Daniel Bailey How do we know global warming is man made in the first place ? ..... We have accurate, reliable data for the growth of atmospheric CO2 and for anthropogenic emissions (for details, see Cawley, 2011). The fact that the net natural flux is negative clearly shows that natural uptake has exceeded natural emissions every year for the last fifty years at least, and hence has been opposing, rather than causing the observed rise in atmospheric CO2. pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef200914u It is true that the fluxes between the oceans and atmosphere depend on temperature, so all things being equal, one would expect atmospheric CO2 to rise in a warming world. However, the thing the fake-skeptics normally ignore is that CO2 solubility increases with increasing difference in the partial pressures of CO2 between atmosphere and surface waters. In the real world, all things are not equal, our emissions have caused a difference in partial pressures, which is increasing the oceanic uptake, which more than compensates for the temperature driven change in fluxes. nature/.../v365/n6442/abs/365119a0.html The human-caused origin (anthropogenic) of the measured increase in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 is a cornerstone of predictions of future temperature rises. As such, it has come under frequent attack by people who challenge the science of global warming. One thing noteworthy about those attacks is that the full range of evidence supporting the anthropogenic nature of the CO2 increase seems to slip from sight. So what is the full range of supporting evidence? There are ten main lines of evidence to be considered: 1. The start of the growth in CO2 concentration coincides with the start of the industrial revolution, hence anthropogenic; radioviceonline/.../knorr2009_co2... 2. Increase in CO2 concentration over the long term almost exactly correlates with cumulative anthropogenic emissions, hence anthropogenic; scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/.../mauna_loa_seas_adj_fossil... 3. Annual CO2 concentration growth is less than Annual CO2 emissions, hence anthropogenic; globalcarbonproject.org/carbonb.../10/hl-full.htm pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef200914u cdiac.ornl.gov/by_new/bysubjec.html#atmospheric 4. Declining C14 ratio indicates the source is very old, hence fossil fuel or volcanic (ie, not oceanic outgassing or a recent biological source); archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/.../pdf/LevinRAD2000.pdf 5. Declining C13 ratio indicates a biological source, hence not volcanic; agu.org/pubs/crossref/2002/2001GC000264.shtml 6. Declining O2 concentration indicate combustion, hence not volcanic; ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/108.htm 7. Partial pressure of CO2 in the ocean is increasing, hence not oceanic outgassing; serc.carleton.edu/eslabs/carbon/7a.html 8. Measured CO2 emissions from all (surface and beneath the sea) volcanoes are one-hundredth of anthropogenic CO2 emissions; hence not volcanic; agu.org/pubs/pdf/2011EO240001.pdf 9. Known changes in biomass too small by a factor of 10, hence not deforestation; globalcarbonproject.org/carb.../10/hl-full.htm... globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/ 10. Known changes of CO2 concentration with temperature are too small by a factor of 10, hence not ocean outgassing. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lawdome75yrco2.svg The current, and ongoing, increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is due to human industrial activities. In scientific circles this is the climatological equivalent of the Earth being round - a fact so plainly obvious and supported by such a vast body of scientific evidence that to question its reality is absurd. It quickly becomes clear that it is the humans who have caused the rise in CO2 levels, by burning fossil fuels in the twentieth century. Every other hypothesis makes a host of predictions that do not pass the test of the evidence.
Posted on: Mon, 09 Jun 2014 23:30:18 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015