My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[Cedars]

But I digress. The real issue is that the relatively rapid increase in global temps is causing harm to several unique species. The rapid increase of temps is attributable (at *least* in part) by [ce]CO2[/ce].

 

Sure, we are not the ocean, but to argue that we have an insignificant effect is quite bold.

No whats bold is the assumption that the daily divergence from existing conditions is impactful, when dealing with a property that is pre-existing.

 

Do the math. What exactly is 15% of 750 divided by 365? This is the daily human addition to the existing atmospheric CO2. Whats quite bold is implying this is significant, or massive, or any of the other adjectives tossed about in the headlines.

 

Carbon dioxide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Why do you suppose the [ce]CO2[/ce] concentrations have dropped so much since 500Mya? Why are they no longer declining, but rapidly inclining now?

I dont suppose anything as to why the fluctuations happened before, when they dropped from 5000 ppmv to 500 then back up to 1000 or 2000 then fell again. But I do know it wasnt cuz people were driving to the mall.

 

Easy. There was no such thing as disaster back then, it is a human concept.

I'm sure the plants were loving it. They certainly locked away a good bit. The same bit that we're putting around town on today.

 

Yes, the word disaster screams for attention from the headlines.

 

Chloride chemistry is only one part of the equation.

What about Bromine? What about Methane? What about hydroxyl and nitric oxide radicals?

 

Ozone depletion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

What about it? The basics of the article revolve around a chemist discovering that the basic formula used to calculate the process of ozone interaction with with this chemical is flawed and the researcher who studies such things applied the new formula to the existing (and what science based its conclusions on ozone hole theories) and found the past idea does not explain what is happening, indicating we may have to rethink the previous conclusion.

 

All of the above properties were established as existing when the above formula was applied. None of that has changed as far as I know.

[Zythryn]

Do the math. What exactly is 15% of 750 divided by 365? This is the daily human addition to the existing atmospheric CO2. Whats quite bold is implying this is significant, or massive, or any of the other adjectives tossed about in the headlines.

 

Cedars, this is quite misleading.:)

I am not sure if you are just repeating propaganda or if this was your own creation.

You seem to not be taking into account the balance of the system.

This isn't a picture of what is actually happening.

 

You are saying (please correct me if I am wrong): because mankind adds only 15% to co2 levels mankind's contribution is negligable.

 

What needs to be looked at is how much mankind adds to the EXCESS amount of CO2. By excess I mean the amount of CO2 that isn't absorbed by carbon sinks.

 

To simplify, if you have a rain barrel that holds 100 gallons, and you get naturally 99 gallons of rain the system works. If you add just 2% (2 gallons) the rainbarrel overflows.

[freeztar]

No whats bold is the assumption that the daily divergence from existing conditions is impactful, when dealing with a property that is pre-existing.

 

Do the math. What exactly is 15% of 750 divided by 365? This is the daily human addition to the existing atmospheric CO2. Whats quite bold is implying this is significant, or massive, or any of the other adjectives tossed about in the headlines.

 

I think Z addressed this well.

I dont suppose anything as to why the fluctuations happened before, when they dropped from 5000 ppmv to 500 then back up to 1000 or 2000 then fell again. But I do know it wasnt cuz people were driving to the mall.

 

Ok Cedars, have a look at these links and tell me if you still believe your assertions.

 

Over the last 150 years, carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations have risen from 280 to nearly 380 parts per million (ppm). The fact that this is due virtually entirely to human activities is so well established that one rarely sees it questioned. Yet it is quite reasonable to ask how we know this.

 

One way that we know that human activities are responsible for the increased CO2 is simply by looking at historical records of human activities. Since the industrial revolution, we have been burning fossil fuels and clearing and burning forested land at an unprecedented rate, and these processes convert organic carbon into CO2. Careful accounting of the amount of fossil fuel that has been extracted and combusted, and how much land clearing has occurred, shows that we have produced far more CO2 than now remains in the atmosphere. The roughly 500 billion metric tons of carbon we have produced is enough to have raised the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to nearly 500 ppm. The concentrations have not reached that level because the ocean and the terrestrial biosphere have the capacity to absorb some of the CO2 we produce.* However, it is the fact that we produce CO2 faster than the ocean and biosphere can absorb it that explains the observed increase.

 

Another, quite independent way that we know that fossil fuel burning and land clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years is through the measurement of carbon isotopes. Isotopes are simply different atoms with the same chemical behavior (isotope means “same type”) but with different masses. Carbon is composed of three different isotopes, 14C, 13C and 12C. 12C is the most common. 13C is about 1% of the total. 14C accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms....

RealClimate

 

It is true that CO2 has gone up on its own in the past, most notably during the glacial-interglacial cycles. During this time, CO2 rose and fell by over 100 ppm, ranging between around 180 to 300ppm. But these rises, though they look steep over a 400Kyr timeframe, took 5K to 20Kyrs, depending on the glacial cycle.

 

By contrast, we have seen an equivalent rise of 100ppm in just 150 years! Check this plot for a dramatic juxtaposition of the slow glacial termination versus the industrial revolution.

 

There is still more to the case. By analyzing the isotopes of the carbon and oxygen atoms making up atmospheric CO2, in a process similar to carbon dating, scientists can and have detected a human "fingerprint." What they have found via the isotope signatures can be thought of as "old" carbon, which could only come from fossil fuel deposits, combined with "young" oxygen, as is found in the air all around us. So present day combustion of fossilized hydrocarbon deposits (natural gas, coal, and oil) is definitely the source of the CO2 currently accumulating -- just as common sense tells us.

'The CO2 rise is natural' | Gristmill: The environmental news blog | Grist

 

What about it? The basics of the article revolve around a chemist discovering that the basic formula used to calculate the process of ozone interaction with with this chemical is flawed and the researcher who studies such things applied the new formula to the existing (and what science based its conclusions on ozone hole theories) and found the past idea does not explain what is happening, indicating we may have to rethink the previous conclusion.

 

All of the above properties were established as existing when the above formula was applied. None of that has changed as far as I know.

 

The discussion of ozone science would best be reserved for its own dedicated thread I believe. If you want to start one, I'll be happy to discuss these issues with you there. :)

[Cedars]

You seem to not be taking into account the balance of the system.

This isn't a picture of what is actually happening.

 

You are saying (please correct me if I am wrong): because mankind adds only 15% to co2 levels mankind's contribution is negligable.

 

What needs to be looked at is how much mankind adds to the EXCESS amount of CO2. By excess I mean the amount of CO2 that isn't absorbed by carbon sinks.

 

To simplify, if you have a rain barrel that holds 100 gallons, and you get naturally 99 gallons of rain the system works. If you add just 2% (2 gallons) the rainbarrel overflows.

 

To simplify is fine. But its not 100 gallons, its a million gallon pool with 380 gallons of water and people add 7 gallons to that. Or make it a 1000 gallon pool* with 380 gallons in it and people adding 7 (or 10 or 15) gallons to it a year (depending on source) and its not a sealed pool, its an open and dynamic interaction with the other million gallons of other atmospheric properties, interacting with the mass of the ocean, plants, land, etc.

 

*because we're pretty sure 1000ppm CO2 doesnt cause a runaway greenhouse effect. It didnt in the past.

[Cedars]

The discussion of ozone science would best be reserved for its own dedicated thread I believe. If you want to start one, I'll be happy to discuss these issues with you there. :)

 

No, I dont wish to start a new thread on it. But I do expect similar findings in the future regarding what we apply as known fact now to be altered as we discover we dont know enough to make proclamations such as "with a 90% certainty".

[Zythryn]

To simplify is fine. But its not 100 gallons, its a million gallon pool with 380 gallons of water and people add 7 gallons to that. Or make it a 1000 gallon pool* with 380 gallons in it and people adding 7 (or 10 or 15) gallons to it a year (depending on source) and its not a sealed pool, its an open and dynamic interaction with the other million gallons of other atmospheric properties, interacting with the mass of the ocean, plants, land, etc.

 

*because we're pretty sure 1000ppm CO2 doesnt cause a runaway greenhouse effect. It didnt in the past.

 

I disagree that your analogy above represents the issue. You are comparing our contribution of CO2 to the entire atmosphere. I think a more accurate way of looking at the issue is comparing the contribution of CO2 to the CO2 already there naturally.

IF you feel that CO2 really isn't responsible for holding onto heat, that is a seperate issue. Howver, if you agree that CO2 holds onto heat, then it is more accurate to look at the contribution of our added CO2 to solar forcing or which most of the atmosphere doesn't contribute.

[freeztar]

No, I dont wish to start a new thread on it. But I do expect similar findings in the future regarding what we apply as known fact now to be altered as we discover we dont know enough to make proclamations such as "with a 90% certainty".

 

Science is ammenable, I agree.

 

Are you going to address the other points in my post?

[Cedars]

Are you going to address the other points in my post?

 

I am not sure what point you were trying to make. I dont think I ever said you cant see a fingerprint. I dont know of many things that dont leave fingerprints, from glaciers, to rivers, to plants and bacteria. People leave LOTS of fingerprints. So what if it was over 150 years or whatever? I can blast my tomato plants with 500 ppm CO2 tomorrow and its not going to cause an ill effect (even if its an overnight change of 100+ ppm). But if others studies are any reflection of the future for those tomatos, I gonna be eating good in the future.

 

"Frequent climate fluctuations on the world's southernmost continent have been so extreme over the past 5 million years that Antarctica's Ross Ice Shelf, a floating slab of ice the size of France, oscillated in size dramatically, and perhaps even disappeared for periods of time..."

 

"They were surprised, for example, to find such large volumes of fossil diatoms -- microscopic single-celled algae that live in surface or shallow waters -- in the cores. The presence of the fossilized one-cell creatures, some of them previously unknown to science, confirms that large areas of the Ross Ice Shelf have previously melted and were replaced with highly productive open waters."

 

"It tells the story of episodic changes of the Ross Ice Shelf and the ice sheets feeding it, with more than 50 oscillations in the ice margin over the last 10 million years."

 

Creating More Accurate Climate Models Based On New Ice Cores

 

No one can say with any certainty any past shifts occurred in a matter of centuries or decades. They tend to say they lasted x-amount of time, hence the smoothing. But when I look at these various interpretations of the data, some of those lines are going up and down pretty darn fast and well within a century.

 

Image:Holocene Temperature Variations.png - Wikimedia Commons

[Cedars]

I disagree that your analogy above represents the issue. You are comparing our contribution of CO2 to the entire atmosphere. I think a more accurate way of looking at the issue is comparing the contribution of CO2 to the CO2 already there naturally.

IF you feel that CO2 really isn't responsible for holding onto heat, that is a seperate issue. Howver, if you agree that CO2 holds onto heat, then it is more accurate to look at the contribution of our added CO2 to solar forcing or which most of the atmosphere doesn't contribute.

 

I also presented a different scenario that reflected past CO2 levels (and not even the extreme high) with current comparison. I am not surprised you disagree with my analogy. You werent surprised by my response were you? :)

 

I think the change in Co2 is insignificant on the whole of global climate. I think the IPCC has been intentionally dismissive of other factors to promote an agenda. Humidity raises the heat index factor hugely. Look at the wild temps swings in the desert between day and night (as an example). Now I realize there are other factors that create the conditions of extreme heat in the day and huge temp drops at night but its lack of humidity is a significant factor. If I remember correctly the IPCC assigned water vapor with a moderate or low level of understanding, yet continued on to be 90% sure its all peoples fault.

 

Various sources indicate water vapor as 150 W/m2 greenhouse effect, compared to the IPCC attribution of human C02 of between 1.6 and 2.6 W/m2.

[REASON]

I think the change in Co2 is insignificant on the whole of global climate. I think the IPCC has been intentionally dismissive of other factors to promote an agenda.

 

What do you believe is the nature of this "agenda," if you don't mind my asking?

[InfiniteNow]

Various sources indicate water vapor as 150 W/m2 greenhouse effect, compared to the IPCC attribution of human C02 of between 1.6 and 2.6 W/m2.

 

Which sources specifically?

Also, why do you have greater faith in them than those hundreds (thousands?) presented by the IPCC?

 

What is your selection criteria for what you accept and what you do not? My sincere hope is that it's not just that which supports your existing worldview versus that which challenges it. :)

[Michaelangelica]

;)

Isn't the main greenhouse gas water?

 

We know it is going up, but by how much?

Is anybody looking?

[freeztar]

;)

Isn't the main greenhouse gas water?

 

We know it is going up, but by how much?

Is anybody looking?

 

 

Here's a great article that explains the role of water vapor.

 

RealClimate

[Zythryn]

Actually water is the biggest component of the greenhouse gases. However, water vapor only lasts for a period of days to weeks in the atmosphere. Unlike CO2 which lasts for decades to a century or so.

So, if you add water vapor to the atmosphere it leaves almost as fast as you add it. If you add CO2, it is there for a long time and can act to add solar forcing for a long time.

Freeztar's link does a much more thorough job of describing the cycle for those that are interested;)

[InfiniteNow]

For those members who prefer watching over reading (and even those who don't), the following is quite a quality presentation:

 

 

 

YouTube - The American Denial of Global Warming http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio

 

 

It is a video of Naomi Oreskes' talk on "The American Denial of Global Warming":

 

The first part ("TRUTH") outlines the history of climate science research, and the unpoliticized acceptance thereof that lasted until the early 1990s. The second part "DENIAL" describes the George C. Marshall Instiute's role in creating confusion and politicizing the issue, using tactics from the cigarette wars.

 

 

 

Here is a index:

 

TRUTH

00:00 Introduction

02:00 Frank Luntz

04:00 2001 IPCC TAR, but many decades of science before

10:30 1957 Suess & Revelle; "Big Greenhouse" in Time Magazine

14:00 1964/65 NAS Science Advisory Committee; President's Science Advisory Committee "In those days, politicians listened to scientists";bipartisanship.

17:30 1970s NRC; JASON; "Charney Report"

23:30 1988 IPCC formed; US National Energy Policy Act; George H. W. Bush

DENIAL

26:30 Why is there denial? Where did it come from?

29:15: 1984 George C. Marshal Institute founded by William Jastrow

Added William Nierenberg, Frederick Seitz; S. Fred Singer later. Original goal: Cold War, support Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative from other physicists) Tactics: threaten PBS stations with lawsuits under "Fairness Doctrine" Create uncertainty

36:00 1990, cold war over, switch to other areas [global warming, CFC-ozone, tobacco] No Greenhouse problem, as long as free market allowed to solve!

39:00 1995 IPCC SAR, personal attacks on Ben Santer

42:00 1995 Connection with tobacco, Seitz, tactics Create doubt, do not publish science, but in popular literature, op-eds, Wall Street Journal

53:30 Why? In each case, political views [NO REGULATION, EVER] masked as arguments about science. [People can have whatever political views they want, but the proper place to discuss them is in politics, not by fudging science.

[Zythryn]

Awesome find InfiniteNow. Consider some rep coming your way as soon as I spread some around;)

[InfiniteNow]

Awesome find InfiniteNow.

 

Yeah, I really like it, and think it was a fantastic presentation. Thanks for the feedback. It's nice to know that people are paying attention. :)