[BohDaThone]

With respect to posts 10-11-12. There is NOTHING wrong with Keeling's measurements. They have been replicated many times over, all over the globe. They just started at Mauna Loa because it was not impacted by nearby industrial sites.

The EFFECT of the increse in CO2 is very shaky, but the fact of the increase is not. The CO2 level is, of course, very tiny as a part of all the atmosphere, going from maybe 280 parts per million to around 360-370, leaving 999,630 parts per million that are not.

Second, all of the recent historical evidence (cores, tree rings, etc) shows no changes in, say, the last 2000 years until recently (The big swings in geological time are very important for analysis, but they are much further back than that.) So, the sources of natural CO2 are very large, but have always (within last couple of millenia) balanced with the natural removal.

So, it's no good saying that man isn't causing the rise in the CO2 level in the atmosphere. It's the effect of that rise, if any, that is in serious dispute.

If you read the fine print of even the IPCC reports, they admit that, even by their arguments, there is some chance that no warming is happening, and an even greater chance that man isn't responsible for all, or even most, of it.

Some of the most prominient "skeptics", like Dr. Fred Singer, say that warming is clearly happening, but it isn't caused by man.

[chipengineer]

>So, it’s no good saying that man isn’t causing the rise in the CO2 level in the atmosphere. It’s the effect of that rise, if any, that is in serious dispute.

Good point. The CO2 level is the one measurement that no one knowledgeable disputes.

[BOBTHENAILER]

With respect to posts 10-11-12.

I'm only responsible for #12. Since we're quoting posts...I like 4,6 & 7. Mine was merely a spoof, as you well know (I think) and was a play on the Beatles "Lonely Heart's Club Band".

[qam1]

So, it's no good saying that man isn't causing the rise in the CO2 level in the atmosphere.

Actually one of the biggest problems for the AGW proponents is the rise in CO₂ is too linear

As you can see, The rise has been steady at about +1.5 ppmv per year (15 ppmv per decade)

However, if you look at the world's CO₂ output

the emissions have of course been increasing

So the question is why is the rise in CO₂ levels per year staying linear? As emissions increased you should see the rate of the increase (the Slope) in CO₂ levels per year in the atmosphere also increase.

For example, if pumping out 4000 million tons of CO₂ 1970 caused the rise of 1.5 ppmv atmospheric CO₂, then you would expect that in the year 2000 when we pumped out 7000 million tons of CO₂, the atmospheric level should have rose about 26 ppmv that year. But they didn't, it's been holding steady at +1.5ppmv

Here are the actual numbers on the change per year

From Baring Head in New Zealand where the results are nearly the same as Manua Kea they have a nice plot

as you can see there just isn't any trend or correlation between human emissions and rise in CO₂. If humans were responsible, the trend would be every year having a bigger rise than the previous one, but instead the rise goes up & down randomly with no tread at all

The reason is obvious, 4000 million tons or 7000 million tons put out by man are both insignificant compared to natural emissions and the rise in CO₂ has to be coming from somewhere else. Even 7000 million tons is barely a blip on the seasonal differences.