UPDATED – see below
Monckton provides these slides for discussion along with commentary related to his recent post on CO2 residence time – Anthony
There is about one molecule of 13C in every 100 molecules of CO2, the great majority being 12C. As CO2 concentration increases, the fraction of 13C in the atmosphere decreases – the alleged smoking gun, fingerprint or signature of anthropogenic emission: for the CO2 added by anthropogenic emissions is leaner in 13C than the atmosphere.
However, anthropogenic CO2 emissions of order 5 Gte yr–1 are two orders of magnitude smaller than natural sources and sinks of order 150 5 Gte yr–1. If some of the natural sources are also leaner in CO2 than the atmosphere, as many are, all bets are off. The decline in atmospheric CO2 may not be of anthropogenic origin after all. In truth, only one component in the CO2 budget is known with any certainty: human emission.
If the natural sources and sinks that represent 96% of the annual CO2 budget change, we do not have the observational capacity to know. However, we do not care, because what is relevant is net emission from all sources and sinks, natural as well as anthropogenic. Net emission is the sum of all sources of CO2 over a given period minus the sum of all CO2 sinks over that period, and is proportional to the growth rate in atmospheric CO2 over the period. The net emission rate controls how quickly global CO2 concentration increases.
CO2 is emitted and absorbed at the surface. In the atmosphere it is inert. It is thus well mixed, but recent observations have shown small variations in concentration, greatest in the unindustrial tropics. Since the variations in CO2 concentration are small, a record from any station will be a good guide to global CO2 concentration. The longest record is from Mauna Loa, dating back to March 1958.
The annual net emission or CO2 increment, a small residual between emissions and absorptions from all sources which averages 1.5 µatm, varies with emission and absorption, sometimes rising >100% against the mean trend, sometimes falling close to zero. Variation in human emission, at only 1 or 2% a year, is thus uncorrelated with changes in net emission, which are independent of it.
Though anthropogenic emissions increase monotonically, natural variations caused by Pinatubo (cooling) and the great el Niño (warming) are visibly stochastic. Annual changes in net CO2 emission (green, above) track surface conditions (blue: temperature and soil moisture together) with a correlation of 0.93 (0.8 for temperature alone), but surface conditions are anti-correlated with δ13C (red: below).
The circulation-dependent naturally-caused component in atmospheric CO2 concentration (blue above), derived solely from temperature and soil moisture changes, coincides with the total CO2 concentration (green). Also, the naturally-caused component in δ13C coincides with observed δ13C (below).
==============================================================
ADDED (the original MS-Word document sent by Monckton was truncated)
==============================================================
The naturally-caused component in CO2 (above: satellite temperature record in blue, CRU surface record in gray), here dependent solely on temperature, tracks not only measured but also ice-proxy concentration, though there is a ~10 µatm discrepancy in the ice-proxy era. In the models, projected temperature change (below: blue) responds near-linearly to CO2 concentration change (green).
In the real world, however, there is a poor correlation between stochastically-varying temperature change (above: blue) and monotonically-increasing CO2 concentration change (green). However, the CO2 concentration response to the time-integral of temperature (below: blue dotted line) very closely tracks the measured changes in CO2 concentration, suggesting the possibility that the former may cause the latter.
Summary
Man’s CO2 emissions are two orders of magnitude less than the natural sources and sinks of CO2. Our emissions are not the main driver of temperature change. It is the other way about.
Professor Salby’s opponents say net annual CO2 growth now at ~2 μatm yr–1 is about half of manmade emissions that should have added 4 μatm yr–1 to the air, so that natural sinks must be outweighing natural sources at present, albeit only by 2 μatm yr–1, or little more than 1% of the 150 μatm yr–1 natural CO2 exchanges in the system.
However, Fourier analysis over all sufficiently data-resolved timescales ≥2 years shows that the large variability in the annual net CO2 emission from all sources is heavily dependent upon the time-integral of absolute global mean surface temperature. CO2 concentration change is largely a consequence, not a cause, of natural temperature change.
The sharp Pinatubo-driven cooling of 1991-2 and the sharp Great-el-Nino-driven warming of 1997-8, just six years later, demonstrate the large temperature-dependence of the highly-variable annual increments in CO2 concentration. This stochastic variability is uncorrelated with the near-monotonic increase in anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Absence of correlation necessarily implies absence of causation.
Though correlation between anthropogenic emissions and annual variability in net emissions from all sources is poor, there is a close and inferentially causative correlation between variable surface conditions (chiefly temperature, with a small contribution from soil moisture) and variability in net annual CO2 emission.
Given the substantial variability of net emission and of surface temperature, the small fraction of total annual CO2 exchanges represented by that net emission, and the demonstration that on all relevant timescales the time-integral of temperature change determines CO2 concentration change to a high correlation, a continuing stasis or even a naturally-occurring fall in global mean surface temperature may yet cause net emission to be replaced by net uptake, so that CO2 concentration could cease to increase and might even decline notwithstanding our continuing emissions.
Natural temperature change and variability in soil moisture, not anthropogenic emission, is the chief driver of changes in CO2 concentration. These changes may act as a feedback contributing some warming but are not its principal cause.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Stephen Wilde says:
November 23, 2013 at 12:18 pm
As it happens the 1850 start point used by Ferdinand correlates not only with the industrial revolution but also a recovery phase from the LIA though there was another dip around 1900.
About the (far) past: the change in δ13C over a glacial-interglacial interval was a few tenths per mil δ13C. That is for a huge change (5-10 K) in temperature, land and ice area, biological life in oceans and over land.
Over the whole Holocene, the variability of δ13C also was a few tenths of a per mil.
Since ~1850 we see a drop of near 2 per mil. Ten times more than over a galcial-interglacial transition. Do you think that is all natural? See again the change over 600-150 years ago and after that:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/sponges.gif
More oceanic biological activity involving photosynthesis and plankton when the climate system warms could be a better candidate than human emissions for the decline in C13 relative to C12.
Is there any evidence to the contrary ?
Yes: the fact that large areas of the oceans are net CO2 emitters in summer and net absorbers for the rest of the year. Just contrary to land plants. The emissions hapens in summer, despite a decrease in DIC (total carbon) caused by biolife and emissions to the atmosphere.
See Fig. 4 in:
http://www.biogeosciences.net/9/2509/2012/bg-9-2509-2012.pdf
and FIg. 1 in:
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/30/12235.full.pdf
and Fig. 5-2 in:
http://www.umeoce.maine.edu/docu/Fujii-JO-2009.pdf
Moreover, biolife in the ocean surface layer increases the δ13C ratio of that layer compared to the deep oceans, as part of the produced organics drop out of the surface layer.
Including some partitioning at the ocean-air border (and reverse), any substantial emission from the oceans would increase the δ13C of the atmosphere, thus the oceans are not the cause of the δ13C decrease in the atmosphere.
In case you were wondering. A note to Dr Spencer from Ferdinand Engelbeen
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/the-origin-of-increasing-atmospheric-co2-a-response-from-ferdinand-engelbeen/
“Dear Dr. Spencer,
I have reacted a few times via Anthony Watts’ weblog on your different thoughts about the origin of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Regardless if that is man made or not, I think we agree that the influence of the increase itself on temperature/climate is limited, if observable at all.”
FrankK;
The question was:
“what % of total atmospheric C02 is man made right now?”
You have indicated the overall increase in CO2.
The answer surely is the human CO2 say 7 Gt/yr divided by natural CO2 150 Gt/yr as a percentage: 4.6 %
i.e still “peanuts”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sigh.
Background is commonly accepted as 280 ppm.
Current is approaching 400.
Difference = 120.
If we assume the difference is “man made”
As a percentage of current concentrations, 120 = 30%
As a percentage increase over background, 120 = 42.9%
In the context of the logarithmic effects of CO2, these are the values James V was asking for. We are, over pre-industrial values, 43% of the way to a first doubling. Based on a ln2, that means over half the warming from a single doubling is already in the pipe. If sensitivity were high, it would be easily discernible in the temperature record. It is not. This implies that sensitivity is low, in which case we have nothing to worry about. This is the reason that the alarmists are scurrying around trying to justify deep ocean or arctic as places where the heat may be hiding. Without that or some other justification for a near two decade pause in temperature increased, they cannot justify high sensitivity, nor the endangerment finding that goes with it.
I look at the sixth plot above and after downloading the Mauna Loa CO2 records and looking at the November to October differentials it becomes so clear. In 1997 the ΔμAtmCO2 was 1.17 and in 1999 it was 1.00 but in 1998 for that El Nino year it was a whopping 3.64 for the ΔμAtmCO2 and that is NOT because mankind stopped using energy during 1997 and 1999 and burned huge amounts in 1998 but this shows exactly how much out-gassing and decrease in uptake is occurring per temperature variances as Salby points out if I read him correct. This is all assuming Kelling is in fact measuring to 0.1 ppmv of CO2 month by month.
Also, if you plot the differentials of the ΔμAtmCO2 it’s slope crosses the x-axis right at at June 1931 which would imply a base at ≈307 ppmv and zero ΔCO2 prior to that time, not the beginning of the industrial revolution, not 285 ppmv. It is so curious that this also coincides with the large jump in solar activity, you can’t just rule that out either.
It seems a bit hard to exactly those thoughts to Salby but I think that is what he is saying in so many words, it is all or mostly because an increase in Δtemperature over this period and I still think it was releated to the grand maximum occuring during this same period.
That’s my take away.
In reply to:
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
November 23, 2013 at 10:10 am
Hello,
This is an interesting problem. There appears to be a paradox. Observations/analysis and the IPCC CO2 sources and sink theory are in conflict. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions have increased by 58% 1990 to present, yet there is only a 25% percent increase in the average yearly rate of CO2 increase.
To explain that observation using the IPCC’s model, the missing sink must magically increase hiding more CO2 which does not make sense. How does one explain that observation?
The IPCC predicted that the CO2 sinks should be less effective when atmospheric CO2 and planetary temperature rises not more effective.
As this paper notes 7 out of 8 times temperature rises first and then atmospheric CO2 rises. When detailed CO2 change latitudinal analysis is done on the CO2 rise, the rise occurs in the Southern hemisphere which does not make sense as the majority of the anthropogenic source is in the Northern hemisphere. As Salby notes the increase in CO2 correlates to planetary temperature changes not to anthropogenic CO2 changes. The fact that temperature rises first and then CO2 rises second, provides additional support for the assertion that the majority of the warming in the last 70 years was caused by solar magnetic cycle changes rather than the increase in atmospheric CO2.
http://www.principia-scientific.org/techknowgroup/papers/Carbon_dioxide_Humlum_et_al.pdf
The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature
Comments:
1. CH4 is primary inorganic (the term primary is used as ‘natural’ gas is the initial source of all hydrocarbons and water on the surface of the planet). The deep primary source of CH4 explains the massive amounts of CH4 that are found in the earth’s crust, super concentrations of CH4 at crustal zones, such as Qatar, CH4 deposits in mountainous regions (the deep source CH4 creates the mountain bands), explains the low C13 content of ‘natural’ gas, explains geological phenomena such as Tibet plain that is 14,000 meters high and thousands miles from the crustal collision, and provides an explanation as to why the continents float on the mantle: there is a massive amount of CH4 in the continental crust at around 40km, and so on.The source of CH4 is the earth’s core which is released as the core solidifies. Under high pressure a portion of the CH4 is converted to light hydrocarbons. Have you read Thomas Gold’s Deep Hot Biosphere: The Myth of Fossil Fuels.
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/853851.The_Deep_Hot_Biosphere
2. Salby’s theory is particularly interesting as there is overwhelming evidence and analysis that the planet is about to cool. We will therefore soon have an opportunity by observation rather than theory to prove of disprove Salby’s theory.
IMPORTANT NOTE:
The original MS-WORD file has some additional slides and commentary by Monckton that didn’t show up in the version he sent me, nor in a second version he sent me that was sent to fix the problem once discovered. A third version sent this morning was added to the body of the post with a break-point line added.
Readers are encouraged to review the update.
fine…..as long as you ignore carbon life forms….and never admit CO2 was limiting
If you pretend CO2 was not so low it was limiting…..you can wonder about sinks
Here is some interesting reading regarding CO2 by Prof. Beck. Please ignore if it has been linked to already: http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/
Stephen Wilde: “Is there any evidence to the contrary ?”
If you dig into the ice core records you’ll see that the ratio can vary as Ferdinand mentioned in his response to you. By the same token, it can vary, both ways, at the maximal extent mentioned during a flat line period of CO2 ppm. So… yes, seems it can vary quite a bit and independent on ppm changes. To do so requires that there are natural processes running directly the contrary. Doesn’t make any difference what it is necessarily. Simply: It’s permissible to state in some respect.
But this puts Salby in the same position as the normative theories. “It’s different now.” Each have their own take on what was, what is, and what necessarily changed in the now to make it all work. About the strongest I’ll commit to on Salby’s case is that it’s a ridiculously good correlation to temp+soil (however that’s derived) and the CO2 derivative. Beyond that I find as many problems with his as with the normative considerations.
regarding Bart’s hard evidence
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/derivative/mean:12/from:1979/plot/rss/from:1959/scale:0.19/offset:0.14
If you subtract the offset of 0.14 from the derivative of the CO2 measurements instead of the temperature data, you end up with a correllation that is *exactly* the same,
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/derivative/mean:12/from:1979/offset:-0.14/plot/rss/from:1959/scale:0.19
However if you then integrate the CO2 derivative again, it no longer explains the long term increase in CO2.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/derivative/mean:12/from:1979/offset:-0.14/integral/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/offset:-335
This is because the long term increase in CO2 is caused by the mean value of the derivative of the CO2 measurements, which is not explained by the variation in the temperature data, which only explains a minor modulation in the rate of growth of CO2 (small wiggles around the long term trend)
As pointed out in my SkS article, correllations are insensitive to the offsets of the signals over which they are computed, but it is the offset in the CO2 derivative that explains the long term trend. http://www.skepticalscience.com/salby_correlation_conundrum.html
I expect it reasonable to predict that as the Earth cools, atmospheric CO2 will spike sharply from natural causes. (Of course the alarmists will then argue, when this occurs, that poor Mother Nature can no longer choke-down the anthropogenic emission – she has had her fill from us. But that will be a misinterpretation of this natural process.) Further explanation below:
During the Little Ice Age, natural sinks had overtaken sources so atmospheric CO2 fell (caused by cooling). The warming since then has stimulated natural sources which, in turn, have stimulated natural sinks. And the sources are now out in front, with our modest help to be sure. But both sources and sinks have been growing far more rapidly than our anthropogenic contribution in absolute terms. So if our contribution were to be removed in its entirety, there would be little identifiable change. Microbial and insect emissions would more than make up the difference if we let them**. And had we not contributed our 2%, the vegetative sinks would have been most likely under-stimulated by a somewhat similar amount such that there would be little identifiable change. (The water tub analogy where a spigot is filling the CO2 tub, while a drain is draining it, is entirely misleading in the way it is often presented as there is a clearly coupled relationship between changes to the rates of input and output – at least till a saturation event occurs.)
And if the Earth continues to be warm but then starts to cool, at some likely predictable point the photosynthetic sequestering sinks will saturate (so that their increasing capacity to sink CO2 will quit increasing; and then for the same continued cooling causes, these sinks will subsequently and rapidly reverse to a decreasing capacity to absorb CO2; while the emission sources more slowly respond; and the oceans, in particular, fail to respond for many decades). Then very steep atmospheric spiking will ensue just as it so often has in the past. It is very likely that photosynthetic sequestering (biological response) provides an enormous (geologically real-time) negative feedback to additional atmospheric CO2 until such time as it saturates. This predicted saturation event is not likely very near if the planet continues to slide sideways on temperature. However, a near-term solar-driven mini ice age may likely accelerate this predictable spiking event into the near term (i.e. atmospheric CO2 will likely increase sharply soon).
J Martin says: November 23, 2013 at 11:41 am
“However, if Greg wants the mathematics then he will need to watch the video”
Why can’t it be written down? Does it fade?
Let us do this very simply; we use a very simple three box model which consists of the atmosphere, the surface layer of the ocean and the deep ocean, where CO2 is represented as a volume of fluid, and it attempts to reach steady state or dynamic equilibrium, due to gravity.
http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w318/DocMartyn/reseviours_zps4776b7df.png
Before we began burning fossil fuels the atmosphere had 600 GtC, the well mixed surface waters 1000 GtC and the depths 37,000 GtC.
Now carbon from the atmosphere mixes with the surface layer at rate A; at steady state the overall rates of transfer between the two reservoirs was identical, 600*efflux rate = 1,000*influx rate.
The surface layer also talks to the lower bulk ocean and at steady state the influx and efflux rates were identical.
Then we did two things, we burnt a lot of fossil fuels and we exploded nuclear weapons in the atmosphere generating a pulse of 14CO2 in the atmosphere.
We know the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (Keeling), the amount of CO2 we placed in the atmosphere (Andre) and the 14CO2 ratio in the atmosphere (Levin and Kromer) for the 1970-2003 period.
http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w318/DocMartyn/DecayofEuropean14C1970-2003_zpsaf4cba3c.png
Now because we inject 12CO2 in the atmosphere, we dilute the 14CO2 ratio, so we have to do a correction for this, to work out the rate that 14CO2 is transported from the atmosphere into the ocean.
After the dilution effect we get a half-life for atmospheric 14CO2 of 12.3 years.
Now on our reservoir figure we have two rates, the rate of transfer from the atmosphere and the upper ocean and from the upper ocean into the depths. In such a simple system one of those rates is going to be rate limiting, but we cannot immediately state which is limiting.
We have a little problem in that we do not know what the levels of 14CO2 are in the upper oceans. Imagine that Rate A, is very fast, say that half of the total CO2 in the atmosphere exchanges with the surface in one month. This would mean that the atmosphere and upper oceans exist as a single system with respect 14CO2; during the period of the bomb tests both reservoirs reached dynamic equilibrium before 1970 and the disappearance rate after 1970 is Rate B, the transfer rate between the upper surface and the very large depths.
We do something about the relative sizes of Rate A and Rate B. Firstly, neither can be lower than 0.0563 per year; the only place for atmospheric 14CO2 to go to is the upper surface, and the only places CO2 in the upper surface can go to is up or down. If Rate B is slow, we quickly reach a dynamic equilibrium between the atmosphere and upper ocean, it saturates, and we would see a biphasic 14CO2 decay curve, an initial rapid rate (which we might have missed if Rate A is large) and then a slower rate due to limiting transfer between the upper ocean and the depths. We observe no biphasicity, and we observe 2.8 half-lives up to 2003, and we know from other series that first order kinetics continue for at least a decade.
So the bottom lines are that Rate A and rate B are equal to or greater than 0.0563 y-1.
So what is the rate of bulk transfer of excess, fossil fuel derived CO2?
Essentially, 50% of the CO2 we inject into he atmosphere disappears each year, the kinetics of this I will do later
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
November 23, 2013 at 10:10 am
That means that only humans are responsible for the δ13C decline, as the biosphere is not the cause and all other known sources are (too) high in δ13C.
============
that is the IPCC argument that CO2 must be the cause of warming because we can’t think of anything else. Your argument is a logical fallacy. see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
November 23, 2013 at 12:53 pm
Thanks for the various links and I’m sorry if I’m a bit obtuse but could you refer me to the specific portion(s) that suggest that oceanic emissions of CO2 are not predominantly of the C12 isotope.
Just speculating that :
“bio life in the ocean surface layer increases the δ13C ratio of that layer compared to the deep oceans, as part of the produced organics drop out of the surface layer.”
needs something in support, I think.
Is it in those links somewhere?
Lot of interesting stuff, but the entire of Salby’s argument distills down to exactly the same argument that’s currently in use:
Normative: The average annual increase is 0.5 that of mankind’s annual output. It is impossible that it is not man.
Salby: The growing season decrease is 1.2 times mankind’s annual output. It is impossible for it to be man.
So let me cast this in a different light. If there is any validity to the basic argument then both are valid. And Salby’s argument is both a proper refutation and a proper affirmative claim. If you hold that they are not valid, then Salby’s is still a proper refutation of the Normative claim, but we cannot follow it as a proper affirmative claim itself. It’s simply a demonstration of the invalidity of the argument. This alters not a one jot or iota no matter what is thought or occurs with the rest of Salby’s theory.
tldr: Don’t trust people that average. 62% of them are trying to scam you.
However, the CO2 concentration response to the time-integral of temperature (below: blue dotted line) very closely tracks the measured changes in CO2 concentration, suggesting the possibility that the former may cause the latter.
The dotted line shows little of the variation in the blue line that it is supposed to be the integral of. The reason of course is that in the unseen mathematics, it’s actually the difference between temperature and some steady chosen value. And what you are seeing is mainly the contribution of the latter.
But the argument that the current temp rise is the cause makes no sense. As some here like to say, that rise is not yet very large, especially compared with ice ages. Yet for a million years, with temperatures in a 6-8°C range, CO2 stuck between 180 and 280 ppm. Now it has shot up to 400. Is that a response to a 1°C rise?
Nick Stokes asks: Now it has shot up to 400. Is that a response to a 1°C rise?
Of course it is!!
About the new added parts:
This stochastic variability is uncorrelated with the near-monotonic increase in anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Absence of correlation necessarily implies absence of causation.
If we follow this reasoning: because there is no correlation between the monotonic increase of temperature, meltwater, tectonic movements or whatever may influence sealevel and the tide gauge measurements, these are not responsible for the rise in sealevel, but the waves, tides, storms and whatever further causes the stochastic variability in tide gauge measurements are responsible for the sealevel changes.
We are talking about a multivariate system, where human emissions and temperature are the main driving variables and the increase in the atmosphere is the dependent variable. Temperature is the main cause of the short term variability of 4-5 ppmv/K and of the (very) long term variability of ~8 ppmv/K. Humans are responsible for the bulk of the increase since ~1850.
Natural temperature change and variability in soil moisture, not anthropogenic emission, is the chief driver of changes in CO2 concentration.
Everybody agrees that the fast temperature changes and soil moisture are the main drivers for the fast changes in sink capacity of vegetation and oceans. See Pieter Tans in:
http://esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/co2conference/pdfs/tans.pdf from sheet 11 on.
But that doesn’t tell you anything about the cause of the increase in the atmosphere.
davidmhoffer says:
November 23, 2013 at 1:04 pm
FrankK;
The question was:
“what % of total atmospheric C02 is man made right now?”
You have indicated the overall increase in CO2.
The answer surely is the human CO2 say 7 Gt/yr divided by natural CO2 150 Gt/yr as a percentage: 4.6 %
i.e still “peanuts”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sigh.
Background is commonly accepted as 280 ppm.
Current is approaching 400.
Difference = 120.
If we assume the difference is “man made”
As a percentage of current concentrations, 120 = 30%
As a percentage increase over background, 120 = 42.9%
——————————————————————————————————
Even a bigger sigh.
Your assumption is flawed because you are assuming that the difference is all man-made which has not been proven. The largest difference in CO2 has quite likely been due to temperature increase. But the point has been missed, The percentage of man-made CO2 of the TOTAL atmosphere CO2 (the question that was asked) is not the percentages you are quoting.
See the above post “If the natural sources and sinks that represent 96% of the annual CO2 budget change” etc.
ferdberple says:
November 23, 2013 at 2:52 pm
that is the IPCC argument that CO2 must be the cause of warming because we can’t think of anything else. Your argument is a logical fallacy.
Except that in the case of δ13C, the amounts which are emitted by humans are already good for three times the δ13C decline which is observed in the atmosphere and the δ13C decline in atmosphere (and ocean surface) exactly follows human emissions over time.
We can’t say that of the temperature trend and human emissions…
See: http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/deep_ocean_air_zero.jpg
kingdube says:
November 23, 2013 at 3:11 pm
“Nick Stokes asks: Now it has shot up to 400. Is that a response to a 1°C rise?”
Of course it is!!
Short term (1-3 years) response: 4-5 ppmv/K
Medium to (very) long term (50 years to 800,000 years) response: 8 ppmv/K
Current times (last 50+ years) response: 140 ppmv/K ???
1. Since Gore and Mann are so all fired sure the human CO2 is causing catastrophic storms
2. Since 25% of the CO2 historical emissions have been from the US.
3. Do Mann and Gore support the US paying 25% of the cost of catastrophic storms?
4. Why not? Shouldn’t the polluter pay?
5. The EPA in the US has ruled that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant.
6. The US courts have upheld the EPA right to so rule.
7. Thus it would seem there is precedent to lay claim against the US for reparations.
8. Shouldn’t the US do the right think and pay this money into the UN now?
Repeat this argument loudly and often enough in support of global warming action and it will not be long before the US stops talking about CO2 as the cause of extreme weather. It is one thing to use the weather to fleece taxpayers. It is quite another when other countries show up to fleece you.
-Nick Stokes says:
Yet for a million years, with temperatures in a 6-8°C range, CO2 stuck between 180 and 280 ppm. Now it has shot up to 400. Is that a response to a 1°C rise?
——————————————————————————————————–
What measurements are those historic CO2 concentrations based on Nick?. You mean those CO2 concentrations in ice cores subject to diffusion over time that would have been much higher in the past. (See first part of Salby’s lecture in Hamburg).
FrankK;
Even a bigger sigh.
Your assumption is flawed because you are assuming that the difference is all man-made which has not been proven.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
I made no assumptions. I provided the commonly accepted numbers, which are more than sufficient for the purposes of the discussion the questioner was anticipating having.