How would you improve this article on how much global warming humans have caused?

I would suggest linking to the more pertinent page at NASA if you're going to reference it as a source for the 390 ppm CO2 concentration figure:

http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/index.cfm#Ca...

("...The atmospheric CO2 concentration as of 2010 is about 390 ppmv. This gives us..." - adjust hyperlinked "390")

Also, where you discuss isotopic analysis, you mention C14 but do not follow up on it. Doesn't the burning of fossil fuels subsequently cause a drop in the C14:C12 ratio in the atmosphere because the C14 in the fuels has decayed almost entirely?

Edit:

Actually, since NASA cites the NOAA as their source for CO2 concentrations, you might as well go right to the source:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/#global

Edit: Here are a couple of sources on that issue:

http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html

http://www.climatehq.com/2009/12/atmospheric-carbo...

The two papers cited in Radix that I'm trying to find, to no avail yet, are:

"Samuel S. Butcher, Robert J. Charlson et al. (eds),

Global Biogeochemical Cycles. San Diego, CA, Academic Press 1992"

and:

"D. Schimel, D. Alves, I. Enting, M. Heimann, F. Joos,

D. Raynaud, T. Wigley, CO2 and the carbon cycle. Pages 76-86

in [IPCC 95]"

It's however important to note that the measurements of the C14 percentage are only accurate in respect to natural variation up until 1954, which is when nuclear testing greatly increased the amount of C14 in the atmosphere. I do not think there is a good way of correcting for that very unnatural increase to see how it would have been had we continued with fossil fuel burning but not nuclear testing.

There are quite a few journal articles that have been posted here, by myself and others that talk about other causes of at least portions of the warming. You state that the increase is conservatively 0.5 degrees, however you have arrived at this number not taking those articles into account. Jim advice is sound, Even if you disagree with some of the other theories out their about the warming, you should be placing out the information and the rebuttal. In fact you should be placing out the rebuttal for your own side of the issue. Now given that what you are doing is not exactly a pure wiki article, you can place your own bias on here, but a normal wiki tries to avoid this at all cost. All cost of even including theories that you might find absurd.

Currently the article you have written serves as a introductory scientific argument for the warmer agenda. It neither has the detail necessary, nor does it give enough overall information to make an informed decision or even be able to debate said issue in this forum here.

If, however, I were to take your 0.5 (a number that I have been criticized for mentioning before) degrees of warming seen from a 40% raise in CO2 and extrapolate that to a doubling of CO2 in a linear fashion, then I would get another 0.75 degrees of warming in the future. If I even account for the possibility that not all of the warming has been seen from the 40% increase, I would still get less 1.2 degrees of additional warming. Given that warming caused directly by CO2 would follow a logarithmic increase, and not a linear increase, the assumption of linearity is rather generous.

All in all, your article is not too bad, but if one reads it and has the ability to comprehnd it, then one would not be led to the 7 degree of increase conclusion that engender the runaway AGW argument. In fact, I like the article, because I think it adequately displays why I think the prediction of 7 degrees of warming are not supportable by the warming that we have seen. Thus the pretense that the flawed "correlation equals causation" models fully agree with the empirical data is false. Thus advertising to the public and the politicains that the models are a certainty is wrong.

"Additionally, the fact that all known natural radiative forcings have been approximately zero tell us that not only can human effects account for the warming, but natural effects cannot."

This statement is a major problem. You can't just go around stating "facts". And that "fact" about natural forcing being zero (I preseume you mean over the course of the time humans started emitting CO2, which is indeed very convenient) you claimed here is probably the most important part of this whole issue.

You expect people to believe that without the human addition of CO2, then the pacific decadal oscillation, sunspot variations, changes to TSI, ENSO, cosmic ray levels, natural disturbances like volcanic activity, etc. would have all summed up to a zero change in global temperature over the past 150 years? The only people swallowing that enormous pill are those who already had a glass of kool-aid in their hand.

Get rid of all the humans. (Sarcasm)

It has been proven that the temperature, at this rate would increase by 0.1 degrees Celsius by 2100.

It's only a natural cycle. Temperatures fluctuate all the time.

Sorry, but Al Gore lied (Al Gore lies? Really?) And he didn't invent the internet either.

The explanation of ocean acidification was a little rushed. We had to take in faith that somehow dissolved CO2 leads to more H+. Why don't you write out the reaction of CO2 and water forming carbonic acid? You could also explain briefly how this would decrease ocean productivity by making it harder for animals to build carbonate shells, etc.

The dilution of the CO2 with respect to 14C shows that the extra CO2 is from an ancient carbon source (on the thousand year timescale), and not due to any change in the recycling of recently fixed carbon. It does not in itself distinguish between volcaninc and fossil fuel CO2, but we know how much of each is going in to the atmosphere.

The effect of CO2 in the ocean can be expressed as

CO2 + H2O <=> H+(aq) + HCO3- (aq)

followed by CaCO3(s) + H+(aq) <=> Ca2+(aq) + HCO3- (aq)

or, overall,

CaCO3(s) + CO2 + H2O <=> Ca2+ + 2 HCO3-

If you pursue this at all, worth mentioning that modern corals build their skeletons from aragonite, which is more soluble than the calcite used by mesozoic corals, and therefore more vulnerable to these reactions.

Hope this helps

Nice job

In science, it is vitally important to accurately list other theories and possibilities and accurately list the limitations of what is known and what is assumed. You have completely failed in that regard. You provide a one sided argument that is more about cheer leading for a cause. You suggest theories which are not well understood are factual. They aren't. We don't know what the CO2 concentration would be without human emissions. It might be 280, it might be 380 ppmV. To pretend that you know amounts to psuedoscience. We have emitted enough for it to rise to 450 ppmV, yet it hasn't. You don't know why it hasn't. You just have little muddled theories of carbon sinks and you don't understand them very well either.

I am guessing that Paul thinks the ocean is high in C14. It isn't. If the ocean releases carbon because it has warmed, then it would also be deficient in C14.

I feel like I am arguing with religious zealots who aren't interested in the actual science. They are only interested in protecting their cause.

I would suggest that it say that everyone are a bunch of suckers actually believing that humans can cause global warming especially the earth being around for millions of years warming and cooling all on its own

Thanks once again for a straight foreword and easy to understand link.As I try to educate myself to this very important subject,your links and answers are a refreshing change to the politics of others.

. I KNOW FOR A FACT THAT DEQ,EAP, HEALTH DEPT, 95% CITY OFFICIALS ARE ALL OUT FOR GOVERMENT GRANTS TO NOT FIX --HIT THE RIGHT WAY THEY DO IT THE POOREST CHEAPEST TO FILL THEIR POCKETS WITH STOLEN MONEY IF THE CITY DONT FOOL THE PEOPLE THERE AND EAP,DEQ, HEALTH DEPT,,,ETC, DONT COVER THE THE CITYS *** NO LOANS NO GRANTS,,LOWER TAXES,,,**** FIXED RIGHT,,THEY WOULD NOT BE RICH I SEE IT EVERY DAY WHERE I LIVE OKLAHOMA,,,, OUR WATER IS MAN MADE POISION AND IF THE DEQ CANT FIX IT,,,THE EAP DONT WANT TO INVESTIGATE CAUSE DEQ GUY SAID IF WE DO THIS AND HAVE TO MAKE IT RIGHT AFTER KNOWING FOR YEARS WE ARE FIRED,, AND ITS LIKE A OKLAHOMA STATE WIDE ,,,,, COVER UP OR WE LOOSE ALL THE MONEY TO PAD OUR POCKETS,,, STORMWATER LADY FREAKS OUT AT MY HOME DONT ,,,HEAR FROM HER FOR 6 WEEKS LOST THE 3 BIG BOTTLES OF CONTAMINATED CONSTRUCTION OF A WWTP FLOWING INTO THE WOODS KILLING **** ALL AROUND NOT ONE AND I HOPE,,,SOMEONE READS THIS,,,,,,,,,NOT ONE OF ANY OF THE REPORTS,,,,,PHONE CALLS DEQ, HEALTH DEPT,,, CITY DISTRICT NOTHINGS,, 2,,,,,3,,,,5,,,,WHO CARES LETS TURN OUR HEADS,, BETTER YET THE WHOLE FU---- STATE TO LOOSE MY BLUE,GREEN,,RED,,,WATER SAMPLES