And well over 750 gigatons of CO2 is released by Nature each year. The percentage added by man does not even appear as a speck on a graph of the overall CO2 amount. Most Of The Rise In CO2 Likely Comes From Natural Sources http://notrickszone.com/2013/03/02/most-of-the-rise-in-co2-likely-comes-from-natural-sources/
There is a lot of confusion. Both CO2 and water vapor are indeed greenhouse gases. THAT is not by any means their only role however! If one considers only their role as greenhouse gases, then one can not understand their affect on climate. Their greenhouse role requires the participation of an absorbing surface, the Earth's as it were. The result is that high quality solar quanta in the visible and ultraviolet regions are degraded into heat (infrared) by absorption and vibrational relaxation with coincident emission. The result is absorbed solar quanta being emitted from the Earth as lower quality infrared quanta. The greenhouse gases are transparent to visible light (they are colorless) and to the solar ultraviolet spectrum reaching the Earth. They partially absorb both infrared radiation from the sun and that emitted by the Earth however, and then they radiate it back it in all directions. Think of the as Earth radiating heat, and the greenhouse gases acting as an insulating blanket to reduce the rate at which that radiated heat escapes from the atmosphere. Think of the Sun as the main source of thermal energy at the Earth's surface. One of the important roles played by the greenhouse gasses is to moderate the atmosphere's temperature and keep it from swinging wildly day to night. If the concentration of CO2 and/or water vapor increases, ceteris paribis, it is as though additional insulation is added between the Earth's surface and outer space. Then atmospheric heat will be dissipated to outer space more slowly; the mean temperature of the atmosphere should rise some, and there should be less difference between night and day temperatures. However "ceteris paribis" never applies to changes in greenhouse gas concentrations. The assumption that even small changes in atmospheric concentrations can be treated as though they occur in isolation and independent of other biosphere phenomena is ridiculous. When CO2 rises, for example, photosynthesis in plants speeds up almost instantaneously and more CO2 is sequestered by plants and converted to carbohydrates. Later, when those plants die and decompose aerobically much of the captured CO2 is released; when they decompose anaerobically the carbohydrates may undergo reduction instead. When water vapor increases, clouds form, etc. It may rain or snow. When water evaporates the water absorbs heat and the surroundings are cooled. In other words, the atmosphere is extremely complex. Differential heating causes convection, i.e., wind, and chaotic mixing. The CO2 and water vapor content of the air varies from one place to another. The concentrations of these gases are constantly changing, and both CO2 and water vapor have important roles to play other than as greenhouse gases. In some of these roles they help cool the Earth and in others they help warm it. Current models for the atmosphere are nowhere near being useful for predicting temperature in the future. It's absurd to think they are, or even to suggest they might be. I'm confident that the errors made by those who jumped prematurely to the conclusion that the Earth would experience disastrous run-away warming due to man caused CO2 emissions will in time become legendary. The first error was to underestimate the difficulty understanding climate to the point of being able to predict it, the second was to vastly oversimplify the role of greenhouse gases and their interactions, the third was to mistake correlation with cause, the fourth was to be suckered by the post hoc fallacy, and the fifth was to become emotionally involved and blinded by public approbation to the detriment of objectivity and the ability to admit mistakes. Once we finally recognize that we've got much of the last 40 years of climate research wrong, I fear the next error committed will be to assume we can stop worrying about the affect of man's activities on our biosphere, or that we needn't be concerned about the amount and rate of fossil fuel burning, or worse, that we needn't be concerned about climate change.
You're correct of course. The important thing is the net difference between sourcing and sinking, man's emissions being part of sourcing. As I pointed out in a previous post, despite numerous claims to the contrary it is not possible to compute directly how much of the observed increase in CO2 is due to man, because the precision and kind of the data needed to do this is so far unobtainable. But we can roughly estimate how much CO2 we put into the air. It is true that the amount of CO2 emitted from fossil fuel burning is dwarfed by either the total sourcing or total sinking of CO2. But obviously it is not dwarfed by the net difference. It isn't outrageous to note that the observed increase in CO2 from the late 19th century on is a little less than what is estimated to be released by man's activities. It is reasonable that the increase may very well be coming from man, but very hard to prove it. The turnover times assumed by the IPCC are obviously ridiculously too great, so it isn't the same molecules that were released in 1899 that are in the air today by any means. The part that appears to be all wrong is the association of the observed increase with the cause for an observed temperature rise. Temperature and CO2 increase appear highly correlated, and Salby's work indicates that is not merely fortuitous. It is likely, however, that the temperature rise is a main cause of the CO2 increase, rather than the other way around because of the phase shift between temperature and CO2 concentration changes. That would seem to suggest that sinking may be adequate to take care of man's emissions but can't handle the additional CO2 coming from temperature rise and that most of the increase we observe is because of temperature increase. Rate of emission and rate of temperature rise is something not well addressed as of yet. Salby is one of the first to recognized its importance. We don't understand climate yet and the period from the late 19th century through June 2014 is but a blink of the eye in on a geological time scale.
Yes it's complicated. If one wants yearly resolution to climate prediction. But the relationship between atmospheric levels of CO is a simple and direct one. CO2 levels act like the setpoint of the earth's thermostat. The following relationship is pretty direct. The relationship between the earth including the ocean's heat and CO2 levels is even more direct. There is a very high probability that trends will continue and as CO2 levels continue to rise so will the earths's heat content, as they have been. It's not that hard to model these general trends. As they get a better handle on the ocean the resolution of the models should get better. Your post as usual is ludicrously pretentious but worse, your conclusion is wrong. Hell, you can't even admit the recent CO2 spike is from man.
"Carbon dioxide hysteria is useful to governments, which can then impose a carbon tax, and to investors, like Al Gore, who plan to deal in carbon credits. Scientists, too, can get easy grants to study global warming, while there are no grants to research the contrary. As one biologist put it, if he wants to get a grant to study a particular animal, it will be probably denied. However, if he phrases the grant request as studying the effect of global warming on the fur of this animal, it would probably be approved. This leads to scientists who depend on the support of global warming theory for their money and, if data does not confirm it, a little fudging might be needed, as was exposed at the University of Anglia." Read more here: http://www.heraldonline.com/2014/02/28/5726621/global-warming-claims-are-a-hoax.html#storylink=cpy
Poor futurecurrents... sounds like you're having another tantrum... did you global warming in your diaper again? Explain how a gas that's only 1/2500th of the atmosphere, which leads and lags temperatures and has been uncoupled from temperatures for up to 800 years at a time, trumps ALL other physical, chemical and biological processes that govern the planet and "controls the temps." You can't and neither can "climate scientists, " not even the ones at the AMA.
Liar; you never explained it because you can't. All you can do is parrot the AGW moonbat line like the useful idiot you are. You have zero intellect and zero integrity and even deny the pause and failure of the models that even the IPCC admits to. And you're such a dumbass, you even "think" I'm Lucrum