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.
And they account for the fact that atmospheric CO2 concentrations are increasing, AG. You're either accidentally or deliberately overlooking the point that fossil fuel CO2 emissions can be distinguished from natural sources -- didn't you read the part about 14C and 13C isotopes? You say that the Earth cannot magically distinguish between natural and anthropogenic CO2 -- but scientists can. That's why one of the major efforts to examine the Earth's carbon cycle has been to determine the size of the sources and the sinks.
Here's a simple analogy. You have a bathtub. You have the faucet on and the drain is open. The bathtub is completely full, but because the amount coming in from the faucet is the exactly the same as the amount going down the drain, the level of the water in the bathtub does not change. Do you see that??? Now, you take a thimble and once a minute you add a thimbleful of water to the bathtub.
What is going to happen to the level of the water in the bathtub, AG? It doesn't matter if the rate of water being added from the faucet, or the rate of water going down the drain, are 100x greater than the rate of water being added to the bathtub from the thimble.
Fossil fuel sources of CO2 to the atmosphere account for the increasing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, even though they are not nearly as large as natural sources and sinks. They are a new (since the mid-1800s) source of CO2. And all of the evidence that can be brought to bear on this issue indicates that.
This is not a strawman, nor does it detract from what you think is the main issue. You have to admit that this point is true, because it is directly related to the contention that CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing for some other reason. There is only one reason, and that reason is well-known. Do you admit it, or not? (I'll get to all the other points you raise in due time. But this is point 1.)
You need to learn to stay on point.
I am precisely on point and continue to be, though you choose to try to make the issue other than: Change in CO2 concentration has nil effect on global climate.
This is not a strawman, nor does it detract from what you think is the main issue.
Definition of a straw man is simply the introduction of an irrelavant factor to bypass the central the issue. The issue is global temperature and its relation to CO2 concentration. Increasing levels of CO2 is a strawman as Earth's global temperature is only marginally effected by changing CO2 concentration. Where there is minimal causality and correlation it does matter what change in CO2 concentration is or what direction it is going.
You have to admit that this point is true, because it is directly related to the contention that CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing for some other reason.
I don't have to admit to any point regarding changing CO2 concentrations until such time as it can be shown that CO2 is the dominant factor regarding changes in Earth's global climate.
I especially do not have to admit or otherwise acknowledge irrelavent strawman arguments.
A 21 fold decrease across the last 500million years can only be correlated with a 1oC decrease in global temperature.
I by no mean concede that changing "CO2" concentration has any substantive relevance to the issue at hand.
Fossil fuel sources of CO2 to the atmosphere account for the increasing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, even though they are not nearly as large as natural sources and sinks. They are a new (since the mid-1800s) source of CO2. And all of the evidence that can be brought to bear on this issue indicates that.
The issue is change in Earths average global temperature,
1) whether or not it is actually occuring,
2) if (1) is supported, then probable and significant causes global climate variation is of interest with CO2 somewhere near the bottom of the list of possibilities as a prime mover.
CO2 has been shown not to have an appreciable effect on Earth's average global temperature, this is true in a geophysical sense as shown from the information above as well as from other more direct measures as well:
A Lukewarm Greenhouse
"The average warming predicted by the six methods for a doubling of CO2, is only +0.2 degC.
The dominence of water vapor, icefields and high levels clouds are the significant factors in regard to the greenhouse effect as manifested on the earth, along with variation of incident visible light and gamma ray effects on the atmosphere.
Anthropogenic CO2 (e.g. fossil fuel burning) rising or not rising is a negligible factor of less than 0.12% of the total greenhouse effect on the Earth.
Anthropogenic (man-made) Contribution to the "Greenhouse
Effect," expressed as % of Total (water vapor INCLUDED)
| Based on concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics | % of All Greenhouse Gases |
% Natural |
% Man-made |
| Water vapor | 95.000% |
94.999% |
0.001% |
| Carbon Dioxide (CO2) | 3.618% |
3.502% |
0.117% |
| Methane (CH4) | 0.360% |
0.294% |
0.066% |
| Nitrous Oxide (N2O) | 0.950% |
0.903% |
0.047% |
| Misc. gases ( CFC's, etc.) | 0.072% |
0.025% |
0.047% |
| Total | 100.00% |
99.72 |
0.28% |
Until you are prepared to accept the marginality of the role of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere in regard to changing climate, you and I really have no basis on which to discuss this matter.
Atmospheric CO2 concentration is simply not a substantive causitive factor in changing Earth's climate.