4 ms·

> whether the 3.2% of atmospheric CO2 emitted by humans 313 ppm in 1960 to 383 ppm in 2009 is 3.2%? Or is there indication that this increase isn't human cause

> whether the 3.2% of atmospheric CO2 emitted by humans 313 ppm in 1960 to 383 ppm in 2009 is 3.2%? Or is there indication that this increase isn't human caused? > which comprises 0.28% of the greenhouse effect on earth It's 9-26% for CO2, according to Wikipedia. (Which is a surprisingly large range.) Why the disparity with your figure? I don't know anything about climate science, and I don't have an agenda, but I'm just wondering if your figures are based on anything.

sp332 17y ago
The indication that this isn't human-caused is just adding up all the CO2 output by cars, industry, etc. and subtracting from the amount of CO2 that has been added to the atmosphere in the same time period. I think it accounts for about 5%, but I'm not sure I read that right. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_the_Earth%27s_atmosphere http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_the_Earth%27s... Since water accounts for up to 85% of greenhouse effect (including clouds), that means man-made atmospheric CO2 accounts for 0.75% or less of the greenhouse effect.
- WilliamLP 17y ago
  > I think it accounts for about 5%, Is there serious scientific support for what your claim? There are (seemingly legitimate) sources like realclimate.org that claim that the increases in CO2 are virtually entirely caused by human activity, and that this isn't seriously questioned by scientists. E.g. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do... That article claims that humans release quite a bit more carbon than would be needed to raise CO2 by the observed levels, but that effects like absorption into the ocean compensate. I think we can all agree that the highly modded-up parent that claims two significant figures of accuracy at 0.28% is completely wrong though, right?
  - robotrout 17y ago
    I read other things than realclimate.org. I'm surprised, given the now proven non-impartiality of that website, that you would cite them. Anyway, I hope you'll visit this site. It's pretty good. I have others, so tell me if this doesn't answer your questions better than I did. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
    - anthonyb 17y ago
      Proven non-impartiality? Do you have a source for that claim? Particularly given that geocraft.com is an obviously partial site itself. Also, if you scroll down to the bottom of the page, you'll see that that page hasn't been updated in a very long time: "This site last updated October 5, 2007" I guess that's pretty recent for geologists, though :)
      - robotrout 17y ago
        My sources? My sources are the emails that this thread is about. Regarding the page I referenced, it's not a religious document, and I make no claims that it's special. In fact, if it were special, it would be more suspect, not less. That said, who cares when it was updated? Have there been ground-breaking changes in CO2 measurement, greenhouse coefficients or anything else pertinent in the last two years?
        anthonyb 17y ago
        Really? Those emails specifically mention realclimate.org? I care when it was last updated. There's been a lot of extra data, and lots of scientific papers published in the intervening two (probably closer to three) years.
        yummyfajitas 17y ago
        Apparently Michael Mann and others involved in this scandal are directly in control of realclimate. Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you’re free to use RC Rein any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through, and we’ll be very careful to answer any questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you’d like us to include. http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2009m11d20-ClimateGate--Climate-centers-server-hacked-revealing-documents-and-emails http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y200...
robotrout 17y ago
There is a link between temperature and CO2 concentration, as you know. For the last 18000 years, since the last ice age, pretty much, we've been getting warmer, and CO2 has been climbing. See the Vostok Ice Core Data. Even if there were no men on earth, the CO2 levels would be rising. That explains at least some of your 40 year CO2 climb that you mention. Anyway, no, the 3.2% I reference is just by mass. 3.2% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is man-made. If you care, only 2.2% of the warming caused by global warming gasses (excluding water vapor) is caused by man-made CO2, since different gasses are better or worse greenhouse gases, and CO2 isn't nearly as efficient as a greenhouse gas as some other gases, just using mass isn't quite accurate, in terms of percentage of greenhouse effect. Now, again, ignoring water vapor, which is insane to do, but is "customary", your control of the system, if you eliminated all CO2 from every person on earth (perhaps we'll let you breath, but no campfires) is 2.2%. (Again, it's actually 0.28%, but just for the sake of argument, say water vapor is not a green-house gas, even though it is) So, how confident are you, that 2.2% is enough control to effect a reversal of the temperature rise? Now, given that you aren't going to get anywhere near a 100% elimination of man-made CO2, short of killing everybody, how much money are you willing to spend on this exercise, and shouldn't a little bit of number crunching (dollars per degree) be undertaken, before we start down this path?
- WilliamLP 17y ago
  Where do you get your numbers from? I'm curious, since they seem to be at least an order of magnitude off from sources that come up in naive searches. (E.g. the 9-26% figure cited in Wikipedia for the percent of greenhouse effect due to CO2, including water vapour.) I'm not making any economic recommendations; I'm just someone who doesn't know very much, who is trying to find, say as an impartial Martian might, what the best interpretation of facts are given the available data.
  - robotrout 17y ago
    As I write today, I'm referencing the following sites that a quick Google search turned up. I'm frustrated that I can't find another one I like, but this one is very good. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html For one thing, the wiki article (which, again, is quoting realclimate.org, so is already tainted) is giving you a number of how much total contribution CO2 has on earth's greenhouse effect. It's not telling you how much effect _man-made_ CO2 is having, which is obviously less, as even they would admit that CO2 is not purely made my humans.

sp332 17y ago

The indication that this isn't human-caused is just adding up all the CO2 output by cars, industry, etc. and subtracting from the amount of CO2 that has been added to the atmosphere in the same time period. I think it accounts for about 5%, but I'm not sure I read that right. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_the_Earth%27s_atmosphere http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_the_Earth%27s... Since water accounts for up to 85% of greenhouse effect (including clouds), that means man-made atmospheric CO2 accounts for 0.75% or less of the greenhouse effect.

WilliamLP 17y ago
> I think it accounts for about 5%, Is there serious scientific support for what your claim? There are (seemingly legitimate) sources like realclimate.org that claim that the increases in CO2 are virtually entirely caused by human activity, and that this isn't seriously questioned by scientists. E.g. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do... That article claims that humans release quite a bit more carbon than would be needed to raise CO2 by the observed levels, but that effects like absorption into the ocean compensate. I think we can all agree that the highly modded-up parent that claims two significant figures of accuracy at 0.28% is completely wrong though, right?
- robotrout 17y ago
  I read other things than realclimate.org. I'm surprised, given the now proven non-impartiality of that website, that you would cite them. Anyway, I hope you'll visit this site. It's pretty good. I have others, so tell me if this doesn't answer your questions better than I did. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
  - anthonyb 17y ago
    Proven non-impartiality? Do you have a source for that claim? Particularly given that geocraft.com is an obviously partial site itself. Also, if you scroll down to the bottom of the page, you'll see that that page hasn't been updated in a very long time: "This site last updated October 5, 2007" I guess that's pretty recent for geologists, though :)
    - robotrout 17y ago
      My sources? My sources are the emails that this thread is about. Regarding the page I referenced, it's not a religious document, and I make no claims that it's special. In fact, if it were special, it would be more suspect, not less. That said, who cares when it was updated? Have there been ground-breaking changes in CO2 measurement, greenhouse coefficients or anything else pertinent in the last two years?
      - anthonyb 17y ago
        Really? Those emails specifically mention realclimate.org? I care when it was last updated. There's been a lot of extra data, and lots of scientific papers published in the intervening two (probably closer to three) years.
        yummyfajitas 17y ago
        Apparently Michael Mann and others involved in this scandal are directly in control of realclimate. Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you’re free to use RC Rein any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through, and we’ll be very careful to answer any questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you’d like us to include. http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2009m11d20-ClimateGate--Climate-centers-server-hacked-revealing-documents-and-emails http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y200...

robotrout 17y ago

There is a link between temperature and CO2 concentration, as you know. For the last 18000 years, since the last ice age, pretty much, we've been getting warmer, and CO2 has been climbing. See the Vostok Ice Core Data. Even if there were no men on earth, the CO2 levels would be rising. That explains at least some of your 40 year CO2 climb that you mention. Anyway, no, the 3.2% I reference is just by mass. 3.2% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is man-made. If you care, only 2.2% of the warming caused by global warming gasses (excluding water vapor) is caused by man-made CO2, since different gasses are better or worse greenhouse gases, and CO2 isn't nearly as efficient as a greenhouse gas as some other gases, just using mass isn't quite accurate, in terms of percentage of greenhouse effect. Now, again, ignoring water vapor, which is insane to do, but is "customary", your control of the system, if you eliminated all CO2 from every person on earth (perhaps we'll let you breath, but no campfires) is 2.2%. (Again, it's actually 0.28%, but just for the sake of argument, say water vapor is not a green-house gas, even though it is) So, how confident are you, that 2.2% is enough control to effect a reversal of the temperature rise? Now, given that you aren't going to get anywhere near a 100% elimination of man-made CO2, short of killing everybody, how much money are you willing to spend on this exercise, and shouldn't a little bit of number crunching (dollars per degree) be undertaken, before we start down this path?

WilliamLP 17y ago
Where do you get your numbers from? I'm curious, since they seem to be at least an order of magnitude off from sources that come up in naive searches. (E.g. the 9-26% figure cited in Wikipedia for the percent of greenhouse effect due to CO2, including water vapour.) I'm not making any economic recommendations; I'm just someone who doesn't know very much, who is trying to find, say as an impartial Martian might, what the best interpretation of facts are given the available data.
- robotrout 17y ago
  As I write today, I'm referencing the following sites that a quick Google search turned up. I'm frustrated that I can't find another one I like, but this one is very good. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html For one thing, the wiki article (which, again, is quoting realclimate.org, so is already tainted) is giving you a number of how much total contribution CO2 has on earth's greenhouse effect. It's not telling you how much effect _man-made_ CO2 is having, which is obviously less, as even they would admit that CO2 is not purely made my humans.