The latest Newspoll finds that 84% of Australians accept that climate change is occurring and 96% of those that believe that climate change is occurring think that it is wholly or partly caused by humans. A 1993 ISSP survey found that 32% of Australians don’t believe that humans evolved from another species — the comparable figure in this survey is that 15% of Australians don’t accept AGW.

It is a delight to note that the poll was commissioned by the Australian, so they had to, in effect, report that their own noisy campaign against the science has been a dismal failure.

Comments

  1. #1 James F
    July 29, 2008

    Is there a good list that compares beliefs about AGW among several countries, similar to the evolution poll featured in Science?

  2. #2 Hugh
    July 29, 2008

    James F

    I’m afraid all I’ve got is this…it’s a bit old now but gives a US vs. EU comparison prior to 2006

    Lorenzoni, I. and Pidgeon, N.F (2006) Public views on climate change: European and USA perspectives. Climatic Change, 77, 73-95.

    Available as .pdf from Nick Pidgeon’s home page, here:

    http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/psych/contactsandpeople/lecturing/pidgeon-nick-publications_new.html

    Sorry, I must learn myself to do those linky things

  3. #3 Hugh Deeming
    July 29, 2008

    …No, sorry James. My bad!!

    Nick’s link is broken. I’m afraid it’ll be stuck behind a pay wall

  4. #4 James F
    July 29, 2008

    No worries, just curious. Thanks!

  5. #5 Peter Bickle
    July 30, 2008

    100% of kids beleive in the tooth fairy as well.

  6. #6 bi -- IJI
    July 30, 2008

    > 100% of kids beleive in the tooth fairy as well.

    The insctivists’ double-edged ‘logic’ never ceases to amaze me.

  7. #7 Peter Bickle
    July 30, 2008

    Bi – just bc people beleive it does not mean it is correct.
    All we hear is GW this, GW that from the main stream media. If it is told often enuf it must be true then, ah.

    BTW, what do you reckon the temps for July are going to be, still show continual cooling for 2008? When is this going to be climate, not weather?

    regards from a wet/windy New Zealand
    Peter Bickle

  8. #8 bi -- IJI
    July 30, 2008

    Peter Bickle, if you can’t see why it’s blatant “double-edged ‘logic’”, then perhaps you can ask… instead of simply throwing out another unrelated talking point.

    Let me put it simply: If the Australian were to report that 90% of people don’t believe in global warming, you inactivists will be harping on it as “proof” that global warming is a myth. Consensus isn’t proof, except when it is!

    Double-edged ‘logic’.

  9. #9 Peter Bickle
    July 30, 2008

    Bi – just bc people beleive it does not mean it is correct.
    All we hear is GW this, GW that from the main stream media. If it is told often enuf it must be true then, ah.

    BTW, what do you reckon the temps for July are going to be, still show continual cooling for 2008? When is this going to be climate, not weather?

    regards from a wet/windy New Zealand
    Peter Bickle

  10. #10 Peter Bickle
    July 30, 2008

    Bi
    Consensus is often politics, science is not. There is no ‘consensus’ about AGW. It is only repoted as such by the MSM. They don’t know Jack Shit.
    Peter Bickle

  11. #11 bi -- IJI
    July 30, 2008

    I said:

    > Let me put it simply: If the Australian were to report that 90% of people don’t believe in global warming, you inactivists will be harping on it as “proof” that global warming is a myth. Consensus isn’t proof, except when it is!

    Instead of addressing this point, Peter Bickle decides to engage in dodging and weaving.

  12. #12 Barton Paul Levenson
    July 30, 2008

    Peter Bickle posts:

    Bi Consensus is often politics, science is not. There is no ‘consensus’ about AGW.

    There is among climatologists.

  13. #13 Chris O'Neill
    July 30, 2008

    Peter Bickle asks:

    When is this going to be climate, not weather?

    Are you holding your breath or something?

    regards from a warm and very, very dry southern Australia.

  14. #14 pough
    July 30, 2008

    @#12 – Yeah, but what do climatologists know about climate?

  15. #15 spangled drongo
    July 31, 2008

    C O’N,
    It’s about you switched the RC air off and stepped outside.

  16. #16 bi -- IJI
    July 31, 2008

    > C O’N, It’s about you switched the RC air off and stepped outside.

    There is no spoon (as Uri Geller didn’t say).

  17. #17 bi -- IJI
    July 31, 2008

    Of course, to the inactivists, if 80% of Australians don’t subscribe to the AGW theory, then it proves that the AGW theory ‘is in trouble’; if 8% of Australians do subscribe to the AGW theory, then it means nothing because consensus is not science.

    Free your mind… The Alarmists Are Just As Bad… The Alarmists Are Just As Bad… The Alarmists Are Just As Bad… Om… Om… Om…

  18. #18 bi -- IJI
    July 31, 2008

    s/8%/80%/

  19. #19 Engineer
    August 1, 2008

    Funny thing is, the majority of Brits doubt global warming theory:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/22/climatechange.carbonemissions

    So, does that cancel out the Aussie opinion, thus establishing scientific fact?

  20. #20 sod
    August 1, 2008

    Funny thing is, the majority of Brits doubt global warming theory:

    no, they don t!

    “Despite this, three quarters still professed to be concerned about climate change.”

    you claim to be (have been) an engineer. do you EVER read the stuff you work (you worked) with?

    the title of your article is saying something completely different of what you claim it does:

    Poll: most Britons doubt cause of climate change

    this is based on a weird answer to a pretty weird question:

    Ipsos MORI polled 1,039 adults and found that six out of 10 agreed that ‘many scientific experts still question if humans are contributing to climate change’,

    the people who have doubts about “global warming theory” seem to be a minority:

    and that four out of 10 ‘sometimes think climate change might not be as bad as people say’.

    again: this article offers not the slightest evidence for your claim!

  21. #21 dhogaza
    August 1, 2008

    you claim to be (have been) an engineer. do you EVER read the stuff you work (you worked) with?

    Remember, locomotives have engineers, too, no university training required …

  22. #22 blue
    August 1, 2008

    One could of course read the report underlying the article in The Guardian. The report and its predecessor from last year can be found here on the Ipsos MORI website.

    How concerned, if at all, are you about climate change?

    • 30% Very concerned
    • 47% Fairly concerned
    • 14% Not very concerned
    • 9% Not at all concerned

    I want to see the Government do more on climate change: 10% disagree / 60% agree

    Another interesting finding:

    Newspaper readership is also strongly implicated, with broadsheet readers – particularly those who read The Guardian, The Independent and The Times – significantly more likely to cite the environment as a key issue facing the country compared to those who read the mid market and tabloid press.

    Values go from 4% to 24% of the readership concerned about the environment.

    And there is still more from last year’s report Turning Point or Tipping Point:

    46% think climate change is mainly caused by humans; 9% think it is mainly caused by natural processes; 41% think it is a mixture of both.

    So where do you place those 41%? “Obviously” (at least in The Guardian) in the doubt category.

  23. #23 Engineer
    August 2, 2008

    “no, they don t!”

    Are you illiterate? It says they “doubt global warming theory” (i.e. “humans, and only humans, cause global warming”).

    “the people who have doubts about “global warming theory” seem to be a minority:”

    No, 50% of Brits question the notion that humans are the cause of climate change.

  24. #24 Barton Paul Levenson
    August 2, 2008

    Engineer posts:

    50% of Brits question the notion that humans are the cause of climate change.

    Then 50% of Brits are wrong, Jack.

  25. #25 Engineer
    August 2, 2008

    “46% think climate change is mainly caused by humans; 9% think it is mainly caused by natural processes; 41% think it is a mixture of both.”

    So that makes 50% that question the idea that human CO2 emissions are the sole cause of global warming, versus the other 46%.

    That’s called a “majority”.

  26. #26 Engineer
    August 2, 2008

    “Remember, locomotives have engineers, too, no university training required …”

    I’ll wager that a locomotive engineer has better reading comprehension and logic skills than demonstrated by you folks.

  27. #27 sod
    August 2, 2008

    Are you illiterate? It says they “doubt global warming theory” (i.e. “humans, and only humans, cause global warming”).

    one sentence, so many errors. you are a phenomenon!

    1. the article does NOWHERE say, that they doubt global warming theory! why don t you simply QUOTE the part of the article, that makes this claim?!?

    2. “humans” are NOT part of the “global warming theory” at all. (and nobody with any brain does doubt, that the globe has been warming over the last century). you are talking about the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). that is a DIFFERENT thing!!!!

    3. nobody (yes, absolutely NOBODY) believes that humans (and only humans) cause global warming.

    sorry, but the way you talk, you are not only definitly no engineer, but i seriously doubt that you finished high school!

  28. #28 Engineer
    August 2, 2008

    “humans” are NOT part of the “global warming theory” at all. (and nobody with any brain does doubt, that the globe has been warming over the last century). you are talking about the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). that is a DIFFERENT thing!!!!”

    So now you’re backpedaling, going into “nature versus anthropogenic”.

    Given the title of the blog, I just assumed the subject was anthropogenic global warming, and didn’t feel the need to spell it out each time. Seriously, you don’t see the “natural global warming theory” mentioned much in the press, now do you?

    Regarding your third point, you’d better tell that to Dr. Hansen, Al Gore, and the IPCC, who regard human CO2 emissions to be the culprit behind alleged rising temperatures.

    When you people learn to read, and follow a basic thread of logic, perhaps then I’ll take your insults seriously.

  29. #29 Engineer
    August 2, 2008

    “nobody (yes, absolutely NOBODY) believes that humans (and only humans) cause global warming.”

    You might want to store this away in you memory, for future reference:

    Anthropogenic- effects, processes, objects, or materials are those that are derived from human activities

  30. #30 bi -- IJI
    August 2, 2008

    Given that inactivists keep saying that “science is not consensus”, I wonder why they’re continually so hung up on the presence of absence of “consensus”.

    Perhaps it’s because, while consensus doesn’t mean science, it does mean votes?

  31. #31 sod
    August 2, 2008

    So now you’re backpedaling, going into “nature versus anthropogenic”.

    what? i just pointed out an ERROR in your post!

    Given the title of the blog, I just assumed the subject was anthropogenic global warming, and didn’t feel the need to spell it out each time. Seriously, you don’t see the “natural global warming theory” mentioned much in the press, now do you?

    hm.

    you claimed: “the majority of Brits doubt global warming theory” you meant to say: “a majority of Brits doubt that global warming is ENTIRELY caused by humans”

    can you see the difference?

    oh, and yes, there is a significant part of the population, who (plainly stupid) do NOT believe in global warming at all. 12%, according to the australian poll linked by Tim.

    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/files/newspoll-29jul.pdf

    Regarding your third point, you’d better tell that to Dr. Hansen, Al Gore, and the IPCC, who regard human CO2 emissions to be the culprit behind alleged rising temperatures.

    perhaps you simply have a problem with words, sentences and their meaning?
    i will confidently bet everything i own, that none of the persons you mentioned (yes, that includes all the hundreds of scientists who worked on the IPCC reports) does believe that climate chance is caused by humans and humans alone. NOT A SINGLE ONE!

    but you again tried to shift the meaning to humans being the “culprit” behind it. which (AGAIN!) is an entirely different thing.

    When you people learn to read, and follow a basic thread of logic, perhaps then I’ll take your insults seriously.

    it is somewhat funny, that you among all people want to lecture us on reading. did you read one of the articles you are talking about?

    if you did, you would have noticed, that they both have pretty much exactly the same result!

    the australian poll asks for reasons as well. result: 32% (of those reasonable beings who accept it..) think it is entirely caused by humans, another 62% think it is partly caused by humans.

    the australian poll (in contrast to you and the guardian article) made the wise decision to add these two numbers together, to find a TOTAL PERCENTAGE of people, who accept that humans are (partly) responsible for the warming!

    the percentage of people who believe that humans and humans alone cause global warming is utterly irrelevant. (the number is caused by a misconception of the question, as asking for “MAIN reason of”.. or from total ignorance on the subject.)

  32. #32 Engineer
    August 3, 2008

    “what? i just pointed out an ERROR in your post!”

    No, you only demonstrated that you don’t know the definition of the word anthropogenic. Anthropogenic means “human caused”.

    “you claimed: “the majority of Brits doubt global warming theory” you meant to say: “a majority of Brits doubt that global warming is ENTIRELY caused by humans”

    The Brits were polled regarding anthropogenic global warming; 50% question it. Accept it.

  33. #33 Engineer
    August 3, 2008

    “it is somewhat funny, that you among all people want to lecture us on reading. did you read one of the articles you are talking about?”

    But you see, I read the article, and I understand that “anthropogenic” means “human caused”, not “partially caused by humans”.

    I have yet to see a study or analysis by global warming alarmists delineating the percentage of global warming assigned to humans versus the percentage caused by natural planetary or solar cycles. Perhaps I should take a crack at it; since human CO2 emissions (26 billion tons annually) = 12% of natural planetary CO2 (220 billion tons), and contribute 0% solar radiation, I postulate that humans are responsible for 12% or less of the claimed 0.6 degree C global warming per century. Does that work for you?

  34. #34 sod
    August 3, 2008

    But you see, I read the article, and I understand that “anthropogenic” means “human caused”, not “partially caused by humans”.

    please, why don t you read the report?

    http://tinyurl.com/6drvjc

    please quote exactly the part of the poll, that is about “human caused warming”. i am waiting.

    this is not about what part of the “anthropogenic” warming is caused by humans. (obviously a stupid thing to examine..) this is about, what part of the total warming is caused by humans.

    a question, that can t be answered without a restriction of the timeframe, by the way…

    I have yet to see a study or analysis by global warming alarmists delineating the percentage of global warming assigned to humans versus the percentage caused by natural planetary or solar cycles.

    i know. that is, because you have NOT looked for the answer to this question. the key again is READING. start with the IPCC report (page 6)

    http://tinyurl.com/2b6q2m

    a pretty famous graph, showing how much of the warming at different time is natural, and how much is caused by humans.
    looks like the guys doing the modelsunderstand, that (at times) there is natural warming as well, doesn t it?!?

    Perhaps I should take a crack at it; since human CO2 emissions (26 billion tons annually) = 12% of natural planetary CO2 (220 billion tons), and contribute 0% solar radiation, I postulate that humans are responsible for 12% or less of the claimed 0.6 degree C global warming per century. Does that work for you?

    you seriously are a great engineer. since human traffic only does 4% damage to that bridge PER YEAR, the 90% damage that we see on the bridge today, can not have been caused by human traffic….

  35. #35 Engineer
    August 4, 2008

    “i know. that is, because you have NOT looked for the answer to this question. the key again is READING. start with the IPCC report (page 6)”

    Your point might have been valid, had it not been for the fact that the graphs on page 6 ended in the year 2000. It would be interesting to see the 2008 version, as the “observed data” has been on a downward trend since 2000. Furthermore, it has been proposed by others that the models overstate CO2 effects, while understating solar variations. Other negative feedbacks such as the “Iris Effect” and the “Svensmark Effect” are recent discoveries.

    “you seriously are a great engineer. since human traffic only does 4% damage to that bridge PER YEAR, the 90% damage that we see on the bridge today, can not have been caused by human traffic….”

    Though I’m in aerospace engineering, your flaw in logic is obvious: seasonal thermal expansion/contraction, freezing water, and corrosion can account for much of bridge damage. Even a bridge that sees no traffic will fail eventually, if not properly maintained and left to the elements.

  36. #36 dhogaza
    August 4, 2008

    Furthermore, it has been proposed by others that the models overstate CO2 effects, while understating solar variations

    Understating unmeasurable solar variations that don’t appear to exist, is that what you meant?

    You’re suggesting models overstate effects from known physics and known increases in concentration (CO2), but understate effects from solar variations that are unmeasurable, right?

    Just to make your blindingly sensible logic clear.

    The models also understate variations in unmeasured fairy godmother skyfarting as well. Damn those climate modelers for their dishonest discounting of unknown and unmeasured phenomena!

  37. #37 sod
    August 4, 2008

    engineer, and once again, you are WRONG on everything that you say!

    Your point might have been valid, had it not been for the fact that the graphs on page 6 ended in the year 2000.

    FALSE. the graphs do NOT end in 2000. again, READING is the key!

    Decadal averages of observations are shown for the period 1906-2005 (black line) plotted against the centre of the decade and relative to the corresponding average for the period 1901-1950.

    it is the TEXT below the graph. please try that READING thing. for once!

    while the line ends in 2000, the DATA (and that is the important part!) is used up to 2005 (perhaps the last reliable data they had for a report published in 2007….)

    It would be interesting to see the 2008 version, as the “observed data” has been on a downward trend since 2000.

    FALSE and FALSE again. you can NOT have 2008 data in a 2007 paper. the claim of a downward TREND since 2000 is FALSE.
    if you chose (again: CHERRY PICK) such a short period of time and the right data set, you end up with a trend that is basically FLAT. it would definetly NOT point “DOWNWARD” in a mini-graph like those ones…

    Furthermore, it has been proposed by others that the models overstate CO2 effects, while understating solar variations.

    lots of wild things are proposed on the internet. this of course is completely irrelevant.

    you claimed in post #23 that “”humans, and only humans, cause global warming”" and in post 28 that Hansen, Gore and the IPCC believe that this is the truth. i was able to PROOF to you, that this is FALSE!
    (simply because they have NATURAL factors in their models, that contribute to an UPWARD trend during certain time intervals..)

    Though I’m in aerospace engineering, your flaw in logic is obvious: seasonal thermal expansion/contraction, freezing water, and corrosion can account for much of bridge damage. Even a bridge that sees no traffic will fail eventually, if not properly maintained and left to the elements.

    again, utterly irrelevant.
    you made the claim, that you could estimate the TOTAL effect that humans have on the CO2 increase by taking the number of the ANNUAL increase (caused by humans). mixing up annual and total contribution is a pretty stupid error for a self proclaimed engineer!

  38. #38 Engineer
    August 4, 2008

    “Understating unmeasurable solar variations that don’t appear to exist, is that what you meant?”

    How solar activity and temperature trends match up (given the fact the Mann’s “hockeystick” has been discredited:

    http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/2007JD008437.pdf

    Danish research on solar activity and cloud formation:

    http://spacecenter.dk/research/sun-climate/

  39. #39 Engineer
    August 4, 2008

    “FALSE. the graphs do NOT end in 2000. again, READING is the key!”

    The ones on page 6 ended in the year 2000, no doubt because observed data took a sharp turn downward from that point on, thus screwing up their correlation with anthropogenic forcings. Kind of interesting how their “black line” allegedly incorporating 2005 data does not show this.

    “lots of wild things are proposed on the internet. this of course is completely irrelevant.”

    Lots of “wild things”, in your opinion, being proposed at MIT, Harvard-Smithsonian, the Danish Space Research Institute, and the Russian Academy of Sciences…

    “you claimed in post #23 that “”humans, and only humans, cause global warming”" and in post 28 that Hansen, Gore and the IPCC believe that this is the truth. i was able to PROOF to you, that this is FALSE! (simply because they have NATURAL factors in their models, that contribute to an UPWARD trend during certain time intervals..)”

    Look at the graphs on page 6 of your own source; when “natural forcings” are the only things considered, there is no warming trend per the IPCC models. So obviously the IPCC, and their computer models, attribute global warming to human activities alone.

  40. #40 Engineer
    August 4, 2008

    “again, utterly irrelevant. you made the claim, that you could estimate the TOTAL effect that humans have on the CO2 increase by taking the number of the ANNUAL increase (caused by humans). mixing up annual and total contribution is a pretty stupid error for a self proclaimed engineer!”

    No, you dope, I was facetiously pointing out TOTAL HUMAN CO2 EMISSIONS ANNUALLY VERSUS MOTHER NATURE’S OUTPUT OF CO2. In order for you to assign human blame for 100% of rising CO2 levels over the last 150 years, you must assume Mother Nature’s output is “constant”. But given that CO2 has ranged from 100 ppm to 3000 ppm over Earth’s history, with no human input, that would be a pretty stupid assumption on your part.

  41. #41 sod
    August 5, 2008

    wow. you completely fail to admit even a single of the obvious errors and false claims you made.
    welcome, you are a great addition to the denialist blogosphere!

    The ones on page 6 ended in the year 2000, no doubt because observed data took a sharp turn downward from that point on, thus screwing up their correlation with anthropogenic forcings.

    FACT: there was NO sharp temperature drop in 2000. again, the best that can be claimed is a somewhat flat trend, over a short period of time in certain datasets.

    please bring on any graph that shows that “sharp turn downward”!

    Kind of interesting how their “black line” allegedly incorporating 2005 data does not show this.

    you do neither understand basic math, nor can you read a graph. great for an engineer!

    the IPCC graph plots points of a decadal averages. 2005 was an EXTREMELY HOT year, perhaps the HOTTEST in 2000 years!

    Lots of “wild things”, in your opinion, being proposed at MIT, Harvard-Smithsonian, the Danish Space Research Institute, and the Russian Academy of Sciences…

    those institutions rarely disagree with the consensus on climate change. if they do, it is in minor points and aspects.

    it would help a lot, if you would understand (or for a change, READ) those articles that you link to.

    you decided to introduce the Scafetta article above with the lines:

    How solar activity and temperature trends match up (given the fact the Mann’s “hockeystick” has been discredited:

    you obviously did not understand, that the temperature curve that Scafetta is using in that article (Mann 2003) actually IS the HOCKEYSTICK!

    Look at the graphs on page 6 of your own source; when “natural forcings” are the only things considered, there is no warming trend per the IPCC models. So obviously the IPCC, and their computer models, attribute global warming to human activities alone.

    you confirm what was obvious for some time now. you neither understand how to calculate a TREND (no, this is not looking at starting and endpoint) nor do understand that looking at (and SPECIFYING!) TIME PERIODS is important, when investigating climate.

    you are incapable of both these things.

    your claim was, that the IPCC thinks that humans and humans alone cause climate change. this is FALSE!

  42. #42 Barton Paul Levenson
    August 5, 2008

    Engineer posts:

    No, you dope, I was facetiously pointing out TOTAL HUMAN CO2 EMISSIONS ANNUALLY VERSUS MOTHER NATURE’S OUTPUT OF CO2. In order for you to assign human blame for 100% of rising CO2 levels over the last 150 years, you must assume Mother Nature’s output is “constant”. But given that CO2 has ranged from 100 ppm to 3000 ppm over Earth’s history, with no human input, that would be a pretty stupid assumption on your part.

    The CO2 level was steady at around 260-280 ppmv for some 10,000 years prior to the industrial revolution. That the new CO2 is artificial is clear from the isotope ratios involved. The signature of fossil fuel carbon dioxide in ambient air was first detected by Hans Suess in 1955.

    It’s not an assumption. It’s something we’ve measured. 27% of the CO2 in the air around us at this point is artificial.

  43. #43 Engineer
    August 5, 2008

    “you obviously did not understand, that the temperature curve that Scafetta is using in that article (Mann 2003) actually IS the HOCKEYSTICK!”

    It compared solar activity with the Mann’s hockeystick trend and the “Moberg05″ trend, which included the Medieval Warm Period Mann’s hockeystick left out. Solar activity matched the Moberg trend.

    “you confirm what was obvious for some time now. you neither understand how to calculate a TREND (no, this is not looking at starting and endpoint) nor do understand that looking at (and SPECIFYING!) TIME PERIODS is important, when investigating climate. you are incapable of both these things.”

    You must be color blind, or incapable of reading a simple graph; anthropogenic + natural forcings = the increasing red shaded band; natural forcings alone = the pretty much flat blue shaded band.

    “you do neither understand basic math, nor can you read a graph. great for an engineer!”

    Questioning my abilities won’t cover that the fact that you are clearly wrong.

  44. #44 Dano
    August 5, 2008

    Gosh, another “engineer” presuming they know more than the people who do the work every day.

    Shocking, surely.

    You’re a joke, son, using these puerile, long-ago refuted arguments. *snork*.

    Best,

    D

  45. #45 Bernard J.
    August 5, 2008

    Engineer.

    Do you disagree with Barton’s statement that 27% of CO2 in the atmosphere is of anthropogenic origin?

    Yes or no.

  46. #46 Engineer
    August 5, 2008

    “That the new CO2 is artificial is clear from the isotope ratios involved. The signature of fossil fuel carbon dioxide in ambient air was first detected by Hans Suess in 1955. It’s not an assumption. It’s something we’ve measured. 27% of the CO2 in the air around us at this point is artificial.”

    Except that the Carbon isotope in question is also given off by thawing permafrost, something that has been going on since the end of the last ice-age.

  47. #47 cce
    August 5, 2008

    The spike in CO2 began in the last few centuries. There is no record in the ice cores of the CO2 concentration ever being this high in the past 850,000 years. There is no record in the ice cores of CO2 concentrations rising so quickly. Atmospheric oxygen is decreasing due to combustion. The isotope ratios match what would be emitted from burning fossil CO2.

    It is an absolute fact that we are the cause of the CO2 increase.

  48. #48 z
    August 5, 2008

    well, i’m going out on a limb here, but isn’t the carbon in coal/petroleum a tad older than the permafrost? and, if the permafrost has been thawing since the last ice age and contributing its isotope mix into the co2, it probably ought not to be changing recently.

  49. #49 Barton Paul Levenson
    August 6, 2008

    Engineer posts:

    “That the new CO2 is artificial is clear from the isotope ratios involved. The signature of fossil fuel carbon dioxide in ambient air was first detected by Hans Suess in 1955. It’s not an assumption. It’s something we’ve measured. 27% of the CO2 in the air around us at this point is artificial.”

    Except that the Carbon isotope in question is also given off by thawing permafrost, something that has been going on since the end of the last ice-age.

    “[T]he carbon isotope???” Fossil fuel carbon dioxide is identified by the ratios of several isotopes. The most obvious one is that fossil fuel CO2 is deficient in carbon-14, being too old for any to persist. Another one is the 13C/12C ratio, which indicates plant origin, since plants take up the different isotopes at different rates.

    The increase from 280 to 386 ppmv over the past 150 years has been almost solely due to anthropogenic sources.

  50. #50 Engineer
    August 6, 2008

    “The spike in CO2 began in the last few centuries. There is no record in the ice cores of the CO2 concentration ever being this high in the past 850,000 years. There is no record in the ice cores of CO2 concentrations rising so quickly. Atmospheric oxygen is decreasing due to combustion. The isotope ratios match what would be emitted from burning fossil CO2.

    It is an absolute fact that we are the cause of the CO2 increase.”

    The Earth is almost 5 billion years old. CO2 has risen/fallen, to much greater extent, in the past:

    http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-08-18/dioxide.htm

    It is also fact that thawing permafrost gives off the same Carbon-13 depleted signature of fossil fuels:

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/312/5780/1612
    http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Thawing_Permafrost_Is_A_Significant_Source_Of_Carbon.html

  51. #51 Bernard J.
    August 6, 2008

    Engineer.

    The Earth is almost 5 billion years old. CO2 has risen/fallen, to much greater extent, in the past

    And your point is?

    Oh, and why is the permafrost melting?

  52. #52 cce
    August 8, 2008

    The fact that CO2 levels were higher over the last 5 billion years is irrelevent to the cause of the CO2 increase today. “Skeptics” apparently believe that it is a total coincidence that CO2 levels began rising exactly at the time humans began emitting it. They apparently believe that it’s a coincidence that the increase matches human use right down to the ’70s oil shocks and the collapse of the Soviet Union. They apparently believe that it is a total coincidence that levels are the highest they’ve been in at least 850,000 years, and that the rate of increase is the highest in that record. They apparently believe that the gigatonnes of carbon that we emit is sucked into an interdimensional vortex without a trace. Skeptics apparently aren’t very skeptical.

    I wish I could read the Zimov et al paper, because I suspect that they don’t attribute ~25 Gt of annual CO2 emissions to melting permafrost. Call me crazy.

  53. #54 z
    August 8, 2008

    “It is also fact that thawing permafrost gives off the same Carbon-13 depleted signature of fossil fuels”

    while we’re on the topic:

    “In the Arctic, the oldest continuously frozen layers with the cryogenesis traces are middle Pliocene shingles; the most ancient in the North Hemisphere date to 3 Ma. Frozen ground recovered in cores from Mt. Feather and probably in
    Beacon Valley is estimated to be more than 5 and 8 Ma old, but may date from the formation of frozen ground more than 30Ma ago”
    http://classic.ipy.org/development/ideas/national/idea409.pdf

    “The Carboniferous is a geologic period and system that extends from the end of the Devonian period, about 359.2 ± 2.5 Ma (million years ago), to the beginning of the Permian period, about 299.0 ± 0.8 Ma (ICS, 2004)”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carboniferous

    following your brilliant explanation of how increased
    CO2 can’t increase IR absorbtion, you can give us a treatise on how a > ten fold increase in time doesn’t change the isotope ratio of carbon. perhaps you can cite a site which actually addresses the subject this time.

    finally you can answer this question: why are you here? what are you trying to do? you are either cognitively impaired, or being deliberately misleading. what do you hope to gain? scorn and derision, which you would have to pay attractive women to give you otherwise?

  54. #55 z
    August 8, 2008

    “I wish I could read the Zimov et al paper, because I suspect that they don’t attribute ~25 Gt of annual CO2 emissions to melting permafrost. Call me crazy.”

    http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=5970&method=full

    in fact, you are not crazy. they make no estimates for current permafrost contribution, but rather warn of the permafrost as a gigantic risk for positive feedback later in the century.

  55. #56 Bernard J.
    August 9, 2008

    Engineer.

    There are several questions pertaining to permafrost awaiting your answers.

    Please.