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.
That's your central contention; I'm aware of that. However, to address it we have to address the Earth's entire climate system. The indication that you thought/think that the currently increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations are a climate effect (rather than having a primarily anthropogenic cause) tells me that you have only a minimal understanding of Earth's climate system. I would like to introduce into this discussion a couple of papers by Berner (one very recent one) that are utterly at odds with your stated contention above. However, in order to do that I first have to be convinced that you comprehend the basics of what's happening now. And one of the basic things that's happening now is increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations due to energy production and land use changes. I will state that now as a postulate, so that we can move on to the next phase of the discussion. In essence, I'm going to have to ignore your intractability and take it as a sign of advancing senility. I'll do my best to work around it.
The issue is global temperature and its relation to CO2 concentration.
Precisely why it's important to know what is happening with atmospheric CO2 concentrations and why.
Increasing levels of CO2 is a strawman as Earth's global temperature is only marginally effected by changing CO2 concentration.
Not according to Dr. Berner. Here's a lead quotation from one of the papers I wish to introduce:
"Over Phanerozoic time a major control on global climate has been the CO2 greenhouse effect, and changes in CO2 have been a consequence of a combination of geological, biological, and astronomical factors."
That's totally at odds with your contention, AG. And you're an anonymous name to me. Dr. Berner is:
Alan M. Bateman Professor of Geology and Geophysics (Yale University)
Member of National Academy of Sciences
Doctor Honoris Causa, Universite Aix-Marseille (France), 1991
Huntsman Medal in Oceanography (Canada), 1993
Goldschmidt Medal (Geochemical Society), 1995
Arthur L. Day Medal (Geological Society of America), 1996
Murchinson Medal (Geological Society-London), 1996
Lest you contend that this is an argument from authority, it's not. I am attempting to bring the published research statements of one of the most noted geochemists in the United States (and the world) into this discussion. And he basically says that your contention is wrong; that CO2 is a major climate factor.
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.
OK, then Dr. Berner's statement has been introduced into this discussion as a counterpoint to yours. Therefore, I state that is now relevant for you to admit the cause of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations, because Dr. Robert Berner states that the CO2 greenhouse effect is a major control on global climate over Phanerozoic time.
The issue is change in Earths average global temperature,
1) whether or not it is actually occuring,
Global temperatures are currently rising.
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.
Reread the statement by Dr. Berner that has been introduced into the discussion.
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:
Your statement above is at odds with Dr. Berner's statement.
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.
Interesting that you should bring up icefields. So does Dr. Berner when discussing Dr. Veizer's research results, of which you are so fond. Dr. Berner does not find them nearly so compelling.
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.
It's hard to dislodge a tree whose roots have grown so deep, AG. However, the statements of the esteemed Dr. Berner indicate that your contention regarding the marginality of atmospheric CO2 concentrations on Earth's climate is incorrect. Until such time as you allow discussion so that you can demonstrate why and how Dr. Berner is incorrect, I will accept his statement over your contention (particularly since it is so hard for you to admit a simple statement of fact, that the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations occurring since the mid-1800s is due to fossil fuel burning and land-use changes).
I don't care if you decline to continue this discussion. But if I comment on a global warming thread, or if I see your commentary, my next step will be to introduce Dr. Crowley and Dr. Berner's recently published paper regarding CO2 and climate change. I'm being eminently fair here; now you can look up this reference and see what I'm talking about. Or we can continue on this thread.
What do you want to do next, AG?
"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) ]
All of the above are hyperlinked, but none of the links work. Would you mind getting me the titles and full author lists of these paper so I can look them up?
If there are new page links to those and other papers, you may wish to update them so that your information is more informative.
"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."