Science denialism: The problem that just won’t go away

[orogenicman]

Hahahaha. I guess your true colors are coming out now, eh?

I'm a big oil funded denier? Hahahaha.

You are reading way to much into what I said.

How typical of you bozos. It doesn't matter how often you are told what the skeptic's position is, you always fall back on straw man arguments and ad hominem.

Straw man? Ad hominem? Seems like you are creating the straw man and attacking me. Yes, I agree I sounded cynical, but I bet there is a lot of potential money available for a university student experiment. I can not see the government being interested in funding it because they already have the consensus they need. But I really can see some sort of denial institution wanting to prove that once and for all that an increased CO2 density will not increase GW. This is serious question that you should consider. Maybe a state grant would work. Why hasn't that been done?

dude, so you say that a claim not backed by evidence is my job to prove? Are you fnn insane. You wish to make a claim, prove it. It isn't my job to prove something doesn't happen, it is yours and your pals to show it does. again, why does the government solution start with asking for money?

You are the one questioning whether or not CO2 in the atmosphere is truly a greenhouse gas. It's your question. You go find the answer, if you dare.

huh? Gawd the mis representation by you warmers is unprecedented. What is my position? I have explained to you and every other warmer on here my position. It is in here probably over a thousand times. Show me that adding 120 PPM of CO2 does anything to temperatures. I'm waiting.

Do you deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

 

[jc456]

Hahahaha. I guess your true colors are coming out now, eh?

I'm a big oil funded denier? Hahahaha.

You are reading way to much into what I said.

How typical of you bozos. It doesn't matter how often you are told what the skeptic's position is, you always fall back on straw man arguments and ad hominem.

Straw man? Ad hominem? Seems like you are creating the straw man and attacking me. Yes, I agree I sounded cynical, but I bet there is a lot of potential money available for a university student experiment. I can not see the government being interested in funding it because they already have the consensus they need. But I really can see some sort of denial institution wanting to prove that once and for all that an increased CO2 density will not increase GW. This is serious question that you should consider. Maybe a state grant would work. Why hasn't that been done?

dude, so you say that a claim not backed by evidence is my job to prove? Are you fnn insane. You wish to make a claim, prove it. It isn't my job to prove something doesn't happen, it is yours and your pals to show it does. again, why does the government solution start with asking for money?

You are the one questioning whether or not CO2 in the atmosphere is truly a greenhouse gas. It's your question. You go find the answer, if you dare.

huh? Gawd the mis representation by you warmers is unprecedented. What is my position? I have explained to you and every other warmer on here my position. It is in here probably over a thousand times. Show me that adding 120 PPM of CO2 does anything to temperatures. I'm waiting.

Do you deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

not at all. it just doesn't have the magic powers you all think it has.

oh and still not proven. BTW, where are those scientific facts at?

 

[orogenicman]

You are reading way to much into what I said.
Straw man? Ad hominem? Seems like you are creating the straw man and attacking me. Yes, I agree I sounded cynical, but I bet there is a lot of potential money available for a university student experiment. I can not see the government being interested in funding it because they already have the consensus they need. But I really can see some sort of denial institution wanting to prove that once and for all that an increased CO2 density will not increase GW. This is serious question that you should consider. Maybe a state grant would work. Why hasn't that been done?

dude, so you say that a claim not backed by evidence is my job to prove? Are you fnn insane. You wish to make a claim, prove it. It isn't my job to prove something doesn't happen, it is yours and your pals to show it does. again, why does the government solution start with asking for money?

You are the one questioning whether or not CO2 in the atmosphere is truly a greenhouse gas. It's your question. You go find the answer, if you dare.

huh? Gawd the mis representation by you warmers is unprecedented. What is my position? I have explained to you and every other warmer on here my position. It is in here probably over a thousand times. Show me that adding 120 PPM of CO2 does anything to temperatures. I'm waiting.

Do you deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

not at all. it just doesn't have the magic powers you all think it has.

If you agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, then you have your answer. tada. As you were.

 

[Wuwei]

sure it is. Wow I really thought you had some potential and then you fall into the normal warmer rants. Models. I don't want a model that has already failed to show me what isn't going to happen although they think it might. Sorry. Oh, BTW, the solution to the warmer rant is to ask for money. For what? What will the money do? I've been waiting for those details as well. To make accusations and have zero backing is calling humans out for something you have no proof of said accusation is fraud. Anytime you feel you really give a shit about this then you just start posting about things that are logical and actually follow science.

Wow, that's some of stream of consciousness ranting. I don't know what your are looking for.

I said this in one of my earliest posts, I disagree with CAGW. That's not my style. I believe there is truth to GW, but I may change my mind after 20 more years of new data. I am mildly skeptical of AGW. I believe that CO2 will cause warming but I have no idea how much or how little. The one thing I very strongly oppose is slinging crap back and forth between two polarized sides that continue to read way too much in each others posts. I am in the middle ground, so don't try to read zealotry into my posts. I am interested in the science and not the politics. If people bastardize the science like SSDD did, I will call them on it, but that does not mean I'm a warmer in the fullest sense. I don't care about your skepticism as long as you represent it fairly. This message is for ianc too.

 

[jc456]

dude, so you say that a claim not backed by evidence is my job to prove? Are you fnn insane. You wish to make a claim, prove it. It isn't my job to prove something doesn't happen, it is yours and your pals to show it does. again, why does the government solution start with asking for money?

You are the one questioning whether or not CO2 in the atmosphere is truly a greenhouse gas. It's your question. You go find the answer, if you dare.

huh? Gawd the mis representation by you warmers is unprecedented. What is my position? I have explained to you and every other warmer on here my position. It is in here probably over a thousand times. Show me that adding 120 PPM of CO2 does anything to temperatures. I'm waiting.

Do you deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

not at all. it just doesn't have the magic powers you all think it has.

If you agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, then you have your answer. tada. As you were.

nope sorry. anyway, I know you have zero scientific facts so tada!!!!

 

[jc456]

sure it is. Wow I really thought you had some potential and then you fall into the normal warmer rants. Models. I don't want a model that has already failed to show me what isn't going to happen although they think it might. Sorry. Oh, BTW, the solution to the warmer rant is to ask for money. For what? What will the money do? I've been waiting for those details as well. To make accusations and have zero backing is calling humans out for something you have no proof of said accusation is fraud. Anytime you feel you really give a shit about this then you just start posting about things that are logical and actually follow science.

Wow, that's some of stream of consciousness ranting. I don't know what your are looking for.

I said this in one of my earliest posts, I disagree with CAGW. That's not my style. I believe there is truth to GW, but I may change my mind after 20 more years of new data. I am mildly skeptical of AGW. I believe that CO2 will cause warming but I have no idea how much or how little. The one thing I very strongly oppose is slinging crap back and forth between two polarized sides that continue to read way too much in each others posts. I am in the middle ground, so don't try to read zealotry into my posts. I am interested in the science and not the politics. If people bastardize the science like SSDD did, I will call them on it, but that does not mean I'm a warmer in the fullest sense. I don't care about your skepticism as long as you represent it fairly. This message is for ianc too.

post 589, your post flinging pooh around like crazy. so, you are just another typical left wing loser with no proof of any climate issue. Thanks for the validation to that.

oh, and, why is money the solution to the supposed problems?

 

[orogenicman]

You are the one questioning whether or not CO2 in the atmosphere is truly a greenhouse gas. It's your question. You go find the answer, if you dare.

huh? Gawd the mis representation by you warmers is unprecedented. What is my position? I have explained to you and every other warmer on here my position. It is in here probably over a thousand times. Show me that adding 120 PPM of CO2 does anything to temperatures. I'm waiting.

Do you deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

not at all. it just doesn't have the magic powers you all think it has.

If you agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, then you have your answer. tada. As you were.

nope sorry. anyway, I know you have zero scientific facts so tada!!!!

I have at least one fact, one we both agree on - CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Next.

 

[jc456]

huh? Gawd the mis representation by you warmers is unprecedented. What is my position? I have explained to you and every other warmer on here my position. It is in here probably over a thousand times. Show me that adding 120 PPM of CO2 does anything to temperatures. I'm waiting.

Do you deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

not at all. it just doesn't have the magic powers you all think it has.

If you agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, then you have your answer. tada. As you were.

nope sorry. anyway, I know you have zero scientific facts so tada!!!!

I have at least one fact, one we both agree on - CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Next.

you can prove that CO2 absorbs and emits? let's see the proof. that doesn't make your point s0n. Still waiting on the scientific facts that proves that CO2 influences temperatures.

BTW, greenhouse gases: The primary greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. With which CO2 is the least amount, so tell me how dangerous it is?

 

[Wuwei]

post 589, your post flinging pooh around like crazy. so, you are just another typical left wing loser with no proof of any climate issue. Thanks for the validation to that.

This is post 589 you are referring to:

I might guess that most scientists understand modeling enough that they are satisfied in their predictions. If AGW is such a controversial cause, why don't you deniers find funding from the oil companies to demonstrate that CO2 does not cause increased warming.

Yes, for you guys, it is also exactly the type of thing university science majors do in first year. Wouldn't you love it if a definitive experiment was published that showed AGW was all a farce? C'mon, do the experiment and post the experiment.

I'm sorry I was a bit glib in mentioning oil companies. I was serious and not making a stab. It's similar to pharmaceutical companies funding research in their interests. You are reading too much into it.

My post pales in comparison to you calling me a typical left wing loser.

 

[jc456]

post 589, your post flinging pooh around like crazy. so, you are just another typical left wing loser with no proof of any climate issue. Thanks for the validation to that.

This is post 589 you are referring to:

I might guess that most scientists understand modeling enough that they are satisfied in their predictions. If AGW is such a controversial cause, why don't you deniers find funding from the oil companies to demonstrate that CO2 does not cause increased warming.

Yes, for you guys, it is also exactly the type of thing university science majors do in first year. Wouldn't you love it if a definitive experiment was published that showed AGW was all a farce? C'mon, do the experiment and post the experiment.

I'm sorry I was a bit glib in mentioning oil companies. I was serious and not making a stab. It's similar to pharmaceutical companies funding research in their interests. You are reading too much into it.

My post pales in comparison to you calling me a typical left wing loser.

you get the jab due to the jab. you don't wish to do something and do it. It makes you no different than the loser lefts whose only defense is to ridicule and insult. I read in it what was meant by it. I'm happy to have a nice calm discussion and to articulate back and forth. But call me a name, tell me I have no idea what I'm talking about and that goes out the door s0n. I ask but one thing and that one thing is unavailable by your own admission. So? I don't blindly believe because someone says I have to. I never will be that person. I have nothing to defend either, I have made no claim. I merely request those who do to support it. Why does that make me a denier? Your word.

 

[Wuwei]

you can prove that CO2 absorbs and emits? let's see the proof. that doesn't make your point s0n. Still waiting on the scientific facts that proves that CO2 influences temperatures.

BTW, greenhouse gases: The primary greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. With which CO2 is the least amount, so tell me how dangerous it is?

You question CO2 absorbing and emitting and then refer to water vapor. You have to realize that water vapor is the primary GHG. Do you also question H2O absorbing and emitting radiation? If not, then what's your point. If so then why are the two GHGs different?

 

[orogenicman]

Do you deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

not at all. it just doesn't have the magic powers you all think it has.

If you agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, then you have your answer. tada. As you were.

nope sorry. anyway, I know you have zero scientific facts so tada!!!!

I have at least one fact, one we both agree on - CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Next.

you can prove that CO2 absorbs and emits? let's see the proof. that doesn't make your point s0n. Still waiting on the scientific facts that proves that CO2 influences temperatures.

BTW, greenhouse gases: The primary greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. With which CO2 is the least amount, so tell me how dangerous it is?

So you agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas until you don't? Hmm.

To answer your question (pay close attention because I am not going to repeat this):

Common Climate Misconceptions Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Yale Climate Connections

Understanding the carbon cycle is a key part of understanding the broader climate change issue. But a number of misconceptions floating around the blogosphere confuse basic concepts to argue that climate change is irrelevant because of the short residence time of carbon molecules in the atmosphere and the large overall carbon stock in the environment.

It turns out that while much of the “pulse” of extra CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere would be absorbed over the next century if emissions miraculously were to end today, about 20 percent of that CO2 would remain for at least tens of thousands of years.

The complex global carbon cycle process involves carbon absorption and release by the atmosphere, oceans, soils, and organic matter, and also emissions from anthropogenic fossil fuel combustion and land-use changes. The figure below shows the best estimate of annual carbon fluxes from main sources and sinks.

Figure from Oak Ridge National Laboratories (Units in gigatons of carbon).

At first glance, it may seem that the narrow black arrows representing anthropogenic sources are relatively insignificant, making up only a few percent of the total carbon released to the atmosphere in any given year. To understand why anthropogenic emissions are of concern, it is important to think of the carbon cycle as a balance of sorts; every year around 230 gigatons of carbon dioxide are released to the atmosphere, and around 230 gigatons of carbon dioxide are absorbed by the world’s oceans and biosphere. This balance forms an equilibrium of sorts, with the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide remaining largely unchanged over time. However, anthropogenic emissions throw this process out of kilter, adding a new source of emissions unmatched by additional sinks.

The carbon dioxide record over the past 10,000 years demonstrates this situation: the modern period exhibits a large spike in atmospheric carbon dioxide coincident to the time humans started burning fossil fuels.

Atmospheric CO2 concentrations over the past 10,000 years. From the IPCC AR4 WG1 SPM

Graphing emissions over the modern period against changes in atmospheric concentrations illustrates a clear relationship between emissions and increasing CO2 concentrations.

It is important to note that not all anthropogenic emissions are accumulating in the atmosphere. Indeed, about half of annual CO2 emissions are absorbed by the ocean and vegetation, and this percentage of absorption, called the airborne fraction, is currently the subject of vigorous debate over whether or not it is changing over time. Scientists can model the absorption of anthropogenic carbon by year for different sinks.

Image from the Global Carbon Project.

Determining the residence time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a rather complex problem. A common misconception arises from simply looking at the annual carbon flux and the atmospheric stock; after all, with 230 gigatons absorbed by the oceans and land every year, and a total atmospheric stock of 720 gigatons, one might expect the average molecule of CO2 to remain in the atmosphere for only three to four years.

Such an approach poorly frames the issue, however. It is not the residence time of an individual molecule that is relevant. What really matters is just how long it will take for the stock of anthropogenic carbon emissions that has accumulated in the atmosphere to be reabsorbed.

The simplest way to approximate the time it will take to reabsorb the anthropogenic flux is to calculate how long it would take for the atmosphere to revert to preindustrial levels of 280 parts per million if humans could cease emissions immediately. If the current net sink of around 4 gigatons of carbon per year remained constant over time, it would take about 50 years for the atmosphere to return to 280 ppm. However, there is no reason to think that these sinks would remain constant as emissions decrease. Indeed, it is more realistic to anticipate that the net sink would shrink in proportion to the decrease in emissions.

Scientists can approach this problem in a number of different ways. They can use models of carbon sink behavior based on their best knowledge of the physics of ocean carbon absorption and the biosphere. They can also use records of changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide during glacial periods in the distant past to estimate the time it takes for perturbations to settle out.

Using a combination of various methods, researchers have estimated that about 50 percent of the net anthropogenic pulse would be absorbed in the first 50 years, and about 70 percent in the first 100 years. Absorption by sinks slows dramatically after that, with an additional 10 percent or so being removed after 300 years and the remaining 20 percent lasting tens if not hundreds of thousands of years before being removed.

As University of Washington scientist David Archer explains, this “long tail” of absorption means that the mean lifetime of the pulse attributable to anthropogenic emissions is around 30,000 to 35,000 years.

So while a good portion of warming attributable to carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions would be removed from the atmosphere in a few decades if emissions were somehow ceased immediately, about 10 percent will continue warming Earth for eons to come. This 10 percent is significant, because even a small increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases can have a large impact on things like ice sheets and sea level if it persists over the millennia.

 

[IanC]

Hahahaha. I guess your true colors are coming out now, eh?

I'm a big oil funded denier? Hahahaha.

You are reading way to much into what I said.

How typical of you bozos. It doesn't matter how often you are told what the skeptic's position is, you always fall back on straw man arguments and ad hominem.

Straw man? Ad hominem? Seems like you are creating the straw man and attacking me. Yes, I agree I sounded cynical, but I bet there is a lot of potential money available for a university student experiment. I can not see the government being interested in funding it because they already have the consensus they need. But I really can see some sort of denial institution wanting to prove that once and for all that an increased CO2 density will not increase GW. This is serious question that you should consider. Maybe a state grant would work. Why hasn't that been done?

dude, so you say that a claim not backed by evidence is my job to prove? Are you fnn insane. You wish to make a claim, prove it. It isn't my job to prove something doesn't happen, it is yours and your pals to show it does. again, why does the government solution start with asking for money?

You are the one questioning whether or not CO2 in the atmosphere is truly a greenhouse gas. It's your question. You go find the answer, if you dare.

You are a liar.

I'll make a wager. If you can find a quote of mine that says that I'll leave the MB for a month. If you cannot, then you leave for a second. But you have to announce why you are leaving. Care to take my wager?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Do you deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

Do you claim CO2 forms a physical barrier to convection, or that convection is even relevant to surface and tropospheric temperatures?

Why should anyone take your religion more seriously than one alluding to giant fish swallowing men? Seriously?

 

[jc456]

you can prove that CO2 absorbs and emits? let's see the proof. that doesn't make your point s0n. Still waiting on the scientific facts that proves that CO2 influences temperatures.

BTW, greenhouse gases: The primary greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. With which CO2 is the least amount, so tell me how dangerous it is?

You question CO2 absorbing and emitting and then refer to water vapor. You have to realize that water vapor is the primary GHG. Do you also question H2O absorbing and emitting radiation? If not, then what's your point. If so then why are the two GHGs different?

because CO2 is but .04% of the make up of the atmosphere. It has increased in the atmosphere, no denial, but it has done zilch to temperatures. Water Vapor does more to temperatures. Can be proven at night. The fact is that CO2 is not a boogeyman. Hasn't been proved. No reason to have a discussion on a gas that has no influences, and yet here we are. You then ask me why not water vapor? good question. why not? Water vapor comes out of the ground and oceans.

 

[orogenicman]

Hahahaha. I guess your true colors are coming out now, eh?

I'm a big oil funded denier? Hahahaha.

You are reading way to much into what I said.

How typical of you bozos. It doesn't matter how often you are told what the skeptic's position is, you always fall back on straw man arguments and ad hominem.

Straw man? Ad hominem? Seems like you are creating the straw man and attacking me. Yes, I agree I sounded cynical, but I bet there is a lot of potential money available for a university student experiment. I can not see the government being interested in funding it because they already have the consensus they need. But I really can see some sort of denial institution wanting to prove that once and for all that an increased CO2 density will not increase GW. This is serious question that you should consider. Maybe a state grant would work. Why hasn't that been done?

dude, so you say that a claim not backed by evidence is my job to prove? Are you fnn insane. You wish to make a claim, prove it. It isn't my job to prove something doesn't happen, it is yours and your pals to show it does. again, why does the government solution start with asking for money?

You are the one questioning whether or not CO2 in the atmosphere is truly a greenhouse gas. It's your question. You go find the answer, if you dare.

You are a liar.

I'll make a wager. If you can find a quote of mine that says that I'll leave the MB for a month. If you cannot, then you leave for a second. But you have to announce why you are leaving. Care to take my wager?

Erm, what? I wasn't responding to you. I was responding to jc456. Check the post again.

 

[IanC]

Hahahaha. I guess your true colors are coming out now, eh?

I'm a big oil funded denier? Hahahaha.

You are reading way to much into what I said.

How typical of you bozos. It doesn't matter how often you are told what the skeptic's position is, you always fall back on straw man arguments and ad hominem.

Straw man? Ad hominem? Seems like you are creating the straw man and attacking me. Yes, I agree I sounded cynical, but I bet there is a lot of potential money available for a university student experiment. I can not see the government being interested in funding it because they already have the consensus they need. But I really can see some sort of denial institution wanting to prove that once and for all that an increased CO2 density will not increase GW. This is serious question that you should consider. Maybe a state grant would work. Why hasn't that been done?

dude, so you say that a claim not backed by evidence is my job to prove? Are you fnn insane. You wish to make a claim, prove it. It isn't my job to prove something doesn't happen, it is yours and your pals to show it does. again, why does the government solution start with asking for money?

You are the one questioning whether or not CO2 in the atmosphere is truly a greenhouse gas. It's your question. You go find the answer, if you dare.

You are a liar.

I'll make a wager. If you can find a quote of mine that says that I'll leave the MB for a month. If you cannot, then you leave for a second. But you have to announce why you are leaving. Care to take my wager?

Erm, what? I wasn't responding to you. I was responding to jc456. Check the post again.

Sorry, I clicked on an alert that said you quoted one of my posts. I didn't realize it was an imbedded comment.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

you can prove that CO2 absorbs and emits? let's see the proof. that doesn't make your point s0n. Still waiting on the scientific facts that proves that CO2 influences temperatures.

BTW, greenhouse gases: The primary greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. With which CO2 is the least amount, so tell me how dangerous it is?

You question CO2 absorbing and emitting and then refer to water vapor. You have to realize that water vapor is the primary GHG. Do you also question H2O absorbing and emitting radiation? If not, then what's your point. If so then why are the two GHGs different?

What was water vapors PPM last year, 5 years ago, 10 years ago, 150 years ago?

Any data at all?

 

[jc456]

not at all. it just doesn't have the magic powers you all think it has.

If you agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, then you have your answer. tada. As you were.

nope sorry. anyway, I know you have zero scientific facts so tada!!!!

I have at least one fact, one we both agree on - CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Next.

you can prove that CO2 absorbs and emits? let's see the proof. that doesn't make your point s0n. Still waiting on the scientific facts that proves that CO2 influences temperatures.

BTW, greenhouse gases: The primary greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. With which CO2 is the least amount, so tell me how dangerous it is?

So you agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas until you don't? Hmm.

To answer your question (pay close attention because I am not going to repeat this):

Common Climate Misconceptions Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Yale Climate Connections

Understanding the carbon cycle is a key part of understanding the broader climate change issue. But a number of misconceptions floating around the blogosphere confuse basic concepts to argue that climate change is irrelevant because of the short residence time of carbon molecules in the atmosphere and the large overall carbon stock in the environment.

It turns out that while much of the “pulse” of extra CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere would be absorbed over the next century if emissions miraculously were to end today, about 20 percent of that CO2 would remain for at least tens of thousands of years.

The complex global carbon cycle process involves carbon absorption and release by the atmosphere, oceans, soils, and organic matter, and also emissions from anthropogenic fossil fuel combustion and land-use changes. The figure below shows the best estimate of annual carbon fluxes from main sources and sinks.

Figure from Oak Ridge National Laboratories (Units in gigatons of carbon).

At first glance, it may seem that the narrow black arrows representing anthropogenic sources are relatively insignificant, making up only a few percent of the total carbon released to the atmosphere in any given year. To understand why anthropogenic emissions are of concern, it is important to think of the carbon cycle as a balance of sorts; every year around 230 gigatons of carbon dioxide are released to the atmosphere, and around 230 gigatons of carbon dioxide are absorbed by the world’s oceans and biosphere. This balance forms an equilibrium of sorts, with the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide remaining largely unchanged over time. However, anthropogenic emissions throw this process out of kilter, adding a new source of emissions unmatched by additional sinks.

The carbon dioxide record over the past 10,000 years demonstrates this situation: the modern period exhibits a large spike in atmospheric carbon dioxide coincident to the time humans started burning fossil fuels.

Atmospheric CO2 concentrations over the past 10,000 years. From the IPCC AR4 WG1 SPM

Graphing emissions over the modern period against changes in atmospheric concentrations illustrates a clear relationship between emissions and increasing CO2 concentrations.

It is important to note that not all anthropogenic emissions are accumulating in the atmosphere. Indeed, about half of annual CO2 emissions are absorbed by the ocean and vegetation, and this percentage of absorption, called the airborne fraction, is currently the subject of vigorous debate over whether or not it is changing over time. Scientists can model the absorption of anthropogenic carbon by year for different sinks.

Image from the Global Carbon Project.

Determining the residence time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a rather complex problem. A common misconception arises from simply looking at the annual carbon flux and the atmospheric stock; after all, with 230 gigatons absorbed by the oceans and land every year, and a total atmospheric stock of 720 gigatons, one might expect the average molecule of CO2 to remain in the atmosphere for only three to four years.

Such an approach poorly frames the issue, however. It is not the residence time of an individual molecule that is relevant. What really matters is just how long it will take for the stock of anthropogenic carbon emissions that has accumulated in the atmosphere to be reabsorbed.

The simplest way to approximate the time it will take to reabsorb the anthropogenic flux is to calculate how long it would take for the atmosphere to revert to preindustrial levels of 280 parts per million if humans could cease emissions immediately. If the current net sink of around 4 gigatons of carbon per year remained constant over time, it would take about 50 years for the atmosphere to return to 280 ppm. However, there is no reason to think that these sinks would remain constant as emissions decrease. Indeed, it is more realistic to anticipate that the net sink would shrink in proportion to the decrease in emissions.

Scientists can approach this problem in a number of different ways. They can use models of carbon sink behavior based on their best knowledge of the physics of ocean carbon absorption and the biosphere. They can also use records of changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide during glacial periods in the distant past to estimate the time it takes for perturbations to settle out.

Using a combination of various methods, researchers have estimated that about 50 percent of the net anthropogenic pulse would be absorbed in the first 50 years, and about 70 percent in the first 100 years. Absorption by sinks slows dramatically after that, with an additional 10 percent or so being removed after 300 years and the remaining 20 percent lasting tens if not hundreds of thousands of years before being removed.

As University of Washington scientist David Archer explains, this “long tail” of absorption means that the mean lifetime of the pulse attributable to anthropogenic emissions is around 30,000 to 35,000 years.

So while a good portion of warming attributable to carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions would be removed from the atmosphere in a few decades if emissions were somehow ceased immediately, about 10 percent will continue warming Earth for eons to come. This 10 percent is significant, because even a small increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases can have a large impact on things like ice sheets and sea level if it persists over the millennia.

nice, applaud. Now, see, this is exactly my point. This is not proof of how CO2 behaves. It is someones conclusion built off of some physical study. Sorry, I need evidence, a test that actually proves all of this. I appreciate your time in pulling all of this. Curious, it didn't take you long, seems you had a template folder from which you drew from.

But alas, sorry, I don't buy it. And until someone of your type can, it isn't factually correct. See history tells us all that the atmosphere once held over 1000PPM of CO2 and was quite healthy. History fails your graphs and pictures. Also, why is there still Arctic ice and Antarctic ice. We were supposed to be ice free in the summers in the Arctic by the early 2000s. what happened? Mean old CO2 didn't comply with the predictions. And finally again, why is it money is the solution to your problem?

 

[orogenicman]

You are reading way to much into what I said.
Straw man? Ad hominem? Seems like you are creating the straw man and attacking me. Yes, I agree I sounded cynical, but I bet there is a lot of potential money available for a university student experiment. I can not see the government being interested in funding it because they already have the consensus they need. But I really can see some sort of denial institution wanting to prove that once and for all that an increased CO2 density will not increase GW. This is serious question that you should consider. Maybe a state grant would work. Why hasn't that been done?

dude, so you say that a claim not backed by evidence is my job to prove? Are you fnn insane. You wish to make a claim, prove it. It isn't my job to prove something doesn't happen, it is yours and your pals to show it does. again, why does the government solution start with asking for money?

You are the one questioning whether or not CO2 in the atmosphere is truly a greenhouse gas. It's your question. You go find the answer, if you dare.

You are a liar.

I'll make a wager. If you can find a quote of mine that says that I'll leave the MB for a month. If you cannot, then you leave for a second. But you have to announce why you are leaving. Care to take my wager?

Erm, what? I wasn't responding to you. I was responding to jc456. Check the post again.

Sorry, I clicked on an alert that said you quoted one of my posts. I didn't realize it was an imbedded comment.

No problems. I've probably done it myself.