I have now shown that this statement is clearly wrong.
You have shown nothing actually, as the same article makes it very clear that anthropogenic additions to the atmosphere are less than 5% of total additions to the atmosphere.
Emmissions cited in the article:
2.1 Natural carbon fluxes
GtC / year
Terrestrial vegetation --> atmosphere 60 Respiration
Soils & detritus --> atmosphere 60 Respiration
Surface ocean --> atmosphere 90
===================================================
Total natural carbon emmissions to atmosphere 210 GtC
2.2 Anthropogenic carbon
Carbon dioxide sources GtC / year
Fossil fuel burning, cement production 5.5 (5.0-6.0)
Changes in tropical land use 1.6 (0.6-2.6)
==================================================
Total anthropogenic emissions 7.1 (6.0-8.2)
The page demonstrates beyond scientific doubt that the cause of increasing atmospheric CO2 since about 1850 is predominantly anthropogenic, primarily from fossil fuel burning.
Hardly:
Do you now concede that this point is correct?
No I do not, As I stated before, the earth cannot magically distinguish between Carbon from anthropogenic sources and Carbon from natural sources thus all carbon sinks must be taken in aggregate with respect to all sources of Atmospheric CO2 rather than attempting, as the article does, to separate "Anthropogenic" CO2 emmissions from "Natural" emmissions when evaluating Carbon sinks. You cannot take a "net" value of the Natural CO2, and then look at the whole value of Anthropogenic CO2 in evaluation of respective contributions.
Your point is based in a fallacy and without scientific foundation.
In fact, your point is indeed a mere strawman argument to boot to draw away from the essential factor,
Regardless of source of atmospheric CO2, the impact of changing CO2 concentration on the earth's Climate is nil:
As pointout in previous replies, and I will continue to point out:
- (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."
Global warming and global dioxide emission and concentration:
a Granger causality analysis
- "We find, in opposition to previous studies, that there is no evidence of Granger causality from global carbon dioxide emission to global surface temperature. Further, we could not find robust empirical evidence for the causal nexus from global carbon dioxide concentration to global surface temperature."
"Carbon dioxide, the main culprit in the alleged greenhouse-gas warming, is not a "driver" of climate change at all. Indeed, in earlier research Jan Veizer, of the University of Ottawa and one of the co-authors of the GSA Today article, established that rather than forcing climate change, CO2 levels actually lag behind climatic temperatures, suggesting that global warming may cause carbon dioxide rather than the other way around."
***
"Veizer and Shaviv's greatest contribution is their time scale. They have examined the relationship of cosmic rays, solar activity and CO2, and climate change going back through thousands of major and minor coolings and warmings. They found a strong -- very strong -- correlation between cosmic rays, solar activity and climate change, but almost none between carbon dioxide and global temperature increases."
Again we revisit the Geophysical record of CO2 and it's correlation to global temperture, this time we remove the catastrophic initiations of ice ages due to factors clearly not associated with CO2 concentration.
From the geological record, we can see a remainder trendline of CO2 concentration with respect to temperature by running a trend through the peak global tempertures.
As you have acknowleged the initiation of the deep iceages are clearly due to other factors such as plate tectonics, Gamma Ray Bursts, Meteoric events, etc.which initiate atmospheric cooling incident to the creation of high altitude cloud cover & icefields altering the mean albedo of the earth. Such effects lower overall irradiation of the earths surface and hence cools the surface. Under such conditions the major multi-million year iceages are induced. Remove their effects on the overall record, and what is left behind is a residual that can be perceived, to the first order, as a correlation of CO2 and temperature if we assume an essentially constant Solar radiation flux, which the IPCC modellers insist as being true.
I bring your attention to the two redline additions to our favorite chart:
:
The upper horizontal red line represents a peak temperature of 22.8oC as represented at the chart Cambrian CO2 peak of 7000ppm. The second and descending redline is a rough approximation of the average peak temperatures which should be somewhat representative of any residual correlation between CO2 & temperature, we note that the downtrending redline terminates at approximately 21.6oC and today's 320ppm CO2 concentration.
It should also be noted here that the relationship between CO2 radiant absorption capacity varies logrithmically with concentration of the gas under consideration in the atmosphere. For any fixed multiplier of change in concentration there is a linear incremental change in absorbed energy of the gas. Thus doubling, or halving, the concentration of CO2 will result in a linear increment in the absorbed radiation at the wavelengths CO2 is responsive to where incident radiative flux is constant.
7000ppm/320ppm = 21.9 (~ 4.45 doublings) with 22.8-21.6 = 1.2oC change in temperature.
Overall atmospheric correlation between CO2 & increment of energy absorbed of necessity includes any temperature/concentration linkages that may actually occur in the atmosphere.
for 1.2oC & 4.45 doublings, CO2 doubles for ~ 0.27oC increase in global temperature
A value which is much less than the lowest 1.5to2.5oC/doubling estimate built into the UN/IPCC global climate models, which suggests the relationship between CO2 and temperature built into the IPCC models is substantially overstated and in error.
The geophysical coefficient of doubling of CO2 concentration for each 0.27oC increase in temperature, by the way, agrees well with many other means of computing the CO2 correlation.
A Lukewarm Greenhouse
"The average warming predicted by the six methods for a doubling of CO2, is only +0.2 degC."