c) the measured increase in CO2 concentration, whatever its source, is insufficient to induce measureable increase in global temperature.
The issue is not change in CO2.
You're avoiding the point and the question, and it is critical and central to this issue. Notwithstanding the debate regarding the potential climate effects of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations (we'll get to that), I need to know if I first need to prove to you, incontrovertibly, that the increasing CO2 is primarily from human sources (primary among them being fossil fuel burning for energy production).
BECAUSE... you apparently alluded that the increasing CO2 concentrations might be a climate effect, i.e., a response to a natural climate trend. That's why I am asking for clarification. If you are harboring any sense that there is a possibility that the current trend of increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere is not caused by humans, I need to dispel that completely.
You can easily say that a) is correct, and we can move on from there.
I need to know if I first need to prove to you, incontrovertibly, that the increasing CO2 is primarily from human sources (primary among them being fossil fuel burning for energy production).
You don't need to prove anything as the issue is irrelavent, CO2 concentration regardless of source of emmission is increasing, but does not induce substantive increase of temperature with a high water vapor content atmosphere, futhermore, most CO2 is derived from natural sources in any case by a factor of greater than 10 to 1
If you are harboring any sense that there is a possibility that the current trend of increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere is not caused by humans, I need to dispel that completely.
Less than 10% of CO2 emmissions are due to mankind thus less than 10% of any residual effect of increasing CO2 is due to mankind:
6.4.1.1. Sources of Atmospheric CO2
Sources of atmospheric CO2 can today be divided into two groups: natural and anthropogenic. Natural sources include the respiration of animals (60Gt per annum) and the surface ocean (90Gt per annum) (Schimel et al., 1995). Anthropogenic sources include the combustion of fossil fuels (power stations and transport) and cement production (5.5Gt per annum)and land-use changes (mainly deforestation) (1.6Gt per annum)
Heat sinks do not distinguish anthropogenic CO2 from natural sources.
6.4.1.2. Sinks of Atmospheric CO2
The surface ocean also acts as a natural sink for atmospheric CO2, with an annual removal flux of 92Gt carbon. The interaction of CO2 between atmosphere and surface ocean was more fully addressed in section 5.3.1.2 (Equations 14 to 17). The other major natural sink is the primary productivity of land vegetation (photosynthesis), which sequesters 61.4Gt carbon every year (Schimel et al., 1995). The regrowth of Northern Hemisphere forests represents the only major anthropogenic sink of atmospheric CO2, although enhanced fertilisation effects due to elevated CO2 concentrations and other climatic feedbacks have also been considered.
BECAUSE... you apparently alluded that the" increasing CO2 concentrations might be a climate effect, i.e., a response to a natural climate trend.
It, without a doubt, is. As a consequence of warming and release of watervapor with warming through variation of aldebo/reflection of solar flux, there is more biomass to produce CO2, greater release of CO2 from solution in oceans and glacial ices ....
You can easily say that a) is correct, and we can move on from there.
a) is incorrect as well as irrelevant due to lack of capacity to effect substantive change in earth's global temperature in comparison to the substantive affects of water vapor, and we can continue from there.
- "(1) correlation does not prove causation, (2) cause must precede effect, and (3) when attempting to evaluate claims of causal relationships between different parameters, it is important to have as much data as possible in order to weed out spurious correlations.
***
Consider, for example, the study of Fischer et al. (1999), who examined trends of atmospheric CO2 and air temperature derived from Antarctic ice core data that extended back in time a quarter of a million years. Over this extended period, the three most dramatic warming events experienced on earth were those associated with the terminations of the last three ice ages; and for each of these climatic transitions, earth's air temperature rose well in advance of any increase in atmospheric CO2. In fact, the air's CO2 content did not begin to rise until 400 to 1,000 years after the planet began to warm. Such findings have been corroborated by Mudelsee (2001), who examined the leads/lags of atmospheric CO2 concentration and air temperature over an even longer time period, finding that variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration lagged behind variations in air temperature by 1,300 to 5,000 years over the past 420,000 years."[ see also: Indermuhle et al. (2000), Monnin et al. (2001), Yokoyama et al. (2000), Clark and Mix (2000) ]
- "Other studies periodically demonstrate a complete uncoupling of CO2 and temperature "
[see: Petit et al. (1999), Staufer et al. (1998), Cheddadi et al., (1998), Raymo et al., 1998, Pagani et al. (1999), Pearson and Palmer (1999), Pearson and Palmer, (2000) ]
- "Considered in their entirety, these several results present a truly chaotic picture with respect to any possible effect that variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration may have on global temperature. Clearly, atmospheric CO2 is not the all-important driver of global climate change the climate alarmists make it out to be."