Eaarth

[t vago]

Originally Posted by dcb

That is 6 gigatons per year, so we add about 1% per year, starting many years ago.

That assumes that carbon dioxide isn't absorbed into the oceans or the biosphere.

If we go by that assumption, and then go on to state that Manmade carbon dioxide levels have increased since 1900 from 0% to 6% today, that would give about 330 gigatons of carbon dioxide added into the atmosphere. That would be about 44%, which at first glance sounds more reasonable for AGW. Then, when you realize that as a fraction of atmospheric concentration, you get 214.3 ppm, which is unrealisticly lower than the 280 ppm figure that is so-often quoted.

Alternately, you can assume that Mankind added 1% per year since 1900. That is, 1901 had 101% of 1900's carbon dioxide, and so on, and so on... What would 1900 levels have to be in order for this to be true? Hm... From my calculations, you'd have to start out with a total atmospheric inventory of 248 gigatons of carbon dioxide, or a concentration of 127 ppm.

[dcb]

It isn't quite that linear, populations have been growing also.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Dioxide-en.svg

looking at atmospheric trends it looks like about 1.75 ppm/year Co2 growth and rising.

[NeilBlanchard]

Here's the evidence on ice thickness in the Arctic:




(click on image for link)

We had about 1,000PPM when there was no ice at all anywhere on Earth. Carbon dioxide levels started dropping when we reached the arrangement of the continents that we have now.

The facts show that Antarctica started freezing up at about 450PPM (or a bit higher?). This was about 40 Million years ago. Carbon dioxide got as low as 170PPM during the ice ages. Carbon dioxide has stayed between 180PPM and 280PPM over the 200,000 years of human history:



...EXCEPT in the last 150 years or so. We passed 300PPM in about 1904 or thereabout. Now we are at 389+ and climbing fast. Do we want to wait and see what happens when we go past 450PPM?

Oh and Lord Monckton is not a particularly reliable source:

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...en-treaty-thr/

[t vago]

It would seem as though your own graphs here shoot themselves in the foot.

How could human-induced carbon dioxide shoot up so fast, while antarctic surface temperatures fall below what should be expected?

And how do you get 1000 ppm carbon dioxide from ice samples, if the supposed time period for the sample had no ice at all?

And why aren't you showing total cryosphere ice, instead of arctic sea ice?

And why are you assuming that carbon dioxide and temperatures are causally related? This has not been proven, and you know it.

Oh, and Politifact is not exactly a reliable source, either.

[NeilBlanchard]

There is thermal momentum -- ice doesn't melt right away after temperature rises -- and the temperature doesn't rise instantly as soon as carbon dioxide levels rise.

Again, volcanoes added 100PPM in about a MILLION YEARS, which is a big change and has a huge affect -- but humans have changed the carbon dioxide more than 110PPM in about 150 years.

[t vago]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

There is thermal momentum -- ice doesn't melt right away after temperature rises -- and the temperature doesn't rise instantly as soon as carbon dioxide levels rise.

Again, volcanoes added 100PPM in about a MILLION YEARS, which is a big change and has a huge affect -- but humans have changed the carbon dioxide more than 110PPM in about 150 years.

So, on the one hand, a MILLION YEARS is about the time scale that carbon dioxide and temperatures have changed solely due to natural events.

On the other hand, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have shot upwards by about 36%, and all we have to show for it is a decrease in Antarctic surface temperatures?

Thermal momentum... So, that means that if the Sun were to suddenly disappear, for the sake of argument, that life should go on for the foreseeable future? Remember, thermal momentum... LOL!

Sounds pretty flimsy, Neil. Even AGW proponents have admitted that the Sun has some role in temperature fluctuation. Weird, I know...

(I do like how some AGW proponents like to say that "CO2 causes warming," too... Nice little feel to that, don't you think? The Sun doesn't cause warming, CO2 does! LOL!)

[dcb]

vago, you understand that a greenhouse makes the sun more effective right? So the "better" the greenhouse effect, the more effect the sun has?



Also worth noting is that, unlike previous sharp temperature peaks, whatever that 100,000 odd year cycle is, temperatures are NOT dropping, but for now appear to be rising.


so the lack of proportional temperature/co2 rise may be explained by the lack of temperature drop for all we know.

If this were a heartbeat, I'd keep a defibrillator handy. Granted the older the data, the less resolution/accuracy.

[t vago]

Originally Posted by dcb

vago, you understand that a greenhouse makes the sun more effective right? So the "better" the greenhouse effect, the more effect the sun has?

dcb, you do understand that we're having a record cold winter, right? England has experienced their coldest winter in over 100 years, right? Australia is experiencing floods (which were not predicted by AGW) when they were just experiencing a drought a few years ago, right?

[dcb]

you do understand that globally temperatures are rising and that local anomalies are to be expected, right? I'm talking observed trends, not predictions.

Anyway you did not answer my question, so you concede that solar is only part of the story?

[gone-ot]

...isn't it funny how: COLD feet are often accompanied by HOT heads?
















...a local vs. global analogy.