At 388 ppm by volume (your Mauna Loa measure) the atmosphere does NOT represent a very effective source for raw CO2; it would be extremely inefficient to obtain CO2 for dry ice and Coca Cola by extracting it from the atmosphere.

So exactly what human operations are you familiar with that go about extracting CO2 from the atmosphere. We Don’t extract Helium from the atmosphere either, even thoguh there is some to be had; but oil and gas wells provide a much better source for Helium. I wonder what we are going to use in place of Helium, when all the oil and gas operations are shut down for environmental reasons.

So we’ll give you that we emit more to the atmosphere than we extract (CO2); that’s a no brainer.

The rest of your thesis could use some supporting evidence.

If North America is a net carbon sink, as is claimed in the peer reviewed scientific literature; that would imply that your statement regarding the removal of only half of our emitted CO2, would seem to not apply to at least North America. So what is everybody else doing wrong, that makes them net carbon emitters ?.”

The answer to your first question is CO2 can be removed from the atmosphere by planting treees.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/co2_human.html
:”All land areas such as farms, grasslands and forests can be sources or sinks of CO2, depending on the particular agricultural and forestry practices on these lands. In the U.S., forests and other types of lands have been significant sinks since 1990, due in large part to forest and soil management practices. Nationally, carbon sequestration offset or removed 13 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions
in 2006. The largest share came from forest growth, increasing forest area and an increase in the amount of carbon stored in durable wood products. The rate of carbon sequestration has decreased since 1990, particularly in forests. The following links provide more information on carbon sequestration:”

There was a peer reviewed paper in 1998 that claimed North America was a net absorber of CO2.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/10/981020074617.htm

“Ecosystems in North America are absorbing carbon dioxide at a rate that is greater than expected, according to findings by a team of scientists from Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Princeton University and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The study, which its authors said was subject to confirmation, may mean that land-based carbon-absorbing zones could play a greater role than expected in managing greenhouse warming of the atmosphere. ..

“But observations tell us otherwise. The mean atmospheric CO2 concentration on the East Coast has been observed to be lower than that over the Pacific coast. This means that more CO2 is taken up by land ecosystems over the United States than is released by industrial activities.”..”

A more recent study shows the opposite. North America emits more CO2 than it absorbs.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071114111141.htm

“First-Ever ‘State Of The Carbon Cycle Report’ Finds Troubling Imbalance

ScienceDaily (Nov. 17, 2007) — The first “State of the Carbon Cycle Report” for North America, released online this week by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, finds the continent’s carbon budget increasingly overwhelmed by human-caused emissions. North American sources release nearly 2 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere each year, mostly as carbon dioxide. Carbon “sinks” such as growing forests may remove up to half this amount, but these current sinks may turn into new sources as climate changes. ”

So the study which its authors said was subject to confirmation has not been confirmed, and new data says the opposite.

The Wilkins Ice Shelf, a broad plate of floating ice south of South America on the Antarctic Peninsula, had been stable for most of the last century before it began retreating in the 1990s.

So what? It’s still a piddling little piece of ice on a Peninsula of a massive frozen continent. The world isn’t and has never been in a static state.

The Antarctic is about 14.0 million km^2. 98% is covered by ice, which averages at least 1.6 kilometres (1.0 mi) in thickness and is surrounded by countless ice shelves that make the Wilkins look like a pimple on an elephants arse.

Even without a strong glacial influence accumulated land ice will slowly push the shelf away from the land mass.

Really, why?

Gravity.

The shelfs connection with the Latady and Charcot islands has always been tenuous.

Not so, see for instance:
http://www.esa.int/images/Wilkins_IceShelf_SAR_IMP_Orbit02586_19920113_inverted_H.jpg

Yup like I said tenuous.

There isn’t an ‘annual dance’, the last few years have seen its demise after many years of stability. My guess is that the main connection to Latady won’t last much longer.

Never mind. Try not to think of it so much as an ice loss as to it being new home for phytoplankton.

Brian…

…I cannot help you.

The luminosity of the sun increased 30 percent in the last 4 billion years. solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/presentations/20080227_UAH.ppt
500,000,000 years from now solar forcing will be ~341.5(1+5e8/4e9), or about 384 watts/m^2, assuming a continued linear increase in luminosity. I wouldn’t sweat the additional forcing from the return of subducted CO2.

“‘What do people think of a scatterplot that shows r^2=0.999880? What about 2 allegedly different scatterplots that BOTH show r^2= 0.999880?’
That was the whole point… you know?”
I thought the point was the slope, not the correlation; as Spencer says “Significantly, note that the ratio of C13 variability to CO2 variability is EXACTLY THE SAME as that seen in the trends!”

“Everything you put forward starts with the presumption that the rise in CO2 is caused by humankind…” My starting presumption is “we know humankind is producing lotsa CO2(by looking at economic data, not Keeling data); where is that CO2 is going?” Going back to Spencer, “The slope of this line (1.0952%) represents the ratio of C13 variability to C12 variability associated with the trend signals. When we compare this to what is to be expected from pure fossil CO2 (1.0945%), it is very close indeed: 97.5% of the way from “natural” C13 content (1.12372%) to the fossil content.

At this point, one might say, ‘There it is! The anthropogenic signal!’”
IMHO, that’s a good start. Throw in the correlation in amounts, the carbonification of the oceans(which precludes them being a source of CO2), and the expert opinions of many other scientists, and it’s pretty much a slam dunk.

As far as using Latin, I tend to avoid it – makes it seem like I’m desperately trying to sound as erudite and sophisticated as Lord Christopher Monckton.

I showed you conclusively that Tamino made a stupid error and was wrong, and you are clutching on the incredibly thin straw that something I said might hurt his feelings? Is Tamino a saint who never would stoop to such depths of depravity (oh, the horror!)? Hardly. The guy’s a one man sarcastic wrecking crew. What a joke.

“What do people think of a scatterplot that shows r^2=0.999880? What about 2 allegedly different scatterplots that BOTH show r^2= 0.999880?”

That was the whole point… you know?

Really, Brian, you came in strong, but you’re just flailing now. Everything you put forward starts with the presumption that the rise in CO2 is caused by humankind, then uses the effects of a rise in CO2 to claim that the rise is due to humankind. Did your Latin include “circulus in probando”? How about “petitio principii”?

“0.00001% is ‘some portion’”. 0.00001% is not equal to “no need to hypothesize an anthropogenic driver.” 0.00001% is not even close to 200%, the “portion” we’re actually emitting. To shameless steal Wolfgang Pauli’s snark, 0.00001% is not even wrong.

“negative feedback which, despite our best efforts, is handily dealing with our output.” I’d say “handily dealing withhalf our output.” (assuming handily=acidifying the oceans) What about the other half? (Insider snark -Carrot eater, what’s the stability of a PID control loop going to be if you divide the loop coefficients in half?)

“Let me see if I have this straight. CO2 has been increasing in the atmosphere: check. The oceans have become marginally more acidic: check. Atmospheric CO2 absorbed in the oceans could contribute to ocean acidity: check. Therefore, this is independent verification that the rise in CO2 is largely manmade: …huh?”

Nope, you don’t have it straight – you left out a few things.
Humans are emitting a large amount of CO2 from fossil carbon fuels into the atmosphere with an identifiable 13C/12C ratio. (check?)
CO2 has been increasing in the atmosphere at a rate which accounts for about half the amount we are emitting, and with the same 13C/12C ratio as our emissions.
The oceans have become marginally more acidic* by 1-absorbing more CO2 from some source with 2- a 13C/13C ratio similar to fossil fuel emissions.The shortest distance between point 1 and point 2 is a straight line, not a circular argument.
Atmospheric CO2 absorbed in the oceans could contribute to ocean acidity and has the same 13C/12C isotopic signature as the observed increase in seawater carbonate acidity, unlike, for instance, Mid Ocean Ridge CO2 emissions, or GCRs which make 14C.

* William Howard and co-author Andrew Moy of the University of Tasmania in Australia in recent research published in Nature Geoscience, show shell weights of modern-day foraminifera falling between 30 and 35 percent. Howard told Reuters “We’ve already changed the pH of the ocean by about 0.1. At these levels this represents about a 30 percent increase in the acidity of the oceans,” I think the spin word you’re looking for is “significantly”, not “marginally”. Why don’t we just say “30% more acidic” and let others vote on whether its marginal or significant.

“First, Tamino starts hopping up and down and shrieking” Ad hominem. (I took Latin in high school, though I have forgotten most of it)
What do people think of a scatterplot that shows r^2=0.999880? What about 2 allegedly different scatterplots that BOTH show r^2= 0.999880?
Dr Spencer says “Let’s say the oceans are producing an extra 1 unit of CO2, mankind is producing 1 unit, and nature is absorbing an extra 1.5 units. Then we get the situation we have today, with CO2 rising at about 50% the rate of human emissions.” And if mankind weren’t producing 1 unit, then CO2 would be declining at 0.5 units per year; CO2 isn’t declining, therefore mankind’s emissions are responsible for the rising CO2.

What is being disputed above is whether man can cause any change at all. And one person seems to think no changes are possible.

Sandy, think about all those examples you just gave. The impact of a meteor eventually passes from the climate because the dust eventually settles out, etc. In the meanwhile, there can be extinction events. Same with volcanoes – the climate recovers after the ash clears out. Not because of some magical feedback.

Or, take the ice ages. They’re caused initially by changes in the earth’s orbit; less solar radiation makes it in. The earth gets quite a bit colder. There aren’t magical feedbacks that keep this from happening; in fact, there are feedbacks that amplify it. Does the ice age stop because of some magical regulatory feedback? No, it stops when the orbit wobbles back and there is again more solar radiation.

It’s pretty simple. More energy coming into the earth than leaving it = warming.

Do you at least accept that the earth must warm up, if the solar energy coming to it exceeds the energy leaving it?

I’m used to sceptics emphasizing the natural variability of the earth’s climate. Here, you seem to be saying the opposite – that there can be no variations, because the Earth is stuck in some equilibrium. I’ve heard a lot of arguments over the years, but this is a new one on me.

“Your ideas are straight out of James Lovelock and Gaia.”

What was that?

“To pretend otherwise is self deception.”

Or that?

Don’t worry about it. I recognize your wish to keep the discussion civil. A la Joe Pesci as “My Cousin Vinny”, I’m done these guys.

Reply: It’s a tough subjective road to keep discussions civil. It gets more complex with multiple moderators in the mix. I might be snipping you while insults directed at you get through via another moderator. The intent is positive. I apologize if you feel you received the short end of the stick. ~ charles the moderator

This is the second time I have engaged with you. Frankly, it is tiresome. [snip, enough of these petty insults ~ ctm] Have a nice day.

“you just do not have the experience I do, and you do not understand feedback systems.”

Spare me the appeal to your own authority. What you need to do is identify the various feedbacks, and quantify them. You’ve got ice-albedo, lapse rate, water vapor, clouds, changes in vegetation, changes in sealife, methane from the permafrost, possibly changes in the ocean’s effectiveness as a carbon sink – all these things are in the picture, and more.

All these things affect the climate response. Some are stronger than others; some will not really kick in until into the future. The question is, on a timescale relevant to us humans now – say, over the next 100 years, how much will these amplify or counteract the effect of greenhouse gas emissions?

“As you read these words, your brain is sending a signal to your eyes to move to the next word, and your eyes are responding with precision to rotate and settle with negligible overshoot, to the point you are hardly aware of the amazing functionality being expressed.”

That living things have evolved through natural selection to have complex internal systems is completely irrelevant to the question at hand. Please discuss the feedbacks actually active in the climate system.

“Systems naturally move into an equilibrium position which is determined by the minimum energy state. And, when they do so, it takes a lot of energy (relatively speaking) to get them out of it. The Earth has had many eons to converge to its present state. It will naturally resist being moved out of it. It is wedged into that state, like a knot in your shoelaces, or a thatch of debris lodged in a crevice.”

The energy is coming from the Sun, Bart. If you disrupt the radiation balance around the earth, such that more energy is coming in than going out, it will have to get warmer. This is true of anything, including the Earth. This can happen if the sun decides to start giving off more radiation. This can also happen if you change the composition of the atmosphere. It can happen if variations in the Earth’s orbit cause changes in how much solar radiation the Earth receives. The latter is what triggers the ice age cycles. In your little picture of “the Earth will resist any changes because it’s in equilibrium”, ice ages would be impossible. Yet they occur.

Your ideas are straight out of James Lovelock and Gaia. That line of thought is philosophical, not scientific.