CO2 is at 389ppm, or ~.039 of the atmosphere. That is an increase from 280 in 1750, or about 24.6% increase.

We know that CO2 contributes about 24% of radiative forcing (you claim about 5% with that false water vapor figure). 24.6% of the 24% is 5.9% of the total (man-made contribution to total temperature) 5.9% of 59 degrees F is 3.5 F or about 1.8 C.

Based on your disputed 95% water vapor figure: .246 x 5% = 1.2% x 59 = .7 degrees F or around what we said for c

.5 - 1.8 depending on the water vapor contribution.

Ink:

What do you have riding on the outcome of this?

For example, let's say that the Anthropogenic contribution to global warming is so minute, that we need not worry about it anymore, and focus our efforts on the things we might be able to control or manipulate instead. What would this mean for you in your situation right now?

The reason I ask is because clearly you are aggressively defending the A aspect instead the larger factor in GW and it seems like you might have a lot riding on it. So what do you stand to lose or change personally in your life if you lose this debate?

Polar bears, coastlines, endangered sea oats, manatees, coral reefs, thousands of other marine species, birds, untold amount of other species loss, etc are what I have to lose if I lose the debate. Because the debate is only political and if the sane people such as myself lose and the deniers win, I lose all of that from my world. As a nature enthusiast, I appreciate diversity and I do not want to lose it.

Now, if we somehow were transported into an alternate dimension where AGW doesn't exist, then I would only be discussing the other pollution caused by exactly the same thing causing AGW, and that is arguably worse than AGW. Acid Rain, Ocean Acidification, Ocean Dead Zones, Lake and River Acidification, and many many environmental etc.s and also the factor of geo-political conflict over hydrocarbon access.

Either way, AGW or other pollution, the same thing needs to be done.

This post was edited by inkanddagger on Dec 10 2009 02:05pm

I'm not (I believe) discussing radiative forcing, nor do I know where you arrived at that 24% number. Also, are you asserting that the ENTIRE 24.6% rise in CO2 (to today's 389 ppmv compared to the paper's 368) is anthropogenic? The author pointed out that since the Industrial Revolution (IR), up to roughly 2000, of the 80.4 ppmv added since the IR, only roughly 15% is anthropogenic.



Polar bears are NOT dying out, rather their populations are growing. Coastline changes will be very gradual, nothing at all as described by the Goracle (7 inches over the next century). Coral reefs grow, and really quite quickly and easily compared to the rate of supposed sea level change (it's not a coincidence that coral atolls are nearly all just over sea level). The species endangerment arguments are hyperbole, since climate change can bring about new species. Really, all of that is more important to you than the untold miseries to mankind that will unfold from your final solutions?

For perspective, over the last 160 years (the span of the IR), the world's population has ballooned 567%, coinciding with the increases in energy usage. Cut out the energy usage, cut out the lives.

24% is fairly accepted across data that I have seen.

Almost the entire atmospheric rise is indeed anthropogenic. Although natural CO2 sources across the entire environment are greater, they also have natural sinks. Our production has no natural sink, so it remains in the atmosphere. CO2 levels have remained fairly constant between 200-280 since the beginning of the interglacial until post 1750, where there has been a measured increase the directly coincides with the burning of fossil fuels.

And the ppm now exceeds 100. His article is out of date.


That article you are referencing leaves out datasets, applies incorrect data sets, and claims 95% water vapor when none of the citations listed to arrive at that figure even support that number. Even if you just assume that outdated article that is using some really bad methodology is correct, man-made contribution is still .2 degrees C (accounting for extra CO2 since it was written), which is only a few tenths of a degree lower than IPCC estimates, and which is across the entire planet, which means barely noticeable at the equator and very noticeable at the poles.

This post was edited by inkanddagger on Dec 10 2009 09:26pm

So the environment distinguishes which CO2 to sink and which not to? As to the levels remaining constant, the last link I posted pointed out that CO2 exceeded 420 twice since 1750, the first before the IR.

edit: the capability of the environment to sink carbon is NOT static. Reviewing that same link, it appears that when CO2 reaches a certain threshold, both the CO2 AND the temperature decline dramatically.

This post was edited by Santara on Dec 10 2009 09:29pm

No, we know how much is man-made by measuring carbon 12.

Also, boy that article you linked to is pretty bad and there is even a note posted by the author that it is for discussion only and should not under any circumstances be cited as much of the data is dependent on specific areas where CO2 levels may have been higher due to certain activities. Accepted figures are averages across the planet.


The reasons your studies are not peer reviewed is because they are bad.

This is what you are saying: http://forums.d2jsp.org/topic.php?t=37933687&f=119

This post was edited by inkanddagger on Dec 10 2009 09:37pm

The last link was finished as a paper here>>> http://www.biomind.de/nogreenhouse/daten/EE%2018-2_Beck.pdf

Bad because it disagrees with you, you mean?

Can I start referring to you as fuhrer? You don't seem to mind the final solution.

OK, I am reading it.

And while I am I will write some thoughts:

Beck is not a scientist, he is a retired high school teacher (Gymnasium)

The "180 years" paper has some 18 citations, nine omitting the word "atmospheric" and one getting the # of years wrong as 150.

Citers include Vince Gray, Fred Singer, JM Kauffman, TF Goldberg, DPJ Ebel, Bob Carter, Z. Jaworowski, LCM Molion (in Portuguese), and a Lyndon LaRouche publication possibly by someone named Wieden.

It cites a remarkable source, the same title in German, with both a publication date and the notation "to be published":
Beck E.-G. (2006) 180 Jahre praezise CO2-Gasanalyse der Luft anhand chemischer
Methoden, pp. 1-106. to be published.

Beck's basic idea seems to be that CO2 has fluctuated wildly over the past 180 years, based on some high readings from early (and presumably less accurate) chemical measurements. He dismisses as completely wrong the ice core records of millenia of stable levels followed by a smooth, gradual then accelerating rise as the industrial revolution kicked in.

This post was edited by inkanddagger on Dec 10 2009 10:08pm