Quote:
Originally Posted by Kijana
1) It's well known that CO2 is a minor gas in the atmosphere (but is the second most abundant greenhouse gas) and no one worth their salt would argue differently. However, your argument is somewhat disingenious in thinking that the low abundance of CO2 in relation to other gases means it has little effect when it comes to retaining heat. CO2, though in low abundance compared to nitrogen and other gases, is the second most abundant greenhouse gas, and is responsible for 9-26% (depending on who you talk to) of the greenhouse effect on earth. There is a lot of research to back that up (Kiehl and Trenberth 1997 is a good place to start). Those numbers are nothing to sneeze at.
|
Ok, in my quest for facts and knowledge on this subject, I'll see if I can find anything from those sources. As it stands now, I'm skeptical of those numbers given that humans are responsible for about 2 to 3 percent of the total CO2 in the atmosphere and that CO2 makes up 0.0384% of the atmosphere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kijana
CO2 can trap heat, making the atmospheric temperature rise. This allows for air to hold more water vapor which also increases heating. So, increasing amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere can increase the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. (one recent paper on this = Held and Soden 2006). Additionally, increasing temperature can also increase the amount of CO2 the atmosphere can hold.
|
No arguments here...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kijana
2) You state that sunspot activity can be the culprit for the heating. It is true that sun activity has increased, but the increase can't explain the amount of heating that has taken place. In fact, no natural phenomenon can. Onon is the resident expert on evidence for this, so prod him to provide references if you want them.
|
I don't buy the rebuttals on sunspots and solar irradiance. For example, I have read (just recently by the way from a pro-human GW site) that there never was a little ice age or medieval warm period but there are links from NASA and the US Gov that document these periods and they also note that they coincided with sunspot activity. Who's telling the truth?
What I believe isthat the sun is playing a larger role than what's been programmed in the computer model software. To me, evidence of the recent sunspot and increased solar irradiance can be seen in the changes of mars which started happening at about the same time as the warming on earth did and which warmed by about the same amount as the earth did. I find it hard to believe that it's both a coincidence and due to changes in the albedo of mars. Especially when there are signs (thanks Andrew) that some of the other plants are starting to heat up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kijana
3) You state that historically temperature increases proceed an increase in CO2. This is true. Yet, it doesn't mean that CO2 is not the culprit for heating. In fact, climatologists PREDICTED that this would be the case before they could measure historical CO2 concentrations. Are these climatologists just idiots? How could they not see that CO2 can't be the culprit for heating...(which, I might add, is a really good question, no joke)
|
If scientists predicted this before they could verify it, then what is the point of Al Gore using the ice core graphs of CO2 and Temp in his movie? From what I have gathered (I haven't watched the movie), those graphs in the movie are used to show the excellent correlation of how CO2 affects temp but, it's the other way around.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kijana
Well, it turns out that it is due to one of those feedback mechanisms again. Climate changes, like the end of ice ages, forced by Milankovitch cycles (from the wobble of the earth), decrease the albedo effect (less ice = less reflection = more heating) which cause temperatures to rise (higher atmospheric temperatures = more atmospheric CO2 = more heating). So both ice and CO2 changes SHOULD lag temperature, which is what has been found in ice cores. CO2 acts as an amplifier for these temperature changes, and historically these lags take about 100 years or more (depending on who you talk to), but always the temperature goes up again once CO2 goes up. So, given today's rising CO2 concentrations, you can expect more temperature increase in the future.
|
Well, I don't dispute that the earth wobbles and this causes temp changes but I'm not so sure about one of the other Milankovitch cycles (the orbit change) and I don't think this is the main reason for the approx 100K+ year temp cycle. The sun has an 11 year cycle and I just posted a link a while back (in this forum but a different thread) that shows evidence of a sun cycle, I think it was 100K years or so. Again, I think the sun is being underestimated in the models.
What I believe is happening is that when the sun's energy increases (or the earth wobbles in the right way), more land is exposed and hence, more life results which results in the increase of CO2. Same for when the sun's energy decreases (or the earth wobbles in the wrong way), there is more ice and hence, less life, less CO2 (remember, the vast majority of CO2 is from nature). And yes I know that if there is more ice, the albedo changes which also plays a role.
As far as there being a feedback from the CO2, I don't see this in Al Gore's graph of CO2 and temp.
What I would expect to see is the temp rising, the hundreds of years later, the CO2 rising, then the temp rising from the CO2. I don't see this from this graph (or others that I have looked at). What I see is CO2 following the temp increases of decreases.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kijana
Don't take my word on it. Here's a great webpage I found that addresses your question far more lucidly than I could. It's even got a lot of references that you can check up on if you'd like. |
I've spent a fair amount of time there...
Kijana, the bottom line for me is I haven't seen much compelling evidence that CO2 is the culprit, I don't trust the UN (it's a political organization), and I see evidence of the sun affecting mars and other planets in our solar system. As far as I'm concerned, the UN sees the US as the big rich white boy WASP of the world and it feels it's role is to redistribute it's wealth to the world's poor. Recent quotes from the media have only enforced this view of mine. Here are a few examples:
Quote:
|
The point is that if the United States wishes to exercise global leadership, it must not only articulate but implement a global anti-poverty, anti-warming policy that compels the respect and admiration of its intended beneficiaries.
|
source
Quote:
FT.com / In depth - Gore calls for ‘global Marshall plan’
Gore calls for ‘global Marshall plan’
By Daniel Pimlott in New York
Published: September 26 2007 19:37 | Last updated: September 26 2007 19:37
Al Gore, the former US vice-president, on Wednesday called for a “Marshall plan” to make job creation and measures to address climate change compatible and urged President George W. Bush to commit to mandatory cuts in carbon dioxide emissions.
“This is an emergency,” Mr Gore told the opening session of the Clinton Global Initiative. “I think that the key to fighting global poverty is to have the wealthy nations and the developing nations join together to reduce global warming … I think what we need is a global Marshall plan to make the creation of jobs around the reduction of carbon the central principle for how we develop this.”
|
Quote:
|
Gore said the effort to solve the climate crisis is actually the key to giving humanity the ability to successfully address these other crises, whether its religious strife, or the effort against global poverty, or HIV AIDS, or any of the others.
|
source
It's all about raiding the wealth (reducing the disparity of wealth of the world's nations) of the US. I suspect the UN is going for a power grab as well...
Kramer