Climat Change is not a commie myth.

[Aractus]

I said that because I thought that was the case. I was wrong and admitted it. Get over it, already. Now, you have to ask yourself two things:

1) Who cares whether Mann also thought he was a recipient?
2) Does it change the fact of global warming, or do you simply have a need to bad mouth scientists?

1. The IPCC, The Nobel Comittie, Penn State, the courts and, finally, those whome Mann brought civil proceedings against.

2. Don't go putting words into my mouth. Mann, Al Gore, Tim Flannery are the kinds of people that go promoting climate change alarmism, all three have profited by doing this, of them (of course) Mann alone is a climate scientist, Gore is a politician and Flannery is - to quote Sheldon Cooper - one of the "dirt people". Mann is a dishonest person as I have shown. Same thing with his hockey stick graph. The rest of my preceding post I think shows you the criticism I have of the science itself.

Then why the hell did you even bring it up?

The EGHE is blamed by climate alarmists for causing global warming.

Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have increased nearly 30 per cent, methane concentrations have more than doubled, and nitrous oxide concentrations have risen by about 15 per cent.

So what?

The so what is that these very potent GHGs are having a demonstrably significant impact on the Earth's climate (not that you actually care).

"Potent"?

You mean "minor GHG's".

And what exactly is your definition of "significant"? is 0.1 degrees significant?

is that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is

1. only a part contributor to climate change,

Brilliant answer, Mr Obvious. All GHGs are part contributors to climate change.

You mean all "minor GHGs" or the "EGHE".

2. most likely responsible for no more than 0.1 degrees of the trend (less than 1/6th or 1/7th of the trend),

I'm pretty sure I've asked for a citation for this claim. If not, please provide a valid peer-reviewed citation to support your claim.

I'm not the one making the claim. Climate alarmists are the ones who make the claim that the trend is solely due to the EGHE. They imagine that if we had no effect over trace gasses in the atmosphere that there would be no climate change happening at all. They make this claim over and over saying there is nothing else they have found that is driving it!

3. is partly natural with humans contributing about 50% (estimated).

Well yes, Mr. Obvious, since humans have doubled the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, then by default, we have contributed to 50% of the CO2 in said atmosphere.

No.

The rate by which CO2 is increasing is influenced by anthropogenic CO2 by about 50%. If we contribute no anthropogenic CO2 at all, CO2 will still be increasing in our atmosphere, the carbon cycle is never "fully balanced". We are relatively close to the minimum amount of CO2 required to be in the atmosphere by plants and we are a long way off the maximum amount that the Earth's other life forms can tolerate. Climate alarmists often do not tell you this, and pretend that the CO2 increase is purely anthropogenic: it is not.

It is alarming because not only is it bad, it is getting worse at a rapid pace.

CO2 concentration increases is a "bad" thing?

Facts:

1)The planet's primary CO2 sink, the ocean, is rapidly becoming saturated with respect to absorption of atmospheric CO2;

That's your "fact"? Did you not listen when I explained that the increase in surface level CO2 concentrations has a negligible effect on the level of CO2 which is in the surface-level water (which is in a constant state of near equilibrium)?

2) The planet's secondary CO2 sink, land surface plants, have been severely impacted due to human activities such as clear cutting, arson and accidental fires, logging, and massive expansion of urban areas, all of which denudes the land of vegetation, reducing the ability of the planet to recycle atmospheric carbon.

Rainforests are a net emitter of CO2, not a net sink. Would your solution be to cut down the rainforests?

Firstly what you're obsessing over is a small variation and not necessarily a permanent decrease.

Halving the ocean's ability to absorb atmospheric CO2 is not a "small variation".

Half?

I don't know where you took chemistry (or if you even have any science education), but this is completely false. Surface waters (particularly ocean waters) are directly affected (and very rapidly) by changes in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. This is basic chemistry/oceanography.

It might have an effect if you say had increased CO2 levels 1000%, but at the levels we're talking about it has a negligible effect.

Here is a simple experience you can conduct. Buy some sea salt at your local aquarium, and set up a small tank of sea water in a room that you can close off (it doesn't have to be hermetically seal, just no obvious drafts from outside). Aerate the water with a standard aquarium pump. After an hour, take a CO2 measurement of the water using a standard aquarium test kit. Now, bring in a television, and sit down and watch TV for about 2 hours (watch a movie or something). When you are down, re-measure the CO2 concentration in the water, I can guarantee that it will have increased significantly over the first measurement. I've seen it change by an order of magnitude in a day. it is one of the least understood issues salt water aquarium owners face, one that has serious impacts on the aquatic life of an aquarium in exactly the same way it does in the ocean.

How does that relate to CO2 in the air as opposed to temperature and other factors?

Here's a good video I found yesterday:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxCzW6RWoLg

Dr Art Raiche at the No Carbon Tax rally held right here in Canberra. 16/08/2011