Honest Question About Anthropomorphic Global Warming

[Juvenal]

My source was Google. I agree it would be nice to know from whom was that image's authorship. If I knew it I would have included it. I did a Google image search for: " man made co2 emissions vs. natural," to choose that image.

That nailed it, thanks. The chart was published in a WUWT post, and has since been withdrawn.

UPDATE:

Thanks to everyone who pointed out the difference in the chart and the issues.

I was offered this post by the author in WUWT Tips and Notes, here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/tips-and...omment-1696307 and reproduced below.

The chart refers to the annual increase in CO2, not the total amount. So it is misleading.

Since the original author had worked for the Tucson Citizen I made the mistake of assuming it was properly vetted.

The fault is mine for not checking further. But as “pokerguy” notes, it won’t disappear. Mistakes are just as valuable for learning. – Anthony Watts

[Juvenal]

I think the thread has illustrated that the glaciers have been melting for quite some time.
I initially thought the claim that the earth wasn't warming had some merit but the trend has been observed long enough as to be pretty solid, IMHO.
I know that was a silly position but I don't dig into this material very deep.

So we know the earth is warming and has been warming for quite some time.
So we know the amount of 'greenhouse gasses' has gone up and I see no reason to doubt those observations.

The gap for me would be proving a couple of things:
1: That CO2 as contributed by man has caused things to warm faster - this means showing that some other accelerant isn't in play.
2: That CO2 is taking us to a place we weren't going to be at in a few years anyways.

The reason that is important is because of public policy.
I'd ask: Why spend billions to slow our march to a warming temperature point that we'll reach anyways?
If we had carbon emissions when a glacier still covered Michigan would cutting that emission still have the state under a glacier?
No it wouldn't - an extreme example but you get the point.

So has the connection between C02 produced by man and an increase in temperatures been established, in your honest opinion?

That's what honest questions look like.

[shunyadragon]

My source was Google. I agree it would be nice to know from whom was that image's authorship. If I knew it I would have included it. I did a Google image search for: " man made co2 emissions vs. natural," to choose that image.

You need to check your sources closer, and not chase your tale looking for rabbits in Cambrian rocks to justify what you believe.

[37818]

That nailed it, thanks. The chart was published in a WUWT post, and has since been withdrawn.

UPDATE:

Thanks to everyone who pointed out the difference in the chart and the issues.

I was offered this post by the author in WUWT Tips and Notes, here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/tips-and...omment-1696307 and reproduced below.

The chart refers to the annual increase in CO2, not the total amount. So it is misleading.

Since the original author had worked for the Tucson Citizen I made the mistake of assuming it was properly vetted.

The fault is mine for not checking further. But as “pokerguy” notes, it won’t disappear. Mistakes are just as valuable for learning. – Anthony Watts

Good to know. So the chart I used reports annual increase of CO₂ by source. Is there a correct chart that shows total percentages of CO₂ by source.

[Juvenal]

Good to know. So the chart I used reports annual increase of CO₂ by source.

No, that's just Watts' attempt to cover up his face-plant, and just as incoherent. Pre-industrial sources for today's annual increases? Uh huh. I posted it to highlight that even Watts admits it wasn't what it purported to be. WUWT is the Jack Chick of denialist apologetics, strictly amateur fumbling.

Is there a correct chart that shows total percentages of CO₂ by source.

I'll look, but the basic results are well known. There's a large cycle of CO2 in and out of the atmosphere each year, resulting in what's now a consistent 1 or 2 ppm increase each year, all or nearly all of which is human-generated.

[Leonhard]

Its easy 37181... nature doesn't produce CO2 all year round. In the fall, organic matter, like tree leaves, rot and produce CO2 in huge quantities. However all that CO2 is recaptured again in the spring when nature blooms. Its part of a carbon cycle. In this cycle, without intervention, there's roughly the same amount of carbon, and therefore on average the same amount of CO2.

Human, unlike natural sources, produce CO2 all year around. Adding to the carbon cycle, thereby increasing the net amount.

However if one doesn't tell this, then a person can paint a picture nature is depicted as an industry, and mankind as a different... nature emits 800+Gigaton, and man emits 10Gigaton. "Notice how insignificant humans are" Of course this person wouldn't be telling you that nature would reabsorb what it emitted, and the amount of carbon would stay the same... however those 10Gigaton? They're stacked on top of the cycle.. year, after year, after year...