sleight of hand.

provenance of the quote. [Not "providence."]

the scientists who constitute it. [Not "comprise it." The whole comprises the parts; the parts constitute the whole.]

Claims concerning the cause of the recent rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration are a clear example of why everybody should be sceptical of AGW and the assertions of AGW advocates.

AGW advocates say that anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide should be reduced because the emitted carbon dioxide is accumulating in the air.

But if the anthropogenic emissions are not accumulating in the air then effects of reducing the emissions cannot be known. And, therefore, we need to know what effect the anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide are having on the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration.

You say:
“I’m perfectly open to a competing set of stats and theories. But said set should include what’s going in, what’s coming out, and what the sink contains.”

OK. But nobody knows those things and nobody knows how to determine them.

So, in effect, you are saying
(a) we should do nothing to determine the cause of the recent rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration,
Or
(b) we should invent numbers and pretend the invention has pertinence to the cause of the recent rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration (as e.g. IPCC and DoE do).

Personally, I prefer to assess the information we do have and to try to find out more.

And you say;
“I side with the slow accumulation via cycle theory. I am perfectly open to competing theories.”

But there is not sufficient evidence to support any “theory”: there are only hypotheses. And the accumulation hypothesis is denied by all – yes, ALL – the available information.

The annual emission of anthropogenic carbon dioxide should relate to the annual increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide if accumulation of the anthropogenic emission is directly responsible for the increase. But they greatly differ from year to year: some years almost all of the anthropogenic emission seems to be absorbed by the ‘sinks’ and in other years almost none seems to be absorbed. Those who claim the increase is caused by such accumulation overcome this problem by conducting a 5-year running mean on the data and comparing the smoothed data sets. But that smoothing cannot be justified because there is no known physical effect that would have such an effect on the real emissions or the real atmospheric increase.

And the “slow accumulation” hypothesis is denied by the isotope data (as I explained above).

However, the anthropogenic emission could be responsible for the rise. The emission may be disrupting the system such that the equilibrium state of the system is changing. This hypothesis fits all the data (it even explains why the atmospheric CO2 concentration continued to rise when in subsequent years the anthropogenic emission decreased). However, in this case the eventual equilibrium will depend on the dominant mechanism of the system. Each of several mechanisms could be dominant and nobody knows which does dominate (we have modelled three of them).

But it should be constantly remembered that the anthropogenic addition is a miniscule addition to the carbon cycle. Therefore, the anthropogenic addition is very unlikely to be disrupting the system. So, the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration most probably is natural (and insignificantly affected by the anthropogenic emission).

Richard

So do I. (But I don’t attach much importance to the rise.)

In the meantime, FWIW, I side with the slow accumulation via cycle theory. I am perfectly open to competing theories.

Global CO2 seems to be going up, and at a rate that exceeds that which comes out of the oceans. Ice ages vary by c. 10 degrees C, and the fluctuation (so far as we can tell) is only c. 100 ppmv.

We (supposedly) have that much increase with under a 1 degree C increase in temperature.

It can be accounted for by the 7.2 BMTC of industry.

Other thing may account for it, but what?

And, yes, I think it has done the biosphere more good than harm, regardless of the source.

It is not obvious that so small an addition to the carbon cycle is certain to disrupt the system because no other activity in nature is so constant that it only varies by less than +/- 0.02% per year.”

I am not saying it disrupts it. I am only saying that about half of what we input remains in the atmospheric sink (the other half winds up in the other sinks.

The indications are that 7.2 BMTC of the 219 BMTC exuded each year are non-natural (i.e., c. 3%), and that this inceases the atmospheric sink of c. 760 BMTC by c. 4 BMTC/year or by roughly 0.5% per year.

Yes, the measurements may be wrong. But it explains how only 3% of total cartbon emissions can cause a slow, steady increase in atmospheric carbon.

Proxies prior to c. 1950 indicate a steady level.

I consider this to be uncertain. I question those proxies and wonder about WWII emissions (100 cities aflame, mad-paced allout production, etc.). Wafare is a smoky sort of thing.

Really? How do you know they are “small” and “roughly the same proportions”?

I base it only on the fact that the 2006 stats tell the same story and that overall measurements have indicated a roughly half a % increase per year for the last few decades. I do not “know” it for a fact, nor do I know the MoE. But it’s what the standard graphs indicate.

I’m perfectly open to a competing set of stats and theories. But said set should include what’s going in, what’s coming out, and what the sink contains.

Nevertheless I think that there is a very long way to go before it can be said that ‘most’ scientists accept ……etc
I myself believe in global warming. But I’ll bet London to a brick that what I take as ‘global warming’ is not the same thing that alarmists, scientists with a barrow to push and opportunistic politicians are so heavily involved in promoting.
This ‘consensus’ thing is falling apart at the seams at least partly because the precise thing upon which there is supposed to be consensus is something of a movable feast.
But in any case that is irrelevant.
A small number of scientists who think something different could be proven right in the end. It has happened before and it will happen again.
Notwithstanding the principles of democracy, majority rule and all that, science is not about numbers, it is about what is true.

The officers of the organisation represent the members. If there were a sufficient groundswell of dissent in the ranks, that would presumably be reflected in the composition of the executive.

For obvious reasons a scientific organisation is not “the same thing” as the scientists who comprise it, but the organisations I referenced represent majority scientific opinion, so in that sense “The world’s major scientific organisations have endorsed AGW” means the same as “most scientists” or at least most physical scientists.

Unless you have accurate polling numbers, this is a gratuitous statement. Those organizations’ mission statements and press releases reflect the opinions of those in charge of those organizations, nothing more.

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/nowarm.htm

You present a set of estimates for global emissions and global absorbtions of carbon by
Vegetation/Soils:
Human Land Use:
Ocean:
Fossil Fuel Combustion & Industry: and
Atmosphere

Then say to me:
“To falsify, one must show either that those figures are just plain wrong (they may be) or else show me where the extra carbon is coming from other than from industry. (Such as an increase in volcanic activity or something.)”

No! Absolutely not!
Those who make an assertion need to provide supporting evidence and – in science – others only have a duty to demand that evidence. I do not need to “falsify” an assertion.

The errors in those estimates are greater than the total change in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. And you presented those estimates, so it is up to you to demonstrate that all those errors cancel to near zero.

And you say;
” Sure, input and outflow vary a bit. Sure, an increase in inflow causes a bit of an increase in outflow. But those differences are small and in roughly the same proportions.”

Really? How do you know they are “small” and “roughly the same proportions”?

As I previously said:
“In other words, the annual flow of carbon into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels is less than 0.02% of the carbon flowing around the carbon cycle.
It is not obvious that so small an addition to the carbon cycle is certain to disrupt the system because no other activity in nature is so constant that it only varies by less than +/- 0.02% per year.”

You say;
“And I don’t see what the seasonal variation-to-human emissions ratio has to do with it.”

The problem seems to be that you are thinking in terms of an erroneous analogy: i.e. you say;
“what I see is a (big) bathtub with 760 gallons in it, with 219.0 gallons of water coming in for every 215.0 gallons going out.”

Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is not a balance of nearly constant flows in and out of a fixed container. The carbon cycle is a complex system. Carbon dioxide is a trace component of a small part of that complex system, and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is the amount of carbon dioxide in one part of the system.

Try applying your bathtub analogy to the urea content of a human kidney.
(The human body is a complex system. Urea is a trace component of a small part of that complex system, and the concentration of urea in the kidney is the amount urea in one part of the system).
Until the variation of the urea content goes beyond known natural limits there is no reason to suppose that anything unusual has happened.

Only the extremely dubious ice core data suggests that recent variations in atmospheric carbon dioxide are unusual, and this suggestion is denied by the stomata data and by direct historical measurements.

I again repeat that the important point is that anybody is mistaken when claiming to know that the anthropogenic emission is or is not the cause of the recent rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. But some claim such knowledge, and I fail to understand why they claim to know the unknowable. And it is unknowable because we lack adequate understanding and quantification of the carbon cycle.

In light of the importance some ascribe to the recent rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, I want to find out the cause of that rise.

Richard

For obvious reasons a scientific organisation is not “the same thing” as the scientists who comprise it, but the organisations I referenced represent majority scientific opinion, so in that sense “The world’s major scientific organisations have endorsed AGW” means the same as “most scientists” or at least most physical scientists.

I’m not sure. It may be that the value is calculated from laboratory studies. Google may provide some answers.

But measured on an annual basis, CO2 (as measured at Hawaii) goes up steadily. Yes, there is the usual seasonal up-and-down wiggle in the graph. We’ve all seen that. A set up wiggles headed northward at a c. half-percent a year.

Here is the exchange rate as expostulated by the DoE and the IPPC, year 2007:

Vegetation/Soils:
Natural:
119.6 BMTC emitted to Atmosphere
120.2 BMTC absorbed from atmosphere
Human Land Use:
1.6 BMTC emitted to Atmosphere
2.6 BMTC absorbed from atmosphere
Total Amt. in sink: 2300 BMTC

Ocean:
90.6 BMTC emitted to Atmosphere
92.2 BMTC absorbed from Atmosphere
Total Amt. in sink: 38,000 BMTC

Fossil Fuel Combustion & Industry:
7.2 BMTC emitted to Atmosphere

Atmosphere:
215.0 emitted to all other sources
219.0 Absorbed from Veg., Soils + Ocean + Fuel, Industry
Total Amt. in sink: 760 BMTC

(BMTC = Bil. Metric Tons Carbon,
Vegetation/Soils would include volcanic activity and animal breathing.)

So the Atmospheric sink of 760 BMTC (in 2007) is increasing at a rate of 4 BMTC (in 2007). That’s a half a percent gain of carbon.

Man’s contribution of overall atmospheric carbon (7.2 BMTC) is 3.3% of total emissions (219.0 BMTC).

Now, these figures may be wrong, but what I see is a (big) bathtub with 760 gallons in it, with 219.0 gallons of water coming in for every 215.0 gallons going out.

Sure, input and outflow vary a bit. Sure, an increase in inflow causes a bit of an increase in outflow. But those differences are small and in roughly the same proportions.

2006 figures show a slightly smaller inflow and a slightly smaller outflow, and a slightly smaller atmospheric sink. But around a half-percent increase in the atmospheric sink carbon. No doubt 2008 will show a similar rise in these variables.

And I don’t see what the seasonal variation-to-human emissions ratio has to do with it.

I am not saying you are wrong, mind, but:

To falsify, one must show either that those figures are just plain wrong (they may be) or else show me where the extra carbon is coming from other than from industry. (Such as an increase in volcanic activity or something.)

Quite. The energy exchange being between circulating ocean layers and circulating tropospheric levels.

Global warming, as measured since 1979, is measured by land surface, sea surface and lower troposphere. (Questions of accuracy aside.)

There also seem to be underlying fluctuating factors as well (such as which caused the LIA and Roman, Medieval, and, Modern Warm periods which may be more than just turnover.

It is quite possible that much of what we measure as GW is mere turnover.

Don’t know much about the Aqua satellite data, but I’m sure the climate scientists are on to it.

Spencer is all over it. He concludes that instead of cirrus clouds and ambient vapor (positive feedback), there is low level cloud cover resulting in increased albedo (negative feedback). NASA simply won’t say. This could turn out to be the critical measurement.