There is absolutely no evidence that CO2 has anything to do with any kind of warming.
I do believe carbon is in CO2?
1: Nature. 2000 Nov 9;408(6809):184-7.Click here to read
Acceleration of global warming due to carbon-cycle feedbacks in a coupled climate model.
Cox PM, Betts RA, Jones CD, Spall SA, Totterdell IJ.
Hadley Centre, The Met Office, Bracknell, Berkshire, UK. pmcox@meto.gov.uk
The continued increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide due to anthropogenic emissions is predicted to lead to significant changes in climate. About half of the current emissions are being absorbed by the ocean and by land ecosystems, but this absorption is sensitive to climate as well as to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, creating a feedback loop. General circulation models have generally excluded the feedback between climate and the biosphere, using static vegetation distributions and CO2 concentrations from simple carbon-cycle models that do not include climate change. Here we present results from a fully coupled, three-dimensional carbon-climate model, indicating that carbon-cycle feedbacks could significantly accelerate climate change over the twenty-first century. We find that under a 'business as usual' scenario, the terrestrial biosphere acts as an overall carbon sink until about 2050, but turns into a source thereafter. By 2100, the ocean uptake rate of 5 Gt C yr(-1) is balanced by the terrestrial carbon source, and atmospheric CO2 concentrations are 250 p.p.m.v. higher in our fully coupled simulation than in uncoupled carbon models, resulting in a global-mean warming of 5.5 K, as compared to 4 K without the carbon-cycle feedback.
PMID: 11089968 [PubMed]
The mid-Cretaceous super plume, carbon dioxide, and global warming.
Caldeira K, Rampino MR.
Collaborators (1)
Rampino MR.
Department of Applied Science, New York University, USA.
Carbon-dioxide releases associated with a mid-Cretaceous super plume and the emplacement of the Ontong-Java Plateau have been suggested as a principal cause of the mid-Cretaceous global warming. We developed a carbonate-silicate cycle model to quantify the possible climatic effects of these CO2 releases, utilizing four different formulations for the rate of silicate-rock weathering as a function of atmospheric CO2. We find that CO2 emissions resulting from super-plume tectonics could have produced atmospheric CO2 levels from 3.7 to 14.7 times the modern pre-industrial value of 285 ppm. Based on the temperature sensitivity to CO2 increases used in the weathering-rate formulations, this would cause a global warming of from 2.8 to 7.7 degrees C over today's global mean temperature. Altered continental positions and higher sea level may have been contributed about 4.8 degrees C to mid-Cretaceous warming. Thus, the combined effects of paleogeographic changes and super-plume related CO2 emissions could be in the range of 7.6 to 12.5 degrees C, within the 6 to 14 degrees C range previously estimated for mid-Cretaceous warming. CO2 releases from oceanic plateaus alone are unlikely to have been directly responsible for more than 20% of the mid-Cretaceous increase in atmospheric CO2.
I confess, I only read abstracts. But never mind. Models, peer reviewed articles - all rubbish of course.
I think also the science of global warming is not as conclusive and not as accepted as many would like to think it is.
Did you look at my post four below yours? That sounds like it's pretty accepted to me and there are a LOT of organizations and societies I left off. I have no problem adding more :)
Screw Al Gore. Alot of "green" lifestyle choices will SAVE YOU MONEY.
Carpool, drive less, take the bus... good for the environment, yes, but more importantly you'll be spending hundreds of dollars less on gasoline each year.
Use energy efficient lightbulbs, and turn your electronics off when not in use, and you'll notice a significant drop on your utilities bill.
Watering your lawn in the day is just plain useless... most of the water evaporates before the grass can have a drink. Water at night and your lawn will be much healthier.
I personally don't buy into the climate change hype, but I know that many of the green lifestyle choices that I make are also "Al Gore Approved." It's not hard, and it saves me money. Win-win.
Okay, I'm bored so I'll fire a nice big shot at the "no consensus" argument that man isn't responsible for global warming.
Here's yer consensus:
Specifically, the "consensus" about anthropogenic climate change entails the following:
* the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability;
If that is so, please explain how it was WARMER ( according to scientists ) between 130,000-110,000 years ago - was that a trend beyond the range of natural variability, also? And if so, how was it "un"naturally caused?
Originally posted by chip_k:
* the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2;
Why is it that global warming sceptics asume that climate scientists are complete morons? I mean, science has put a man on the moon (yes, it has :p), created jets that can fly 3 times the speed of sound, cloned sheep, created machines that can examine our insides in minute detail and create bombs powerful enough to wipe out small countries. And yet people think that the climate science guys can't figure out accurate temperature estimates for the past.
The earth is flat, too. Really.
Did you ever watch the weather on TV? They are 50% wrong 90% of the time. Do you really think they know what the average temperature was 2,000 years ago.
I do think science tells us the truth until we find a better explanation.
I also think that we can no longer go to the moon. Think of the problems we would have to overcome. The new 'rocket' would have to be built by the lowest bidder and it would still cost trillions. Japan could go because they don't have unions.
In 40,000 years the earth will cool down again when the next ice age comes through. Hopefully we will have an alternative to oil to heat our homes or we will all have to move south.
RonB
1. If that is so, please explain how it was WARMER ( according to scientists ) between 130,000-110,000 years ago - was that a trend beyond the range of natural variability, also? And if so, how was it "un"naturally caused?
Answer. I'm not disputing (and neither are any scientists) by any stretch of the imagination that it's been hotter at times during history. The point of the current climate change is that:
A. It's happening much more rapidly than ever before, which means the Earth won't be able to provide it's normal checks and balances.
B. The amount of carbon dioxide we're spewing into the air is the main contributing factor AT THIS TIME. It doesn't mean that other factors haven't influenced things in the past. Theoretically, there could be a MASSIVE volcanic eruption that would spew massive amounts of rock and ash into the air that would chill the Earth. CO2 is normally absorbed by the oceans and plant life but it can't keep up with the amount we're exhausting.
2. Temperature rises actually PRECEDED rises in atmospheric CO2 by several hundred years.
Answer: From studying all the available data (not just ice cores), the probable sequence of events during the warming events goes something like this. Some (currently unknown) process causes Antarctica and the surrounding ocean to warm. This process also causes CO2 to start rising, about 800 years later. Then CO2 further warms the whole planet, because of its heat-trapping properties. This leads to even further CO2 release. So CO2 during ice ages should be thought of as a "feedback", much like the feedback that results from putting a microphone too near to a loudspeaker. Source
3. If that is so, what caused the fairly large increases in CO2 in the past?
One theory is that the oceans absorb CO2 better the colder they are. Hence, as it starts heating up, the oceans absorb less CO2 and it accumulates. Other big contributing factors could be a massive plant die-off for some reason. Metors striking the Earth could create volcanic eruptions thousands of times more massive than naything we've seen. That would spew tons of Co2 iun the air.
But, in general, if we don't know the natural causes in the past, it doesn't mean that we don't know the cause know.
More to come, I didn't want to keep you in suspense :)
4. If that is so, then why did temperatures in the past DECLINE while levels of atmospheric CO2 continued increasing ( see above link )?
Again, there can be a lot of different causes for temperature change but if there were different reasons in the past, that doesn't meant that our CO2 production isn't the cause NOW.
If a school bus hit your car last week, does that mean that the pick-up that hit it today didn't cause the damage? Sun activity CAN cause temperature fluctuations. Volcanic events CAN cause temperature fluctuations. One thing that I find interesting about the CO2/temperature correlation in the temperature records is that the thawing/chilling cycle does seem to pbe pretty regular, but it's on a scale that totally dwarfs what we're seeing now.
Right now, Earth's "normal" CO2 absorbing mechanisms (the oceans and plant life) are only able to take in HALF of what is being produced every year. "The concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today, has not been exceeded in the last 420,000 years, and likely not in the last 20 million years." NOAA
It's happening much more rapidly than ever before, which means the Earth won't be able to provide it's normal checks and balances.
What proof is there of this statement? ....the "which means the Earth won't be able to provide its normal checks and balances" part.
edited for clarity
"Global combustion of fossil fuels and other materials places almost 7 billion tons of carbon, in the form of CO2, into the atmosphere each year. On average, Earth's oceans, trees, plants and soils absorb about one-half of this carbon. The balance remains in the air and is responsible for the annual increase." source
An uncited and authorless report hosted by the Heartland Institute? You can do better than that.
I guess I'm just done being polite and patient. I can't take the time to go through and point-by-point dissect that document (parts of it I have already hit in this thread, parts are just laughable, a few parts would require some thought, and might even be right in parts). Throw things at me one at a time and I'll respond.
What proof is there of this statement? ....the "which means the Earth won't be able to provide its normal checks and balances" part.
One possible way to reduce CO2 is to increase the amount of iron in sections of the ocean so that algae can benefit from the extra CO2 in the air and grow faster, thereby absorbing more CO2. This article's old, but I've seen a story recently about a study to see if it's feasible/wise to mitigate CO2.
"...the scientists produced a much stronger effect, even though they used less iron than last time. According to preliminary calculations, the experiment yielded a 30- to 40-fold increase in chlorophyll and caused enough plankton growth to absorb 350,000 kg of carbon dioxide from the seawater."
complete story
Smoking Gun #1. AL Gore’s chart shows that CO2 is almost 30% higher than any time before in the last 650,000 years, and yet temperatures aren't even at a peak of the last 1,000 years, and all major peaks are well above today's temperature as well.
If you turn your oven to 450 degrees, does it instantly go right to 450 or does it take time to warm up? We just turned the burners on recently, figuratively speaking ;)
Answer: "There is actually some truth to the part about the difficulties; scientists have overcome many of them in turning the hundreds of thousands of measurements taken in many different ways and over a span of more than a dozen decades into a single globally averaged trend.
But this is the nature of science -- no one said it was easy. It's taken the scientific community a long time to finally come out and say that what we have been observing for 100 years is in fact exactly what it looks like. All other possible explanations (for example, the Urban Heat Island effect) have been investigated, the data has been examined and re-examined, reviewed and re-reviewed, and the conclusion has become unassailable."
source
I think also the science of global warming is not as conclusive and not as accepted as many would like to think it is.
Did you look at my post four below yours? That sounds like it's pretty accepted to me and there are a LOT of organizations and societies I left off. I have no problem adding more :)
My point was that if everyone accepted global warming as conclusive, we wouldn't have 8 pages of disagreament in this thread.
An uncited and authorless report hosted by the Heartland Institute? You can do better than that.
I guess I'm just done being polite and patient. I can't take the time to go through and point-by-point dissect that document (parts of it I have already hit in this thread, parts are just laughable, a few parts would require some thought, and might even be right in parts). Throw things at me one at a time and I'll respond.
Looks like the author is bioed at the end of the article. Nice article, includes a lot of the reasons I have been a sceptic.
My point was that if everyone accepted global warming as conclusive, we wouldn't have 8 pages of disagreament in this thread.
DPC can argue for 8 pages about what "bokeh" is and still not reach a conclusion. :)
Naomi Oreskes is a Professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California San Diego and is NOT the author of that article.
She conducted a study that found that of "928 (published scientific) papers,... 75% ... either explicitly or implicitly accept(ed) the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position."
She's included in the PDF because they cite a later study to show that scientific support for CC is "declining." Tomorrow... :)
Here's the problem chip. After all that work and citing of sources, you won't hear from RonB again. He'll just disappear. OR, he'll pick up on one tiny little mistake you make and ignore the rebuttal for 99% of the rest of what he said and point out how you are wrong on this one point (and thus wrong on all the points).
I've been in enough internet debates to know the drill.
My point was that if everyone accepted global warming as conclusive, we wouldn't have 8 pages of disagreament in this thread.
It's an interesting point. If you read something published by the IPCC for instance (example), you won't see a lot of conclusive statements. You will find statements as "it is likely", "it is very likely", "there's much evidence" and also a couple of indeniable facts. Nobody claims to know what will happen in a century, that's why different scenarios are discussed.
In my eyes, the sceptics towards global warming don't know how to deal with statistical data (it's probably the same people who spend a lot of money with lottery). They are waiting for a hard fact which will never come.
Nobody can foretell the future exactly! So why bother? Because luckily, some people believe that they have a responsibility on how we let our planet to our children and are not ready to take any chances. But it's always the same with responsibility, some people take it and others prefer to look away.
My point was that if everyone accepted global warming as conclusive, we wouldn't have 8 pages of disagreament in this thread.
It's an interesting point. If you read something published by the IPCC for instance (example), you won't see a lot of conclusive statements. You will find statements as "it is likely", "it is very likely", "there's much evidence" and also a couple of indeniable facts. Nobody claims to know what will happen in a century, that's why different scenarios are discussed.
In my eyes, the sceptics towards global warming don't know how to deal with statistical data (it's probably the same people who spend a lot of money with lottery). They are waiting for a hard fact which will never come.
Nobody can foretell the future exactly! So why bother? Because luckily, some people believe that they have a responsibility on how we let our planet to our children and are not ready to take any chances. But it's always the same with responsibility, some people take it and others prefer to look away.
There are three types of lies; lies, damned lies, and statistics (old saying). I think again you prove my point by saying in a couple of different ways that the science is not conclusive. Then you fall back on an emotional argument.
As far as the emotional arguement; I have six children and beachfront property. I want my children to enjoy this beautiful earth as much as you do. I don't believe the earth should be ravaged. I trust every photographer on this site appreciates the beauty on this earth or they wouldn't be taking pictures of it.
Taking responsibility doesn't equate to cowtowing to every bit of science fiction brought forth by Hollywood politicians.
Taking responsibility doesn't equate to cowtowing to every bit of science fiction brought forth by Hollywood politicians.
CORRECT! To me, taking responsibility means taking the time to dig up the FACTS on your own and make your own conclusions. We're all making big mistakes if we rely on Michael Moore, Al Gore, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, George Bush and our Aunt Gertrude to provide us with information regarding climate change.
Here's the problem chip. After all that work and citing of sources, you won't hear from RonB again. He'll just disappear. OR, he'll pick up on one tiny little mistake you make and ignore the rebuttal for 99% of the rest of what he said and point out how you are wrong on this one point (and thus wrong on all the points).
I've been in enough internet debates to know the drill.
