I need to know if I first need to prove to you, incontrovertibly, that the increasing CO2 is primarily from human sources (primary among them being fossil fuel burning for energy production).
You don't need to prove anything as the issue is irrelavent, CO2 concentration regardless of source of emmission is increasing, but does not induce substantive increase of temperature with a high water vapor content atmosphere, futhermore, most CO2 is derived from natural sources in any case by a factor of greater than 10 to 1
If you are harboring any sense that there is a possibility that the current trend of increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere is not caused by humans, I need to dispel that completely.
Less than 10% of CO2 emmissions are due to mankind thus less than 10% of any residual effect of increasing CO2 is due to mankind:
6.4.1.1. Sources of Atmospheric CO2
Sources of atmospheric CO2 can today be divided into two groups: natural and anthropogenic. Natural sources include the respiration of animals (60Gt per annum) and the surface ocean (90Gt per annum) (Schimel et al., 1995). Anthropogenic sources include the combustion of fossil fuels (power stations and transport) and cement production (5.5Gt per annum)and land-use changes (mainly deforestation) (1.6Gt per annum)
Heat sinks do not distinguish anthropogenic CO2 from natural sources.
6.4.1.2. Sinks of Atmospheric CO2
The surface ocean also acts as a natural sink for atmospheric CO2, with an annual removal flux of 92Gt carbon. The interaction of CO2 between atmosphere and surface ocean was more fully addressed in section 5.3.1.2 (Equations 14 to 17). The other major natural sink is the primary productivity of land vegetation (photosynthesis), which sequesters 61.4Gt carbon every year (Schimel et al., 1995). The regrowth of Northern Hemisphere forests represents the only major anthropogenic sink of atmospheric CO2, although enhanced fertilisation effects due to elevated CO2 concentrations and other climatic feedbacks have also been considered.
BECAUSE... you apparently alluded that the" increasing CO2 concentrations might be a climate effect, i.e., a response to a natural climate trend.
It, without a doubt, is. As a consequence of warming and release of watervapor with warming through variation of aldebo/reflection of solar flux, there is more biomass to produce CO2, greater release of CO2 from solution in oceans and glacial ices ....
You can easily say that a) is correct, and we can move on from there.
a) is incorrect as well as irrelevant due to lack of capacity to effect substantive change in earth's global temperature in comparison to the substantive affects of water vapor, and we can continue from there.
- "(1) correlation does not prove causation, (2) cause must precede effect, and (3) when attempting to evaluate claims of causal relationships between different parameters, it is important to have as much data as possible in order to weed out spurious correlations.
***
Consider, for example, the study of Fischer et al. (1999), who examined trends of atmospheric CO2 and air temperature derived from Antarctic ice core data that extended back in time a quarter of a million years. Over this extended period, the three most dramatic warming events experienced on earth were those associated with the terminations of the last three ice ages; and for each of these climatic transitions, earth's air temperature rose well in advance of any increase in atmospheric CO2. In fact, the air's CO2 content did not begin to rise until 400 to 1,000 years after the planet began to warm. Such findings have been corroborated by Mudelsee (2001), who examined the leads/lags of atmospheric CO2 concentration and air temperature over an even longer time period, finding that variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration lagged behind variations in air temperature by 1,300 to 5,000 years over the past 420,000 years."[ see also: Indermuhle et al. (2000), Monnin et al. (2001), Yokoyama et al. (2000), Clark and Mix (2000) ]
- "Other studies periodically demonstrate a complete uncoupling of CO2 and temperature "
[see: Petit et al. (1999), Staufer et al. (1998), Cheddadi et al., (1998), Raymo et al., 1998, Pagani et al. (1999), Pearson and Palmer (1999), Pearson and Palmer, (2000) ]
- "Considered in their entirety, these several results present a truly chaotic picture with respect to any possible effect that variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration may have on global temperature. Clearly, atmospheric CO2 is not the all-important driver of global climate change the climate alarmists make it out to be."
Interesting way you put that. "Less than 10% of CO2 emissions are due to mankind." Perhaps that's true. However, why is atmospheric CO2 concentration increasing? You say (full exchange reproduced):
-----
cogitator: BECAUSE... you apparently alluded that the" increasing CO2 concentrations might be a climate effect, i.e., a response to a natural climate trend.
It, without a doubt, is. As a consequence of warming and release of watervapor with warming through variation of aldebo/reflection of solar flux, there is more biomass to produce CO2, greater release of CO2 from solution in oceans and glacial ices ....
cogitator: You can easily say that a) is correct, and we can move on from there.
a) is incorrect as well as irrelevant due to lack of capacity to effect substantive change in earth's global temperature in comparison to the substantive affects of water vapor, and we can continue from there.
-----
for review, "a)" states: "a) the majority of CO2 added to the atmosphere since 1850 is from human sources, primarily fossil fuels"
OK. Let me state this right up front. If you say that a) is incorrect, you're wrong. Totally and completely wrong. I had to figure out where your wrongness is rooted before I can address all the other areas you've brought up. However, I'm prepared to fight out this line if it takes all winter.
There are several different lines of evidence that indicate that the increase in atmospheric CO2 commencing about 1850 ("dawn of the Industrial Age") is almost entirely anthropogenic. They are discussed on this Web page:
Why does atmospheric CO2 rise?
I will provide summary statements of each separate line of evidence for the anthropogenic cause of increasing atmospheric CO2. You can read about them in the Web page for further elucidation. (I've edited a bit for brevity.)
1. Ice cores show that during the past 1000 years until about the year 1800, atmospheric CO2 was fairly stable at levels between 270 and 290 ppmv. The 1994 value of 358 ppmv is higher than any CO2 level observed over the past 220,000 years.
2. The rise of atmospheric CO2 closely parallels the emissions history from fossil fuels and land use changes [Schimel 94, p 46-47].
3. The rise of airborne CO2 falls short of the human-made CO2 emissions. Taken together, the ocean and the terrestrial vegetation and soils must currently be a net sink of CO2 rather than a source [Melillo, p 454] [Schimel 94, p 47, 55] [Schimel 95, p 79] [Siegenthaler].
4. Most "new" CO2 comes from the Northern Hemisphere. Measurements in Antarctica show that Southern Hemisphere CO2 level lags behind by 1 to 2 years, which reflects the interhemispheric mixing time.
5. ** Important point provided in entirety.* Fossil fuels contain practically no carbon 14 (14C) and less carbon 13 (13C) than air. CO2 coming from fossil fuels should show up in the trends of 13C and 14C. Indeed, the observed isotopic trends fit CO2 emissions from fossil fuels. The trends are not compatible with a dominant CO2 source in the terrestrial biosphere or in the ocean. [On the Web page, details of this point are provided in the next two paragraphs.]
Reviewing, you said: "As a consequence of warming and release of watervapor with warming through variation of aldebo/reflection of solar flux, there is more biomass to produce CO2, greater release of CO2 from solution in oceans and glacial ices .... "
I have now shown that this statement is clearly wrong. The page demonstrates beyond scientific doubt that the cause of increasing atmospheric CO2 since about 1850 is predominantly anthropogenic, primarily from fossil fuel burning. Do you now concede that this point is correct?