Climat Change is not a commie myth.

[KichigaiNeko]

Where are the graphs for the past 5 million years oro?

I have seen something like them and yes our current contributions are valid to the call to reduce and then again we have been doing this for nigh on 50 years shouldn't we start to be seeing a slowing/ peak?

[Aractus]

You're wrong. It wasn't awarded to the authors - it was awarded to the IPCC. Mann took it to court as you know. Mann believes he won the award, he did not.

Yes, it was awarded to the IPCC. "The IPCC leadership agreed
to present personalized certificates for contributing to the award
of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC to scientists that had
contributed substantially to the preparation of IPCC reports. Such
certificates, which feature a copy of the Nobel Peace Prize diploma,
were sent to coordinating lead authors, lead authors, review editors,
Bureau members, staff of the technical support units and staff of the
secretariat from the IPCC’s inception in 1988 until the award of the prize in 2007. The IPCC has not sent such certificates to contributing
authors, expert reviewers and focal points."

Are we clear?

You were caught out in a lie. Are we clear?

This is what you wrote:

• In fact, it was a joint award given to the authors of the 2007 IPCC climate report and Al Gore.

It was NOT awarded to the authors of the 2007 IPCC climate report, it was awarded to The IPCC and to Al Gore. You lied and are trying to cover it up.

I am going to assume you mean enhanced greenhouse emissions.

Enhanced Greenhouse Effect - there's nothing really "Enhanced" about it though since it discounts the primary GHG, but that's another matter entirely.

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 point I made, which I'll assume you cannot refute, is that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is 1. only a part contributor to climate change, 2. most likely responsible for no more than 0.1 degrees of the trend (less than 1/6th or 1/7th of the trend), 3. is partly natural with humans contributing about 50% (estimated).

Carbon dioxide is the single largest contributor to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Increases in carbon dioxide emissions account for approximately 70 per cent of the enhanced greenhouse effect. Using ice cores from the Antarctic, scientists estimate that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in the pre-industrial era had a value of approximately 280 parts per million (ppm).

That's the concentration at the Antarctic ice cap and is not necessarily representative of global CO2 mean concentrations. It's much like water vapour concentrations in the atmosphere, it is not the same everywhere in the globe. If you're interested you can see this for yourself from satellite data from NASA.

Measurements in 2005 put it at 379 ppm. The 2005 figures also tell a story of alarming growth. The 2005 carbon dioxide levels exceeded the natural range of atmospheric carbon dioxide over the last 650,000 years (180 to 300 ppm). In addition, even though there has been year to year variability (at an average of 1.9 ppm), the annual growth rate of carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere was larger during the 10 years between 1995 and 2005 than it had been since the beginning of continuous direct atmospheric measurements between 1960 and 2005 (average: 1.4 ppm per year) (IPCC, 2007).

Why is it "alarming" (see my emphasis above)?

It is true that natural sources of carbon dioxide - plant respiration and decomposition of organic matter - generate more than 10 times the amount of carbon dioxide produced by human activities such as driving motor vehicles, heating homes and powering factories. However, in the past, natural processes that remove or sequester carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, namely photosynthesis and the carbon reservoir function of the oceans, balanced out these releases.

Bullshit. You're lying again.

CO2 concentrations are like the global climate - they're always changing, at least slightly. Over long enough periods of time they balance out.

We now have a situation where not only are additional sources producing and emitting carbon dioxide in significant quantities but the natural sinks that remove carbon dioxide are also being compromised.

I really wish you would think about what you're regurgitating before propagating it as if it's gospel truth.

Trees and forests are being cut down for a variety or reasons, including agriculture and human settlements.

Yet again you are wilfully lying. More net forests are presently being created than destroyed. For the record, I actually do not support importing foreign timber and believe Australia should become self-sufficient - and that means more wodchipping in Tasmania, which of course can be managed sustainably without deforesting more of the State.

At the same time, oceans, including the North and South Atlantic oceans, are reaching their carbon dioxide saturation point because their absorptive capacity is failing to keep pace with the increase in carbon dioxide emissions. A 10-year study by the University of East Anglia found that the North Atlantic halved its absorption of carbon dioxide between the mid-90s and 2000 to 2005. Scientists previously thought the carbon sink function of the oceans would help offset the increase in anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. However, this appears not to be the case. Even though a decrease in the ability of the oceans to absorb carbon dioxide was anticipated by scientists and even factored into some climate models, it seems to be happening 40 years earlier than expected.

Firstly what you're obsessing over is a small variation and not necessarily a permanent decrease. Secondly, and what you don't see talked about since it's a "boring" point to make, increasing CO2 has a negligible effect on the surface-level water's CO2 content, and hence a negligible effect on CO2 absorption.

[KichigaiNeko]

As for the IPCC I am thinking that they are about as useful as the UN (aka = worthless) They do not instigate any "control" just bleat and carry on. The IPCC, UN IMF are not worth the time of day imho.

[Minimalist]

I am sort of intrigued how a mere century can be considered other than a short term variation of 4.5 billion years.

Part of the problem is that the same bunch of fools who deny climate change think the earth is only 6,000 years old because some idiot did some math based on their fucking bible, Mouse.

Somehow, it always comes back to that same shitty book, eh?

[orogenicman]

Where are the graphs for the past 5 million years oro?

I have seen something like them

AFAIK there are no proxies that go back 5 million years that give us sufficient resolution.

and yes our current contributions are valid to the call to reduce and then again we have been doing this for nigh on 50 years shouldn't we start to be seeing a slowing/ peak?

Doing what for 50 years? Reducing greenhouse gases? On what planet?

[orogenicman]

Yes, it was awarded to the IPCC. "The IPCC leadership agreed
to present personalized certificates for contributing to the award
of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC to scientists that had
contributed substantially to the preparation of IPCC reports. Such
certificates, which feature a copy of the Nobel Peace Prize diploma,
were sent to coordinating lead authors, lead authors, review editors,
Bureau members, staff of the technical support units and staff of the
secretariat from the IPCC’s inception in 1988 until the award of the prize in 2007. The IPCC has not sent such certificates to contributing
authors, expert reviewers and focal points."

Are we clear?

You were caught out in a lie. Are we clear?

This is what you wrote:

• In fact, it was a joint award given to the authors of the 2007 IPCC climate report and Al Gore.

It was NOT awarded to the authors of the 2007 IPCC climate report, it was awarded to The IPCC and to Al Gore. You lied and are trying to cover it up.

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?

I am going to assume you mean enhanced greenhouse emissions.

Enhanced Greenhouse Effect - there's nothing really "Enhanced" about it though since it discounts the primary GHG, but that's another matter entirely.

Then why the hell did you even bring it up?

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).

The point I made, which I'll assume you cannot refute,

Poor assumption.

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.

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.

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.

Carbon dioxide is the single largest contributor to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Increases in carbon dioxide emissions account for approximately 70 per cent of the enhanced greenhouse effect. Using ice cores from the Antarctic, scientists estimate that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in the pre-industrial era had a value of approximately 280 parts per million (ppm).

That's the concentration at the Antarctic ice cap and is not necessarily representative of global CO2 mean concentrations. It's much like water vapour concentrations in the atmosphere, it is not the same everywhere in the globe. If you're interested you can see this for yourself from satellite data from NASA.

I hate to break it to you, but the satellite measurements have a range from 382ppm to 389ppm, for a difference of 7 ppm, and this is for an Earth that has lots of human emitted CO2. Since pre-industrial Earth had far less human CO2 emissions, even if you assumed a range of 7ppm for prior Earth CO2 measurements, you cannot get to the minimum of what we are seeing today. If anything, the likely range for the ice cap measurements are narrower than what they are today, and so the ice cap measurements cannot be so summarily dismissed.

Measurements in 2005 put it at 379 ppm. The 2005 figures also tell a story of alarming growth. The 2005 carbon dioxide levels exceeded the natural range of atmospheric carbon dioxide over the last 650,000 years (180 to 300 ppm). In addition, even though there has been year to year variability (at an average of 1.9 ppm), the annual growth rate of carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere was larger during the 10 years between 1995 and 2005 than it had been since the beginning of continuous direct atmospheric measurements between 1960 and 2005 (average: 1.4 ppm per year) (IPCC, 2007).

Why is it "alarming" (see my emphasis above)?

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

It is true that natural sources of carbon dioxide - plant respiration and decomposition of organic matter - generate more than 10 times the amount of carbon dioxide produced by human activities such as driving motor vehicles, heating homes and powering factories. However, in the past, natural processes that remove or sequester carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, namely photosynthesis and the carbon reservoir function of the oceans, balanced out these releases.

Bullshit. You're lying again.

This should be good.

CO2 concentrations are like the global climate - they're always changing, at least slightly. Over long enough periods of time they balance out.

Which is what was said above. Congratulations.

We now have a situation where not only are additional sources producing and emitting carbon dioxide in significant quantities but the natural sinks that remove carbon dioxide are also being compromised.

I really wish you would think about what you're regurgitating before propagating it as if it's gospel truth.

Facts:

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

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.

Do you have any problem with the above facts? If so, what issues do you have with these facts?

Trees and forests are being cut down for a variety or reasons, including agriculture and human settlements.

Yet again you are wilfully lying. More net forests are presently being created than destroyed.

A lie? I think not.

http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/i3010e/i3010e00.htm

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
State of the world's Forests

Between 2000 and 2010, the world lost
about 130 million hectares of forest (about 3.2 percent
of the total forest area in 2000), but gained back about
78 million hectares, mainly as planted forests and natural
forest expansion. The net loss of forest area was
1.3 percent over the ten-year period.

At the same time, oceans, including the North and South Atlantic oceans, are reaching their carbon dioxide saturation point because their absorptive capacity is failing to keep pace with the increase in carbon dioxide emissions. A 10-year study by the University of East Anglia found that the North Atlantic halved its absorption of carbon dioxide between the mid-90s and 2000 to 2005. Scientists previously thought the carbon sink function of the oceans would help offset the increase in anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. However, this appears not to be the case. Even though a decrease in the ability of the oceans to absorb carbon dioxide was anticipated by scientists and even factored into some climate models, it seems to be happening 40 years earlier than expected.

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".

Secondly, and what you don't see talked about since it's a "boring" point to make, increasing CO2 has a negligible effect on the surface-level water's CO2 content, and hence a negligible effect on CO2 absorption.

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.

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.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

[quote='A_Nony_Mouse' pid='438770' dateline='1367348600']


Scientists also know that if one builds two greenhouses one with IR reflecting glass and the other without the effect is the same. That means trapped IR is not the cause of the increased temperature of a greenhouse.

According to New Scientist 4 June 2011 pg 6 the human contribution in 2010 for CO2 emissions 30.6 GT up 1.6GT from 2009, G as in giga as in billion tons.

If one prefers "secular" sources this number was repeated in a New York Times article, 12/08/14 31.6 GT human in 2011.

Sure sounds awfuller than the 6GT you mention. But the total atmospheric CO2 750-830 GT making the uncertainty 80GT about +/-5% +/-40GT. One must note the human contribution per year is less than the uncertainty.

If the human contribution were cumulative we can do the following.

As CO2 makes up only 0.03% of the atmosphere this means roughly a 0.04% increase in CO2 per year or or 0.0001% increase in total atmospheric CO2.

So, in other words, you believe that the greenhouse effect doesn't exist. I am afraid that you are going to have a difficult time convincing most of the world's scientists that what you believe is true.[/quote]

I did in fact recite the experiment with greenhouses with two different IR transmitting materials. I did correctly describe the results. That is called physical evidence. That you accuse me of not believing does not differ from accusing me of not have faith in the EFFECT of greenhouse gases despite the physical evidence of the experimental results.

Why do you demand I believe despite of and contrary to the physical evidence?

---

???

[quote=n. mouse]To assume that a peace prize, Nobel or otherwise, has any bearing upon the science involved is to assume Peres, Arafat and Kissinger and Ho Chi Minh were the supreme advocates of peace. As the peace prize barely addresses peace the suggestion it supports any science at all is ludicrous.

---

I made no such assumption. I was simply pointing out the facts.]/quote]

And I am certain there was no ulterior motive in citing a totally meaningless and irrelevant "fact" despite its prestigious title.

[quote=n. mouse]That invented save even lead one crackpot to claim warming could result in an ice age. I am sorry but anyone claiming global warming leads to cooling is going to have to give me the definitions of both warming and cooling they are using.

As to shutting of the GULF not jet stream that is no more than a hypothetical from years ago which has since been rejected one grounds of 1) not that simple and 2) if the Arctic melting stops tomorrow the inertial will continue the flow for a thousand years.

Scientists are not saying that global warming leads to cooling. They are saying that it leads to more extreme weather.

And I pointed out that is a recent change from warming ONLY. I am also pointing out that despite popular claims all examples of extreme weather have been denied as having anything to do with warming.

So the warming is stopped and we still do not have more extreme weather. Where does that leave us?

When you take the time to learn the difference between heat and temperature you can then move to learning a storm is the release of energy. The energy is released because there is a temperature difference. If everything is warming the temperature difference is the same and the energy released by storms is the same except for a very small correction because of absolute zero. Again, take the time to learn the subject.

If all youj want to do is cite the experts I will remind you appeals to authority have been an identified logical fallacy for at least 2500 years.

AGW is causing an increase in atmospheric moisture in some regions, and in many of those regions is causing an increase in precipitation.

Then it is very simple, simply measure the humidity over the oceans where this moisture has to increase. There is then also the indirect measure of precipitation in coastal areas. And then we note the latter is not happening and look to see where the cocked hat went.

Add normal cold winter temperatures to the mix and you get an increase in snowfall. We are seeing that in North America, in Eurasia, and in Eastern Antarctica. AGW is also causing decreases in atmospheric moisture in some regions, which is leading to increased and more severe droughts. Extreme weather, not global cooling.

Sorry but I have been careful to watch for the scientific opinion regarding those popular claims and I have yet to read the scientists promoting AGW claiming winter weather snow increases are a consequence. Perhaps you can provide a URL or two? Much appreciated.

---

And it is a fact that, absent satellite cameras, it appeared nearly as short of ice in the early 1930s as it is today.

And your evidence of this would be?

People really do live that far north in summer and hunt seal and such. The amount of ice affects their hunting access.

The serious question is why does anyone bother looking at the ice cover when they could much more simply recite the air temperature. If the ice cover is not a direct function of temperature then one cannot look at ice cover and claim temperature.

Why not try the other approach as in this was the day since the last record was set in ... Note the year and ask why there were so many GHGs back in the 1930s or whenever.

[quote]That aside as I do not know if I can find the article again, the idea that a total absence of arctic sea ice is BAD is a political idea. IF there is no arctic ice that implies the arctic is warmer meaning all the land north of the arctic circle should be opening to food production instead of tourists looking at polar bears.

By all means, please find the article. The Arctic sea ice is the northern Hemisphere's 'air conditioning' in that it moderates temperatures and gives us our four seasons.[/quote]

Air conditioning is adiabatic expansion of compressed gas. If you want a serious discussion do not use terms which have no technical meaning and which in this case if flat out stupid.

As I learned back in gradeschool and have confirmed many times since the seasons are do to the tilt of the earth's axis in relation to the sun. To say what you just said is incredible ignorance if not down right stupidity.

As you go on in that vein continuing the stupidity, I have better things to do with my time than bemoan the state of science education in the country if not the world.

---

Also, and I think this is an important point, the increased CO2 levels are not solely anthropogenic. If we were not emitting, then CO2 levels would still be increasing. CO2 increases by about 40% of what we emit so there is a strong correlation. But correlation doesn't mean causation for that would assume that if we weren't emitting then CO2 levels would drop by 150% of the amount that they're presently increasing by - which is obviously nonsensical!

Yet I still see this claim made all the time by alarmists that we have total control over the CO2 levels - we don't. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations wouldn't drop at 150% of the rate of increase if we weren't emitting, it would still be climbing, albeit by only about half the present growth rate.

Way back when I was playing with melters, before I lost patience with their studied ignorance of the science involved, I did a quick and dirty calculation of a CO2 source over the period of a year. It was a big number so they all wanted to know what that source was. It was simply the amount humans produce by breathing. I can wish I had seen their faces.

---

Where are the graphs for the past 5 million years oro?

I have seen something like them and yes our current contributions are valid to the call to reduce and then again we have been doing this for nigh on 50 years shouldn't we start to be seeing a slowing/ peak?

If one wants to talk global warming lets start during an ice age.

We are in an interglacial period although there are some who hold there will be no more for something like a million years. Be that as it may, we have no idea how temperature behaves in interglacial periods.

However if those who say the next ice age is overdue I say burn baby burn. Maybe it is fossil fuels that are holding it off.

Keeping that in mind, climate models are not validated until they have been run backwards and accurately reproduce all historical climates. What was it that made the Sahara green 6000 years ago?

---

As for the IPCC I am thinking that they are about as useful as the UN (aka = worthless) They do not instigate any "control" just bleat and carry on. The IPCC, UN IMF are not worth the time of day imho.

If I recall the numbers correctly they were proud to announce their first report was signed by 104 scientists. Upon inspection that broke down to 2 real scientists and 102 political scientists.

---

I am sort of intrigued how a mere century can be considered other than a short term variation of 4.5 billion years.

Part of the problem is that the same bunch of fools who deny climate change think the earth is only 6,000 years old because some idiot did some math based on their fucking bible, Mouse.

Somehow, it always comes back to that same shitty book, eh?

It certainly comes back to the same attitude when they accuse people of not believing we are melting of not having faith. Their attitude is the same. I reread one tonight and found he was claiming the north pole causes seasons. And all warming is evil because it will lead to change which they know Gaia or god condemns.

[KichigaiNeko]

http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20132404-24301.html

The findings are in stark contrast to the Mediaeval Warm Period and Little Ice Age, which the study revealed did not occur simultaneously across the globe.
The international study led by the Past Global Changes (PAGES) network in Switzerland, included Australian scientists from the University of Melbourne, the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science at the University of New South Wales and the Australian Antarctic Division.
Co-author of the paper from the University of New South Wales’ ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science, Dr Steven Phipps said the striking feature about the sudden rise in 20th century global average temperature is that it comes after an overall cooling trend that lasted more than a millennium.
“This work has transformed our understanding of temperatures over the past 2000 years,” he said
“This research shows that in just a century the Earth has reversed 1400 years of cooling.
“Armed with this information, future researchers will able to better understand the causes of climate variability at a regional and global level and help forecast the changes we can expect as our planet warms.”
To reconstruct 2000 years of temperature, the researchers used data from 511 individual proxy records. The majority of these records came from tree ring measurements but also included coral reefs, cave formations, ice cores, lake sediments and some historical documents.
The 2000-year temperature snapshot revealed by the researchers showed a long-term cooling trend before human influences began to become significant. This trend was primarily driven by natural cycles in the Earth's orbit. At the same time there were also natural fluctuations caused by volcanic eruptions and variations in solar activity.

---

Breathe orogenicman...breathe. Nice and slow ..... now... calm down.

Seems this is a topic that makes your otherwise analytic self go for a long walk and not participate.

I am to understand that there has been geological research (possibly involving Ice-Cores?) that have enabled climatologists to piece together the vast bulk of climate change on this planet beyond the 2000 year mark limitations. I think it is unfortunate that Climatology has to rely on the multi-science-disciplines research to come to anything that looks like coherent understanding of just how Climate works on this rock.

---

Apologies....as to the OP?

The only communistic myth regarding Climate change is the multibillions that governments hoped to gain via taxes that they could "redistribute into their own pockets" as we can see with a current CO2 price of $3/ tonne this has failed, hey left Australia with a $12 billion hole in it's budget this year due to "lack of anticipated revenue

[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

[pocaracas]

So much discussion, people...
Mind if I go Pascal's Wager on this thread's ass?

facts which seem to be consensual:
-The world seems to be warming up on a global scale.
-Humans contribute to, at least, a small part of this warming.

If we do contribute to a large degree, then it is good to try to curb this contribution, for our future lives and our children's.
If we do contribute to a large degree, and do nothing, we are dooming our future.
If we only contribute to a small degree, and do something about it, we'll end up with less of a contribution... but no real overall global difference.
If we only contribute to a small degree and do nothing, it'll just go on and on... maybe becoming a large contribution...

If I was a betting man, I'd say it's better to try to curb the human footprint on the matter.