Limiting global warming to 2 degrees 'inadequate', scientists say

man is responsible for 3.4% of that 0.04%

That ratio comes from looking at manmade versus natural production but ignoring all natural uptake of CO2. Every spring and summer the northern hemisphere leafs out and takes up CO2 in large quantities. Every fall and winter the deciduous vegetation loses its leaves and the leaves decay and return the CO2 to the atmosphere in a matter of weeks. The 3.5% ratio is the ratio of all manmade CO2 for a year to all the natural release of CO2 for a year. It ignores the natural uptake of CO2. That release and uptake is plotted worldwide in graphs like this:

A couple notable things about the chart: very noisy. That's partly because Mauna Loa is near an active volcano. But the main reason for the noise is changes in the winds that bring CO2-depleted air up from the farms and forests below the mountain. The other notable thing is that each spring peak in the chart (before the growing season gets doing) is higher than the previous spring peak. That is due to manmade CO2.

Tell me how all photons can be trapped when 1: there is so little heat trapping CO2 to begin with, and 2: when what little CO2 there is becomes saturated- the rest would just blow right on past the saturated 0.04% of the atmosphere which traps heat

First my statement was not really correct, it is all photons with the right wavelengths to get trapped, certainly not all photons. The trapped bands are fairly narrow. That also reinforces your correct point about saturation within those bands.

But there are something like 10^23 air molecules per cubic meter. 0.04% of that is 10^19 CO2 molecules per cubic meter. That's more than enough CO2 molecules to intercept photons *with the right wavelength* within about 10 meters (IIRC). All that the manmade increase in CO2 does is lower that distance slightly. That's it!

What is the volume of heated photons making it’s way back to earth compared to the volume of the earth’s air/molecules?

Irrelevant question because the heated CO2 molecules instantly transfer their heat to the rest of the earth's atmosphere. Then the rest of the atmosphere heats any cooler CO2 molecules which then release photons in exact same proportions that they absorb them, both upwards and downwards (and sideways).

tiny fractiosn of the heat trapped by man’s 0.00137% by volume CO2 in atmosphere actually even making it’s way back to earth-

Yes a tiny fraction, but also nonzero. Remember that all photons with the right wavelengths are trapped. So essentially 50% (or a bit less due to curvature of the earth) will come back.

[[What is the volume of heated photons making it’s way back to earth compared to the volume of the earth’s air/molecules?

Irrelevant question because the heated CO2 molecules instantly transfer their heat to the rest of the earth’s atmosphere. Then the rest of the atmosphere heats any cooler CO2 molecules which then release photons in exact same proportions that they absorb them, both upwards and downwards (and sideways)]]

NO it isn’t a irrelevant question- how much heat is making it’s way back to earth? What is the percentage of hotter molecules that make their way back to earth- The claim is that man’s CO2 is the primary cause of global warming- I want ot know what the ratio of heated back radiated molecules is to the earth’s air molecules-

It is no more irrelevant than asking what BTU’s a furnace puts out- if it only put’s out a couple of BTU’s then the ratio of heated molecules to room temperature molecules will be very very low-

What is the ratio of back radiated hotter molecules to earth’s ‘room temperature’ molecules- ?My guess is that the ratio is so small that it would be ridiculous to claim that it can be causing massive global climate change- much as my example of a dropper of 2 degree water added to an Olympic sized pool

[[Yes a tiny fraction, but also nonzero.]]

Now we are getting closer to answering the question

[[So essentially 50% (or a bit less due to curvature of the earth) will come back.]]

Yes, we know some make it back (I suspect though it is lower than 50%)

However- the question is, and I’m being generous here, allowing 50% return, 1: how much of that 50% is directly due to man’s 0.00137% atmospheric CO2, and 2: What is the % of returned heat compared to the volume of ‘room temperature’ molecules back on earth

(For a later discussion: How much of the heat escaping earth actually gets absorbed- and then back radiated- what %? 0.04%? 1%? 10%? Let’s say earth is 80 degrees average at 5:00 pm EST- all of The 80 degree temp molecules rise, become trapped- meanwhile, earth cools off as this is taking place- a fraction of that rising heat gets absorbed- and a smaller fraction of that actually gets back radiated to a cooler earth (let’s say 2 degrees cooler by 6:00 pm EST- The volume of hotter, back radiated hotter molecules is what compared to the volume of earth’s air molecules?

You see where this is going? (Think of the pool example I gave)-

If there’s something I’m not understanding about the atmosphere and how it can affect global temperatures, please explain- Perhaps I’m not understanding something- but logically speaking, when you place a drop of 2 degree warmer water into a Olympic sized pool that is 2 degree cooler- that one drop isn’t going to do anything to affect he temperature of that water

You keep dancing around the question of how much heat gets absorbed, then back radiated compared to the volume of the earth’s air molecules- The fact is that, it would seem, there would be Far less than 0.00137% of the heat making it’s way skyward would be trapped, and back radiated, at any given time, as a direct result of man’s production of CO2

[[Actually, up here in Maine, we would have appreciated a break from the incessant Arctic conditions. Everyone was ticked off.]]

It was horrible- Boston got really pounded last year- but maine was a close second-

[[Nevermind the fraudulent theory behind their assertions, nor their always-wrong “computer models”.]]

Well we have to call them out on their nonsense because they’ve convinced the world that man is causing global climate change, and the numbers and Percentages simply do NOT support their claims-

Every global warming ‘scientists I know of has yet to explain how just 0.00137% of the atmosphere can be affecting global climate change-

They make the bold statement that man is ‘almost entirely responsible for climate change’ and give a percentage of man’s involvement at ‘89% sure that man is causing it” Yet not one of them will explain how just 0.00137% can be causing climate change-

Hell, they don’t even explain how 0.04% can be causing it- The only answer you get from them is “CO2 traps heat and back radiates it- that is a scientific fact, blah blah blah” Yep- we know how the system works- now tell us how it is possible for just 0.00137% of our atmosphere to trap enough heats and then back radiate it to a now cooler earth, to affect global climate change-

They won’t stop dancing around this issue- they just keep saying “CO2 traps heat” They never say how much of the escaping heat gets trapped- nor how much gets back radiated, nor what the ratio of hotter molecules to cooler earth air molecules is, and the reason they don’t I presume is because they know how silly it will look ot give those numbers/percentages-

Man's added CO2 has some nonzero warming back on earth. The reason is pretty simple, the distance that any photon with one of the right wavelengths can get away from earth is shorter than it was before. The reason for that is instead of roughly 1 * 10^19 CO2 molecules per square meter there are now about 40% more than that or 4 * 10^19. That's not a huge increase, so we would not expect a huge temperature increase. Its about 288K instead of 287.5K or an increase of less than 0.2% in absolute temperature.

How much of the heat escaping earth actually gets absorbed- and then back radiated- what %? 0.04%? 1%? 10%

That's pretty well measured:

around 300 to 350 W/m2 or a bit more from clouds and atmosphere depending on conditions. A little less at night. The amount of energy leaving the earth is known from the temperature of the surface (288) which is 5.67 x 10-8 W m-2 K-4] [ 288 K]4 or 390 Watts. Thus the answer is 75 to 90% of radiation from the earth returns to earth.

One important note, the majority of that energy is returned due to cloouds and water vapor in the atmosphere. Looking at the graph, a lot of the wiggles in the graph are due to changes in clouds and water vapor. A minority of the amount shown in the graph is due to CO2, around 1/5th. A minority of that 1/5th is due to man's added CO2.

[[Man’s added CO2 has some nonzero warming back on earth.]]

You are obfuscating and dancing around the quesiton- non zero can mean 0.0000000000000000001% effect

how many total molecules in a square foot? Not molecules of CO2- but total molecules, and what percentage of CO2 to total molecules does that work out to?

[[One important note, the majority of that energy is returned due to cloouds and water vapor in the atmosphere.]]

That wasn’t my question- my question is what percent makes it back to earth as a direct result of man’s 0.00137$ CO2 In the atmosphere

[[A minority of that 1/5th is due to man’s added CO2.]]

again- obfuscation- ‘minority’ can mean anything

[[ A minority of the amount shown in the graph is due to CO2]]

where does that chart show even 1/5’th is due to CO2? I’m missing something- IF CO2 totals In atmosphere are only 0.04% how is it that it can even contribute to 1/5 of back radiated heat? That seems very suspect to me-

IF CO2 totals In atmosphere are only 0.04% how is it that it can even contribute to 1/5 of back radiated heat?

The chart just shows the total, not separate amounts due to clouds, water vapor and CO2. Only the total can be measured with a reasonable instrument. A very fancy spectrometer might break it down more. The reason why CO2 can account for 1/5 (more or less) is the same reason that water vapor and clouds can do the other 4/5th. Each of the gases and cloud water droplets are going to capture photons with different wavelengths. Water droplets in clouds are the most effective. That's why a foggy night can result in no diurnal temperature drop (e.g. stays 50 degrees all night long). In that case essentially 100% of the outgoing IR is captured and returned to the surface all night long.

As for the direct result of man's 0.012%, it is less than 40% of nature's 0.028%. The reason for that is the logarithmic decrease due to saturation that you mentioned. Each equal amount of CO2 (in ppm) gives less warming than the previous amount.

For a very rough estimate, a doubling of CO2 (560ppm) is supposed to produce 3.7W/m2 in additional energy returned to the surface. Since there are 390W/m2 outgoing, that's less than 1% of the outgoing energy returned once CO2 doubles. Right now we are at 400ppm or 43% of a doubling of CO2. So 0.4% of outgoing energy is returned solely due to added CO2.

[[For a very rough estimate, a doubling of CO2 (560ppm) is supposed to produce 3.7W/m2 in additional energy returned to the surface. Since there are 390W/m2 outgoing, that’s less than 1% of the outgoing energy returned once CO2 doubles. Right now we are at 400ppm or 43% of a doubling of CO2. So 0.4% of outgoing energy is returned solely due to added CO2. ]]

that still avoids the question of what % of heat gets transferred back due to man’s 0.00137%, and what % is that % of the total volume of air surrounding the earth

This is a very important question to answer- because the result is akin to, I suspect, a drop of hotter water being added to an Olympic sized swimming pool- and claiming it’s causing catastrophic rises in pool temperature- Even IF you double the amount of hot water, to 2 drops- it isn’t going to affect the temp of the water at all except for very very slightly at the point of entry— Heck add a whole cup of hot water- while the effect won’t be zero- it WILL be near zero, a percent so small as to not even be worth mentioning-

[[For a very rough estimate, a doubling of CO2 (560ppm) is supposed to produce 3.7W/m2 in additional energy returned to the surface.]]

That means nothing unless we know what the volume of air is and what % that 3.7 W/m2 is of the air mass- Would it be like releasing a jar full of 2 degree warmer air into a closed in stadium? 2 Jars? A Thimble full of warmer air? What? Unless you release massive amounts of 2 degree warmer air into the stadium, you will not affect the temperature- (Not sure what % would start to raise the stadium temps, but it sure wouldn’t be raised one iota due to the smaller fraction of the heat that 0.00137% CO2 captures and back radiates- that is for certain

Global warming (man-caused) propagandists have made a bold claim that man is responsible for nearly all of the warming this planet has seen- They have made that bold claim without ANY data to show the actual heat captured by man’s CO2 and back radiated- why? Because they know darn well that there is so little CO2 In the atmosphere due to man that they can NOT show numbers big enough to mean that man is causing climate change- nor can they show numbers big enough to blame nature and man- all they can say is ‘it’s warmer, man burns coal, therefore man is causing warming because we know CO2 captures heat and back radiates it- the science is settled, and anyone who denies this denies science”

[[The reason why CO2 can account for 1/5 (more or less) is the same reason that water vapor and clouds can do the other 4/5th. Each of the gases and cloud water droplets are going to capture photons with different wavelengths.]]

That is swell- we all know how CO2 works- what we DO NOT know however, is what % of heat is captured as a direct result of man’s CO2, what % of that gets back radiated In right direction back to earth, and what the % of that amount is compared to the volume of air surrounding the earth

The reason this is such an important point to clear up is because there is no way that man’s 0.00137% is capturing enough heat and back radiating it, to have anything but a super tiny effect that quickly gets overwhelmed bu the cooler earth temps-

And just or the record, when we get cloud cover that keeps heat in, the cloud cover is massive, it’s thick, and it takes up a much much larger % of space than man’s piddly 0.00137& ever could There simply is not enough CO2 produced by man to blanket the earth thick enough to do what natural causes of heat trapping like clouds and water vapor do-

That means nothing unless we know what the volume of air is and what % that 3.7 W/m2 is of the air mass- Would it be like releasing a jar full of 2 degree warmer air into a closed in stadium? 2 Jars?

The best way to consider that amount is to consider that the sun beats down with 1000 W/m2 at the equator at mid-day. Goes to zero at night (needless to say). The amount of solar energy is less than that further north and obvious less in the winter. So think of the extra energy as 0.37% of midday equatorial sunshine except it occurs day and night relatively evenly globally.

They have made that bold claim without ANY data to show the actual heat captured by man’s CO2 and back radiated- why?

The extra back radiated heat is what doesn't show up when looking down with an IR satellite. The problem with trying to show that is that the natural variations in outgoing IR are much larger than the amount of extra back radiated IR. We know it is nonzero, and you properly critiqued that argument. But we also know a rough order of magnitude, about 10 percent of the natural CO2 back radiation. I got that in theory above by considering the 0.012% manmade versus the 0.028 natural, the saturation, and some consideration of water vapor as 4/5th of GH effect. But that is a crude calculation, very crude.

And just or the record, when we get cloud cover that keeps heat in, the cloud cover is massive, it’s thick, and it takes up a much much larger % of space than man’s piddly 0.00137& ever could

I agree other than the number which is 0.012% manmade, 0.028% natural. The returned IR is close to 100% in those circumstances. It is what keeps Venus warm along with lapse rate (high atmospheric pressure) not CO2. The climate models basically try to parameterize the clouds, sometimes integrating real world cloud measurements. But those don't apply to the future climate due to changes in external factors like solar activity.

Without clouds there still is roughly 70-90% heat trapping from water vapor and CO2. But overall water vapor is essentially a function of the weather regime. For example, during the Ice Age the climate was much drier, much less water vapor made it much colder. OTOH with warming, water vapor reaches a limit which can be seen daily in the tropics as the excess water vapor creates convection and causes cooling.

[[I agree other than the number which is 0.012% manmade,]]

The atmosphere has 0.04% CO2 in it- man is responsible for 3.4% so 3.4% of 0.04% = 0.00137%

[[But we also know a rough order of magnitude, about 10 percent of the natural CO2 back radiation.]]

so you are calculating 10% of the heat that gets absorbed by natural CO2 gets back radiated- but that still doesn’t give us the % of heat making it’s way back to earth compared to the volume of air surrounding earth- the closest you come to answering that is to guestimate

[[”So think of the extra energy as 0.37% of midday equatorial sunshine except it occurs day and night relatively evenly globally.”]]

so about 1/3 of a percent then?- however, that amount is from ALL causes of back radiation/bounce back, ie clouds, water vapor etc- correct? If so, what is the actual amount of energy making it’s way back via back radiation as a direct result of man’s 0.00137%?

That is the question that needs to be answered because -man-caused global climate change’ alarmists are claiming that “Man is almost entirely responsible for climate change” Yet by your calculations, only about 1/3 of a % of all the energy released from earth makes it’s way back to earth from ALL causes, ie clouds, co2, water vapor etc- not even a full 1% of the energy escaping earth makes it’s way back- infact 1/3 of 1% makes it’s way back, and of that man is only responsible for a very tiny fraction of that 1/3 of a [percent- so the bottom line is so little heat is actually making it’s way back to earth as a direct result of man’s CO2- so little that it is practically Zero, for all intents and purposes-

and man is ‘almost entirely responsible for climate change’? Really? Not possible- Nature’s CO2 isn’t even responsible for it- it can’t be- there simply is not enough volume of heat trapped by such a small amount of CO2, and then backed radiated ot affect the massive volume of air surrounding earth- Again, it would be like adding a drop, or even being generous, a quart of water 2 degrees or so warmer than the pool water to an Olympic sized pool- there will be no effect- (not zero effect, but close enough to call it zero)- Heck even adding a quart to a small above ground pool isn’t going to do anything because the volume of warmer water is so much smaller than the volume of colder water- it will immediately reach equilibrium-

So that leaves clouds and water vapor, and the other naturally occurring heat bouncers/trappers- as the main source of temperature increases- HOWEVER- the fact also remains that we’ve been flat lined for nearly 20 years with no increase in temperatures- so something else must be at play, because cloud cover and water vapor didn’t just diminish to a point where more heat escaped into space, for the last 20 years- so that leaves sun spots/flares- and we know that those have diminished In the last 20 years, corresponding to the flatline in temperatures

But sun spots/flares are for another discussion- this discussion is to determine how much, or how little CO2 there is and how such a small amount can possibly be the ‘majority cause of global climate change’

man is responsible for 3.4%

There is very little doubt about the order of magnitudes of carbon fluxes. Natural uptake is positive (net negative outgassing) for the oceans, also for the biosphere on land:

A value of 4% (or 3.4% using a slightly different diagram) can be obtained by dividing the manmade upward arrow (6) by the total of the natural upward arrows (60 + 90). But that ignores the natural downward arrows. The downward arrows cannot simply be ignored, thus there is no validity whatsoever to the 3.4% or 4% claim.

There is however an alternative to that diagram, a completely alternative theory spelled out here: http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2007/06/on_why_co2_is_known_not_to_hav.html and concludes that the manmade portion of CO2 is "at most 7.8 parts in 90, or less than 9%" The math is very loose. The paper puts forth a number of red herrings, the worst of the red herrings is that the IPCC maintains that human and natural flux are segregated naturally. Glassman says "There are no separate, physical paths to pipe natural CO2 and anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere or to segregate them in other reservoirs." as if the consensus science disagreed with that. But consensus does agree.

Also Glassman dismisses the sinusoid in the Mauna Loa data (which I posted above) as "The seasonal fluctuations Keeling attributed to the biosphere growing seasons might be better correlated with the trade wind vector at Hawaii." That is just a handwave and is not supported by actual trade wind data, e.g. here: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/wpac850 (the raw data is the first table and it shows no seasonal pattern).

Nobody can say with certainty that Glassman is wrong, science is not absolute. But I can say with certainty that ignoring downward fluxes and producing a number of 4% or less using only upward arrows is not scientific.

[[But that ignores the natural downward arrows. The downward arrows cannot simply be ignored, thus there is no validity whatsoever to the 3.4% or 4% claim.]]

3.4% is an established scientific number- Every major website you go to states this amount-

And even allowing your cited claim of less than 9% : 9% of 0.04% = 0.0036% of the atmosphere

[[A value of 4% (or 3.4% using a slightly different diagram) can be obtained by dividing the manmade upward arrow (6) by the total of the natural upward arrows (60 + 90). But that ignores the natural downward arrows.]]

What has downward arrows got to do with anything- the calculation of 3.4% comes from how much man produces annually compared to how much CO2 is in the atmosphere- let’s say that the atmosphere contains 100 tons of CO2 (just for illustration purposes- the actual numbers are wrong I know, just trying to simplify)- we know, based on measurements of man’s annual production, that he puts out 3.4 tons- that would mean man is responsible for just 3.4% of the CO2 In the atmosphere-

it does not matter what the downward arrows indicate- We know that man produces x amount of CO2 each year- We know the volume of the atmosphere, and we know that total amount of CO2 I n the atmosphere-

It doesn’t matter how much downward direction CO2 does, man’s production still remains constant on average at 3.4%

We don’t need to know how much the ocean absorbs, how much plants absorb, how much gets trapped in ice, to know how much man is producing- nor do we need to know those things to know how much CO2 is in the atmosphere as a result of both man and nature-

I’m not sure why you keep bringing direction into the discussion

You yourself provided the numbers showing the gigatons both nature and man are responsible for, and those numbers also worked out to just about 3.4%

Here’s yet another scientific report that states that man’s contribution is 3.7% (slightly higher than the earlier 3.4% cited from years ago)

[[A paper published today in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics finds that only about 3.75% [15 ppm] of the CO2 in the lower atmosphere is man-made from the burning of fossil fuels, and thus, the vast remainder of the 400 ppm atmospheric CO2 is from land-use changes and natural sources such as ocean outgassing and plant respiration.]]

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/07/19/new-paper-finds-only-3-75-of-atmospheric-co2-is-man-made-from-burning-of-fossil-fuels-published-in-atmospheric-chemistry-and-physics/

[[The findings are in stark contrast to alarmist claims that essentially all of the alleged 130 ppm increase in CO2 since pre-industrial times is of man-made origin from the burning of fossil fuels]]

There are more scientific studies, reports, and papers of course- and m ost of what I read has the figure at about 3.4% or slightly higher- however, even allowing 9% just for giggles, the result still means that the atmosphere’s % of CO2 caused by man is still only 0.0036% still fAR too low to have ANY effect on climate as per my previous examples of Olympic pools, football stadiums, oceans and peeing in it- etc- You simply are NEVER going to overwhelm native temperatures by adding a cupful of 2 degree or so water to an Olympic sized pool- but that is exactly what ‘man-caused’ global warming alarmists are expecting us to believe is happening-

only a very tiny fraction of the heat captured directly as a result of man’s 0.00137% even makes it’s way back to earth, and what little does make it’s way back, is so grossly outnumbered by native temperatures, that it can do Nothing to affect the native temperature- (by native, I mean the temp of current earth’s air compared to the previously 2 degree or so higher earlier earth’s temps that rose, got captured, and back radiated to a now cooler temp- the ADDED back radiated heat is not now the current temperature of earth, so it can sort of be thought of as ‘non native’ beign added from without, and different than what it is beign added to- different in this case simply meaning wamer than hte4 ‘native/current” temperature)

As far as I can tell, the 3.4% comes from here: http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/GlobalWarmingPrimer.pdf where they say: Humans contribute approximately 3.4 percent of annual CO2 emissions. However, small increases in annual CO2 emissions, whether from humans or any other source, can lead to a large CO2 accumulation over time because CO2 molecules can remain in the atmosphere for more than a century.

None of that is true. CO2 molecules remain in the atmosphere for about 3 years on average, not a century.

It doesn’t matter how much downward direction CO2 does, man’s production still remains constant on average at 3.4%

It does matter if you want to know how much of the total in the atmosphere is manmade. With the downward arrows, man's net contribution is 6Gt and nature's contribution is about -3Gt. That means the manmade portion of CO2 grows steadily and is now about 30% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere (120ppm out of 400ppm).

Let's suppose for a moment that you are correct and the only fluxes are manmade 6Gt which is 4% of the 150 Gt. Adding 156Gt per year would mean the atmospheric CO2 level would double in the next 5 years (currently 775 plus 750 in the next 5 years). That is not going to happen. So obviously the 4% figure is not true (nor 3.4%).

only a very tiny fraction of the heat captured directly as a result of man’s 0.00137% even makes it’s way back to earth

There is no basis for your manmade percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere, since man's CO2 is 0.012% out of the total of 0.04%. There is no other way to explain the sinusoid than the seasonal natural fluxes. Man's flux is not seasonal, it is all one direction, all emission, all year. Nature emits in late fall through the winter and absorbs from late spring to late fall.

Adding the totals for the year, man produces 6Gt. Nature produces 150Gt and absorbs 153Gt.

BTW, the National Center for Policy Analysis that came up with the 3.4% number does not have a single scientist on its staff: http://www.ncpa.org/about/ncpa_experts

[[None of that is true. CO2 molecules remain in the atmosphere for about 3 years on average, not a century]]

The site said nothing about average- it said “Can last”- much different than what you said

[[That means the manmade portion of CO2 grows steadily and is now about 30% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere (120ppm out of 400ppm).]]

no im sorry- I’ve already cited info that disputes that figure- you are taking the figure of 400ppm and attributing the rise completely to man- with no proof- We know for a FACT that ppm’s have been at this level WAY before the industrial age- and we also know it has been higher long before that

” Carbon dioxide concentrations dropped from 7,000 parts per million during the Cambrian period about 500 million years ago to as low as 180 parts per million”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere

The total atmospheric CO2 is known- it is also known how much man produces each year- pretty basic math

[[’Scientists note that geologically speaking, the Earth is currently in a ‘CO2 famine’ and that the geologic record reveals that ice ages have occurred when CO2 was at 2000 ppm to as high as 8000 ppm. In addition, peer-reviewed studies have documented that there have been temperatures similar to the present day on Earth when carbon dioxide was up to twenty times higher than today’s levels’]]

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/05/14/co2-nears-400-ppm-relax-its-not-global-warming-end-times-but-only-a-big-yawn-climate-depot-special-report/

[[There is no basis for your manmade percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere, since man’s CO2 is 0.012% out of the total of 0.04%.]]

You stated previously:

[[That means the manmade portion of CO2 grows steadily and is now about 30% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere]]

Which is it? 30% or your figure of 0.012%?

The following excerpt isn’t just pulling these figures out of thin air- Regardless of whether the writer is a scientist or not- making the insinuation that ‘there isn’t one scientist on that site’ isn’t a valid counterargument I’m afraid- You made the claim that the info was ‘none of it correct’ then went on to misrepresent what was said to make your point- You should have provided proof that ALL CO2 remains in atmosphere for only 3 years- you claim simply wasn’t effective in proving that what they claimed ‘was not true’

[[Out of the entire atmospheric makeup, only one to two percent is made up of greenhouse gases with the majority being nitrogen (about 78 percent) and oxygen (about 21 percent). Of that two percent, “planet-killing” carbon dioxide comprises only 3.62 percent while water vapor encompasses 95 percent. And of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, humans cause only 3.4 percent of annual CO2 emissions. What does this all boil down to? As shown by the accompanying graph, not very much.]]

http://dailysignal.com/2009/03/27/man%e2%80%99s-contribution-to-global-warming/

[[New paper finds only ~3.75% of atmospheric CO2 is man-made from burning of fossil fuels ]]

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/07/new-paper-finds-only-375-of-atmospheric.html

You want scientific charts showing man is only responsible for about 4% of all the CO2 in atmosphere? Here’s a bunch

http://notrickszone.com/2013/03/02/most-of-the-rise-in-co2-likely-comes-from-natural-sources/

Again, they aren’t just pulling these figures out of thin air-

Site after site after site lists man’s contribution at about 4% of all the CO2 in atmosphere- and since all the CO2 in atmosphere = only 0.04%, then that works out to only 0.00137% CO2 in atmosphere due to man

You keep jumping from man being responsible for 30% of CO2 in atmosphere to being responsible for only 0.012%- you need to clear up which amount you think man is responsible for before going any further, because you keep moving the goal post all around- I don’t care what ‘would happen if such and such occurs over then next decade’ because what if’s aren’t what’s being discussed- hard numbers are being discussed here- and if you keep moving around on what you think man is responsible for, then this discussion can’t go forward- I have never seen any figure that man is responsible for 30% of the atmospheric CO2

The site said nothing about average- it said “Can last”- much different than what you said

A tiny number can last a century, but that doesn't matter. Most last between seconds and a decade with the average of three years.

you are taking the figure of 400ppm and attributing the rise completely to man

I am taking the amount of manmade production (6Gt) and the amount of natural production (-3 Gt) and adding them up to a net of 3Gt currently manmade. But the amount in the atmosphere is still mostly natural (perhaps 300 out of 400 ppm).

the Earth is currently in a ‘CO2 famine’

I agree with all of that. That speaks to a lot of natural absorption which is bad for plants, and life in general.

Which is it? 30% or your figure of 0.012%?

Sorry, I was not clear. 30% of the CO2, but thinking about the natural rise from the Little Ice Age, probably 25%. It is 100-120ppm in the atmosphere as a whole or 0.01% to 0.012% of molecules in the atmosphere are manmade CO2.

The DailySignal link cites " National Center for Policy Analysis" which has no scientists on its staff and quotes the irrelevant anecdote of a handful of CO2 molecules that might last a century whereas only the average lifetime counts.

The hockeySchtick link points out that the paper does not conclude that 3.75% of atmospheric is from burning of fossil fuels (the title of the blog post is simply wrong). The correction is at the link, but the paper says that about 3.75% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is from recent emissions. It doesn't say anything about the total fraction of manmade in the atmosphere as the author pointed out. Also the low fraction speaks to the short average residence time of CO2 which is extremely important unlike the 100 year red herring.

In the notrickszone page they show the same chart I posted above, but ignore the downward arrows. They state "Man currently causes about 8 gigatons of carbon to be injected into the atmosphere, about 4% of the natural annual flux. There are estimates that about half of man’s emissions are taken up by nature. But is that true? "

The answer is that the nature takes up all of nature's emissions. Nature very definitely does not take up 1/2 of man's emissions. That is quite impossible since nature can not tell the difference between existing CO2 and new natural and new manmade CO2. It is all the same.

The rest of the piece uses two year moving averages of CO2. The question is then, for them and for you, how do you explain the drop and rise in CO2 every year?

What makes CO2 drop in late spring and summer into early fall, and what makes it rise in the late fall and winter? There is really only explanation and smoothing out that cycle as they do on that page loses the explanation.

There is a truth to the scatter plot in fig 7. As temperature of the ocean goes up, so does CO2. They correctly point out that El Nino warmth produces more CO2 and La Nina cold less. But they have the cause and effect switched. In El Nino the ocean take up less CO2 and the La Nina's cool oceans take up more CO2.

What the oceans do it take up some of the excess CO2 above equilibrium. Their presumption is that equilibrium is well above the current value 400ppm My presumption is that equilibrium is somewhere down around 300. My figure is much more likely based mainly on the fact that natural CO2 hovered around 300 for the past 10,000 years. As someone asked in the comments, how come the rise started right when the industrial revolution started?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.