The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I'm curious, aside from indirect anthropogenic increases in CO2 emissions, how many ppm is directly attributable from burning fossil fuels to date? That should be easily calculable if we know relatively accurately how much of various fossil fuels have been burned.

I imagine the question is less straightforward since the ocean absorbs something like 2/3 of the CO2.

...just found this too, though I don't know what the 44/12 rule is. Ocean absorption I mentioned?

We've come from an atmospheric concentration of 280ppmv and 58F,to 411ppmv and 59.4F as of 2015.
I don't have any data on the ocean carbon budget with me.
The ocean does have a 100-year delay time as far as warming goes,so there's more heat in the 'pipeline.'
Also,due the the 'parasol effect' effect of atmospheric sulfate aerosols,there's some immediate additional warming as soon as we turn off the coal-fired power plants.
We don't need to calculate anything really,we have direct ,measurements,plus the paleo record going back over 4-major Ice Ages.

[redpoint5]

The point of my question was to isolate direct contributions from fossil fuel burning, which means calculations rather than measuring, since other things contribute CO2.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

The point of my question was to isolate direct contributions from fossil fuel burning, which means calculations rather than measuring, since other things contribute CO2.

Between the CIA, the Energy Information Administration,US Commerce Department,etc.,there's probably a comprehensive database for consumption of the different fuels,from which one could reconstruct combustion products.
Globally,the IPCC will have the numbers for the whole planet.They're the clearing house for the world database.
The anthropogenic fossil-fuel greenhouse gases stand out because they're all 'dead' carbon.No Coal,natural gas,or petroleum was 'alive' when it was burned.They have no carbon-14 in their signatures.Carbon 14 doesn't survive as long as fossil fuels.

As all oxygen has cosmic particle-produced isotopic Oxygen-18 in it,all 'natural' carbon dioxide has cosmic-particle-created carbon-14 in it.Dr.Richard Alley can tell you if the CO2 came from coal,petroleum,or natural gas.They all have specific fingerprints,since some are chain-hydrocarbons and some are ring-hydrocarbons.They all have their own 'DNA' if you will.And since we know the half-life of C-14,we can tell the age of natural CO2.For really long time series,we can use Berrylium-10,Chlorine-36,O-16/O-18 ratio,Magnesium-Calcium,etc..
It's nothing for scientists to be able to make the distinction.
And don't forget the non-CO2/non-methane anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
And the anthropogenic water vapor greenhouse gas,produced in combustion.

[redpoint5]

I recently learned that volcanoes emit an average of about 0.3 Gigatones of CO2 per year, and that would be considered dead CO2... which goes back to my point of calculating it rather than measuring. Either way, they should both roughly agree.

I just like perspective is all, which is why I enjoyed that graph I posted. A fact without context is meaningless.

[freebeard]

For Context
I read all that, had nothing to add, and then went to Suspicious0bservers: This went up at 9am today. I haven't watched it yet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEWoPzaDmOA

[aerohead]

Here are some observed warmings from different locals since the pre-Industrial Revolution (1880),or as listed:
*42-F,for ice-road,Waite Lake,Tibbitt-to-Contwoyto,N-W Territory,Canada.
*20-F,at Rothera Station,W.Antarctic Peninsula,Antarctica.
*as much as 15-F,Arctic
*8.8-F,average winter temperature increase since 1950,W.Antarctic Peninsula
*approx. 5-F,Alaska (virtually all Alaskan glaciers are melting)
*4.5-F,W.Antarctic Peninsula,average annual temperature rise since 1950
*1.94-F,on 19,981-foot glacier
*1.8-F average,mean,global surface temperature increase
*1.4-F,American West
*1.0-F,Indonesian Warm Pool,Indonesian Ocean (warmest water on Earth)
*All ocean waters warming to a depth of 3,000-meters,since 1950
*No change to Mercury
*No change to Venus
*No change to Moon

[redpoint5]

So the key to stemming global warming is to measure with Mercury thermometers. :P

I'm pretty well convinced burning fossil fuels is most responsible for the increased CO2 levels. As I've said before, it doesn't matter the cause though, as what to do about something has little to nothing to do with cause, and more to do with what will happen if you don't respond to the threat. In other words, if solar irregularity were causing the majority of warming and it posed enough of a threat, we should be responding to that threat just as much as if any other thing were causing warming. If long-term well-being depends on the average temperature being within a certain range, we need to respond reasonably to keep it within that range. Cause is meaningless insofar as if we should act.

If a tree is falling in your direction, the cause is irrelevant. The only relevant consideration is what direction and what speed is an appropriate response. In my view, this is the relevant and interesting discussion. Cause doesn't matter. What can be done and what SHOULD be done in response to change?

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by aerohead

a geographic distribution of global warming
[snip]
*No change to Mercury
*No change to Venus
*No change to Moon

I'm not surprised that a geographic distribution returns a null result for extraterrestrial bodies.

In other words, if solar irregularity were causing the majority of warming and it posed enough of a threat, we should be responding to that threat just as much as if any other thing were causing warming. If long-term well-being depends on the average temperature being within a certain range, we need to respond reasonably to keep it within that range.

I recommend the video. It's hubris to think we can change what's coming.

I envision something like cruise ships floating in melt-water lakes on the surface of that winter wonderland.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

For Context
I read all that, had nothing to add, and then went to Suspicious0bservers: This went up at 9am today. I haven't watched it yet.

I only had to withstand 7:28 before I'd seen enough non-factual information pawned off as legitimate science before I cut my losses and bailed.
I'm reluctant to waste any time rebutting Mr. Davidson's video.He immediately fails the Richard Feynman admonition to explore every possible reason one could be wrong before ever mentioning their 'science.'
Virtually nothing above 17-kilometers altitude has anything to do with climate.Climate is a creature of the troposphere.Period!
The 97% of flawed climate models have worked adequately well enough to accurately predict major climate events since 1980.Ockham's Razor requires nothing more.Although,every year the models get better, computers get faster,and there's more and better data to work with (about 100,000 weather monitoring stations).
Davidson can't even get solar total absolute irradiance correct.
The magnetosphere as nothing to do with climate.
Telluric currents have nothing to do with climate.
Galactic cosmic rays are basically deflected by even a weak solar wind over a billion miles from Earth.
The interplanetary electric field is not separate from our solar system,we're embedded within it.Always have been.
Clouds have always been part of climate models.
Volcanoes are included in climate models.
Corrections for urban heat island effects were done by James E.Hansen before
the expression was ever widely used.
Scientists know all they need to know about natural variability.
It is absolutely false to claim that we get more solar total absolute irradiance within an 11-year cycle.Sun spots have very little to do with irradiance.Ben Davidson has yet to use the scientific vocabulary which would actually explain solar dynamics.
Solar forcing constitutes ten percent that of anthopogenic forcing.It's virtually meaningless.
Ben Davidson needs to come back down to Earth.He's obviously oxygen starved.
I'll bet $100 that you'll never see his material published in NATURE or SCIENCE.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I recently learned that volcanoes emit an average of about 0.3 Gigatones of CO2 per year, and that would be considered dead CO2... which goes back to my point of calculating it rather than measuring. Either way, they should both roughly agree.

I just like perspective is all, which is why I enjoyed that graph I posted. A fact without context is meaningless.

Volcanologists have volcano observatories wherever active systems exist.And with remote-sensing,satellite-linked capabilities,it seems that they'd have a pretty good,full-spectrum inventory on emissions,as with drive-by automotive emissions surveys.
Of special interests to climatologists are sulfuric emissions which end up in the stratosphere,as with Mt Pinatubo,which erupted in 1991,cooling the planet for 4-years.
Volcanic CO2 would derive from the magma,which might originate from tectonically-subducted calcium carbonate,limestone rock,which would be ancient,coming back around.