Greetings, and welcome to the World Affairs Board!
The World Affairs Board is the premier forum for the discussion of the pressing geopolitical issues of our time. Topics include military and defense developments, international terrorism, insurgency & COIN doctrine, international security and policing, weapons proliferation, and military technological development.
Our membership includes many from military, defense, academic, and government backgrounds with expert knowledge on a wide range of topics. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so why not register a World Affairs Board account and join our community today?
One can speculate that increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere can drive a global warming trend outside of historical parameters all the live-long day, but that speculation is not fact.
One can speculate that increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere can drive a global warming trend outside of historical parameters all the live-long day, but that speculation is not fact/
How do you know that it isn't fact?
The National Academy of Sciences believes that human activity is the cause of climate change. They are the top scientists from around the nation. I know that the overwhelming majority of qualified scientists agree that CO2 is the major cause for global warming. There are only a few qualified scientists that have actually published dissenting opinions. As far as I know, the uncertainty is not whether this is true, but how much the planet will actually warm by.
We don't do anything about it because Bush doesn't believe there is global warming.
Umm, because I'm not a f*cking gape-mouthed moron?
The National Academy of Sciences believes that human activity is the cause of climate change. They are the top scientists from around the nation. I know that the overwhelming majority of qualified scientists agree that CO2 is the major cause for global warming. There are only a few qualified scientists that have actually published dissenting opinions. As far as I know, the uncertainty is not whether this is true, but how much the planet will actually warm by.
We don't do anything about it because Bush doesn't believe there is global warming.
It has nothing to do with the President. It has everything to do with there being no proven connective mechanism between CO2 levels and global temperature. They may prove one tomorrow, but not even the National Academy of Sciences has proof today.
Umm, because I'm not a f*cking gape-mouthed moron?
It has nothing to do with the President. It has everything to do with there being no proven connective mechanism between CO2 levels and global temperature. They may prove one tomorrow, but not even the National Academy of Sciences has proof today.
Tamara S. Ledley, Eric T. Sundquist, Stephen E. Schwartz, Dorothy K. Hall, Jack D. Fellows, and Timothy L. Killeen
For more information, contact Tamara S. Ledley, TERC, 2067 Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge, MA 02140 USA; E-mail: [email protected].
Infrared (IR) active gases, principally water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), and ozone (O3), naturally present in the Earth’s atmosphere, absorb thermal IR radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface and atmosphere. The atmosphere is warmed by this mechanism and, in turn, emits IR radiation, with a significant portion of this energy acting to warm the surface and the lower atmosphere. As a consequence the average surface air temperature of the Earth is about 30° C higher than it would be without atmospheric absorption and reradiation of IR energy [Henderson-Sellers and Robinson, 1986; Kellogg, 1996; Peixoto and Oort, 1992].
This phenomenon is popularly known as the “greenhouse effect,” and the IR active gases responsible for the effect are likewise referred to as “greenhouse gases.” The rapid increase in concentrations of greenhouse gases since the industrial period began has given rise to concern over potential resultant climate changes.
The AGU Council approved a position statement on Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases in December 1998. The statement and a short summary of the procedures that were followed in its preparation, review, and adoption were published in the February 2, 1999, issue of Eos (p. 49) [AGU, 1999, also at AGU's Web site: http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change.html]. The present article reviews scientific understanding of this issue, as presented in peer-reviewed publications. This understanding serves as the underlying basis of the position statement.
The principal greenhouse gas concentrations that have increased over the industrial period are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and chlorofluorocarbons CFC-11 (CCl3F) and CFC-12 (CCl2F2). The observed increase of CO2 in the atmosphere from about 280 ppm in the preindustrial era to about 364 ppm in 1997 (Figure 1) [Friedli et al., 1986; Hansen et al., 1998; Keeling and Whorf, 1998] has come largely from fossil fuel combustion and cement production.
Originally posted by American Geophysical Union
The atmospheric concentration of CH4 has increased from about 700 ppb in preindustrial times to about 1721 ppb in 1994 (Figure 1) [Houghton et al., 1996]. Fossil-fuel related sources of CH4 amount to approximately 70-120 Tg CH4/yr (1 Tg=1012 g). Increases in CH4 sources resulting from rice cultivation, animal husbandry, biomass burning, and landfills contribute about 200 - 350 Tg CH4/yr [Schimel et al., 1996].
Originally posted by American Geophysical Union
Additional CO2 might be removed by burial in soils or deep sea sediments through mechanisms that, although poorly understood, are generally believed to require times extending to thousands of years [Harden et al., 1992; Schlesinger, 1990; Stallard, 1998]. Removing some of the anthropogenic CO2 by this mechanism may require reactions with carbonate sediments in the deep sea that occur on timescales of thousands of years [Archer et al., 1998; Boyle, 1983; Sundquist, 1990]. On the basis of such analyses, it is now generally believed that a substantial fraction of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere will remain in the atmosphere for decades to centuries, and about 15-30% will remain for thousands of years.
I'll find more if you want. Let the duel of sources begin!
Umm, because I'm not a f*cking gape-mouthed moron?
So then you know more than all of the climatologists in the NAS then.
Originally posted by dalem
It has nothing to do with the President. It has everything to do with there being no proven connective mechanism between CO2 levels and global temperature. They may prove one tomorrow, but not even the National Academy of Sciences has proof today.
This is typical of someone that doesn't understand science. The whole field of science is based off of inference and deduction. There is no way that we can experimentally "prove" that CO2 emissions are the cause of global warming, but we can infer that it is the cause from the facts. Just because we can't prove that CO2 is the cause of global warming doesn't make it not true.
And, by the way, there is no way that you can know that CO2 isn't the cause of global warming.
So then you know more than all of the climatologists in the NAS then.
If they are saying that there is a definite relation between industrial CO2 and planetary temperature, then yes.
This is typical of someone that doesn't understand science.
Actually it is typical of someone who is uncomfortable making definitive claims from poor data. But I apprecaite the accusation anyway.
The whole field of science is based off of inference and deduction. There is no way that we can experimentally "prove" that CO2 emissions are the cause of global warming, but we can infer that it is the cause from the facts. Just because we can't prove that CO2 is the cause of global warming doesn't make it not true.
And the converse is equally true. You should remember that before you attempt to lecture me.
And, by the way, there is no way that you can know that CO2 isn't the cause of global warming.
True.
Here's my last post from the ice cap thread:
"Praxus-
The actual measurements of C02 concentrations are pretty good - you can take ice cores at several depths in several regions and you look, quite simply, at the air bubbles trapped within the ice. That tells a lot about the air composition at the time of the bubble at that locale, and if a bunch of contemporaneuous bubbles from different geographic locations all indicate the same composition, it's a pretty safe bet to extrapolate the broad ratios of certain compounds and isotopes in the planetary atmosphere at that time.
Temperature is much more difficult, but still doable, again relating to isotope levels (usually Oxygen-16 to -18 ratios).
So the methodology is quite sound.
It is worthwhile to note that throughout geologic time, the highest average planetary temperatures are not always (I'd have to re-read the article to know if it's "not usually") directly matching the highest concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere, from the data we have so far. Nor do they appear to be in a chasing or triggering mode - the curves are simply different.
That is not to say that C02 and other "greenhouse gasses" are completely decoupled from the Greenhouse Effect which traps heat in our atmosphere, but it does contradict one of the lazier assumptions of the current human-drive global warming hypothesis; that elevated C02 automatically means high temperatures. The data so far clearly indicate that that is not true.
-dale"
If you want to continue to believe that I simply don't "understand science", then go right ahead, Captain Kyoto.
My claim is that that human activity is causing increased emissions of greenhouse gases. These excess greenhouse gases are causing a rise in global temperature.
My claim is that that human activity is causing increased emissions of greenhouse gases. These excess greenhouse gases are causing a rise in global temperature.
Comment