Climate change

[renormalised (Carl)]

Carl, this simply is not true. Perhaps you know a few teachers who are inept but to tar and feather the whole profession is a little premature to say the least. All of the Science teachers I know at least have a Bsc in a specialist area. All the folks in my department have at least Hons level in their specialist area, 2 have Phd's and one has a masters degree. To quote tabloids printing figures about student achievement is also a little silly as they twist figures to suit their own purpose. What you might like to consider is the number of teachers who are forced to teach outside their specialist area's due to a lack of suitably qualified graduates taking up the challange of educating our youth. An extreme lack of geology specialists comes to mind.....

I didn't tar the whole profession, Mark. I was only commenting on those teachers that aren't up to scratch, that are still allowed to teach those subjects. I also know a lot of very good teachers as well. The problem is that the students aren't doing as well in science as they should do and many would rather not be doing science if they could get away with it. That seems to be more of a problem with the way society has perceived science and scientists over the years. It's part of the "geeky" "too hard basket". Some of the calls I have heard about making it an elective subject for juniors are crazy. Even seniors should have to do at least one science subject (no matter what "stream" they're in). Next minute, they'll be making English and Mathematics elective subjects!!!!.

That's what science teachers should have, at the very least...a full qualification in their area of teaching. I'd also like to see them have experience as well, but that can't always be the case.

Well, you would've had a geology specialist here, only for the fact family matters intervened, I'd have had my BEd as well as my science degree. Plus someone with experience in the industry to boot. But all that's another story.

[marki]

Fair enough Carl. I haven't actually seen a raw graduate come through our science dept for a very long time. All of us have had hands on experience in or respective fields, some come and go depending on the need for cash as well. Shame about the geology, I don't know my arse from my elbow with that stuff and hate teaching it in any case . When kids come up with a sample and ask what it is my standard answer is "it's a rock son" .

Mark

Originally Posted by renormalised

I didn't tar the whole profession, Mark. I was only commenting on those teachers that aren't up to scratch, that are still allowed to teach those subjects. I also know a lot of very good teachers as well. The problem is that the students aren't doing as well in science as they should do and many would rather not be doing science if they could get away with it. That seems to be more of a problem with the way society has perceived science and scientists over the years. It's part of the "geeky" "too hard basket". Some of the calls I have heard about making it an elective subject for juniors are crazy. Even seniors should have to do at least one science subject (no matter what "stream" they're in). Next minute, they'll be making English and Mathematics elective subjects!!!!.

That's what science teachers should have, at the very least...a full qualification in their area of teaching. I'd also like to see them have experience as well, but that can't always be the case.

Well, you would've had a geology specialist here, only for the fact family matters intervened, I'd have had my BEd as well as my science degree. Plus someone with experience in the industry to boot. But all that's another story.

[renormalised (Carl)]

To get back to the topic at hand as a professional body science teachers have our own associations and journals. It is from the last journal I would like to quote some statements made on climate change by climate scientists (rather than most of the speculation that goes on around here http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/..../winking70.gif) . This should cause a rukus no doubt.

The artical is titled " Secondary Students, Misconceptions about Climate Change"


" It is not widely understood that we are living in a relatively mild stage of an iceage"

"Proxy data for temperature over geological time have been provided with clear indications that the planet has experienced temperatures of 12 degrees C above todays level for most of the last 500 million years"

" Carbon dioxide levels are the lowest they have been in 500 million years"

"Carbon dioxide makes up a mere 0.038% of the Earths atmosphere and is a minor greenhouse gas."

" Carbon dioxide has never been a driver of global temperature over 500 million years"

"When the carbon dioxide levels were 10 times higher than today the Earth was in the depths of an iceage"

"Glaciers are not in retreat around the globe and the Antartic sheet is accumulating at around 2cm per year"

"Artic ice shows no sign of any "dramatic melting" so often potrayed in the media. Satellite telemetry records a seasonal melting and refreezing with no nett loss of ice since 2002"

"The Artic ocean has been iced over several times in the last 1000 years and will continue to flucuate"

" There is firm evidence for global cooling from 2 satellite data sets (University of Alabama and Remote Sensing Systems) as well as the Hadley Centre for Climate Studies. These data correspond with those from radiosondes which show that warming stopped in the 1970's with ongoing cooling since 2002, despite the levels of rising carbon dioxide"

" A desisive number of scientists now reject the notion of anthropogenic global warming and paleoclimatologist Professor Bob Carter explains why so many people still retain misconceptions about climate change. " Most of the public statements that promote the the dangerous human warming are made from a position of ignorance - by political leaders, press commentators and celebrities who share the characteristics of a lack of scientific training and a lack of ability to differentiate between sound science and computer based scare mongering"


I could go on http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/....s/tongue05.gifhttp://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/....es/happy04.gif. This is what we teachers are being told by "real practising climate scientists" to be the case. What do you think, who should we trust for our source of truth and fact?

Mark

That Mark, is the actual case...all true.

At present, we're in a period of relatively mild climate compared to the majority of the last 2.5 million years. An interglacial...and the last interglacial, the CO2 levels were 5-10% higher than their present value and the sea level was 6 metres higher than at present. The was no Sahara Desert...it was a savannah grassland with scattered forests. Most interglacials last for around 10-15 thousand years. The cold periods can last up to 100 thousand years or longer (they average 60-85 thousand).

Those levels of CO2 you mentioned all happen to be the case. During the Palaeocene-Eocene Climatic Maximum, the CO2 levels were 3 times higher than now and the temp was 12-15 degrees Celcius, on average, higher than now. There were temperate rainforests in Antarctica. What brought it all to and end was the freezing of Antarctica and the subsequent changing ocean and atmospheric circulation patterns. Also the uplift of the Himalayas and proto Alps greatly affected the climate as well. It's only in the last few million years that CO2 level have been down around the present level, or near present level. For much of the last 500-550 million years, Earth has been a warmer planet with, at many stages, considerably higher CO2 levels than now.

That time when the CO2 levels were x10 now was during the "Great Freeze" around 780-680 million years ago. That was the last of the "mega ice ages". The entire planet froze over, pole to pole for around 10 million years. Sea ice was over 1km thick. It was only for the fact that CO2 levels gradually built up to insane levels (through volcanic activity and little to no CO2 being absorbed by ocean water) that the ice melted and we came out of it, into a period of very high surface temps...around the 60 degree celcius mark. That lasted for several hundred thousand years, until the oceans and algae eventually brought the CO2 under equilibrium.

The main greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is water vapour, followed by methane. CO2 is actually a minor gas.

If you want somewhere to see what has happened with our planet w.r.t. its climate, go here... Climate of the Carboniferous.

If you really want to teach the kids the truth...trawl the scientific literature, especially journals like Geology or Science, for example. You'll learn a lot more from them than listening to the misinformation you'll get from the media.

Also, talk to the less hysterical of those amongst the scientists involved in studying long term climate and Earth history. You'll get a much more balanced PoV.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by marki

Fair enough Carl. I haven't actually seen a raw graduate come through our science dept for a very long time. All of us have had hands on experience in or respective fields, some come and go depending on the need for cash as well. Shame about the geology, I don't know my arse from my elbow with that stuff and hate teaching it in any case . When kids come up with a sample and ask what it is my standard answer is "it's a rock son" .

Mark

Next time you have to teach it, let me know in advance and I'll lend you a hand

[renormalised (Carl)]

When kids come up with a sample and ask what it is my standard answer is "it's a rock son" .

Nothing wrong with that answer. At least it's correct

[glenc (Glen)]

"Artic ice shows no sign of any "dramatic melting" so often potrayed in the media. Satellite telemetry records a seasonal melting and refreezing with no nett loss of ice since 2002"

This graph does not show that: http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaice...07_Figure3.png
November 2009 had the third-lowest average extent for the month since the beginning of satellite records. The linear rate of decline for the month is now 4.5 percent per decade.
The ice is also getting thinner.

[glenc (Glen)]

" Carbon dioxide levels are the lowest they have been in 500 million years"
" Carbon dioxide has never been a driver of global temperature over 500 million years"
" When the carbon dioxide levels were 10 times higher than today the Earth was in the depths of an iceage"

This graph does not show that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vo...core-petit.png

[Barrykgerdes]

No matter what is said for and against climate change one thing is certain the world will be ruled by polititions who will do anything to keep their positions.

CLIMATE CHANGE

The Earth’s climate has been continually changing since its assumed creation 4.5 billion years ago without any influence of man who is presumed to have only been around for the past 50000 years.

Earth’s position in the solar system oscillates about a position approximately 91 million miles from the Sun due to an eccentric orbit. The median range of climate is also affected by the Sun that also oscillates about a range of activity. These two factors govern the mean temperature of the Earth and will vary over quite a few degrees.

Without an atmosphere the temperatures would be extremely hot by day and extremely cold by night. However the atmosphere of Earth composed mainly of nitrogen and oxygen along with water vapour regulates the extremes to keep the temperature range at a level that supports life as well as filtering harmful radiation and space dust.

Life commenced on earth with the arrival of vegetation. This slowly removed the carbon from the carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere with the help of the Sun, water and a catalyst called chlorophyll, creating the carbohydrates of vegetation and liberating oxygen in the process. When the level of CO2 was reduced to a very low level animal life arrived. Animal life requires oxygen to burn the fuel that gives it energy, creating CO2. This is the Carbon Cycle that has been maintained for millions of years. The vegetation over time decayed into coal etc. and has been stored underground.

Over the millions of years Earth’s climate has moved through cycles of warm, dry, humid and freezing periods creating lush growth in areas that are now desert and probably creating lush growth in areas that were once desert. Earth’s movement and Sun activity circulating the atmosphere that keeps life going have brought about these changes.

In our modern society we have found that our climate is changing with vast areas becoming hotter and drier with others becoming wetter or colder. This has been blamed on human activity for no other reason than statistics. These statistics can be manipulated to produce any result that the manipulators require. There are very few scientific facts that support this theory.

Yes we are pouring large amounts of pollution into the atmosphere and sea and that must be addressed but CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a building block of life! We have also had massive land clearances in some areas of the Earth and the proliferation of high-rise buildings that significantly change the air currents that regulate our climate.

Calling CO2 a “Greenhouse” gas is without scientific fact and besides making up less than four ten-thousandths part of the atmosphere it would have no effect if it were. The biggest factor in the so-called “Greenhouse” effect is water vapour mainly in the form of clouds.



The increase in CO2 is be being blamed for the warming of the planet because statistically the level in the atmosphere has increased by 30% over the last 50 years whereas other factors have varied by quite insignificant percentages. The climate change lobby blames combustion of fossil fuels, mainly carboniferous, for the increase in CO2. They have failed to take note of the fact that the sea has great amounts of CO2 dissolved in it and if the temperature of the water were raised by 1 degree it would liberate sufficient CO2 to have caused the rise in CO2 percentage level.

We can’t change the climate but what we can do is learn to make the most of it. We can reduce pollution by turning the Sun’s energy directly into electricity or hydrogen fuel. We can make better use of our rivers to conserve water. We can use the oceans and wind to produce energy. We can improve our agriculture by using our land to grow sustainable crops where there are limited means and the most controversial subject of overpopulation must be addressed.

Barry

[glenc (Glen)]

Calling CO2 a “Greenhouse” gas is without scientific fact and besides making up less than four ten-thousandths part of the atmosphere it would have no effect if it were. The biggest factor in the so-called “Greenhouse” effect is water vapour mainly in the form of clouds.

There is a close relationship between CO2 and temperature according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vo...core-petit.png

[Solanum]

Originally Posted by marki

The artical is titled " Secondary Students, Misconceptions about Climate Change"


" It is not widely understood that we are living in a relatively mild stage of an iceage"

"Proxy data for temperature over geological time have been provided with clear indications that the planet has experienced temperatures of 12 degrees C above todays level for most of the last 500 million years"

" Carbon dioxide levels are the lowest they have been in 500 million years"

"Carbon dioxide makes up a mere 0.038% of the Earths atmosphere and is a minor greenhouse gas."

" Carbon dioxide has never been a driver of global temperature over 500 million years"

"When the carbon dioxide levels were 10 times higher than today the Earth was in the depths of an iceage"

"Glaciers are not in retreat around the globe and the Antartic sheet is accumulating at around 2cm per year"

"Artic ice shows no sign of any "dramatic melting" so often potrayed in the media. Satellite telemetry records a seasonal melting and refreezing with no nett loss of ice since 2002"

"The Artic ocean has been iced over several times in the last 1000 years and will continue to flucuate"

" There is firm evidence for global cooling from 2 satellite data sets (University of Alabama and Remote Sensing Systems) as well as the Hadley Centre for Climate Studies. These data correspond with those from radiosondes which show that warming stopped in the 1970's with ongoing cooling since 2002, despite the levels of rising carbon dioxide"

" A desisive number of scientists now reject the notion of anthropogenic global warming and paleoclimatologist Professor Bob Carter explains why so many people still retain misconceptions about climate change. " Most of the public statements that promote the the dangerous human warming are made from a position of ignorance - by political leaders, press commentators and celebrities who share the characteristics of a lack of scientific training and a lack of ability to differentiate between sound science and computer based scare mongering"


I could go on . This is what we teachers are being told by "real practising climate scientists" to be the case. What do you think, who should we trust for our source of truth and fact?

Mark

Wow, that is a serious pile of untruths, misconceptions and misdirection. I hope that isn't what school kids are being taught or they'll be in for a shock when they go to university to study any of the subjects those comments touch upon. Anyone who compares the climate today with that of several hundred million years ago in the context of climate change is trying to pull a fast one. It is basically irrelevent as both the geology and biology of our planet is very different now (not to mention our data on the climate then has very high error bars on it compared with more recent times). I think you are a lot better off looking at the climate over the last few hundred thousand years (5 ice ages or so) and then asking those questions of how we compare now. You would get some very different answers. Lets not forget that Homo sapiens sapiens has been here for less than 200,000 years.

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by marki

I could go on . This is what we teachers are being told by "real practising climate scientists" to be the case. What do you think, who should we trust for our source of truth and fact?

Mark

Perhaps you would like to disclose the names of these "real practising climate scientists" and their scientific publications.

They seem to have no basic understanding of the cause and effect role of Co2 on climate change.

Steven

[marki]

Originally Posted by sjastro

Perhaps you would like to disclose the names of these "real practising climate scientists" and their scientific publications.

They seem to have no basic understanding of the cause and effect role of Co2 on climate change.

Steven

Steven I will post the list of references when I get home tonight. Don't worry, I was as suprised as anyone to read the artical. Would love some ammo to have a go at the editor.

Mark

[Barrykgerdes]

Originally Posted by glenc

There is a close relationship between CO2 and temperature according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vo...core-petit.png

That reference is exactly what I was refering to. It is a theory generated by statistics not science. Statistics can be used to prove or disprove depending on how you use them.

It is akin to the old conundrum "What came first The chiken or the egg"
eg did the rise in temperature cause the increase in CO2 or did CO2 increase the temperature.
because the amount of CO2 has always been insignificant against all other factors I go with the theory that CO2 increases because of temperature rises.


Barry

[AstralTraveller (David)]

Originally Posted by Barrykgerdes

Calling CO2 a “Greenhouse” gas is without scientific fact and besides making up less than four ten-thousandths part of the atmosphere it would have no effect if it were. The biggest factor in the so-called “Greenhouse” effect is water vapour mainly in the form of clouds.


The increase in CO2 is be being blamed for the warming of the planet because statistically the level in the atmosphere has increased by 30% over the last 50 years whereas other factors have varied by quite insignificant percentages. The climate change lobby blames combustion of fossil fuels, mainly carboniferous, for the increase in CO2. They have failed to take note of the fact that the sea has great amounts of CO2 dissolved in it and if the temperature of the water were raised by 1 degree it would liberate sufficient CO2 to have caused the rise in CO2 percentage level.

I'm trying to stay out of this but I will correct the above two paragraphs.

Yes water vapour is the major greenhouse gas but suggesting that CO2 has no effect just because it is in low concentration is wrong. First, it is easy to see that CO2 should trap heat by blocking outgoing IR. Since the CO2 absorption band does not fully overlap with the H2O absorption band the absorption due to CO2 is added to that of H2O. In an ideal gas these 'bands' are discrete lines but in a real gas the lines are broadened into bands. The CO2 band is, despite the low concentration, already fully blocked at its centre and the increase in absorbance is due to band broadening as the partial pressure of CO2 increases. That is why the increase in CO2 absorbance does not scale directly with the increase in CO2 cancentration. Trying to write off CO2 because of its low concentration is a bit like trying to claim that once light has travelled all those billions of km from that galaxy a mere piece of paper can't stop it reaching your telescope.

I'm surprised anyone would attempt to deny that human activity is the cause of the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration. Records of CO2 conc go back much further than 30 years and the temporal correlation between the increase in atm CO2 and the increase in fossil fuel use is plain to see. But there is more! Consider the carbon 13: carbon 12 ratio of atmospheric CO2. These ratios are normally expressed as a 'delta value' which reports the difference in the ratio (in permille, ie. parts per thousand) of the sample from that of an internationally accepted reference material. So for carbon we talk about the d13C on the PDB scale (the 'd' should be a Greek delta but I don't have that font available). Prior to the industrial revolution the d13C of atm CO2 was about -6 permille. The carbon in fossil fuels has a value of about -27 and that of CO2 outgassed from oceans is about 0. So if the extra CO2 comes from the ocean the value will move towards 0 and if it comes from fossil fuel it will move towards -27. What do we see? The value has moved from about -6 to about -7. (The situation is a little more complicated than this but I'll stop now - I have to calibrate some d13C results so I can tell a grad student whether or not she is happy.)

[glenc (Glen)]

This thread is a good example of the psychology of climate denial.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/cl...ml?autostart=1
"Experts see several explanations for the eagerness with which so many dismiss climate change as overblown or a hoax.
"There is the individual reluctance to give up our comfortable lifestyles - to travel less, consume less," said Anthony Grayling, a philosophy professor at the University of London and a bestselling author in Britain."

[Paul Haese]

Here is an interesting concept.

It is politcally expedient to have a climate related debate so that voters can make a stand. Remember the Franklin River issue.

The truth should never get in the way of the debate. We have not been keeping records long enough to understand how climate change is brought about. It is our own arrogance that assumes we know what is going on right now.

Water vapour is the real green house gas by quite a large margin. CO2 is very small in the scheme of things.

Using wikipedia is not a reliable reference source in arguments like this. It will never be accepted academically because of its sourcing.

Only the infantile truly think we are going to change the climate. One volcano a year will pump out more CO2 and sulphur dioxide than we are ever going to do with burning fossil fuels. Added to this is that solar minimums of recent times have been more active than early last century. A higher output on minimums (not maximum) has a far breater influence on weather than anything else.

Like many others I was initially convinced of our influence in the whole climate until I started doing some serious reading. The climate of this planet is in continual change, WE DID NOT CAUSE IT! Once you start paying the higher taxes you will regret thinking this is all too real.

Plenty of people being deluded just so that someone can get re-elected down the track. Oh well their choice. This old addage comes to mind. Believe half of what you see and non of what you hear.

[glenc (Glen)]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...-in-ice-cores/
This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it. At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.
Does this prove that CO2 doesn’t cause global warming? The answer is no.

[PeterM]

Originally Posted by Paul Haese

Here is an interesting concept.

It is politcally expedient to have a climate related debate so that voters can make a stand. Remember the Franklin River issue.

The truth should never get in the way of the debate. We have not been keeping records long enough to understand how climate change is brought about. It is our own arrogance that assumes we know what is going on right now.

Water vapour is the real green house gas by quite a large margin. CO2 is very small in the scheme of things.

Using wikipedia is not a reliable reference source in arguments like this. It will never be accepted academically because of its sourcing.

Only the infantile truly think we are going to change the climate. One volcano a year will pump out more CO2 and sulphur dioxide than we are ever going to do with burning fossil fuels. Added to this is that solar minimums of recent times have been more active than early last century. A higher output on minimums (not maximum) has a far breater influence on weather than anything else.

Like many others I was initially convinced of our influence in the whole climate until I started doing some serious reading. The climate of this planet is in continual change, WE DID NOT CAUSE IT! Once you start paying the higher taxes you will regret thinking this is all too real.

Plenty of people being deluded just so that someone can get re-elected down the track. Oh well their choice. This old addage comes to mind. Believe half of what you see and non of what you hear.

Bravo and Ditto to every paragraph!

PeterM.

[Solanum]

Originally Posted by Paul Haese

Here is an interesting concept.

It is politcally expedient to have a climate related debate so that voters can make a stand. Remember the Franklin River issue.

The truth should never get in the way of the debate. We have not been keeping records long enough to understand how climate change is brought about. It is our own arrogance that assumes we know what is going on right now.

Water vapour is the real green house gas by quite a large margin. CO2 is very small in the scheme of things.

Using wikipedia is not a reliable reference source in arguments like this. It will never be accepted academically because of its sourcing.

Only the infantile truly think we are going to change the climate. One volcano a year will pump out more CO2 and sulphur dioxide than we are ever going to do with burning fossil fuels. Added to this is that solar minimums of recent times have been more active than early last century. A higher output on minimums (not maximum) has a far breater influence on weather than anything else.

Like many others I was initially convinced of our influence in the whole climate until I started doing some serious reading. The climate of this planet is in continual change, WE DID NOT CAUSE IT! Once you start paying the higher taxes you will regret thinking this is all too real.

Plenty of people being deluded just so that someone can get re-elected down the track. Oh well their choice. This old addage comes to mind. Believe half of what you see and non of what you hear.

Of course the climate is in continual change and always has been, how does that mean it can't be changed in a diferent way from what would have occurred without human intervention?

CO2 efflux from human activities is far far more than the average annual emission from volcanic sources, so your comment there is simply wrong.

Solar energy levels have been measured for a long time and simply don't provide enough energy to account for the apparent warming that we see.

The climate and atmosphere on the earth is due to life on this planet. No one would deny that, without photosynthesis there would be no significant oxygen and far far higher levels of CO2. We couldn't live in that atmosphere. To deny that it is possible for man to alter climate is simply bizarre, have a look at some satellite photos and compare the regions of the earth where man has changed the ecology with those that we have not (you can include the sea if you like as we have massively altered marine wildlife across the whole world). Simply the presence of urban areas alters the climate, that is why temperature measurements near cities have to be adjusted down.

I am still amazed that so many people interested in astronomy should be hoodwinked by poorly constructed arguments into believing that there is some conspiracy around the world that just wants to disrupt our lives for some unknown reason. to say that we haven't had a thermometer present 500 years ago means we can't deduce temperatures from other means is like saying that you don't believe the temperatures astronomers give for stars, we don't have a thermometer in them so how could we possibly know?

[Barrykgerdes]

Originally Posted by AstralTraveller

I'm trying to stay out of this but I will correct the above two paragraphs.

Yes water vapour is the major greenhouse gas but suggesting that CO2 has no effect just because it is in low concentration is wrong. First, it is easy to see that CO2 should trap heat by blocking outgoing IR. Since the CO2 absorption band does not fully overlap with the H2O absorption band the absorption due to CO2 is added to that of H2O. In an ideal gas these 'bands' are discrete lines but in a real gas the lines are broadened into bands. The CO2 band is, despite the low concentration, already fully blocked at its centre and the increase in absorbance is due to band broadening as the partial pressure of CO2 increases. That is why the increase in CO2 absorbance does not scale directly with the increase in CO2 cancentration. Trying to write off CO2 because of its low concentration is a bit like trying to claim that once light has travelled all those billions of km from that galaxy a mere piece of paper can't stop it reaching your telescope.

I'm surprised anyone would attempt to deny that human activity is the cause of the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration. Records of CO2 conc go back much further than 30 years and the temporal correlation between the increase in atm CO2 and the increase in fossil fuel use is plain to see. But there is more! Consider the carbon 13: carbon 12 ratio of atmospheric CO2. These ratios are normally expressed as a 'delta value' which reports the difference in the ratio (in permille, ie. parts per thousand) of the sample from that of an internationally accepted reference material. So for carbon we talk about the d13C on the PDB scale (the 'd' should be a Greek delta but I don't have that font available). Prior to the industrial revolution the d13C of atm CO2 was about -6 permille. The carbon in fossil fuels has a value of about -27 and that of CO2 outgassed from oceans is about 0. So if the extra CO2 comes from the ocean the value will move towards 0 and if it comes from fossil fuel it will move towards -27. What do we see? The value has moved from about -6 to about -7. (The situation is a little more complicated than this but I'll stop now - I have to calibrate some d13C results so I can tell a grad student whether or not she is happy.)

Hi AstralTraveller
You are a believer in climate change by human activity and you are fully entitled to do so right or wrong. But your arguments are based on partial truths and statistcs. CO2 does block IR both ways so its effect will tend to cancel but only if it is significant in the constitution of the atmosphere.

Don't forget the amount of carbon and other elements that constitute our earth hasn't changed since the earth's creation and the cycle of combining O2 with C and the converse (carbon cycle) has been going for a long time. If the CO2 gets too high animal life will die out and vegetation will prevail thus reversing the cycle as it has done before.

I know we as humans are abusing our ecosystem to our own demise but CO2 is not the problem.

Barry