how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

[SSDD]

[

The pH of the ocean at Mauna Loa in the graph isn't an "estimate" - its a measurement with a pH meter.

How much CO2 do you think the volcano puts in to the water there via underwater vents?

Not enough to alter the near exact correlation between atmospheric Co2 and ocean Co2 at Mauna Loa.

What are you talking about...one would expect a pretty exact correlation between atmospheric CO2 and ocean CO2 at the testing site. Neither are representative of the world but just a continuous test site. Surely you don't believe that the CO2 concentrations at one of the worlds largest volcanoes is representative of the CO2 levels across the whole globe. And surely you don't think that the dissolved CO2 levels in the water around one of the world's largest volcanoes is representative of the rest of the ocean? Do you?

Go ahead and admit it...you do.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

How much CO2 do you think the volcano puts in to the water there via underwater vents?

Not enough to alter the near exact correlation between atmospheric Co2 and ocean Co2 at Mauna Loa.

What are you talking about...one would expect a pretty exact correlation between atmospheric CO2 and ocean CO2 at the testing site. Neither are representative of the world but just a continuous test site. Surely you don't believe that the CO2 concentrations at one of the worlds largest volcanoes is representative of the CO2 levels across the whole globe. And surely you don't think that the dissolved CO2 levels in the water around one of the world's largest volcanoes is representative of the rest of the ocean? Do you?

Go ahead and admit it...you do.

Actually atmospheric Co2 levels as recorded at different locations around the world are very tightly correlated. For example, here is a plot I made of the data from Mauna Loa, the South Pole, and Guam:

As you can see, outside of annual variations, the three curves follow the same trend. Mauna Loa and Guam are practically on top of one another. (There is some missing data for Mauna Loa where the straight line is)

Here is where you can find the data sets
ESRL Global Monitoring Division - FTP Navigator

 

[Saigon]

Surely you don't believe that the CO2 concentrations at one of the worlds largest volcanoes is representative of the CO2 levels across the whole globe.

Spot the person who does not know why the Hawaii site was chosen.

1) Because high altitude means the station is above a lot of local weather

2) Because it is free of interference from cities

3) Because being in the middle of the ocean presents quite a neutral image

4) Because volcanic activity is easy to measure and filter out

And of course - it is only one of dozens of monitoring stations around the world. If you dislike one - use on of the others.

And yes, I am sure you will now argue that the scientists are wrong and you are right because you know more than they do.

 

[gslack]

Surely you don't believe that the CO2 concentrations at one of the worlds largest volcanoes is representative of the CO2 levels across the whole globe.

Spot the person who does not know why the Hawaii site was chosen.

1) Because high altitude means the station is above a lot of local weather

2) Because it is free of interference from cities

3) Because being in the middle of the ocean presents quite a neutral image

4) Because volcanic activity is easy to measure and filter out

And yes, I am sure you will now argue that the scientists are wrong and you are right because you know more than they do.

Spot the person who doesn't find the fact it being at the crest of one of the worlds largest and most active volcanoes a bit odd...

1. Lots of places of a high altitude and I wasn't aware that CO2 concentrations only count in "good weather"..

2. Why not have it in the middle of the sierra Nevada mountains, or any number of places both reclusive and higher up? Mount Hood perhaps?

3. It not i the middle of the ocean, its on the crest of one of the largest and most active volcanoes on the planet. That volcano forms an Island and that Island is inhabited by people and has some cities on it as well...

4. really? then why aren't they filtered out of the global CO2 charts and graphs? They can't and aren't because they are too many and too variable to be certain. So is this one. They do not always put out the same amount of gases or particulates, that means any claims as to levels from a volcano are a best guess. Making any "filtering out" dubious at best..

Again they can put the observatory almost anywhere,but they chose the worlds largest and most active volcano for a reason..

BTW..One more time because you people seem to keep ignoring this fact..

The 400 ppm measurement is from Mauna loa observatory. The global mean they came up with is now at 396 ppm as per the original link...

Trends in Carbon Dioxide

Up-to-date weekly average CO2 at Mauna Loa
Week beginning on May 5, 2013: 399.50 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago: 397.07 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago: 377.85 ppm

Monthly

Recent Monthly Average Mauna Loa CO2
April 2013: 398.40 ppm
April 2012: 396.18 ppm

and the global most recent

Recent Global CO2
March 2013: 396.52 ppm
March 2012: 393.57 ppm

Now you see the difference yet? No? okay here's the kicker..

Last 5 days of preliminary daily average CO2
May 16 - 399.74 May 15 - 399.59 May 14 - 399.81 May 13 - 399.86 May 12 - 399.46

notice the latest measurement is lower than the one 2 days before it and the one the day before that? And notice the earliest of the 5 day account is .28 below most recent one? That much variance in just 5 consecutive days and you don't think the fact it's near a volcano has any bearing on CO2 measurements???

LOL, wake up man..

 

[SSDD]

Last 5 days of preliminary daily average CO2
May 16 - 399.74 May 15 - 399.59 May 14 - 399.81 May 13 - 399.86 May 12 - 399.46

notice the latest measurement is lower than the one 2 days before it and the one the day before that? And notice the earliest of the 5 day account is .28 below most recent one? That much variance in just 5 consecutive days and you don't think the fact it's near a volcano has any bearing on CO2 measurements???

LOL, wake up man..

Amazing what they can convince themselves of if their faith is strong enough isn't it.

Oopt te doo pointed out the CO2 levels of the ocean around there as if the volcano weren't spewing CO2 and other compounds constantly below the surface of the ocean. It appeared as if it never occurred to him.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

Do not mistake people actually understanding what you do not, for people not understanding what you do not understand either.

This is what most posters know that you do not:

MLO is located on the north flank of Mauna Loa Volcano, on the Big Island of Hawaii. Due to its remote location in the Pacific Ocean, high altitude (3397 meters, or 11,135 feet above sea level), and great distance from major pollution sources, MLO is a prime spot for sampling the Earth's background air in the well mixed free troposphere. The observatory protrudes through the strong marine temperature inversion layer present in the region, which separates the more polluted lower portions of the atmosphere from the much cleaner free troposphere.

The observatory is located on an island in the middle of the Pacific ocean, away from major air pollution sources. MLO also protrudes through the strong marine temperature inversion layer present in the region. This inversion layer acts like a lid and keeps the lower local pollutants below the observatory.

ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Mauna Loa Observatory

The contamination from local volcanic sources is sometimes detected at the observatory, and is then removed from the background data, but is only detected when the inversion layer is not present.

 

[SSDD]

The observatory is located on an island in the middle of the Pacific ocean, away from major air pollution sources. MLO also protrudes through the strong marine temperature inversion layer present in the region. This inversion layer acts like a lid and keeps the lower local pollutants below the observatory.

The only thing that spot is a prime sampling spot for is the emissions from the volcano it sits atop.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

Frstly, I am sure no one on the forum would have expected you to understand why a combination of high altitude, an isolated location and a strong inversion layer make it an ideal site for the observatory, and secondly, I am sure there are good reasons why you ignore the data from the Barrow, Alaska observatory.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

Frstly, I am sure no one on the forum would have expected you to understand why a combination of high altitude, an isolated location and a strong inversion layer make it an ideal site for the observatory, and secondly, I am sure there are good reasons why you ignore the data from the Barrow, Alaska observatory.

Pretend that you grasp it all siagon and while you are at it, continue to prove daily, no scratch that, hourly that you don't grasp any of it.

By the way, I can't help but notice that you failed to mention that Mauna Loa is just a short way downwind from a very active volcano...Kilauea Iki....which calls into serious question all the reasons you claim it is a good spot to put an observatory.

And the whole argument is moot anyway as there is, and remains exactly zero observed, measured evidence that CO2 causes warming anyway...much less man's small contribution to the total.

One other thing...there is ample experimental evidence to show that the upwelling and downwelling air movement that is present at Mona Loa can set up oscillatory patterns circulating the same air, therefore testing the same air.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

I'll ask again - why do you ignore the data from Barrow, Alaska?

 

[Old Rocks]

SSDD is going to ignore any data from anywhere that would force him to look at reality. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is well documented now from around the world. Mauna Lau is just the site with the longest record, not even the primary site any more. And we can and do monitor CO2 and CH4 from satellites as well.

These flap-yaps ignore all of this because it does not fit their political ideology. A sad commentary on their ability to think.

 

[Foxfyre]

[

The pH of the ocean at Mauna Loa in the graph isn't an "estimate" - its a measurement with a pH meter.

How much CO2 do you think the volcano puts in to the water there via underwater vents?

Not enough to alter the near exact correlation between atmospheric Co2 and ocean Co2 at Mauna Loa.

No idea whether your graphs are the real deal or produed by some AGW religionist via home computer. But assuming they are the real deal. . .

Those measurements at Mauna Loa have been taken for a little more than 50 years. Prior to that, we have no idea what the CO2 levels have been. Admittedly there, on top of one of the world's most volatile volcanoes, the CO2 curve has been steadily increasing for that last 50 years, however global warming has not been steadily increasing at the same rate. Which of course is another reason to question how much affect CO2 has on global warming.

Working from memory here so there may be some variations in the numbers, in spite of huge increases in human activity that produces CO2, the human generated CO2 levels in the atmosphere is at most about 2% of all CO2 generated from all sources and CO2 is miniscule among greenhouse gasses when compared to water vapor, also a greenhouse gas, that is also produced in massive quantities via human activity. But nobody on the AGW side seems to be looking at that.

A curious thing is that Methane makes up about 9% of the anthropogenic produced greenhouse gasses but accumulation in the atmosphere has not been increasing at the level CO2 has--in fact has been pretty flat for some decades now. Why is that? I don't know. I'm guessing nobody else on this thread knows. But I think it is interesting and worth considering in the big picture.

 

[Old Rocks]

How much CO2 do you think the volcano puts in to the water there via underwater vents?

Not enough to alter the near exact correlation between atmospheric Co2 and ocean Co2 at Mauna Loa.

No idea whether your graphs are the real deal or produed by some AGW religionist via home computer. But assuming they are the real deal. . .

Those measurements at Mauna Loa have been taken for a little more than 50 years. Prior to that, we have no idea what the CO2 levels have been. Admittedly there, on top of one of the world's most volatile volcanoes, the CO2 curve has been steadily increasing for that last 50 years, however global warming has not been steadily increasing at the same rate. Which of course is another reason to question how much affect CO2 has on global warming.

Working from memory here so there may be some variations in the numbers, in spite of huge increases in human activity that produces CO2, the human generated CO2 levels in the atmosphere is at most about 2% of all CO2 generated from all sources and CO2 is miniscule among greenhouse gasses when compared to water vapor, also a greenhouse gas, that is also produced in massive quantities via human activity. But nobody on the AGW side seems to be looking at that.
A curious thing is that Methane makes up about 9% of the anthropogenic produced greenhouse gasses but accumulation in the atmosphere has not been increasing at the level CO2 has--in fact has been pretty flat for some decades now. Why is that? I don't know. I'm guessing nobody else on this thread knows. But I think it is interesting and worth considering in the big picture.

Have you ever heard of Ice Cores? From Greenland, the Antarctic, and glaciers from around the world? We have a very good record of CO2 for the last 800,000 years.

We have increased the CO2 in the atmosphere from 280 ppm to 400 ppm. That is a greater increase than the differance between a full blown ice age and the present interglacial. And H2O has a residence time of about 10 days in the atmosphere. CO2, at least 100 years.

A curious thing that you are so incredibly ignorant of the numbers on CH4. Prior to the industrial revolution, CH4 was about 780 ppb. Today it is over 1800 ppb. About a 250% increase, as compared to the 40% increase for CO2.

Really, you need to do some research before posting your ignorance for the whole world to see.

 

[Foxfyre]

Not enough to alter the near exact correlation between atmospheric Co2 and ocean Co2 at Mauna Loa.

No idea whether your graphs are the real deal or produed by some AGW religionist via home computer. But assuming they are the real deal. . .

Those measurements at Mauna Loa have been taken for a little more than 50 years. Prior to that, we have no idea what the CO2 levels have been. Admittedly there, on top of one of the world's most volatile volcanoes, the CO2 curve has been steadily increasing for that last 50 years, however global warming has not been steadily increasing at the same rate. Which of course is another reason to question how much affect CO2 has on global warming.

Working from memory here so there may be some variations in the numbers, in spite of huge increases in human activity that produces CO2, the human generated CO2 levels in the atmosphere is at most about 2% of all CO2 generated from all sources and CO2 is miniscule among greenhouse gasses when compared to water vapor, also a greenhouse gas, that is also produced in massive quantities via human activity. But nobody on the AGW side seems to be looking at that.
A curious thing is that Methane makes up about 9% of the anthropogenic produced greenhouse gasses but accumulation in the atmosphere has not been increasing at the level CO2 has--in fact has been pretty flat for some decades now. Why is that? I don't know. I'm guessing nobody else on this thread knows. But I think it is interesting and worth considering in the big picture.

Have you ever heard of Ice Cores? From Greenland, the Antarctic, and glaciers from around the world? We have a very good record of CO2 for the last 800,000 years.

We have increased the CO2 in the atmosphere from 280 ppm to 400 ppm. That is a greater increase than the differance between a full blown ice age and the present interglacial. And H2O has a residence time of about 10 days in the atmosphere. CO2, at least 100 years.

A curious thing that you are so incredibly ignorant of the numbers on CH4. Prior to the industrial revolution, CH4 was about 780 ppb. Today it is over 1800 ppb. About a 250% increase, as compared to the 40% increase for CO2.

Really, you need to do some research before posting your ignorance for the whole world to see.

Well my research shows that those same ice cores demonstrate that we have had periods of much higher CO2 concentrations when the Earth was much cooler on average than now. So. . . .what does your research show about that?

 

[Saigon]

Foxfyre -

Please remember to present links and evidence to back up your claims.

 

[Billo_Really]

"People who argue against climate change,
would argue gravity plays no role in plane crashes"​

(That's how fuckin' stupid their argument is!)​

Climate change is not a debatable issue, it's a reality!

Howcum 97% of Scientists Say Humans Cause Climate Change
But Americans Still Don't Get It?

 

[Foxfyre]

Foxfyre -

Please remember to present links and evidence to back up your claims.

Over time on these global warming threads, I have posted numerous sources I believe to be worthy of consideration, and they are uniformly rejected or ignored by the AGW proponents. I will be happy to do a better job of continuing to do that, however, if the AGW religionists will do a better job of citing who prepared the pretty, colorful graphs and charts that they copy and paste over and over and over and over as if pasting them over and over somehow makes them more credible.

But even though I suspect you, Oldrocks, et al who are among the AGW proponents will ignore the refereneces cited and/or pooh pooh my sources as irrelevent, I will give you something to chew on re that:

"

Scientists from numerous disciplines have been examining CO2 since the beginning of the 19th century, and they have left behind a record of tens of thousands of direct, real-time measurements. These measurements tell a far different story about CO2 -- they demonstrate, for example, that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have fluctuated greatly, and that several times in the past 200 years CO2 concentrations have exceeded today's levels.

"The IPCC rejects these direct measurements, some taken by Nobel Prize winners. They prefer the view of CO2 as seen through ice."
The ice-core man

During the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today.

The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.

The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm.

According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.
Climate History

Dr Philip Stott, the professor emeritus of bio-geography at the University of London, told The Telegraph: "What has been forgotten in all the discussion about global warming is a proper sense of history."

According to Prof Stott, the evidence also undermines doom-laden predictions about the effect of higher global temperatures. "During the Medieval Warm Period, the world was warmer even than today, and history shows that it was a wonderful period of plenty for everyone."

In contrast, said Prof Stott, severe famines and economic collapse followed the onset of the Little Ice Age around 1300. He said: "When the temperature started to drop, harvests failed and England's vine industry died. It makes one wonder why there is so much fear of warmth."

The United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the official voice of global warming research, has conceded the possibility that today's "record-breaking" temperatures may be at least partly caused by the Earth recovering from a relatively cold period in recent history. While the evidence for entirely natural changes in the Earth's temperature continues to grow, its causes still remain mysterious.
Middle Ages were warmer than today, say scientists - Telegraph

.. . .Two authorities provide us with analysis of long-term surface temperature trends. Both agree on the global temperature trend until 1998, at which time a sharp divergence occurred. The UK Meteorological Office's Hadley Center for Climate Studies Had-Crut data shows worldwide temperatures declining since 1998. According to Hadley's data, the earth is not much warmer now than it was than it was in 1878 or 1941.

By contrast, NASA data shows worldwide temperatures increasing at a record pace - and nearly a full degree warmer than 1880.

The other two widely used global temperature data sources are from earth-orbiting satellites UAH (University of Alabama at Huntsville) and RSS (Remote Sensing Systems.) Both show decreasing temperatures over the last decade, with present temperatures barely above the 30 year average.

Confusing? How can scientists who report measurements of the earth's temperature within one one-hundredth of a degree be unable to concur if the temperature is going up or down over a ten year period? Something appears to be inconsistent with the NASA data - but what is it?

One clue we can see is that NASA has been reworking recent temperatures upwards and older temperatures downwards - which creates a greater slope and the appearance of warming. Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre has been tracking the changes closely on his Climate Audit site, and reports that NASA is Rewriting History, Time and Time Again. The recent changes can be seen by comparing the NASA 1999 and 2007 US temperature graphs. Below is the 1999 version, and below that is the reworked 2007 version.

. . . .Looking at the NASA website, we can see that the person in charge of the temperature data is the eminent Dr. James Hansen - Al Gore's science advisor and the world's leading long-term advocate of global warming.
Is the earth getting warmer, or cooler? ? The Register

 

[Sunshine]

The question of how much warming will result from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we skeptics are skeptical of. The climate system is amazingly complex, and the IPCC position that elements within the climate system (especially clouds) will change in ways which amplify the resulting small warming tendency is highly questionable, to say the least. If the climate system instead acts to reduce the warming, then anthropogenic global warming (AGW) becomes for all practical purposes a non-issue.

This represents what I believe to be the simplest description of how greenhouse gases cause warming of the surface. It bypasses all of the esoteric discussions and instead deals only with observations, which I believe cannot be easily explained any other way:

FIRST, warming can be caused by a decrease in the rate of energy loss by the climate system (or any other system, for that matter).

SECOND, IR absorbing gases are observed from satellites to reduce the rate of energy loss to space.

THEREFORE, adding more IR absorbing gases will cause a warming tendency.

QED.

Again I emphasize, however, the above simple argument is necessarily true only to the extent that all other elements of the climate system remain the same, which they will not. These other changes are called ‘feedbacks’, and they can either make or break theories of global warming and associated climate change.

Slaying the Slayers with the Alabama Two-Step « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

for konradv. you are both right and wrong with your simplistic view that CO2 runs the climate. the effect is real, the positive feedbacks are not. no positive feedback, no problem.

ever wonder why ocean water never exceeds 31C and is seldom above 29C? different pathways are expanded or contracted depending on how much energy is available to power them. and the natural order of things is to reduce the impact of disturbance to the system. negative feedback. homeostasis.

the climate models are rough projections of what may happen given the few parameters that are fed into them. slight changes in how clouds (or a host of other things) can radically change the outcome of those results. the feddbacks of the IPCC climate models are obviously only as good as the information and programing put into them. I think the real climate system acts to dampen the effect of extra CO2 as it does with many other things. obviously other disagree with me. but we shall see.

Do your part. Stop breathing.

 

[mamooth]

Well my research shows that those same ice cores demonstrate that we have had periods of much higher CO2 concentrations when the Earth was much cooler on average than now. So. . . .what does your research show about that?

It would show that orbital forcings and other forcings were at play.

Your stupid point relies on the dumb assumption that someone ever claimed that CO2 was the only factor at play. Since no one ever made such crazy claim, your point only successfully manages to shoot down your own dumb strawman. it doesn't address the actual global warming issue at all.

Let's check some of your other nonsense.

Working from memory here so there may be some variations in the numbers, in spite of huge increases in human activity that produces CO2, the human generated CO2 levels in the atmosphere is at most about 2% of all CO2 generated from all sources

So you fail to understand how an equilibrium system works. If I make $500 a week and spend $500 a week, my bank account doesn't change. If I make $510 a week and spend $500, my bank account goes up $10 a month, even though it's only a 2% increase.

and CO2 is miniscule among greenhouse gasses when compared to water vapor, also a greenhouse gas, that is also produced in massive quantities via human activity.

Water vapor immediately rains out. CO2 doesn't. Human emissions of water vapor mean zilch, because they don't stick around. Water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing.

But nobody on the AGW side seems to be looking at that.

Bull-freaking-shit. _Everyone_ on the AGW side looks at the effects of water vapor. Where did you hear such idiot propaganda?

 

[Saigon]

Foxfyre -

Ok, I've read those comments - but what point are you trying to make here?

Have you seen anyone here deny that CO2 was high at other times in the history of the earth?