Quote from futurecurrents:
...This is also the conclusion drawn, nearly unanimously, by climate scientists.
...
En - Un = C' - Ea
While we don't know the values of En or Un, the difference between them is constrained by conservation of mass to be the same as the difference between C' and Ea, which we do know! More importantly if we knew the right hand side of this equation was negative, then we would know that the left hand side must also be negative, so whatever their actual values, Un > En.
http://www.weather.com/encyclopedia/global/
These are statements I can only find challenged evidence for among the
currently available science. At one time, a number of years ago, these statements reflected the scientific consensus. At present it appears that opinions of the experts are gradually shifting as defects in earlier data interpretations become more evident, and new data and analysis becomes available.
In particular, though we have only rough estimates for En and Un, it is known that these quantities are roughly balanced and two orders larger than Ea. Given the relative magnitudes of, and error estimates for En, Un, and Ea, we can simply draw a line through Ea. It is negligible compared to the other terms. Furthermore, arguments based on amplified sensitivity to the much smaller Ea due to feedback mechanisms are made moot by consideration of any such mechanism also applying to the much larger En. It is also now known that water in its three phases is far more important in moderating surface temperature than is CO2 in its single gas phase.
From the latest satellite data we've learned that the former assumption that fossil fuel burning is the only important contributor to changes in atmospheric C13 content is unfounded.
Finally Salby's beautiful explanation of the ice core measurements makes it probable that past atmospheric CO2 content was far higher than earlier estimates. If this work is correct, and the peer review process and further observations will ultimately decide, then current CO2 levels are hardly unprecedented, as is still being claimed by some.
The current data is entirely consistent with temperature being the most important influence on CO2 content --that is to say that CO2 content mirrors the integral of temperature, rather than the other way around. This simple recognition, along with delineating the time scales for conservative and non-conservative atmospheric CO2, may ultimately make Salby quite famous in the field of atmospheric physics.
If Salby is ultimately shown to be correct, this would not be the first time by any means that common observations have been misinterpreted by many only to have someone come along and turn conventional thinking on its head. Copernicus did it, but it took Kepler and Galileo to end the gainsaying. Chances are it will take more than Salby. Entrenched minds resist change.
The key feature that separates science from the non-sciences is that science, by definition, can never be completely settled because it must always remain falsifiable and subject to observation. It appears then that the question of how important anthropomorphic CO2 is in moderating the Earth's surface temperature is, so far, still very much unsettled science. All indications, however, now point to a high probability of it not being very important. Regardless, it would be a huge mistake to assume, therefore, that mankind need not be concerned about stewardship of its planet.
