You're funny, onon. You compare me to a creationist when you're the one making broad definitive statements on very little evidence. The little evidence you do have is on time scales so miniscule as to be simply irrelevent when trying to understand a system that operates in timescales of billions of years. You take that very little evidence, over a very short timeframe, then claim you know everything there is to know about this vastly chaotic system. When anyone tries to shine the light of logic and reason on your arguments, you ignore their questions and call them names. And I'm the close minded contrarian?

I've spent more than the amount of time I should have spent on this. I realized I was getting involved in another debate with a member of the Church, but I figured you would be honest and bright enough to realize your statements were logically false and would simply amend them. I was wrong. Your faith runs deep.

You don't know the planet is sequestering more CO2 than it emits over any relevant time period. In a system that transfers, naturally, billions of tons of carbon every year, with inputs and outputs still unknown and unknowable, being off a fraction in your estimates could well account for the 15 gigatons you claim.

Imagining the planet acts in some predefined and definite way at all times sounds more like deism than science to me. The planet doesn't act this way. You argue that temperature causes CO2 concentrations to rise. Not always, and not on the short timeframes you're depending upon. You argue that CO2 warms the atmosphere. Not always, and not on the short timeframes you're depending upon. You argue that Man adds CO2 to the atmosphere. I agree. You then imagine these are the only forcings of CO2, which is impossible. Since there are other forcings of CO2, then we can not definitively state that taking Man out of the equation would result in any specific action.

But, it doesn't really matter to me. I wasn't trying to, nor would I want to, shake your belief in any way. That would simply be heartless. So, you're right. Nearly all the CO2 in the atmosphere was put there by Man, if you took Man out of the picture, CO2 would revert to its preferred level of 280ppm. Since the Earth tilts on its axis, CO2 always follows a set path of fluctuation as ordained by Gaia. And it takes exactly 10C of temperature change to cause a 100ppm CO2 change, or a 200ppm CO2 change, or whatever numbers you want to plug in there to make your theory work.

In reality, all you needed to do was amend your statements to:
Over the past 50 years, nature probably removed more CO2 from the atmosphere than it added. It's likely that, were Man to stop CO2 emissions today, CO2 levels in the atmosphere would begin to fall.

Both of which you fairly agreed upon over the course of our discussion, but hesitate to state flat out because you favor these broad, definitive statements. Much like creationists will brook no doubt in their beliefs. But, I'm the contrarian, onon. I'm the contrarian.

It's not just me though is it. You are arguing with all the scientists out there. NASA, NOAA, every scientific body accepts the recent co2 rise is anthropogenic. I am not aware of any scientists who claims otherwise. I am not even aware of any prominent AGW skeptics denying the recent co2 rise is anthropogenic.

So yes it really is a creationism like position where you are going to have to imply that there is some massive hoax going on in the scientific (and skeptic) community that causes statements to be made such as:

Co2science.org is a global warming skeptic site.

Yes I do simply because co2 rise per year minus human emission per year is less than zero. That means nature is absorbing more co2 from the atmosphere than it is emitting into it. Otherwise co2 levels would be rising 4+ppm in the atmosphere. Also the oceans are getting more acidic due to more carbon disolving in them.

I have shown repeatedly why this cannot be true - why nature being a net emitter contradicts observations. Forget all the unknown internal exchanges, what is nature doing overall? You claim above that the co2 rise can be explained by a nature emitting 15 billion tons co2 per year overall. Sounds ok but it seriously contradicts observations. Here is why again:

Premise to be disproven: Nature's net effect is emissions of 15 billion tons co2 into the atmosphere each year.

1) That would mean nature is adding 15 billion tons, and humans are adding another 28 billion tons. Agreed?

2) That would be 15 (natural) + 28 (human), ie a total of 43 billion tons entering the atmosphere each year. Agreed?

3) Therefore co2 levels should be rising at 43 billion tons per year. Agreed?

co2 levels are observed to be rising 15 billion tons per year, contradicting the premise. Ie the premise contradicts observations and cannot be true.

If you disagree with this then, well how can you? I cannot even imagine how someone could find fault with that progression. But if you do, which number is it, and why?

Nature is known to be a net absorber because anything else would violate observations in the same way. Compare it with this one:

Actual situation: Nature's net effect is absorption of 13 billion tons per year

1) That means nature is taking away 13 billion tons, and humans are adding 28 billion tons.

2) That means 28 (human) - 15 (natural), ie a total of 15 billion tons entering the atmosphere each year.

3) Therefore co2 levels should be rising at 15 billion tons per year.

That matches the observed rate of co2 rise - 15 billion tons per year.

That is why nature is known to be a net absorber. That is why it is known that humans have caused the recent co2 rise. That is why this is accepted as beyond doubt by all scientific bodies worldwide. That is why even skeptics of global warming don't deny it. This is one of the few things in climate science which is known with a degree of certainty.

Probably could be 80% or even 60% though, wheras I see the certainty as above the 99.9% level. Beyond doubt is the phrase I would use.

I'm arguing with anyone who claims conjecture is fact. Let's begin with your original statement:
... and keep that in mind as we explore.

The short of it is this admission by you:
But you'll call that true scientific fact, so we'll have to move on.

1) How much carbon is sequestered on this planet today? Either in the air, ocean, biomass, or wherever you think it might be. Do you have all carbon sinks? Is it possible, in an open system, there are other sources and sinks of carbon we don't know about? When you tell me the number, tell me what the error band is. Make sure you include the error band for each source.

2) How much carbon was sequesterd on this planet in 1750? I'll need the error band.

3) How much carbon has been released into the atmosphere due to Man since 1750? I'll also need the error band on that.

4) How much carbon has been emitted naturally since 1750? This will also have an error band.

5) How much carbon has been absorbed naturally since 1750? Error band here, too.

6) How much more carbon is in the air today than in 1750? You guessed it, there should be an error band here.

Now, I'm going to assume you won't provide me with that information. Partly because you won't be able to. In an open system, and a system as complex as this planet, you can't know if you've got all the sources and sinks of carbon. But I'll let you use just the ones we know about.

And partly because you probably feel it doesn't make a difference. You read your numbers somewhere, maybe even quite a few places, and by Gaia, you're going to stick to them. The surprising thing is, you're right in assuming it doesn't really make a difference, because it doesn't. Given the error rates, there are no absolute conclusions we can come to.

1) How much carbon is sequestered on this planet really depends upon whether or not we know where it all is. Given that we're still unable to account for the carbon sink that would allow us to balance the carbon budget, my guess is we don't know where it all is. That 13 gigatons you claim the planet is absorbing? We don't know where it's going. Therefore, either we made some mistakes with our estimates and it isn't going anywhere, or we don't know as much about the carbon cycle as you repeatedly claim we do.

Even if we take just the known carbon sources and sinks, you'd better be pretty accurate. Because this is going to be a massive number. Being off a fraction of a percent will skew your answer dramatically.

2) Same problem with figuring out how much carbon was sequestered on the planet in 1750, only much, much harder. There will be a big range of possible numbers on this.

3) We could probably get fairly close to how much carbon Man has emitted since 1750. "Close" being a relative term. Perhaps within 5%.

4) How much carbon has been emitted naturally since 1750 really depends upon whether we know all the sources. Again, that whole open system problem rears its ugly head. But if we just stick to the known carbon sinks and sources we're still dealing with a huge number. Even an error rate of less than 1% would probably equate to being off by dozens of gigatons.

5) How much carbon has been absorbed since 1750 would have a huge error rate given that carbon sequestration depends upon so much - like the amount of sunlight, the quantity and type of aerosols, temperature, location, etc. Most of which we can only take an educated guess on to determine global sequestration 250 years ago.

6) We could, of course, solve for this one; if we knew how much carbon was in the atmosphere in 1750 and how much is in the atmosphere today. And at least one of those numbers has a huge error band.

We could actually solve for any of these numbers as long as we're willing to plug in some numbers. But those numbers are just going to be guesses. And since they are guesses, they have a low range and a high range. Do the error ranges give you the sense that your hypothesis is 99.99% correct? Or is it something else?
I never claimed, nor implied, there was any hoax.

As to this claim:
It really should be self-evident why this is erroneous. But seeing as how you know more than the IPCC on this issue, I'll just keep my mouth shut. I'll just leave this one quote:
"In sum, a strategy must recognize what is possible. In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the prediction of a specific future climate state is not possible." -- Final chapter, Draft TAR 2000 (Third Assessment Report), IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).

It is clear that onan's faith in his religious belief in "global warming" runs deep.

He doesn't even have the measuring tools to accurately measure a "0.6 degree C rise over the past 100 years" yet he has convinced himself that it "has happened". And not only does he have faith (not scientific measurements!) that "global warming" is occurring, he even clings to various faith beliefs as to why his faith-belief "global warming" is occurring.

His faith runs deep indeed, Cato.

Scientific facts are very certain but not necessarily 100% proofs. For example evolution is a fact. Yet it's not 100% certain. Big bang is a fact, yet not 100% certain.

I notice you don't address the simple 1,2,3 progressions I laid out. Again:


You don't need to know this to answer the question about the cause of atmospheric co2 rise. For example in that contenxt how much carbon is locked away in the deep ocean is irrelevant. You just need to know relevant facts about inflow and outflow into the atmosphere.

This again is an irrelevant question. Knowing this or not knowing this does not effect how we know the recent co2 rise is anthropogenic. It doesn't matter how much was in the deep ocean, or locked away in fossil fuels beneath the earth. It could be 100 trillion tons or 0 tons and it matters neither way. What matters is how much was in the atmsphere back then. The answer is known - about 280ppm. Error band: about +-10ppm.

About 1100 billion tons. 750 billion tons since 1970. No error band available.

Unknown

Unknown

About 100ppm more, +-10ppm max

The numbers we do have:
-human emissions
-atmosperic co2 increase
Are plenty accurate enough to reach a very certain conclusion.

You can even do this for any stretch of the 20th century you want to. For example only take into account the emission and co2 level rise since 1970 for example. Still you get a result that humans have emitted far more than the co2 level has risen. So where did it go? Nature must have absorbed some of it. That means nature must be a net absorber.

Actually we know about a quarter of it is going into the oceans (rising ocean acidity) and another quarter being uptaken by plants. The other half is the unknown. But I have to stress that it's irrelevant where it's going when we know that it's gone from the atmosphere.

That would require human emission estimates to be off by 50% (in which case human emissions would still be causing all the co2 rise, plus a 50% error is hugely unlikely), or that co2 level rise measurements to be off by 50%. Simply impossible. Might as well claim that measurements of light have been off by 50%.

We know as much as I have been saying. We know more about it than you are implying. We know why atmospheric co2 rises. We don't know where all the co2 absorbed by nature goes. That isn't a contradiction.

We don't need to know that to calculate why atmospheric co2 rises.

Like I said before, we only need to know how much was in the atmosphere to calculate why atmospheric co2 rises.

Sure I accept it could be out by that much, perhaps even 10%. It would require at least a 50% error to make man's contribution to co2 levels questionable.

These two are the big unknowns, but how much nature has contributed net can be known from the two knowns - the co2 rise - and human emissions.

We know co2 levels in the atmosphere today are about 380ppm, error bands don't really make sense in this case because it is rising about 2ppm a year.

We know from ice cores that it was about 280ppm in 1750.

They give me the sense that it is correct. It would require massive errors in those numbers that I don't think are possible.

Well there would have to be for so many scientists to be saying it's certain that humans have caused the recent co2 rise.

Note the word specific.

Im interested to hear if Cato even accepts your wild conspiracy theory about the recorded temperature rise being a fake.

Wow! We got bigger problems than I realized. That some species evolve is scientific fact. Pretty much anything else you could say about evolution would be theory. The Big Bang is likewise a theory and nowhere near "fact". Are you aware what the qualifications are for establishing scientific fact? Any fact, for that matter?
For the very reason that your progression is too simple. There is much more involved than you want to acknowledge. But I'll answer your question: I disagree with all the numbers. That is not to say that I believe they are all wrong. I disagree with your attempt to etch them in stone as if they are verified truisms. They are not. Why? My answer to this was given in my inital reply, and I'll give it again.
Yes, you do need to know it if you want to make a thorough exploration of the topic; if you want to cross check your data; if you want to verify your observations; in short, if you want to make a scientific inquiry into the topic and not just a cursory, back-of-the-envelope calculation that will give you the numbers you need to support a preconceived conclusion. For example, if the total amount of carbon sequestered on the planet in 1750 was X, and the total amount of carbon sequesterd on the planet today is X+N, then being an open system means something in terms of carbon. If you don't know this information, then you might jump to the conclusion that any increase in carbon, in whatever form, is due to some other factor. You would be making a post hoc, ergo propter hoc argument - which is false.
The answer is not known, the answer is estimated. You got these numbers from ice core data, a certainly valid proxy for CO2 concentrations. But they are still just estimates based upon what we currently know about using ice cores as proxies for historical atmospheric composition. Recent studies with stomatal proxies have shown that CO2 concentrations may not have been as stable as the ice core data lead us to believe. In fact, the error band could be as great as +/-100ppm. But, these are also only estimates.

Even if we simply accept your numbers, that's an error rate of 7%. So, it is possible that CO2 concentrations were 10ppm higher in 1750 than your equation accounts for, and 10ppm lower today than your equation accounts for. That means your estimate of 1100gT for how much CO2 has been emitted by Man is within +/-77gT (1100*.07). Meaning, your estimate for how much CO2 has been emitted by Man could be 1023gT.
There is an error band available. There's an error band for every measurement ever created. Why haven't you looked for it? If you're going to infer this number from ice core data and MLO measurements then the math is done above for you. But if this number was just given to you, without any mention of what the error rate is, then whoever gave it to you is being dishonest with you. The web-site you got the number from even admits that this number is just an estimate. Your very wording ("About" 1100gt) implies there is an error rate.

So, why isn't that important to you? If you're looking for the truth, wouldn't you be concerned about how statistically relevant the numbers you're repeating are?
How much carbon has been emitted naturally since 1750 is unknown, very good. But there are estimates. And we should know what those estimates are. What we'll find, I'm sure, is that the amount of carbon emitted naturally is a very big number. And even if our estimates are very, very good, with a small rate of error, that small rate of error is going to equate to a very large discrepancy in gTs. And that large discrepancy is going to greatly impact whether we're net contributors to atmospheric CO2, and to what extent. Again, for someone who professes a desire to learn the truth, I would think you would seek these validations out.
Again, bingo! Again, there are estimates. Again, those estimates will have a range of error. Again, knowing those estimates and knowing those error rates mean something to our equation.
Yes, a very certain conclusion that you're looking for. I can also find numbers to validate any conclusion I choose.
Gosh, it's all so simple! Why didn't I think of that? I put 100 marbles in a box (give or take 7). There were 100 marbles in the box before (give or take 7). Now, there are 190 marbles in the box. There should be 200 marbles in the box! The box must be eating the marbles!
No, we don't know that it's gone from the atmosphere. Our estimates indicate that it should be gone from the atmosphere, but it's not showing up anywhere else. So, something must be off. Perhaps we're not measuring the amount of carbon in the air correctly? If we're not measuring the current amount of carbon in the air correctly, or if we didn't measure the past amount of carbon in the air, or both, then our equations will be wrong. If we're not measuring the current amount of carbon in the oceans and biosphere correctly, or if we're not measuring the amount of past carbon in the oceans and biosphere correctly, or both, then our equations will be wrong. Even if we're measuring the amount of carbon Man is putting into the air correctly, then one, two, three, or all of the other estimates must be wrong.
No, it wouldn't. It would only require that our estimates in toto are off by 50%. Any permutation of the numbers, how they're derived, how they're interpreted, how they're applied, etc. could be wrong.
So, we know everything about how the atmosphere (massive when compared to the biosphere) absorbs carbon, but we don't know where carbon goes anywhere else? But we can make definitive conclusions about one part of the carbon cycle and that allows us to make definitive conclusions about the entire carbon cycle? Got it.
Yes, we do if we want to be assured that our estimates are reasonable. A good example of this is the claim you made that a 10C increase in temperature leads to a 100ppm increase in CO2. When you tried to back up that number with empirical evidence, you came up with the answer that a 10C increase in CO2 leads to a 200ppm increase in CO2. An error rate of 100%. At least one of your claims needs to be wrong. An intelligent and curious person would wonder why and try to find out the answer.
How much nature has contributed can be inferred from the two estimates, either of which could be grossly over, or under, exaggerated. Therefore, making conclusive statements like the ones I quoted are not logical.
What? What does that have to do with anything? Are you implying we can simply regress the current estimate back 250 years at 2ppm? Gee, I really hope not.

By the way, what's the error rate on that 2ppm?
It would not require massive errors in those numbers. Since we're dealing with a multitude of estimates, with a multitude of error rates, it only takes a cummulative error rate that would take us from 13gTs/yr (the extra you claim we're adding to the atmosphere) to 0. That's 13gTs on how much tonnage is exchanged every year? Can we even get to a reasonable number for the tonnage when we don't even know all the sources and sinks of carbon?
What a silly little ploy for someone so intelligent, onon. It isn't a hoax when well meaning scientists simply draw incorrect conclusions from incomplete data. They're just doing the best job they can. And they tell us what they don't know. If you're talking about politicians, then that's a different matter. But I don't get my scientific information from politicians. Do you?
Yea, I noted it. What of it? Are you saying your statements aren't specific? They sounded pretty specific to me.

As to temperature changes, here's what we know and the last I'll say about it. I have no interest in entering this debate again:
Temperatures before the late 1970s are poor guesses at best. These temperatures were taken by infant thermometers located in rural areas, on land, in the Northern hemisphere. As such, these readings are hardly specific and could hardly be interpolated as indicative of the entire planet's temperature. We were taking the temperature of less than 1/6 of 1/2 of the planet with tools having an error rate greater than the claimed temperature rise. Not to mention the fact that we were taking the temperature of only a fraction of the entire atmosphere.

When we started using better tools in the late 1970s (particularly satellites) we started getting an idea of what the global temperature is. Over that time period, it is clear the globe has warmed.

One fact on this subject which is very germane to our debate is the results of weather balloon temperature readings. Initially, these readings indicated no warming. In fact, they indicated a slight cooling. As they learned more about the subject, researchers continued to refine the data. It was only last year when they changed their conclusions 180 degrees - the data was showing a statistically measurable warming.

Now, were these scientists simply trying to pull off a hoax? Did their initial estimates prove, beyond all doubt, that the globe was cooling? Were they making definitive statements? Were they claiming their data was "known"? Of course, the answer to all these questions is, "No." They were just doing the best job they could with the data they had. And all the while they sought to improve upon their knowledge without claiming "the debate was over".

Theories and facts are not always seperate things. Or what do you say about heliocentric theory, the theory that the earth orbits the sun? And Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

The big bang is equally fact and theory. "theory" in science doesn't mean hunch or guess. It means an explaination that has been well grounded in testing. Most scientific facts aren't 100% proven, they are based on overwhelming evidence. Anything in science could be overturned tommorow potentially, even the facts of today.

But I accept that. From my point of view your argument is analogous to saying we don't understand the climate 100% so we cannot be certain why summer happens. It's based on the same argument that because we don't know everything about climate, we cannot know any aspect of climate with any certainty.

I give the numbers acknowledging that they have error margin, but also pointing out that the error margin would have to be very large to overturn the final result of the calculations, and that is highly unlikely.

The fact remains that to make the relevant calculations you need the relevant data, not all data which also includes much irrelevant data.

This is what I mean about irrelevant data. It's like saying that to work out the cause of someone's bank balance increasing you need to understand the total amount of money on earth. You don't. There is information you need, but that's not a part of it.

The total amount of carbon locked away in the ground is irrelevant to the cause of the recent co2 rise. What is relevant is how much carbon is going in and out of the atmosphere over time. Seeing as the amount of carbon locked up in the earth as fossil fuels doesn't even help give this figure, it has absolutely no relevance.

Going back to the bank account analogy, you can use exactly the same method to find out whether a certain person has caused a recent rise in the bank balance. You only need to know 3 things:

1) How much the bank balance has risen in that time period (eg $150)
2) How much money that person has deposited into the account (eg $200)
3) Were they despositing prior to the increase? No

That is all. In this case the person's unique deposit in that time totals more money than the account balance has risen. Therefore this shows that the rise was due to them. Without them coming along and adding a unique contribution of $200, it couldn't possibly of risen $150. This is where the analogy of your counter argument comes in:

"you can't prove that. If they hadn't added $200, it might have risen anyway due to someone else putting it in".

Technically that is true, but it's beside the point. They caused the rise so it's valid to say without them putting it in the account couldn't have risen.

This example also tells you that all other entities (and notice we don't need to know anything about them) have the net effect of removing $50. Otherwise the account would have risen by the full $200 added, not just $150.

All of this must be true. It would defy mathematics for it not to be so.

So you don't need to know how much other sources are putting in and taking out. You don't need to know how the chaotic non-linear economic system works. You don't need to know how much total money is locked up in the world. You only need to know those three figures above to figure out whether a given entity has been the cause of the rise.

We know those 3 figures in terms of climate and can do the same thing there.

These figures are accepted by the scientific community. You could of course use the same argument to cast doubt on the age of the earth by saying that the date is not known, it is just an estimate based on radiodating, which is basedon what we currently know about using radioisotopes to measure age. You could similarly point out that "recent studies" have cast doubt on dates of something obtained by radiodating. But the earth is still approx 4.5 billion years old with severely little chance of being just 100,000. And the atmospheric concentration of co2 is still approx 280ppm 250 years ago with very little chance of being 340ppm.

There is absolutely nothing to suggest inaccuracy that high, and co2 trends from ice cores in antarctica correlating with co2 trends from ice cores in greenland suggest they are no where near that inaccurate.

The first is possible. The second, given modern sensitive equipment is directly measuring atmospheric levels is virtually impossible. Either way you have gone in the wrong direction by implying the co2 rise since 1750 might have been just 80ppm instead of 100ppm. What you need is a large rise that human emissions fall short of, not a smaller rise that human emissions easily cover.

Yes it could be.

Because I can tell for myself it doesn't make a difference. You need human emissions to be off by about 50% to not exceed the recent co2 rise, and most of that 1100gT co2 emissions has occured in recent decades when estimates of fossil fuel production have been very accurate (no way off by even 10%). As that is directly proportional to amount of co2 burnt, that figure cannot be off by any more than that.

Given that they have rounded to the nearest 100gt, I would say that was their maximum error rate (ie about 10%) which is as I expect given the source of their data.

It is a big number, and there are estimates for that too.


There is nowhere you find numbers that validate humans have only emitted 500 billion tons co2 over the past 250 years, and nowhere you can find numbers that validate co2 levels only rising 50ppm in the last century.

I put 200 marbles in the box (give or take 10). There were 280 marbes in there before (give or take 10). Now there are 380 marbles in the box. There should have been 480 marbles in the box. Yes the box must be eating the marbles.

That is far less likely than our lack of understanding of sinks being the cause. co2 today is measured extremely accurately. You can even see the rise and fall in atmospheric co2 levels during winter and summer (due to the change in temperature). It's beyond doubt that co2 really is rising at about 2ppm per year, and that it has risen 60ppm since 1960 to 380ppm today. Now it's hardly strange for ice core data to indicate it drops further down all the way to 280ppm much earlier than that.

Yes, but it is highly unlikely that these measurements are off by 50%.

Yes! our understanding of overall in and out of the atmopshere and amount of co2 in the atmosphere is extremely good. much better than our understanding of ins and outs and amounts of carbon in other areas such as the oceans and forests. In the atmosphere co2 is a well mixed gas, meaning it's a lot easier to get a representative sample of the entire atmosphere so you can know it's level and how it changes more easily over time. Plants and soils are far more difficult.

We aren't making definitive conclusions about the entire carbon cycle - only the atmosphere, which is ok because we know enough to be able to do that about the atmosphere.

I didn't claim that was a linear relationship and the ratio given represented it. I pointed out that a certain change from 280-270ppm at a certain time occured due to <1C temprature change. Only to point out that a 1C temperature change cannot be supported as causing the 100ppm rise observed.

The whole basis of my position is that those estimates are accurate enough to reach the conclusion. Mainly because for the conclusion to be wrong those estimates would have to be way off.

No I am simply pointing out that for the past few decades the rise has been between about 1.5-2ppm per year. There are no error rates involved in this case - that is a very accurate figure. We know levels in 1980 and we know them today. That part of the rise cannot even be off by 10%.

Standard deviation given for any particular monthly average (http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/projects/we.../co2_mm_gl.dat) is 0.10ppm (excluding the last 2 months which are always more - 0.17 ppm and 0.57 ppm it says Global Monitoring Division)

Today co2 levels are 380ppm. 10 years ago they were 360ppm. Now we might say 10 years ago they were 359-361ppm and now they are 379-381ppm, but that's still generally a 18-22ppm rise.

The problem I have is that you think they could do that. As if those scientists studying this data haven't figured out the errors void their conclusions. They are the first people who would know if the conclusions were shakey.

There's a graph here that reflects this:
Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis

Theories and facts are not always seperate things. Heliocentric theory, the theory that the earth orbits the sun for example. And Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

The big bang is equally fact and theory. "theory" in science doesn't mean hunch or guess. It means an explaination that has been well grounded in testing. Most scientific facts aren't 100% proven, they are based on overwhelming evidence. Anything in science could be overturned tommorow potentially, even the facts of today.

I accept that. From my point of view your argument is analogous to saying we don't understand the climate 100% so we cannot be certain why summer happens. It's based on the same argument that because we don't know everything about climate, we cannot know any aspect of climate with any certainty.

I give the numbers acknowledging that they have error margin, but also pointing out that the error margin would have to be very large to overturn the final result of the calculations, and that is highly unlikely in my opinion.

I think to make the relevant calculations you need the relevant data, not all data which also includes much irrelevant data.

I think this is irrelevant data to know for this case though. It's like saying that to work out the cause of someone's bank balance increasing you need to understand the total amount of money on earth. You don't. There is information you need, but that's not a part of it.

The total amount of carbon locked away in the ground is irrelevant to the cause of the recent co2 rise. What is relevant is how much carbon is going in and out of the atmosphere over time. Seeing as the amount of carbon locked up in the earth as fossil fuels doesn't even help give this figure, it has absolutely no relevance.

Going back to the bank account analogy, you can use exactly the same method to find out whether a certain person has caused a recent rise in the bank balance. You only need to know 3 things:

1) How much the bank balance has risen in that time period (eg $150)
2) How much money that person has deposited into the account (eg $200)
3) Were they despositing prior to the increase? No

That is all. In this case the person's unique deposit in that time totals more money than the account balance has risen. Therefore this shows that the rise was due to them. Without them coming along and adding a unique contribution of $200, it couldn't possibly of risen $150. This is where the analogy of your counter argument comes in:

"you can't prove that. If they hadn't added $200, it might have risen anyway due to someone else putting it in".

Technically that is true, but it's beside the point. They caused the rise so it's valid to say without them putting it in the account couldn't have risen.

This example also tells you that all other entities (and notice we don't need to know anything about them) have the net effect of removing $50. Otherwise the account would have risen by the full $200 added, not just $150. It would defy mathematics for it not to be true.

So you don't need to know how much other sources are putting in and taking out. You don't need to know how the chaotic non-linear economic system works. You don't need to know how much total money is locked up in the world. You only need to know those three figures above to figure out whether a given entity has been the cause of the rise. We know those 3 figures in terms of climate and can do the same thing there.

These figures are accepted by the scientific community. You could of course use the same argument to cast doubt on the age of the earth by saying that the date is not known, it is just an estimate based on radiodating, which is basedon what we currently know about using radioisotopes to measure age. You could similarly point out that "recent studies" have cast doubt on dates of something obtained by radiodating. But the earth is still approx 4.5 billion years old with severely little chance of being just 100,000. And the atmospheric concentration of co2 is still approx 280ppm 250 years ago with very little chance of being 340ppm.

There is absolutely nothing to suggest inaccuracy that high, and co2 trends from ice cores in antarctica correlating with co2 trends from ice cores in greenland suggest they are no where near that inaccurate.

The first is possible. The second, given modern sensitive equipment is directly measuring atmospheric levels is virtually impossible. Either way you have gone in the wrong direction by implying the co2 rise since 1750 might have been just 80ppm instead of 100ppm. What you need is a large rise that human emissions fall short of, not a smaller rise that human emissions easily cover.

Yes it could be.

Because I can tell for myself it doesn't make a difference. You need human emissions to be off by about 50% to not exceed the recent co2 rise, and most of that 1100gT co2 emissions has occured in recent decades when estimates of fossil fuel production have been very accurate (no way off by even 10%). As that is directly proportional to amount of co2 burnt, that figure cannot be off by any more than that.

Given that they have rounded to the nearest 100gt, I would say that was their maximum error rate (ie about 10%) which is as I expect given the source of their data.

It is a big number, and there are estimates for that too.

There is nowhere you find numbers that validate humans have only emitted 500 billion tons co2 over the past 250 years, and nowhere you can find numbers that validate co2 levels only rising 50ppm in the last century.

I put 200 marbles in the box (give or take 20). There were 280 marbes in there before (give or take 20). Now there are 380 marbles in the box (give or take 40). There should have been 480 marbles in the box. Yes the box must be eating the marbles.

The only difference is that in my example I didn't put the error rates to overlap the actual increase, as that is what I think the case is with co2.

That is far less likely than our lack of understanding of sinks being the cause. co2 today is measured extremely accurately. You can even see the rise and fall in atmospheric co2 levels during winter and summer (due to the change in temperature). co2 has risen 60ppm since 1960 to 380ppm today (+-a few ppm max). It doesn't suprise me that ice core data indicates it was rising before that point and started around 280ppm much earlier than that.

Yes, but it is highly unlikely that these measurements are off by 50%.

Yes! our understanding of overall in and out of the atmopshere and amount of co2 in the atmosphere is extremely good. much better than our understanding of ins and outs and amounts of carbon in other areas such as the oceans and forests. In the atmosphere co2 is a well mixed gas, meaning it's a lot easier to get a representative sample of the entire atmosphere so you can know it's level and how it changes more easily over time. Plants and soils are far more difficult.

We aren't making definitive conclusions about the entire carbon cycle - only the atmosphere, which is ok because we know enough to be able to do that about the atmosphere.

I didn't claim that was a linear relationship and the ratio given represented it. I pointed out that a certain change from 280-270ppm at a certain time occured due to <1C temprature change. Only to point out that a 1C temperature change cannot be supported as causing the 100ppm rise observed.

The whole basis of my position is that those estimates are accurate enough to reach the conclusion. Mainly because for the conclusion to be wrong those estimates would have to be way off.

No I am simply pointing out that for the past few decades the rise has been between about 1.5-2ppm per year. There are no error rates involved in this case - that is a very accurate figure. We know levels in 1980 and we know them today. That part of the rise cannot even be off by 10%.

Standard deviation given for any particular monthly average (http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/projects/we.../co2_mm_gl.dat) is 0.10ppm (excluding the last 2 months which are always more - 0.17 ppm and 0.57 ppm it says Global Monitoring Division)

Today co2 levels are 380ppm. 10 years ago they were 360ppm. Now we might say 10 years ago they were 359-361ppm and now they are 379-381ppm, but that's still generally a 18-22ppm rise.

The problem I have is that you think they could do that. As if those scientists studying this data haven't figured out the errors void their conclusions. They are the first people who would know if the conclusions were shakey.

There's a graph here that reflects this. I understand your point, but from my perspective I don't see any reason for scientists to be overplaying the certainty of the data pre-1970. I know the IPCC gets a lot of stick for being biased, but as they say only the post-1970 warming is anthropogenic and the early 20th century warming was natural, I don't see what any contributing scientists would have to gain by overplaying the data, let alone believe they would deliberately do so. Obviously I can only take the following graph at face value.
Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis

It's amazing. We can now ski in 39 of 50 states! What a winter to remember.We can now ski just about everywhere. Even Miami sounds cold tonight. I wonder if they will get snow too!

__________________
United We Stand.

Okay, onon, let's make this simpler.

Let's start with your equation. You wrote:
Now, I may be wrong, but I believe you actually intended this equation:

Natural Contribution = CO2 Rise - Human Contribution. That's the only way you could've arrived at a negative number for Natural Contribution. Correct me if I'm wrong.

For brevity's sake I'll abbreviate this equation as: NC = CR - HC, if that's okay?

You claim to know the values for CR and HC. Although you've given several different values for these numbers, from several different timeframes, I'll use the numbers from here, and here; sources you provided. You've argued these statements:
and...
were made relative to "current" conditions, and the cited sources deal with "current" numbers. All discussion will stick with these assumptions, agreed?

CO2 Rise (CR)
Now, this is difficult since you've given several different numbers over several different time frames. If we want to stick to "current" conditions we'll need some idea of what the "current" rise in CO2 is. Along with a range of error. The best I could come up with, based upon your posts, is +2ppm/yr. I have to assume you mean +2ppmv/yr, which would equate to approximately 15.6Gt CO2/yr (based on your source). Now, despite your contention to the contrary, this number does have an error rate. Not only is an error rate implied in your wording ("the rise has been between about 1.5-2ppm"), it's also specifically stated on the website where you got the data.

"The estimated annual growth rates for Mauna Loa are close, but not identical, to the global growth rates. The standard deviation of the differences is 0.26 ppm."

Now, this actually implies two different error rates. The first, implied by you, indicates you took a range of dates, looked at the MLO data, and picked a maximum and a minimum. The second implies the data taken at the MLO reflects global data within a standard deviation of +/-.26ppmv. However, what is important to our discussion is how accurate are the measurements of atmospheric CO2 from the MLO, and how accurate are these measurements when interpolated into a global CO2 rise? The standard deviation of .26ppm gives us some indication as to how these measurements compare to a global reading, but we still need the error rate for the individual measurements. These measurements are not the "very accurate figure[s]" you claim them to be. As your source explains, these measurements are refined "depending on quality control checks of the measured data." In fact, "relatively large corrections are likely" for the MLO data from 1991 on.

The standard deviation you referenced in your last post ("Standard deviation given for any particular monthly average... is 0.10ppm (excluding the last 2 months which are always more - 0.17 ppm and 0.57 ppm") only deals with marine surface data. Are we talking about marine surface data, or atmospheric data?

Assuming you are talking about atmospheric data as provided by the MLO, I don't know which dates you looked at to arrive at your "between 1.5 and 2ppm". Since you've asserted you're talking about "current" data, it seems to me we should use the most current years, since HC is expressed in years. You've suggested 10 years, and I'm comfortable with that. I just need to know where you're getting the data, what the error rate is, and how you arrived at both. Now, I've read that the IR absorption method has an error rate of less than 1.0ppmv. This document explains that samples are taken in pairs. Pairs with a difference of less than, or equal to, .5ppm are rejected. That would imply that the measurements could be off as much as .5ppm. So, again, you pick. But recognize there will be an error range.

Human Contribution (HC)
From your source, we get 7.1GtC (+/-1.1GtC)/yr. That would equate to ~26.1Gt (+/-4.0) CO2/yr.Do you agree with this number?

I'm willing to accept it, but I think there's an interesting section of this source that really makes the above exercise moot. Just below the carbon dioxide sources for anthropogenic carbon fluxes is a section on "Partitioning among reservoirs". These numbers are:

Storage in the atmosphere 3.3 (3.1-3.5)
Oceanic uptake 2.0 (1.2-2.8)
Uptake by Northern Hemisphere forest
regrowth 0.5 (0.0-1.0)
Additional terrestrial sinks: CO2 fer-
tilization, nitrogen fertilization,
climatic effects 1.3 (-0.2-2.8)

Of course, these numbers balance to the anthropogenic CO2 emissions (3.3 + 2.0 + .5 + 1.3 = 7.1). But not if we look at the ranges. For example, if anthropogenic sources of CO2 were at the lower limit of 6.0, and the anthropogenic sinks were at the upper range of 10.1, we would have a net absorption of 4.1GtC/yr. Meaning net anthropogenic CO2 contribution would be negative, and the entire increase in CO2 would have to be natural (NC = CR - (-4.1)). In fact, we would have a net negative number on any combination of anthropogenic emissions up to 10GtC/yr.

I'm sure you'll dismiss this analysis out of hand, but you'll have to admit it is possible. Your source states, "The ranges in parentheses are 90 %-confidence intervals, meaning the authors estimate a 90 % chance that a given range encloses the true value of the respective flux." In other words, they are just as confident the numbers balance as they are the numbers equate to a net negative flux. There is no more reason to believe the amount of carbon emitted by Man exactly equals the amount of carbon sequestered by the planet than there is in believing the amount of carbon emitted by Man is entirely absorbed. Therefore, it is possible your statements are false. It is possible the net natural contribution to CO2 is positive, and CO2 levels in the atmosphere would continue to rise without human co2 emissions.

Unfortunately for onon:

DRUDGE REPORT FLASH 2007®

Not only that, but onon doesn't even have solid scientific data measurements to support the "global warming" hoax of a "0.6 degree C temperature rise over the past 100 years!"

Not only that, but it was learned that over the last decade that the Antarctic ice sheet keeps getting thicker.

__________________
United We Stand.

You are right, my mistake.

Right ok

I am saying any time period you want to choose shows a higher anthropogenic co2 emission rate than atmospheric co2 rise. You could pick a single year like 2006, or the range of the last decade, or 30 years, 50 years, or 250 years. But obviously if you want more certainty about accuracy of the figures, then the last 10 years is on of the best periods of time.

I can easily accept a given year's value may be off by .5ppm (but is it measurement error, or natural fluctuation?). That kind of inaccuracy is problematic for a single year (given that a year of 2ppm rise has a 25% error rate), but far less problematic for a longer period of time.

Remember that a rise over time only matters about the error rate on the absolute levels.

Ie if this was the case:
1996 360ppm +- .5ppm
2006 380ppm +- .5ppm

Then the overall rise over the last 10 years would be 20ppm +-1ppm.

There is no such thing as anthropogenic sinks because human activity does not absorb co2. The 7.1 figure is entirely co2 going out of human "storage" and into the atmosphere, we don't draw co2 out of the atmosphere and store it anywhere else. So the human contribution into the atmosphere is always positive, it cannot be negative (as it says - the amount of human co2 emissions that goes into the atmosphere is 3.1-3.5 GtC per year, ie it cannot be taking co2 out of the atmosphere)

The point of the table is to show that not all human emissions stay in the atmosphere in the long term - as it says "Today, about 45 % of the anthropogenic CO2 stays aloft" (it's not that we are taking some of our own emissions out of the atmosphere - it's the oceans are taking some of it out)

The table is to show where the human emitted co2 that doesn't stay in the atmosphere goes to, and in what quantities. We find out that about 28% of human emissions each year end up in the ocean, and about 45% end up in the atmosphere (of course that doesn't mean it's the exact same co2 molecules emitted in that particular year - it's just giving the transfer rates in relation to human emissions)

If all the Human-Induced GW Enthusiasts stopped breathing would that help the environment?

It sure would help the population.

/chuckle

__________________