How does the current amount of anthropogenically emitted CO2 NOT warm the atmosphere?

The problem is that if CO2 were more than doubles to 800 ppma, the temperature variant would only be 0.05 C and the variant would only be realized at night.

CO2 can be a powerful greenhouse gas at high levels - Venus is about 300 to 400 C hotter than it should be because it is almost 100% CO2 atmosphere - but on earth, the levels would need to be at about 10,000 to 15,000 ppma to have an effect.

Natural emissions are about 1300 billion tons per year, and human emissions are about 33 billion tons per year.

Go back a few more years and find others did research before Arrhenius.

CO2 was also measured to be 512 ppma about 1813 and averaged at about 400 ppma from 1812 till 1960 when satellite measurements began to be used, which doesn't take into account variabilities.

All CO2 emissions is only 0.24% of any influence. Human emissions are only about 2.3% of all emissions - not enough to make any difference.

OM

What do any of you links about the Sun have to do with CO2 and the question?

<That would be a lot worse than any warming.>

Why? Natural global cooling is very slow.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb...

<To actually stop the rise of CO2 or reduce it significantly would require a radical step. And that usually means a whole lot of solar and wind power.>

That is why most people advocate reducing emissions over several decades.

<On top of all that, you have to buy into the argument that global warming is going to be bad.>

You only have to admit to the possibility that it could be bad.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-pos...

JimZ

<Based on plant stomata proxies, CO2 is commonly over 300 ppmV. We don't know what the CO2 emission would be without human emissions.>

Wrong! Once CO2 is in an ice core matrix, there is no mechanism to remove it from the matrix. Plant stomata are effected by drought. The combustion of hydrocarbons is the only mechanism by which CO2 could be added to the atmosphere at its current rate. Volcanoes only add 1% of the CO2 added by humans and the biological carbon cycle is balanced, or all of the atmospheric CO2 or all of the biomass would disappear in a few centuries.

Sagebrush

<Fact: The temperature has decreased in the last decade.>

Wrong! The ten warmest years in the instrumental record are 2010, 2005, 2009, 2007, 2002, 1998, 2006, 2003, 2004 and 2011.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

Pindar

<The University Of East Anglia's climate dept's official empirical figures state no warming since 1997.>

That is a lie. No one at East Anglia ever said anything about no warming since 1997. Even when asked about the lack of statistically significant warming from 1995-2009, Phil Jones said, "Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level."

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Phil-Jones-says-no...

He never said no warming, since 1997 or 1995.

CO2 may be contributing to warming but that doesn't mean it is catastrophic or that it is driving the warming. The increase may be far less than alarmist pretend to know. It has warmed over the last 300 years and certainly most of that time has been due to natural causes. I would like to get an alarmist to admit that but they typically aren't too willing to admit something that harms their cause.

Anyway, based on plant stomata proxies, CO2 concentrations vary far more than ice core data suggests. Based on plant stomata proxies, CO2 is commonly over 300 ppmV. We don't know what the CO2 emission would be without human emissions.

The ocean holds over 50 times the carbon as does the atmosphere. Since humans can only possibly be blamed for 100 ppmV of the CO2 in the atmosphere (It is likely less than that). the ocean holds at least 200 times the carbon that humans have emitted. The ocean doesn't just hold it however. If you ignore the shrill claims of ocean acidification from the usual suspects, you will find that the ocean actually precipitates carbonates. The limestone, dolomite, sandstones, siltstones with calcite cementation, and other processes have all resulted from carbon precipitating out of an ancient ocean and the process is ongoing.

Just because CO2 might contribute to warming, is no justification to destroy our economy and way of life. When you see who is behind the AGW movement, you can make fairly good educated guess about their intentions. Their intentions are to use flawed science to push a very unpopular and otherwise failed political agenda that is anti-capitalist and anti-western.

If we could reduce CO2 emissions without a huge cost, sure we would go for it. Why not? But the fact of the matter is that our society is powered by fossil fuels and currently there are no viable alternatives.

"If someone accepts that these CO2 molecules are contributing to warming, but feels that there may/must be natural processes also at work; wouldn't they support efforts to reduce CO2 and other GHG emissions since it must reduce the effects of any naturally driven warming?"

Who says that the future holds naturally driven warming? There are several indications of just the opposite:

1. Solar Cycle 24 is already weak and late and new projections have it with less sunspots and and earlier peak which in turn makes Solar Cycle 25 look even worse. That could translate to several decades of reduced sunspots and solar activity. http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=9272&utm_s...

2. "Is the Sun Heading for Another Maunder Minimum? Precursors of the Grand Solar Minima" http://journalofcosmology.com/ClimateChange104.htm...

3. "New Little Ice Age Instead of Global Warming?" http://www.schulphysik.de/klima/landscheidt/iceage...

Frankly, talk about warming doesn't really get my emotions going but talk about global cooling surely does. That would be a lot worse than any warming. But let's get back to reality.

We have had a carbon dioxide treaty in place since 1997. CO2 is still rising. To actually stop the rise of CO2 or reduce it significantly would require a radical step. And that usually means a whole lot of solar and wind power. If we are going to be realistic here, looking at the track record so far for wind and solar, any such radical step would hurt humanity immensely. Is that what you want?

On top of all that, you have to buy into the argument that global warming is going to be bad (when weighing in all the pluses and minuses). Given the complexity of climate science and the unknowns and uncertainty, even a careful analysis and prediction of the future could give a wide variety of different answers. And not to be too cynical but I believe this sort of thing is ripe of certain people to highlight the answers they want and discard the rest.

I'm willing to bet that if you took most people who truly believe we need to reduce CO2 (which usually means stopping drilling, piping, shipping and burning fossil fuels) and put them in an interrogation room with a bright light, they'd admit that they didn't care if the Earth warmed or cooled but that stopping evil oil was a worthy goal all on its own. You don't think that way, do you?

By the way, I avoided your main question because CO2 does warm the atmosphere. We are not arguing about that we arguing about how much and what effect that will have on the biosphere. We could also argue that it might be a good thing if the future natural climate cycles are trending towards cooling which is known to be detrimental.

jim z --

>>It has warmed over the last 300 years and certainly most of that time has been due to natural causes. I would like to get an alarmist to admit that but they typically aren't too willing to admit something that harms their cause. <<

Well, well, aren't you the clever one?

How convenient that you choose as your starting point the bottom of the Little Ice Age.

And, what the Hell do you mean we won't admit it?

We're the ones who identified it - defined it - named it - and explained it.

Quit acting like you know what the Hell you are talking about. You must be one of those geologists who don't know anything except how to recognize foraminifera when you see them.

Fact: CO2 has increased in the last decade. Fact: The temperature has decreased in the last decade. That is what you call indisputable.

John Barnes, climate scientist: “If you look at the last decade of global temperature, it’s not increasing,” Barnes said. “There’s a lot of scatter to it. But the [climate] models go up. And that has to be explained. Why didn’t we warm up?”..."We do have satellites that can measure the energy budget, but there’s still assumptions there. There’s

assumptions about the oceans, because we don’t have a whole lot of measurements in the ocean.”.

CO2 has little effect in the green movement but “The whole idea of anthropogenic global warming is completely unfounded. There appears to have been money gained by Michael Mann, Al Gore and UN IPCC‟s Rajendra Pachauri as a consequence of this deception, so it's fraud.‖ -- South African astrophysicist Hilton Ratcliffe, a member of the Astronomical Society of Southern Africa (ASSA) and the Astronomical Society of the Pacific and a Fellow of the British Institute of Physics says.

So you see this green movement is only referring to the color of the money these con artists are bilking out of us.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating is an old proverb. It certainly is true here where with all your learning and facts and coercing money out of our pockets and highbrow learned figures doing the GW dance Mother nature the ultimate computer model has proven you wrong.

So your question is mute. Fact: CO2 has increased in the last decade. Fact: The temperature has decreased in the last decade.

Lampsy, Lampsy, Lampsy. Did you read my answer? The second paragraph down is a Dr Barnes who was a warmie who is lamenting the fact that the temperatures haven't gone up in the last decade. Where is your source for it being otherwise? Now if you say NASA they just ousted a scientist for exposing them for cooking the books. Do you trust them just like you trusted East Anglia and Penn State?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesd%E2%80%A6

If you read this article it shows where a Dr David Whitehouse had won a £100 bet made on the programme four years ago with climatologist Dr James Annan. Annan predicted temperatures would rise in that period; Whitehouse predicted they wouldn't. Annan lost.

Why would a died in the wool warmie part WITH HIS OWN MONEY if the temperature would have risen in any way? Liberals are free to part with someone else's money but it takes an act of congress to pry the sheckles from their own purse. So the evidence commonly accepted is that the earth has had a cooling trend for the last decade.

“The dysfunctional nature of the climate sciences is nothing short of a scandal. Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community.” The global warming establishment “has actively suppressed research results presented by researchers that do not comply with the dogma of the IPCC.” -- Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring, of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University.

Why are you warmies so eager to cling to corrupt data and suppress the truth? I'll answer that for you. Billions of dollars.

Now for the second portion of you question to me. So try answering the question- you believe CO2 is not driving warming. Why?

Other than the earth has been cooling in the last decade and the CO2 has been rising which I just stated and sourced there is Al Gore. In his production 'Inconvenient Truth' where he made a chart and showed the correlation between CO2 and temperature. It was impressive but when you closely examined the data where he derived the chart from it clearly had the temperature rising before the CO2 in some instances and CO2 rising before the temperature. He tricked us by resolution. Now if you know anything about science you will know the cause is always is before the effect. To put it in layman's terms, take a pot of water. When you put the pot on the flame the water will heat up. It is never the other way visa-vie the water heats up and then you put it on the flame.

Lampsy, Lampsy, Lampsy. Did you read your own question? "So is this energy not driving or at least contributing to the current warming."

You are saying that there is a warming and that is not so. You are really stretching it. These two examples show definitely they are not warming. You assume too much if you think the temperature table topped. I was taking a concrete example of two dedicated card carrying warmies who had to reluctantly admit that there was no WARMING!

Furthermore, I don't have to prove anything! It is not our side that is asking for more money and enacting inane laws.

JEFF M: Ha! Ha! Here we go again. Every time you get trapped you change the game rules. What is next? Like I've said before, you fellows should define Global Warming before you pick our pockets.

Sam Davis: You are in error when you state that we are close to that point now. The retention of certain frequencies due to CO2 increasing though will never be nothing as it will never reach the X-axis. It's similar to half-life in that the amount will become smaller without ever reaching nothing. As well, I've been told by spectroscopists. that if one section of the spectrum becomes saturated all that happens is the mean radiative level goes up. Measurements show, though, that while the center of the 15 micron band related to CO2 absorption is saturated that shoulders are not.

Image 4-5 at the bottom of the following link demonstrates what happens with increasing CO2

http://forecast.uchicago.edu/archer.ch4.greenhouse...

Actual measurements of changing outbound radiation

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI42...

Page 3987: Graphs depicting measurements of outbound radiation at specific wavelengths. The left side of the graph shows the measurements that are attributed to one half of the band associated with CO2 absorption.

Page 3990. Graphs depicting changes in outbound radiation between the three data sets and their statistical significance.

Sagebrush - Fact: Global warming deals with an imbalance in the energy balance of the planet. This does not mean the atmosphere or sea surfaces will continue getting warmer as that energy is redistributed and used elsewhere for various things. What it does mean is that the energy balance is out of wack. Anthropogenic global warming means it is out of wack due to increased retention from the burning of fossil fuels, which has been measured. We don't have the capability to measure everywhere on the planet. We can only measure between 700m and 2000m below sea level. It is known that the energy imbalance is there as has been measured by satellites. Taking quotes, as seems the norm recently around here by deniers, does not mean it does not exist.

Edit: Unfortunately Jeffrey Cole is only tell you part of the story, as is usual with him. Other areas he's completely wrong in. For instance, his statement concerning a doubling of CO2 only being 0.05C when every knowledgeable climatologist, even people like Lindzen, agree that a double of CO2 would amount to 1C even without feedbacks. Regarding his statement that CO2 can only be a powerful greenhouse gas at high levels, my above peer reviewed scientific links say otherwise. Regarding his statement about natural emissions vs human emissions he is not telling you that those natural emissions are offset by natural carbon sinks. Humans emit 33.5 billion tons annually while the atmosphere is increasing by 15.6 billion tons annually. About half of those human emissions are being absorbed by such things as the oceans as the try and maintain balance. In the time periods previous to Arrhenius yes, CO2 was measured. However Arrhenius measured CO2 in 'FREE AIR'. This means away from any CO2 emitters such as those in cities and so on. He ignores the 'free air' aspect.

http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/literature/Callendar...

I have no idea where he gets the "All CO2 emissions is only 0.24% of any influence". If he wants to talk about publicly available data he should stop lying about it.

Ok 2 points.

1. Just how is it possible to show that something does not do something?

2. What warming? The University Of East Anglia's climate dept's official empirical figures state no warming since 1997- fact.

I think what you really want hear as an answer is that it's such a tiny tiny amount, too small to affect anything.

Because the heat trapping effect of CO2 is logarithmic. It gets to a point where more CO2 has no more heat trapping effect at all. We are very close to that point now.

The saner skeptics talk, legitimately, about *how much* warming there will be, and/or what effects it will have other than warming.

The "skeptics" and deniers kind of do the debating equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and saying "La, la, la, I can't hear you"...