Out of curiosity, poll on global warming

[Hooboy !!]

OK, so they closed down PD for a week. What's a guy to do?

The global warming debate has been raging for a while now with armed camps on either side of the discussion. Personally, I do not think that human activity is the primary cause of global warming, but I am pretty confident that it is contributing to it. The purpose of this poll is for me to get some kind of idea of what the concensus is on this board on one subject in particular as it relates to global warming... CO2.

Do you think there is a causal relationship between increasing CO2 levels and global warming?

[Plognark]

<snip>

Do you think there is a causal relationship between increasing CO2 levels and global warming?

Yep.

[blastula]

Personally, I do not think that human activity is the primary cause of global warming, but I am pretty confident that it is contributing to it.

Which factor is the primary cause then?

[Marduk]

I really don’t see how human activity the past 100 years could NOT have affected the climate.

[Hubble head]

I'd guess the one 'no' vote was your Hooboy, or someone thought there was a much more than casual relationship.

Instead of looking at this one effect as a primary antagonist, try examining each factor positively impacting warming trends as triggering events in the whole series that could eventually tip the scale.

There are other villians, as I'm sure you know. Methane from the melting permafrost in Siberia is another nasty gh gas.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1546824,00.html

Scientists suspect it is being aided by this factor;
The icesheets are melting at an unprecedented rate and guess who's probably guilty?
http://www.livescience.com/environment/050328_arctic_soot.html

The change in climates is also affecting crops and migratory patterns of animals that once fed entire 3rd world populations. So what do the hungry do? They generate more Co2 to bring food in from greater distances.

There are many more examples of cause and effects that go beyond Co2, that when traced to their original cause, point to one thing.

[Hooboy !!]

I'd guess the one 'no' vote was your Hooboy, or someone thought there was a much more than casual relationship.
lol

Lucky guess!

I am intentionally avoiding a debate on the subject. But, I really wanted to know to what extent people believed that CO2 was the primary cause of the sudden increases in global warming. I knew I was in a minority, but I didn't think it would be a minority of 1. hahaha

No biggy.

Maybe if I get bored I will do some research and put up some sources on the subject to stimulate some discussion. But, I do not know how interested I am in playing the "whipping boy" game right now.

[fragment]

I am intentionally avoiding a debate on the subject. But, I really wanted to know to what extent people believed that CO2 was the primary cause of the sudden increases in global warming.
Your poll didn't say "primary cause". It's more accurate to say it's the largest of several factors - IPCC has it at about 50% of the positive forcings.

Maybe if I get bored I will do some research and put up some sources on the subject to stimulate some discussion. But, I do not know how interested I am in playing the "whipping boy" game right now.
Science-based discussion is good, so please do. You might want to take a browse through the archives and see what has been discussed in S&S before.

[Hubble head]

lol

Lucky guess!

I am intentionally avoiding a debate on the subject. But, I really wanted to know to what extent people believed that CO2 was the primary cause of the sudden increases in global warming. I knew I was in a minority, but I didn't think it would be a minority of 1. hahaha

No biggy.

Maybe if I get bored I will do some research and put up some sources on the subject to stimulate some discussion. But, I do not know how interested I am in playing the "whipping boy" game right now.

I can empathize. I never understood how you'd take on ten posters at once in pf thread after thread.

But 'casual relationship' to 'primary cause' might confuse some. I do not think Co2 alone is the primary cause yet, fwiw but admit I haven't kept up with the science in about 2-3 yrs.

[Hooboy !!]

I can empathize. I never understood how you'd take on ten posters at once in pf thread after thread.
:)

It can be a challenge, which is probalby why I like it.

But 'casual relationship' to 'primary cause' might confuse some. I do not think Co2 alone is the primary cause yet, fwiw but admit I haven't kept up with the science in about 2-3 yrs.
To clarify (since two of you commented on this)... I interchange the words "causal" and "primary cause" on purpose. The reason being is that nearly all of the attention on the discussion of global warming centers on the CO2 emissions. I think this is a very important distinction, because it allows anti-Americanism to over shadow the actual discussion. But, I am digressing.

If I had rephrased the question to be "Do you think that CO2 emissions are the primary cause of global warming?" I would have gotten a much different answer, because people would self-edit themselves to be less, obvioulsy biased in their point of view.

The way I look at it, either CO2 is the primary cause or it is not. If it is CO2, then it is emissions far more than deforestation that is the problem. Most people on the side of the debate that believes that human activity is definately responsible for global warming will single out CO2 emissions as the primary cause.

So, in a nutshell. If you believe that rising temperatures is directly a result of rising CO2 emissions (causal), then it is by default, the primary cause. Sure, there are other factors involved, but CO2 is the one people are focusing on.

The key then to unraveling the argument is to break the causal connection between CO2 and global warming. Simple.

ETA

This is why scientists who do not conclude that there is a causal relationship, even ones that agree that human activity contributes to GW, are attacked. People recognize the fragility of the argument.

[blastula]

I would say that the recent change and rise in CO2 emissions is the primary cause in the change of global climate temperature.

The way I look at it, either CO2 is the primary cause or it is not. If it is CO2, then it is emissions far more than deforestation that is the problem. Most people on the side of the debate that believes that human activity is definately responsible for global warming will single out CO2 emissions as the primary cause.

Deforestation results in CO2 emissions so it would be included when "singling out CO2 emissions."

Are you saying loss of biomass because of deforestation is the primary cause? What are you saying?

[Hooboy !!]

I would say that the recent change and rise in CO2 emissions is the primary cause in the change of global climate temperature.
OK.

Deforestation results in CO2 emissions so it would be included when "singling out CO2 emissions."
Only if burned, which it usually is, but that is not the greatest problem created by deforestation, as it relates to CO2. Burning is single event, removing biomass has a permanent, recurring effect.

Are you saying loss of biomass because of deforestation is the primary cause? What are you saying?
Deforestation is a contributing factor to risng CO2 levels.

[theyeti]

Do you think there is a causal relationship between increasing CO2 levels and global warming?

The fact that increasing CO2 levels cause the atmosphere to retain more energy, which barring any mechanism for removing that energy causes an increase in average temperature, is a simple fact of physics. We have known for over 100 years that there's a causal relationship between greenhouse gases and the temperature of the planet's surface. It is simply not something that can be rationally denied.

The question therefore isn't whether or not increasing CO2 levels causes global warming, but the extent to which anthropogenic greenhouse gases are causing observed warming. The evidence strongly suggests that anthropogenic GHGs are causing the majority of the warming we've seen since the late 19th century, so that the relatively small (compared to future scenarios) increase in CO2 concentrations that we've created is already having a significant measurable effect.

However, even if this weren't the case, it wouldn't change the fact that increased CO2 levels will cause things to get warmer. If CO2 concentrations continue to rise indefinitely (which is the preferred policy of most global warming deniers), then it is simply not possible for the atmosphere not to warm. Only if there is some as of yet unknown cooling agent could temperatures remain stable.

theyeti

[fragment]

To clarify (since two of you commented on this)... I interchange the words "causal" and "primary cause" on purpose...<snip>
In other words, you recognise that unclear use of terms muddies the issues, yet you deliberately switch from one to another in order to support some pre-conceived position?

Need I remind you that this is the science forum, not the propaganda one?

The reason being is that nearly all of the attention on the discussion of global warming centers on the CO2 emissions. I think this is a very important distinction, because it allows anti-Americanism to over shadow the actual discussion.
What anti-Americanism is over-shadowing this particular discussion?

If you believe that rising temperatures is directly a result of rising CO2 emissions (causal), then it is by default, the primary cause.
Except that two of us have pointed out that this is not true. At this point it would be useful for you to provide a working definition of what you mean by "primary cause". Specifically I'd like to know if the IPCC's figures that I mentioned above - CO2 being responsible for about 50% of the positive forcings - falls under the label "primary cause" or not.

This is why scientists who do not conclude that there is a causal relationship, even ones that agree that human activity contributes to GW, are attacked. People recognize the fragility of the argument.
Speaking only for myself, I'll oppose the arguments of "scientists who do not conclude that there is a causal relationship" when I consider their positions to be wrong or lacking in evidence, not because of any perceived fragility.

On the emissions vs. deforestation issue, let's have a look at what the AR4 SPM says:
The primary source of the increased atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide since the pre-industrial period results from fossil fuel use, with land-use change providing another significant but smaller contribution. Annual fossil carbon dioxide emissions4 increased from an average of 6.4 [6.0 to 6.8]5 GtC (23.5 [22.0 to 25.0] GtCO2) per year in the 1990s to 7.2 [6.9 to 7.5] GtC (26.4 [25.3 to 27.5] GtCO2) per year in 2000–2005 (2004 and 2005 data are interim estimates). Carbon dioxide emissions associated with land-use change are estimated to be 1.6 [0.5 to 2.7] GtC (5.9 [1.8 to 9.9] GtCO2) per year over the 1990s, although these estimates have a large uncertainty.

[laughing dog]

To clarify (since two of you commented on this)... I interchange the words "causal" and "primary cause" on purpose. The reason being is that nearly all of the attention on the discussion of global warming centers on the CO2 emissions. One of the causes is the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, much of which was emitted from natural and anthropromorphic sources at some time.


So, in a nutshell. If you believe that rising temperatures is directly a result of rising CO2 emissions (causal), then it is by default, the primary cause. That does not follow. I know that rising temperatures are directly a result of the level of GHG in the atmosphere and from other factors.


Sure, there are other factors involved, but CO2 is the one people are focusing on. Because that is the most commonly emitted GHG and the one that is most prevalent in the atmosphere.



This is why scientists who do not conclude that there is a causal relationship, even ones that agree that human activity contributes to GW, are attacked. People recognize the fragility of the argument. So all those scientist who contributed to the climate change report are just ignoramuses?

[uberhobo]

lol

Lucky guess!

I am intentionally avoiding a debate on the subject. But, I really wanted to know to what extent people believed that CO2 was the primary cause of the sudden increases in global warming. I knew I was in a minority, but I didn't think it would be a minority of 1. hahaha

No biggy.

Maybe if I get bored I will do some research and put up some sources on the subject to stimulate some discussion. But, I do not know how interested I am in playing the "whipping boy" game right now.

If you're gonna do some research, do yourself a favor and avoid papers written by economists, geologists, mathematicians, and engineers. You know, people who are in no way qualified to author scholarly articles about climate change. On that note, try to stick to articles that come from journals that actually have the words climatology or meteorology in their title. A journal is only as good as the people that review it, and a lot of crap can slip through if you have people reviewing articles outside their area of expertise.

Hell, I'd have a tough time reviewing a journal article that's outside my subfield, let alone a different branch of science.

[Hooboy !!]

The fact that increasing CO2 levels cause the atmosphere to retain more energy, which barring any mechanism for removing that energy causes an increase in average temperature, is a simple fact of physics.
The giant pink elephant in the room that everyone seems to want to ignore is the "barring any mechanism for removing that energy". Actually this is not quiet accurate. The energy has different effects, depending on how far it penetrates the atmosphere. This is why the study of water vapor and cloud formation is so important to the discussion.

We have known for over 100 years that there's a causal relationship between greenhouse gases and the temperature of the planet's surface. It is simply not something that can be rationally denied.
Ahhhh. The old "deniers are idiots" argument.

The question therefore isn't whether or not increasing CO2 levels causes global warming, but the extent to which anthropogenic greenhouse gases are causing observed warming.
Frankly, I do not care about the anthropogenic part of the discussion. Things are what they are, and there is no reasonable way that we can significantly reduce CO2 emissions in the short term and the possibility of reducing them significantly within the next 100 years is not promising. Any attempt to reduce CO2 emissions will devolve into discrimination against industrialized nations.

As far as the "observed" part goes. I am not really sure what that has to do with the price of rice in China. Is this some kind of attempt to ignore the last 10,000 years of climate change as if it were irrelevant?

For me, the issue is only that we need to better understand what is happening so that we can prepare as best we can for the future.

Things will never be what they once were. Might as well get over it.

[forty2oz]

I'd like to see someone, I don't care who, but someone actually take the time to collect data from the past hundred years and give an actual report on the average temperatures throughout the world and (presumably) how much they've increased in recent years. Has anybody ever done this?

We've got scientists doing extensive research and experimental study on the effects mankind is having on our mother earth, yet nobody has bothered to look at a fucking thermometer?

Why are we having a debate about something which nobody seems even remotely interested in verifying the validity of? Please, I beg anyone on this board to point me in the direction of someone who has actually recorded past temperatures and is saying,

"look, here, see? The temperatures worldwide are on the rise. I know you don't really feel it happening because it's a slow process and it's hard to see the big picture when you're in it, but it's the truth - see, here are the numbers - on average the temperature right here in America was ten degrees cooler before the industrial revolution than it is now."

Personally, I think the evidence that CO2 production and other human generated factors are contributing to an unhealthy environment far exceeds obvious. What I do not get is how Al Gore has brought the world to its current state of frenzy without even mentioning celsius or fahrenheit. Please, somebody shut me up and point me to a link where somebody actually did the homework.

Thanks in advance,

Matt

[premjan]

http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/Temp/2006ProjectedTemp.GIF

[Caine]

Frankly, I do not care about the anthropogenic part of the discussion. Things are what they are, and there is no reasonable way that we can significantly reduce CO2 emissions in the short term and the possibility of reducing them significantly within the next 100 years is not promising. Any attempt to reduce CO2 emissions will devolve into discrimination against industrialized nations.

There are mechanisms that can be exploited to reduce atmospheric CO2. For example algae blooms can be generated in the ocean fairly easily that absorb huge amounts of CO2. Admittedly algea blooms are not necessarily very pleasant creations - they can have negative effects on local wildlife - but it is probably preferable to the ice caps melting.

It's not like carbon tariffs are going to help the situation anyway. A nice big carbon sink means we can pump out as much CO2 as we like and not worry about screwing the environment.

[laughing dog]

Things are what they are, and there is no reasonable way that we can significantly reduce CO2 emissions in the short term and the possibility of reducing them significantly within the next 100 years is not promising. There are many who disagree with that assessment.

Any attempt to reduce CO2 emissions will devolve into discrimination against industrialized nations. If by that you mean that some nations would be expected to disproportionately reduce emissions, then yes. But that, in and of itself, is not necessarily bad. For example, it makes economic sense to have the lowest cost abaters do proportionally more of the emission reductions.


For me, the issue is only that we need to better understand what is happening so that we can prepare as best we can for the future. Part of preparing for the future is trying to change the future.


Things will never be what they once were. Might as well get over it. Few, if any, are trying to go back to the way things were.

[uberhobo]

I'd like to see someone, I don't care who, but someone actually take the time to collect data from the past hundred years and give an actual report on the average temperatures throughout the world and (presumably) how much they've increased in recent years. Has anybody ever done this?

We've got scientists doing extensive research and experimental study on the effects mankind is having on our mother earth, yet nobody has bothered to look at a fucking thermometer?

Why are we having a debate about something which nobody seems even remotely interested in verifying the validity of? Please, I beg anyone on this board to point me in the direction of someone who has actually recorded past temperatures and is saying,

"look, here, see? The temperatures worldwide are on the rise. I know you don't really feel it happening because it's a slow process and it's hard to see the big picture when you're in it, but it's the truth - see, here are the numbers - on average the temperature right here in America was ten degrees cooler before the industrial revolution than it is now."

Personally, I think the evidence that CO2 production and other human generated factors are contributing to an unhealthy environment far exceeds obvious. What I do not get is how Al Gore has brought the world to its current state of frenzy without even mentioning celsius or fahrenheit. Please, somebody shut me up and point me to a link where somebody actually did the homework.

Thanks in advance,

Matt

Give the scientists some credit, man. At this (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/pastcc.html#last) link, you can see a chart chronicling the temperature changes in the last 1000 years or so, with actual thermometer readings going back to the late 1800s, as premjam posted on its own. The original source for this data, a large study by the National Research Council of Canada, is also linked from that page.

[dancer_rnb]

I do wonder why all the abatement attempts seem limited to reducing greenhouse gases.
Why not put up mirrors to reflect sunlight away from the planet?

[Hooboy !!]

There are mechanisms that can be exploited to reduce atmospheric CO2. For example algae blooms can be generated in the ocean fairly easily that absorb huge amounts of CO2. Admittedly algea blooms are not necessarily very pleasant creations - they can have negative effects on local wildlife - but it is probably preferable to the ice caps melting.
Algea blooms will probably occur naturally BTW.

It's not like carbon tariffs are going to help the situation anyway.
That's the point. Tarrifs and trading? Utter nonsense spewed by elitests to make themselves feel better.

A nice big carbon sink means we can pump out as much CO2 as we like and not worry about screwing the environment.
And create potential nightmares. I am not a big fan of carbon sinks.

[forty2oz]

Give the scientists some credit, man. At this (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/pastcc.html#last) link, you can see a chart chronicling the temperature changes in the last 1000 years or so, with actual thermometer readings going back to the late 1800s, as premjam posted on its own. The original source for this data, a large study by the National Research Council of Canada, is also linked from that page.

Thanks for the link (and for shutting me up). The actual stats shed quite a bit of light on the ambiguity of the situation. It's clear now why neither side of the media debate focuses on these figures.

[laughing dog]

That's the point. Tarrifs and trading? Utter nonsense spewed by elitests to make themselves feel better. The idea of people paying the full cost of their actions is sound economics. In fact, it is the basis of simple economic theory.


And create potential nightmares. I am not a big fan of carbon sinks. A carbon sink is a form of carbon sequestration, just like forest.

[Loren Pechtel]

There are mechanisms that can be exploited to reduce atmospheric CO2. For example algae blooms can be generated in the ocean fairly easily that absorb huge amounts of CO2. Admittedly algea blooms are not necessarily very pleasant creations - they can have negative effects on local wildlife - but it is probably preferable to the ice caps melting.

It's not like carbon tariffs are going to help the situation anyway. A nice big carbon sink means we can pump out as much CO2 as we like and not worry about screwing the environment.

Except inducing algae blooms doesn't work on reducing CO2. They've tested it. It sounds good at first--spread iron dust and you get a ton of growth that soaks up CO2. Unfortunately the end result is *MORE* greenhouse gasses, not less.

The problem is that when those algae die they don't just fall to the seafloor. There is a whole ecosystem involved, only .1% of the CO2 the algae take out of the air actually falls to the seafloor. Meanwhile, decomposition products include methane which is worse than CO2. Thus you have a tiny reduction in CO2 which is more than made up for by the increase in methane, net benefit = negative.

[Caine]

Algea blooms will probably occur naturally BTW.

Not without sufficient iron in the water. They do occur naturally but not in sufficient quantities to reduce atmospheric CO2.


That's the point. Tarrifs and trading? Utter nonsense spewed by elitests to make themselves feel better.

You don't have to agree with policy to agree with CO2-induced warming. You are perfectly free to evaluate the vast wealth of scientific evidence in favour of global warming and still have your own opinion on Kyoto or whatever else is suggested.


And create potential nightmares. I am not a big fan of carbon sinks.

Algae blooms are unlikely to create any nightmares. Even if they could it seems preferable to large sea level rises.

[Plognark]

Some of the proposed sequestration techniques have a pretty huge risk potential.

Pumping it to the bottom of the ocean, for example, with a significant risk of increasing the acidity of the waters if it doesn't stay put.

[Caine]

Except inducing algae blooms doesn't work on reducing CO2. They've tested it. It sounds good at first--spread iron dust and you get a ton of growth that soaks up CO2. Unfortunately the end result is *MORE* greenhouse gasses, not less.

The problem is that when those algae die they don't just fall to the seafloor. There is a whole ecosystem involved, only .1% of the CO2 the algae take out of the air actually falls to the seafloor. Meanwhile, decomposition products include methane which is worse than CO2. Thus you have a tiny reduction in CO2 which is more than made up for by the increase in methane, net benefit = negative.

This isn't the case for all types of blooms, and there are other proposals to ensure greater amounts of CO2 is fully absorbed and not reemitted, including promoting growth of other creatures that will feed on the plankton.

Geoengineering may sound a bit dodgy at the moment but that doesn't mean a full solution cannot be found, even if it does mean screwing around with an ecosystem.

[Makeshift Universe]

I do wonder why all the abatement attempts seem limited to reducing greenhouse gases.
Why not put up mirrors to reflect sunlight away from the planet?

Because we have no idea how this will affect the planet's climate, weather patterns and so on.

[Hooboy !!]

Personally, I am a big fan of reforestation. I love plants.

[Plognark]

Personally, I am a big fan of reforestation. I love plants.

I agree. At least we know that plants can lock up a significant amount of carbon without any nasty known or unknown side effects.

One of the greatest current carbon sinks we have is the forests of the Northeastern united states. Huge swaths of land were cleared away in the 17 and 1800's to make room for farm lands. Once people moved out west and began farming the plains, a lot of the farm land up here was left to grow wild and turn into forest again.

I don't remember the exact figure, but it's a pretty significant sink. The only problem is, it'll reach maturity within the century and the carbon intake will balance out with the output, as it is with any old growth forest where the majority of the trees have reached full maturity.

[theyeti]

The giant pink elephant in the room that everyone seems to want to ignore is the "barring any mechanism for removing that energy".

Well no, there's nothing there to ignore because there's no known mechanism for removing huge amounts of energy. Energy doesn't magically go away. If global warming deniers want to pretend as if CO2 isn't causing warming, they need to explain where all that extra energy is supposed to go.

Having followed this debate for awhile, I have never once seen a denialist address this issue. Instead they try to argue that temperatures aren't rising, or that some other forcing agent besides CO2 can account for the rise, or that temperatures were higher during the Middle Ages, etc. Even if these claims were true (and they're not), it would be totally beside the point. How do you manage to inject lots of energy into the atmosphere without raising temperatures?

Actually this is not quiet accurate. The energy has different effects, depending on how far it penetrates the atmosphere. This is why the study of water vapor and cloud formation is so important to the discussion.

Water vapor is important because it absorbs energy similar to CO2, and cloud formation is important because it can both cause the atmosphere to retain energy by reflecting IR radiation back to the ground, or reduce the energy received by reflecting visible light back into space.

In other words, it's all a matter of how much energy is swirling about in the troposphere.

Frankly, I do not care about the anthropogenic part of the discussion.

Then what the hell was the point of you saying, "Personally, I do not think that human activity is the primary cause of global warming..." Obviously you do care about whether or not warming is anthropogenic or you wouldn't have said that. Nor would you have started a poll asking whether or not CO2 causes warming. That is obviously a proxy for anthropogenic causes.

Things are what they are, and there is no reasonable way that we can significantly reduce CO2 emissions in the short term and the possibility of reducing them significantly within the next 100 years is not promising.

There are lots of ways of reducing CO2 emissions, and no reason at all to think that they carry a heavy economic price. But that's a much different discussion than the one you started, now isn't it?

theyeti

[Hooboy !!]

Well no, there's nothing there to ignore because there's no known mechanism for removing huge amounts of energy. Energy doesn't magically go away. If global warming deniers want to pretend as if CO2 isn't causing warming, they need to explain where all that extra energy is supposed to go.
Actually, this assertion hinges on two very important assumptions

- Cloud cover
- Solar radiation

Your assertion relies on the assumption that amount of energy reaching the lower levels of the atmosphere will not change or will not change significantly.

Even if these claims were true (and they're not), it would be totally beside the point. How do you manage to inject lots of energy into the atmosphere without raising temperatures?
Actually, they are true. There are well documented solar flare cycles that are strongly suspected of being responsible for climate change. The fact is, the amount of energy being transmitted by the sun is not constant. Regardless, you are correct... once the energy is captured by the atmosphere, it needs to go somewhere. Part of the problem is, climatologists are not exactly certain what will happen. I think it is pretty safe to assume that one of the things that will happen is an increase in water vapor (a major green house gas BTW), but is also how clouds are formed, which reflect energy away before reaching the lower atmosphere. This along with fluctuations in solar activity (the source of the energy) are things the fear mongers never want to talk about.

Then what the hell was the point of you saying, "Personally, I do not think that human activity is the primary cause of global warming..." Obviously you do care about whether or not warming is anthropogenic or you wouldn't have said that. Nor would you have started a poll asking whether or not CO2 causes warming. That is obviously a proxy for anthropogenic causes.
I am less worried about global warming than I am about people using psuedo-science to justify robbing me of my rights.

[laughing dog]

I am less worried about global warming than I am about people using psuedo-science to justify robbing me of my rights. What rights of yours are being threatened by the use of pseudo-science?

[blastula]

This along with fluctuations in solar activity (the source of the energy) are things the fear mongers never want to talk about.

If you are saying the warming trend is due to solar activity, then you are the true fearmonger because then there is even less we can do about it.

But climatalogists don't believe the current warming trend is due primarily to solar activity because, one) solar activity is cyclical (on a 11 year cycle) yet the temp keeps going up, and two the recent solar activity is falling while the temp is rising.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7b/Temp-sunspot-co2.svg/600px-Temp-sunspot-co2.svg.png

http://www.pmodwrc.ch/tsi/composite/pics/comp06_d41_61_0702.png

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/images/content/169049main_1880_2006_gms.jpg

[youngalexander]

Some of the proposed sequestration techniques have a pretty huge risk potential.

Pumping it to the bottom of the ocean, for example, with a significant risk of increasing the acidity of the waters if it doesn't stay put.
And pumping it into rocks has a significant risk of suffocating the nearby fauna if it doesn't stay put.

[Plognark]

The last figures I read indicated that solar output variance could only account for around 30% of the temperature change we've been seeing.

[Plognark]

<snip>

I am less worried about global warming than I am about people using psuedo-science to justify robbing me of my rights.

Ok, I'll bite, what rights are you afraid of losing here?

[Hooboy !!]

If you are saying the warming trend is due to solar activity, then you are the true fearmonger because then there is even less we can do about it.
How about quote from me where I am warning of the dangers of global warming?

But climatalogists don't believe the current warming trend is due primarily to solar activity because, one) solar activity is cyclical (on a 11 year cycle) yet the temp keeps going up, and two the recent solar activity is falling while the temp is rising.
Clearly you do not understand the concept of thermal inertia.

[Hooboy !!]

Ok, I'll bite, what rights are you afraid of losing here?
Not gonna do it. Must.resist.urge.to.talk.about.politics

:)

[theyeti]

Actually, this assertion hinges on two very important assumptions

- Cloud cover
- Solar radiation

Your assertion relies on the assumption that amount of energy reaching the lower levels of the atmosphere will not change or will not change significantly.

I don't think you've paid attention to anything I've said.

Whatever happens to other forcing agents, CO2 increases the amount of energy retained over and above whatever else is going on. If we have increased solar radiation (which deniers like to claim is causing the warming we've seen) then the presence of additional CO2 magnifies any effect of increased insolation, which is an even better reason not to put more of it in the atmosphere.

It is of course possible to increase CO2 and not increase temperatures, but that requires a concomitant decrease in other forcing agents. Not only do we not see any such decrease, global warming denialists have been arguing the exact opposite -- that other forcing agents are increasing and that's why temperatures are rising. Assuming that were true, so much the worse for them.

... but is also how clouds are formed, which reflect energy away before reaching the lower atmosphere.

Clouds reflect energy in both directions, so it has warming as well as cooling potential. While there is a lot of uncertainty in what increased cloud cover will do, it will at most have only a slight cooling effect. Nowhere near enough to counteract global warming.

I am less worried about global warming than I am about people using psuedo-science to justify robbing me of my rights.

So what you're really worried about is the global warming deniers who are using pseudoscience to justify allowing others to pump as much greenhouse gases into the atmosphere as possible, thus harming your person and property against your will.

Although somehow I don't think that's what you meant. What did you mean?

theyeti

[Hooboy !!]

The last figures I read indicated that solar output variance could only account for around 30% of the temperature change we've been seeing.
What I would like to see is a study that shows how CO2 concentrations work with solar energy variations.

Note too that solar flares is just one way that explains how the amount of solar energy reaches the earth varies. There are variations in the earth's orbit and rotation too.

[theyeti]

Clearly you do not understand the concept of thermal inertia.

If you think that today's warming is caused by a sunspot cycle that ended 40 years ago, how do you explain the fact that temperatures drop off significantly just as soon as the sun goes down every evening? How is it that solar radiation from 40 years ago is somehow still warming the planet, yet solar radiation from last summer wasn't enough to stop winter?

theyeti

[Hooboy !!]

Whatever happens to other forcing agents, CO2 increases the amount of energy retained over and above whatever else is going on.
I agree. This does not justify pointing to CO2 as the primary cause for global warming. I think you are the one that used the word "change". OK. But, can you tell me what the amount of global warming would have been without human activity? Probably not. Probably not even a good guess.

If we have increased solar radiation (which deniers like to claim is causing the warming we've seen)
Note: There is absolutely no question that solar radiation is the source for all of the energy that is responsible for global warming. There is no other source of consequence.

then the presence of additional CO2 magnifies any effect of increased insolation, which is an even better reason not to put more of it in the atmosphere.
This is the central debate. Not that CO2 is responsible for global warming, but rather... to what extent is CO2 exacerbating the rise in temperatures.

It is of course possible to increase CO2 and not increase temperatures, but that requires a concomitant decrease in other forcing agents.
Not true. An increase in cloud cover could neutralize the effects of CO2 levels.

Clouds reflect energy in both directions, so it has warming as well as cooling potential.
The point was that extraterrestial energy is trapped by the atmosphere (in the troposphere). Cloud cover prevents the energy from ever entering the atmosphere and becoming trapped in the first place. CO2 simply works to prevent energy from escaping, but here's the thing... CO2 is not the most significant factor in trapping energy and preventing it from escaping. The most abundant greenhouse gas? Water vapor.

While there is a lot of uncertainty in what increased cloud cover will do, it will at most have only a slight cooling effect. Nowhere near enough to counteract global warming.
Pure speculation. The problem is (and this is the giant pink elephant in the room) is that the various models being used to predict doom gloom do not include cloud cover variation, simply because they don't know how the dynamics work. That's a pretty significant variable to leave out. Same thing with solar energy. The thing is, we only have about 60 years of data to even be able to study solar energy. A lot of what we know is more or less guess work based on observations of occurrence of carbon-14.

[Hooboy !!]

If you think that today's warming is caused by a sunspot cycle that ended 40 years ago, how do you explain the fact that temperatures drop off significantly just as soon as the sun goes down every evening? How is it that solar radiation from 40 years ago is somehow still warming the planet, yet solar radiation from last summer wasn't enough to stop winter?

theyeti
lol

Come on now. You've been smarter than this so far.

[Hooboy !!]

You know what would be funny? Is if human activity were the primary cause of global warming, but it had nothing to do with CO2 and everything to do with cloud formation. Particulates and pollutants could very well be interferring with how clouds are formed and how rain fall is triggered.

All this energy to try and reduce CO2 emissions. What if you are wrong? What if it were something else that we could actually do something about?

[blastula]

How about quote from me where I am warning of the dangers of global warming?

Well if you think the planet can warm indefinitely without any danger to human life, then you're not a fear monger, but you are something else.


You know what would be funny? Is if human activity were the primary cause of global warming, but it had nothing to do with CO2 and everything to do with cloud formation. Particulates and pollutants could very well be interferring with how clouds are formed and how rain fall is triggered.

All this energy to try and reduce CO2 emissions. What if you are wrong? What if it were something else that we could actually do something about?

It's wise to base policy on evidence. We have substantial evidence about ghgs and temp. If you have evidence that clouds are more relevant than ghg, share it. Or you could can make decisions on a faith based policy, like....., wait for it,... you know it's coming,.... like we did with the frigging fucking Iraq war.

Sorry, going through PD withdrawal.

[Hooboy !!]

Well if you think the planet can warm indefinitely without any danger to human life, then you're not a fear monger, but you are something else.
That would be a strawman.

If you have evidence that clouds are more relevant than ghg, share it.
I just think that people are deliberately distorting the facts.

Sorry, going through PD withdrawal.
Hey. No problem. I know the feeling.

[Plognark]

What I would like to see is a study that shows how CO2 concentrations work with solar energy variations.

Like what?


Note too that solar flares is just one way that explains how the amount of solar energy reaches the earth varies. There are variations in the earth's orbit and rotation too.

Eh, I don't think those have much effect on things. The variations aren't too big, and they're quite cyclical and easy to predict.

I suppose the wobble of the earth could expose different portions of the planet more regularly than others, but I'd think the rotation would even things out...well...every day.

[Plognark]

You know what would be funny? Is if human activity were the primary cause of global warming, but it had nothing to do with CO2 and everything to do with cloud formation. Particulates and pollutants could very well be interferring with how clouds are formed and how rain fall is triggered.

All this energy to try and reduce CO2 emissions. What if you are wrong? What if it were something else that we could actually do something about?

I don't think this is very sound reasoning. We know CO2 is a green house gas. We know there's a shit load more of it in the cycle than there was. Seems like trying to mitigate it is a reasonable conclusion.

As far as I know about particulates and air pollution, human activity accounts for roughly 10% of what's up there, and they actually increase both the albedo (or absorption, such as with carbon soot) and formation rate of clouds. Look up global dimming and global brightening.

ETA: to sum up, increased particulates actually cool things down.

[Flynn McKerrow]

I suppose the wobble of the earth could expose different portions of the planet more regularly than others, but I'd think the rotation would even things out...well...every day.

Wobble as in precession? That's on a ~26000 year cycle, and it only really effects when the seasons occur.

Or do you mean nutation? That's an 18.6 year cycle, but it's only a variance of about 20 seconds of arc, so I would suspect that's negligible.

[Plognark]

Wobble as in precession? That's on a ~26000 year cycle, and it only really effects when the seasons occur.

Or do you mean nutation? That's an 18.6 year cycle, but it's only a variance of about 20 seconds of arc, so I would suspect that's negligible.

I was thinking the annual axial tilt, although I suppose it's not really a "wobble" at all, it's just the axis angle relative to the sun. Sorry, a little bad astronomy there.

but no matter what it is I don't think it has much bearing, if any at all.