows this.
You're a riot, onon. Let me see if I understand this:
For every temperature, there is a concentration level of CO2 that at any amount over that level nature will begin to absorb more CO2 than it emits. You've also stated that the corollary is likewise true and at any amount under that level nature will begin to emit more CO2 than it absorbs. Do I have it right so far?
Then it is not necessarily true that "nature removes more co2 from the atmosphere than it adds". Because nature does have a mechanism for removing more CO2 from the atmosphere than it adds. It is also not necessarily true that "without human co2 emissions the co2 levels in the atmosphere would start falling." Since nature has a mechanism for adding CO2 to the atmosphere. In both cases, this mechanism is temperature. Overly simplified, but I'm just playing by your rules.
These processes didn't stop, they just happened to even out. Judging by your favorite graph of the Vostok ice cores, an even level is an anomaly. Your "equilibrium" appears to have no other instance in the record. What do you think happened in the 18th century to make CO2 levels even out like that?
One, or many, of the forcings which drive CO2 levels up increased? One, or many of the forcings which drive CO2 levels down abated? I have no idea.
Then not all of the increase in CO2 is a result of Man.
And then retreated, according to your graph. Ergo, there's no reason to believe CO2 levels would fall to 280ppm and remain there as you assert.
Really? Is that all? Then say, changes in plant life, troposphere temperature, exosphere temperature, ocean temperature, ocean pH, etc. have nothing to do with it?
Unless inputs to the system aren't what you think they are.
You don't know that. In fact, you've already claimed this would not be true because temperature has risen and, according to you, rising temperatures result in greater CO2 levels.
Fine, believe in whatever helps you sleep. But you're not logically able to make the definite statements you've been making.
Doesn't CO2 lead to a warmer planet?
Two of these are estimated, therefore the third is an estimate. What are the error rates of these estimates, onon?
The carbon cycle might be understood, but we are far from understanding how other parts of the system interact with it. You don't have to take my word for it. Just ask the IPCC.
This is not a small detail. The longest records you have are 50 years old. Fifty years is not nearly enough data for identifying, or eliminating for consideration, natural processes. They are from one observatory, measuring a very localized space of the troposphere. A space that might be downwind of any number of natural processes that would cause a steady rise in CO2 concentrations measurements. The other observations are likewise taken from very localized spaces and nowhere near indicative of world wide atmospheric CO2.
I know that you really want there to be some absolute math in here, but there's not. Show me the data points for all the CO2 levels and temperature. Show me where you're getting this, "It always has to change 10C before CO2 will change 100ppm." Then show me where it changed .5C and a relatively massive 10ppm in CO2.
I thought you said the net effect was 15? My math was wrong by skipping the billion part, so let's redo it. 15 billion tons over 46 years means 690 gigatons of CO2. That's even more striking. I don't know where you got the 2300 gigatons of CO2 in the atmosphere, my sources show between 650 and 750 gigatons. I'll use that unless you want to show me your source for 2300.

So, we have the MLO telling us that CO2 concentrations increased 19%, but you're arguing that the net increase of anthropogenic should've been along the lines of somewhere between 90% and over 100%, depending on which estimate you use and how you want to calculate it. But clearly, the vast bulk of the CO2 in the atmosphere would have to have come from Man since 1957.

Unless you want to argue that Man's CO2 didn't all go into the atmosphere. Then we would have to look at the entire CO2 cycle. There's about 40,000 gigatons of carbon in the oceans, plus another 2000 gigatons of carbon in the biosphere. So, that's 42,000 gigatons of carbon, or roughly 155,400 gigatons of possible CO2. We'll go ahead and add the 750 gigatons of CO2 in the atmosphere for a grand total of about 156,150 gigatons of possible CO2. So, our additional 690 gigatons of CO2 contributed .004% to the total CO2 on the planet.

Something's not quite adding up, onon.
This part:
"Population estimates were not available to permit calculations of global
per capita estimates before 1950."
So, in other words, we have closer estimates for the past 50 years, but before that we don't really know.
Oh, I like that. Did you read it? So, they looked through some old "publications" (government? trade? personal?) on "historical energy statistics" (like how many people are burning fires, for how long, all over the world). Really, onon, how accurate do you think these estimates are?
Fine, fine. Whatever you want to believe. But your absolute statements like, "The net effect is that nature removes more co2 from the atmosphere than it adds." And, "Without human co2 emissions the co2 levels in the atmosphere would start falling." Are logical fallacies.

What you are engaging in is contrarianism, not skepticism. Another group exhibiting this type of behavior are creationists when they attempt to dismiss evidence for an earth older than 6000 years old.

The basis for contrarian argument is when the arguer knows very little on the subject, but due to some kind of bias takes a stake against a certain position. When you don't know anything to argue against it, the best you can do is simply claim as much as possible is unknowable. Afterall if we don't know anything about it then there is nothing to need denying.

The tactic is simple - try to find any means to claim nothing can be known. Many of your arguments in your posts follow this template, in fact the first one is an example, not the only one:

"It means nothing.."

The contrarian goal is to make everything look like it means nothing, as therefore there is nothing left to even need to deny.

"We can't prove it" is another argument often employed, as if you either have 100% concrete proof or know absolutely nothing, without any inbetween.

To you the co2 ice core records, the co2 measuring station trends, the compiled co2 emission trends mean nothing because you want them to mean nothing. It's a convenient way of brushing them asside when you don't actually have any grounds to dispute them.

Here's another example of you doing this:

A argument which can be rewritten to demonstrate how generically junk it is:

Both are true, and yet the absurdity of trying to use the 2nd argument as a basis for concluding seasons are not caused by tilt of the earth's axis, shows that the argument is a junk one.

The argument invokes other areas where we don't know to try and imply "we know nothing" in another area (and never mind that invoking the IPCC there is a bad idea seeing as they would strongly disagree with you..along with virtually every climate scientist in the world)

As well as trying to claim these things mean nothing, you also attempt the other contrarian tactic of claiming the data is unreliable as much as you can. This is an insurance policy on your part. Even if the data does mean something, you can still turn around and claim the data is unreliable and still reach your goal of concluding "we know nothing".

Here's an example of you doing this when you try and write off the co2 measuring stations (you've already said the records they produce "mean nothing", now you attempt to claim the records are unreliable too):

Doesn't matter that your argument doesn't take into account that co2 is a well mixed gas, and so levels are mixed throughout the whole atmosphere meaning most local areas are representative of the global level. Nevermind that scientists would be capable of detecting any erroneous biases in a local area and wouldn't continue producing biased trends. Nevermind that bias can hardly explain such a nice smooth upward curve with seasonal variation. Just what are you proposing is happening? That co2 levels are only rising coincidentally in local areas in which these stations are located? And all simultaneously these seperate areas have co2 increase at the same rate by another great coincidence? Its just an absurd argument that hasn't been thought through, and can only mean you are saying it just on the off chance it will stick.

There is no doubt in my mind that if this thead had continued as it had you would be also nit-picking over ice core data in a few posts time too. Any means to write off the meaning of the data and the data itself..

750 gigatons carbon in the atmsosphere =~ 2750 gigatons co2. A co2 molecule weights 3.7 times a carbon atom. Not converting values to the same unit will result in the final result being incorrect. If you are going to use 15 billion tons co2 as an emission rate then you have to express the atmosphere in billions tons co2 too, not billion tons C.

Which is about 60ppm, or about 440 billion tons co2.

And it has. The rise in co2 has been about 440 billion tons co2 (2750 - 2750 / 1.19)

In that time period humans have emitted over 800 billion tons co2 (added up the years http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2003.ems)

So humans have emitted about twice as much co2 as co2 levels have actually risen. This is also true on an annual scale. Take 2003:
27 billion tons emitted by humans
co2 rose about 2ppm (~16 billion tons)

You are still in the undefendable position of explaining how human emissions of 27 billion tons co2 in a year is irrelevant to a rise of just 16 billion tons co2 in a year.

Yes your methodology doesn't add up. The issue is rise in atmospheric co2, not rise in planetary carbon storage. You assume all these carbon storages are storing carbon in the form of co2, which isn't true. And also we aren't adding any carbon to earth at all - the carbon already exists in any fossil fuels burnt, it's just getting moved around.

The relevant calculation is: amount co2 has risen in the atmosphere since 1960 vs amount of co2 humans have emitted since 1960
The values are 440 billion tons co2 vs 800 billion tons co2

That is we have emitted twice as much co2 into the atmosphere over the past 46 years than co2 has actually risen in the atmosphere.

That only applies to the per capita trends. We aren't even talking about those. We are talking about the global emission trends.

Fossil fuel inventories are well kept and this is what they are talking about (not "burning fires"). If you know the amount of fossil fuels burnt then you can easily calculate the co2 produced. The amount burnt is tied to the amount produced, which of course is very accurately monitored especially in modern times when it really matters (when co2 emissions are far higher). Seeing as we know how many barrels of crude are being produced each day and where they are shipped etc, it is very easy to get accurate co2 emission numbers. Being off by as much as 5% in a given year does not make a huge difference to anything (plus it's just as likely to underestimate as overestimate)

The ice core data shows the close correlation between temperature and co2 trends. It demonstrates about 10C temperature rise was needed to cause a 100ppm co2 rise:
http://www.logicalscience.com/images...k-ice-core.jpg

In this context is is absolutely clear that you cannot explain the 100ppm rise in the past 200 years as being due to 1 <1C rise in temperature. The correlation just isn't there at all.

Shows the little ice age:
Image:2000 Year Temperature Comparison.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And the co2 drop during that time is seen in the previous image
The Keeling curve and rise in CO2 in the atmosphere

NASA
DOE
NOAA