Too late? Why scientists say we should expect the worst

[chrisc]

1) Is climate change that has the potential to cause disruption to the human way of life happening?

Yes.

2) If the answer to 1) is yes, is it (or a significant part of it) man made?

Yes.

3) If the answer to 1) is yes, can we do anything about it, regardless of who caused it?

Yes.

4) Is it true that the vast majority of climate scientists believe climate change is happening?

Yes.

5) If the answer to 4) is yes, do the majority believe that a significant part of it is man made?

Yes.

[RevdTess]

I have seen no evidence that CO2 has any bearing on global temperatures.
I've been told it as fact for close to two decades, but never seen the evidence, never mind proof, from which I conclude there isnt any.

This part of the science, at least, seems overwhelmingly conclusive.

I'm not a physicist so I can't prove it from first principles. However my bf, (who does have the physics PhD, and who worked on ice sheet melting rates) assures me that the evidence for CO2 influence on temperature is far stronger than mere empiricism but can be derived from the chemical nature of CO2 itself - ie proper science not just correlations of coincident observed datapoints.

Like I said, I'm in no position to judge but I'm hardly going to go against my bf's view in an area in which he's clearly the expert.

[DominicJ]

I'd be grateful if you could ask him for some words to whack into google.

[Bandidoz]

On a related topic, I found this to be very interesting:

http://www.channel4.com/video/brandless ... atastrophe

Mon 1 Dec 9:00 pm C4

Snowball Earth: This programme uncovers the story behind one of the most controversial theories in science: that 650 million years ago a cataclysmic ice age sealed the entire planet beneath ice.

[RevdTess]

I'd be grateful if you could ask him for some words to whack into google.

I'll see what I can do this evening when he's back.

[Blue Peter]

I have seen no evidence that CO2 has any bearing on global temperatures.
I've been told it as fact for close to two decades, but never seen the evidence, never mind proof, from which I conclude there isnt any.

This part of the science, at least, seems overwhelmingly conclusive.

I'm not a physicist so I can't prove it from first principles. However my bf, (who does have the physics PhD, and who worked on ice sheet melting rates) assures me that the evidence for CO2 influence on temperature is far stronger than mere empiricism but can be derived from the chemical nature of CO2 itself - ie proper science not just correlations of coincident observed datapoints.

Like I said, I'm in no position to judge but I'm hardly going to go against my bf's view in an area in which he's clearly the expert.

Is there any doubt about the green house effect? I.e. that CO2 absorbs ir radiation which would otherwise be radiated out to space? I assume not.

There also isn't any doubt that we have been pumping CO2 into the atmosphere at an accelerating rate.

What is the deniers' case? I assumed that the human-induced effects were overshadowed by other effects. Am I wrong in this and deniers deny either or both of the above?


Peter.

[chrisc]

Is there any doubt about the green house effect? I.e. that CO2 absorbs ir radiation which would otherwise be radiated out to space? I assume not.

Some of them do deny this and some go even further and argue that more CO2 is a good thing...

CO2 is good it makes plants grow better than any fertiliser and can solve the worlds food shortages.

...


Carbon has never been the problem.

We are all made up from a good percentage of carbon as is every plant and every living creature.

So more carbon in circulation means more vegetation.

CO2 is a wholly beneficial transparent, odorless fertilizer gas; the principal driver of biomass diversity and productivity.

Anthropogenic CO2 occupies about 0.0019% of the earth's atmoshphere and is not and never will be a significant driver of climate change.

CO2 does not accelerate global warming, it delays global cooling.

(I'm not linking to the source of this because it's posted on a totally dire site that ideally wouldn't exist...)

[Blue Peter]

Is there any doubt about the green house effect? I.e. that CO2 absorbs ir radiation which would otherwise be radiated out to space? I assume not.

Some of them do deny this and some go even further and argue that more CO2 is a good thing...

But they don't deny that adding more CO2 captures more ir radiation, and, all other things being equal, will therefore make the planet hotter?


Peter.

[RevdTess]

But they don't deny that adding more CO2 captures more ir radiation, and, all other things being equal, will therefore make the planet hotter?

I have the same question.

Maybe they argue that because CO2 concentrations often lag rises in temperature (eg at the end of ice ages) then CO2 can be discounted as a driver of global warming? I dunno.

[MacG]

Is there any doubt about the green house effect? I.e. that CO2 absorbs ir radiation which would otherwise be radiated out to space? I assume not.

Some of them do deny this and some go even further and argue that more CO2 is a good thing...

But they don't deny that adding more CO2 captures more ir radiation, and, all other things being equal, will therefore make the planet hotter?


Peter.

It's like having a black curtain over a window. Adding another black curtain wont make the room darker. At about 20 ppm CO2, effectively all IR radiation is captured. The thing follow a logarithmic called Beer's Law. Its impossible to capture more than 100% of the IR radiation.

Everything indicate that CO2 is merely a trailing indicator, not a leading cause.

This hyping of CO2 is just junk science. Some people get some kind of jolt from their reward systems when they think that they act altruistic. Thats all. Please go home and forget this hysteria.

[Blue Peter]

But they don't deny that adding more CO2 captures more ir radiation, and, all other things being equal, will therefore make the planet hotter?

I have the same question.

Maybe they argue that because CO2 concentrations often lag rises in temperature (eg at the end of ice ages) then CO2 can be discounted as a driver of global warming? I dunno.

That's a distinct question, though. As you alluded to above, the nature of the CO2 molecule is that it absorbs CO2 radiation which would otherwise not be absorbed and head out into space. I believe that without any CO2 in the atmosphere, the planet would be about 40 degrees C colder than it is.

I may be wrong, but my understanding of things is that more CO2 means more radiation kept within the earth, which means a hotter earth. At the same time, we definitely are putting more CO2 into the atmosphere.

What actually happnes as a result of these two factors depends upon very many other factors e.g. ice/snow cover, cloud cover, CO2 absorption. Some mechanisms will increase temperature, some will decrease it, so climate chgange science is "merely" trying to work out what the balance of these forces is.


Peter.

[RevdTess]

It's like having a black curtain over a window. Adding another black curtain wont make the room darker. At about 20 ppm CO2, effectively all IR radiation is captured. The thing follow a logarithmic called Beer's Law. Its impossible to capture more than 100% of the IR radiation.

Everything indicate that CO2 is merely a trailing indicator, not a leading cause.

Gotcha. Thanks for the elucidation.

Why do so many climate scientists not agree? What form does their error take? Do they assume what they should prove (like they often seem to do with evolution)?

[chrisc]

At about 20 ppm CO2, effectively all IR radiation is captured.

So at, and above, 20ppm no IR radiation would reach the surface of the planet...?

[RevdTess]

At about 20 ppm CO2, effectively all IR radiation is captured.

So at, and above, 20ppm no IR radiation would reach the surface of the planet...?

I think he means the radiation from the planet surface, which has different wavelengths to the stuff coming in from the sun.

[Blue Peter]

It's like having a black curtain over a window. Adding another black curtain wont make the room darker. At about 20 ppm CO2, effectively all IR radiation is captured. The thing follow a logarithmic called Beer's Law. Its impossible to capture more than 100% of the IR radiation.

Everything indicate that CO2 is merely a trailing indicator, not a leading cause.

This hyping of CO2 is just junk science. Some people get some kind of jolt from their reward systems when they think that they act altruistic. Thats all. Please go home and forget this hysteria.

Apparently, it's not like having a black curtain over a window:

So, if a skeptical friend hits you with the "saturation argument" against global warming, here's all you need to say: (a) You'd still get an increase in greenhouse warming even if the atmosphere were saturated, because it's the absorption in the thin upper atmosphere (which is unsaturated) that counts (b) It's not even true that the atmosphere is actually saturated with respect to absorption by CO2, (c) Water vapor doesn't overwhelm the effects of CO2 because there's little water vapor in the high, cold regions from which infrared escapes, and at the low pressures there water vapor absorption is like a leaky sieve, which would let a lot more radiation through were it not for CO2, and (d) These issues were satisfactorily addressed by physicists 50 years ago, and the necessary physics is included in all climate models.

From:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... y-argument


Peter.