CO2 Causes Global Warming. Here's the Evidence
83
Image above from Zfacts.com. More information about the image available here.
How do we know that global warming is caused by CO2?
- We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This has been accepted by scientists for more than 100 years. Click here to see an interactive timeline of the history of climate science. Or visit some of the links at the bottom of this page to learn about the history of global warming science.
- We know that CO2 has increased from 280 parts per million in 1850 to 380 parts per million at the present. This is the highest level of atmospheric CO2 on earth in 15 million years. (Tripati et al, Coupling of CO2 and Ice Sheet Stability Over Major Climate Transitions of the Last 20 Million Years, sciencemag.org Oct. 2009)
- Svante Arrhenius predicted in 1896 that rising CO2 would cause temperatures to increase.
- The first computer climate models predicted that CO2 would cause global warming.
- The Computer models which generated these accurate predictions of the past 30 years can only reproduce the current warming if CO2 is included. When scientists create a model of the earth's climate, they do test runs to see how accurately it reflects past temperature changes. They add and remove various forcings - changes in solar energy, orbital cycles, and long term weather patterns - and If the model matches past climate change accurately, then we can surmise that it will be an accurate predictor of future change.
The models predict warming in certain parts of the earth and atmosphere (See IPCC TAR, Chapter 12.2):
- warming of the lower atmosphere
- cooling of the upper atmosphere
- more warming over land
- less warming over the ocean
- more warming at higher latitudes during the winter
These predictions are (mostly) borne out by observations:
- The lower atmosphere, the troposphere, is expanding (Seidel et al, Climatological characteristics of the tropical tropopause as revealed by radiosondes, J. Geophys. Res., 106). This indicates that the lower atmosphere - where most CO2 accumulates - is warming, but the upper atmosphere is not. This is what we would expect if heat was being trapped by CO2. If the warming was caused by increasing solar energy we would expect all of the atmosphere to warm. (B. D. Santer, et al. Contributions of Anthropogenic and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropopause Height Changes, Science 301 July 2003. Full paper available here (PDF).)
- We can predict that CO2 and other greenhouse gases will absorb certain wavelengths of solar radiation. Observations of the Earth's radiation match these predictions. For the clearest explanation of this, with links to the supporting papers, visit this page and this page at skepticalscience.com. See also Evans et al, Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate.
It is clear that CO2 causes global warming. The only questions now are
- how much warming can we expect as we continue to add more CO2 into the atmosphere?
- at what point will this warming be catastrophic?
- how do we slow the warming and emissions, or, if we can't slow it, then
- how do we adapt to a warming world?
Further Reading
- Carbon Emissions Linked To Global Warming In Simple Linear Relationship
Scientists have found a direct relationship between carbon dioxide emissions and global warming. Researchers used a combination of global climate models and historical climate data to show that there is a simple linear relationship between total cumu - Apparent Problem With Global Warming Climate Models Resolved
Yale University scientists may have resolved a controversial glitch in models of global warming: A key part of the atmosphere didn't seem to be warming as expected. Computer models and basic principles predict atmospheric temperatures should rise sli - UChannel - The scientific basis for projections of climate change (in a nutshell)
UChannel is a collection of university lectures, panels, and conferences on the public and international affairs issues of the day. These lectures are made available to the public through webstreams and re-broadcast by participating television progra - IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Executive Summary (PDF)
- Assessment of US climate variations using the US Climate Extremes Index and the US Greenhouse Climat
Recent variations in temperature extremes in the US are consistent with the predictions of global climate models.
The History of Global Warming Science
- Global Warming Science And The Dawn Of Flight
The Wright brothers' "Flyer" takes to the air, 10:35 AM, December 17, 1903. In the middle years of the 1890s, the world was trembling on the brink of breakthroughs and breakdowns, and so was the... - The Science of Global Warming In The Age of Revolution
A forest of bayonets, thought Claude Servais Mathias Pouillet, Professor of Physics at the Sorbonne and Director of the Conservatoire des arts et mtiers, in whose courtyard this unwelcome forest now... - Global Warming Science In The Age Of Queen Victoria
Perhaps its the dramatic weather changes, or perhaps it is mere coincidence, but mountains recur in the lives of the first scientists to investigate the physics of climate. Claude Pouillet hailed from the... - The Science Of Global Warming In The Age Of Napoleon
If we think of Revolutionary and Napoleonic France, many things might come to mind: "Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity," Marie Antoinette and her unfortunate dietary recommendations for the poor; La...
CommentsLoading...
That was fast Breakfastpop! Thanks for reading.
I think its pretty obvious by now what the truth is. The planet is warming, and CO2 is causing it. How much it is warming might be up for debate, but the time to act is passing quickly.
Nice job William R. I'm convinced.
i woke up today to freezing weather in Florida. Obama flew to Copenhagen in a blizzard.James Hansen is a fraud.
Chris Horner has filed a suit against NASA
Vraj, I don't know what else to say.
Lesson #1 from Science School: Correlation is not causation. Your chart has no meaning. I could use it to infer that temperature causes CO2.
Lesson #2 from Science School: Figures lie and liars figure. I can take a subset of your chart from approximately 1937 to 1942 and infer that CO2 causes global cooling. In that period we see that temperature is increasing but CO2 is decreasing.
Lesson #3 from Science School: The Y axis for "temp. in Degrees F" appears to be an offset from some arbitrary value which is not defined anywhere on the chart.
If the offset is plotted as some sort of average, then the data is even more meaningless because we had no technique for measuring temperature to that resolution in 1880. Many temperature readings were taken by dropping a bucket or a canvas bag containing a thermometer in the ocean from the deck of a ship. The bucket or bag was then hauled aboard and eyeballed. There were no digital thermometers in 1880.
Thanks for stopping by nicomp, but apparently you just looked at the chart and didn't read the rest of the hub.
Science is based in prediction. If your predictions come true, then your hypothesis is strengthened.
There is no reason to doubt that CO2 will cause warming.
If you want more info on the chart, head over to the link I provided.
nicomp
thousands of scientists have spend decades. Some have made it their lifes work to develop techniques to measure and monitor climate change. You dont do that Science to cheat or make up figures you do it because you believe it what your doing and as such will better educate the powers that be to take evasive action !
Fantastic effort and incredibly thorough research William. Your dedication to this vital issue and your tolerance for the misinformed are both most admirable. You could give vraj and nicomp libraries full of irrefutable data and, if it meant admitting they were wrong, they would simply call it junk science and crank up the air conditioning.
And anything that even questioned this global scam could be ignored and forgotten. Just be sure to delete the emails you send to each other about it.
Great Hub about an incredibly important issue. And very timely. We in Africa are feeling the effects very definitely, and have been for some years now. I am always amazed at how readily people put on blinkers and refuse to see what is going on. And it seems to me to be usually those who would deny the reality of such things as evolution also. And the same people ... but let me not go down that road!
Strength to your arm, William
Love and peace
Tony
Yes, William, CO2 does cause Global Warming, but SO2 causes Global Cooling. They balance each other out. Dr. Philip Lloyd, one of the inside "peer reviewers" of CRU already admitted that there was no objective vetting of the theories and "science" papers. There is no overall Global warming. BTW, again, in Florida, where I am, it's freezing again.
Why is there no mention of the growing the variety of the Hemp plant that is practically T.H.C. free which is now being grown in many countries legally,because it has over 2500 uses.
It,grows quickly,in almost any climate with little need for fertilization.It,can grow p to 17 feet high,and produce food in the form of hempseed,which is very healthy,second only to soybeans ,which G.M.O. scientists have been paid to engineer soybean plants in such a way as to take away it's ability to enrich the soil with nitrogen from the air.That may increase yeilds,at the expense of the next planting,which would require more fertilizer.That's like borrowing from Peter to pay Paul.
The T.H.C. free variety of Hemp can replace wood for the production of paper.In fact because of it's long fibers is superior to wood for this purpose.In,fact the fibers are so long that it has more strength when manufactued into a woodlike material ,it has been found to be superior to wood as a structural material by a factor of one and a half times at least.So,the cutting of trees for housing or any other structural purpose could be totally unnnecessary,leaving more co2 absorbing trees around to cool off the planet.
At the momment we are polluting our water supplies with chemicals that are used for breaking down the fibers in wood for the production of paper products of all kinds.
Hemp fibers need no chemicals to break the fibers apart.There is,an upfront cost to Hemp fiber production.The machinery that recovers the fibers from the stalk.However this cost is offset by the low cost of growing Hemp rather than trees or cotton for their fibers ,which both require chemicals in producing products like paper,or cotton fiber for clothing.Hemp fibers can be used for the production of clothing also.
Hemp fibers are clearly superior to wood or cotton in the production of papergoods or clothing for that matter.
Remember our country,paid farmers during world war two to produce Hemp for it's fibers,for rope,and clothing.After the war for some reason the pocession of Hempseed was practically outlawed by the federal government.The government said farmers could not legally grow Hemp unless they had a "Stamp" from the government to do so.The Irony was the government refused to give out any "Stamps".Talk about catch 22.They would allow it ,if they allowedit.But,they don't allow it.Give me a break.They flat out don't allow it,period.Why? I can go into that,but I don't want to get my hands dirty from all the muck that would rake up.
Thanks for all the comments everyone. Something unexpected has come up for me so I can't answer them all individually right now.
"There is no reason to doubt that CO2 will cause warming."
Uncle.
Nicomp - sorry, I deleted your last comment. I love debate but I don't want this to deteriorate into personal attacks. Your comment was not particularly egregious or offensive. I'm just trying to nip things in the bud.
If you want to debate the science that I have presented here, please do.
"thousands of scientists have spend decades. Some have made it their lifes work to develop techniques to measure and monitor climate change. You dont do that Science to cheat or make up figures you do it because you believe it what your doing and as such will better educate the powers that be to take evasive action !"
Your logic is intrinsically flawed. Science is littered with scientists who fudged data for various reasons. Are you familiar with Haeckel's embryo drawings? Have you heard of Peppered Moths and how that experiment was manipulated?
Scientists are human. It's unreasonable to anoint them as infallible or inerrant.
1880 is more than 'decades' ago. No doubt well-meaning scientists and sailors and weathermen have spent their time monitoring climate change. For better or worse, they were limited by their equipment. There weren't any devices or techniques that could measure temperature to consistently 1/2 a degree in 1880. Navigation was not precise enough to measure water temperature consistently in same location. There was no commercial electricity generation. New York City ran on natural gas. in 1882 Edison installed his first street lights. We all need a better understand of data gathering in order to grasp the nonsense of that chart.
Yes, there may be verbiage behind the chart, but I couldn't care less. Why? Because the author of the hub presented the chart solely on it's own merit. The underlying implication of the hub is to present some kind of scholarship; I'm sorry, but a little critical thinking needs to be applied.
"Nicomp - sorry, I deleted your last comment. I love debate but I don't want this to deteriorate into personal attacks. Your comment was not particularly egregious or offensive. I'm just trying to nip things in the bud."
That's funny, he attacked me. Anyway, I'm done. My policy on comments is that when I'm censored, I drop out.
stop breathing, or grow trees
7 billion people and growing.
Good stuff from someonewhoknows and OD!
Yes studyo, Nicomp made the same point. But it's not just about the chart. We know, independently of current warming, that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. And we know that warming caused by CO2 will have certain characteristics, as outlined in the hub.
"Yes, William, CO2 does cause Global Warming, but SO2 causes Global Cooling. They balance each other out. Dr. Philip Lloyd, one of the inside "peer reviewers" of CRU already admitted that there was no objective vetting of the theories and "science" papers. There is no overall Global warming. BTW, again, in Florida, where I am, it's freezing again."
SO2 does have a cooling effect, but it doesn't balance things out. In fact it can have a warming effect at the poles by darkening the snow surface, causing snow and ice to absorb more heat and warm faster.
Plus SO2 is more toxic than CO2, and increasing the quanitities in the atmosphere would have other undesirable effects.
Nicomp said: "the author of the hub presented the chart solely on it's own merit. "
Eh, not quite. I've presented 5 hubs worth of evidence that the planet has warmed - independently of global temperature records. I've got at least 2 more in that series on the way.
Plus, that chart is only a small part of the evidence presented in this hub. It illustrates the point that temperature has risen as CO2 has risen.
There is plenty of evidence, besides that simple correlation, that supports the AGW hypothesis, as you would see if you would read beyond the chart.
I pose a question, "Why are all the other planets in our solar system heating up and going through drastic changes, some heating up much more than planet earth?". Do we assume that there are a lot of people on those planets burning fossil fuels, driving petrol cars and flying in jet aircraft. You cannot do a proper research article without looking at the planet earth in her environment in the solar system and take what is going on there into consideration.
We are part of a galactic environment which is heading into a different cycle, Nasa and the governments have decided not to tell the people of the world, they fear that people will stop building their empires!!!
Educate yourself and stretch your mind further out to find out what is really going on.
Namaste
Linda at UNIVERSAL LAWS
Hi Linda - I might do some research on the apparent warming of other planets in the future. This does come up pretty frequently.
I find it odd, though, that people who distrust NASA's numbers on the temperature of the planet earth, which is by far the best observed and studied planet in the solar system - those same people will turn right around and point to data from NASA spacecraft that other planets are warming up.
It's even stranger because we've got hundreds if not thousands of observations that indicate a warming earth, but only one or two that indicate other planets are warming. Yet these one or two observations are enough to dispel the 150 year old greenhouse theory?
Satnam.
Deniers grasp at any straw in their desperation to discredit science validated by thousands of dedicated scientists and decades of research.
Another great hub on this subject, William!!
( Hey, buddy... I like how you calmly deal with those who disagree with you... you got style. )
A very amusing bit of propaganda.
I know - how outrageous that the sun could somehow have a say in the weather
Thanks everyone for the comments - it's been very busy the past few days so I can't respond individually.
Re: the Great Global Warming Swindle - I can't take much time to comment about that, but I will say it was found to be factually inaccurate and misleading. I'll just quote Wikipedia, if someone wants to dig deeper the material is out there.
The movie even went so far as to misrepresent the views of two scientists, taking their statements out of context to make it appear that they didn't agree with the science.
See also:
http://www.climateofdenial.net/?q=node/3
Quote:
Although the documentary was welcomed by global warming sceptics, it was criticised heavily by many scientific organisations and individual scientists (including two of the film's contributors[7][8]). The film's critics argued that it had misused and fabricated data, relied on out-of-date research, employed misleading arguments, and misrepresented the position of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.[9][10][11][12] Channel 4 and Wag TV (the production company) accepted some of the criticism, correcting a few errors in subsequent releases.[13] However according to Bob Ward (former spokesman for the Royal Society), this still left five out of seven of the errors and misleading arguments which had been previously attacked by him and 36 other scientists in an open letter.[11]
The British broadcasting regulator, the Office of Communications (Ofcom), received 265 complaints about the programme, one of which was a 176-page detailed complaint co-authored by a group of scientists.[14][15] Ofcom used this complaint in its deliberation,[2] and delivered its ruling on 21 July 2008. It ruled that the programme had unfairly treated Sir David King, the IPCC and Professor Carl Wunsch. Ofcom also found that part 5 of the programme (the 'political' part) had breached several parts of the Broadcasting Code regarding impartiality. Ofcom said that the rules on impartiality did not apply to the scientific arguments in parts 1-4, because global warming caused by human activity was a settled fact: "In this respect it could be said that the discussion about the causes of global warming was to a very great extent settled by the date of broadcast ( 8 March 2007 ). [...] In Ofcom’s view the link between human activity and global warming also became similarly settled before March 2007. [...] Having reached this view, it follows that the rules relating to the preservation of due impartiality did not apply to these parts."[2]. Regarding the programme's accuracy, Ofcom noted that in its role as regulator it: "had to ascertain – not whether the programme was accurate - but whether it materially misled the audience." On this basis Ofcom ruled that: "On balance it did not materially mislead the audience so as to cause harm or offence."[2][16] On 4 and 5 August 2008, Channel 4 and More 4 broadcast a summary of Ofcom's findings,[17] though it will not face sanctions.[13]
Surely, the point is that this is no time to take risks with our world. Acting now is unlikely to do any harm and may actually be looked back upon by furture generations as inspired. Do we really have time on our hands? What are the downsides to acting now?
Thank you Nick, for stating a common sense view! Here in America people are so tied up in this conspiracy theory nonsense they don't seem to realize that cutting our dependence on fossil fuels will be a good thing, regardless of global warming.
Huzzah! Another voice of reason!
Excellent hub William. I've just been writing stuff for an ezine countering the denier mentality and it's nice to see such well-organised research and sources. The deniers always seem to think that science is nothing more than an opinion, no more credible than their own, when the hard truth is that it is based on evidence obtained through careful research.
I often come across people who read nonsense articles from the UK newspaper The Telegraph, which has been carrying denier articles for some time. If only your material was carried on newspaper front pages... ah, but in the real world...
Thank you so much Bob! It's funny how certain publications, like The Telegraph, have such an obvious slant.
How did you get away with so many outbound links?
Hi Daddy Paul, as far as I know outbound links are a good thing as long as they are relevant. I always try to back up my facts with a link to a solid source.
re Daddy Pauls comment:Your right William !
I thought you might like this post!
Lots of good info.
Too bad, some people see the solution to their problems right in their faces and take it for a problem. Why do they call CO2 greenhouse gas? Because plants thrive in it. Last time I heard, world pop. was zooming up and up. Ergo, what we need to do is find ways to pump more CO2 into the atmosphere to warm the entire planet up and cause deserts to bloom with crops. So what if the frigid polar regions melt? No animal needs frigid weather to survive, it's an adaptation to adverse conditions, they can lose hair and fat and survive nicely. So what if the oceans rise, coastal cities can be relocated. But if the planet has too many people, and suddenly can't support them, millions could begin dying monthly, all because we didn't have the foresight to pump CO2 into the atmosphere when we had the chance.
TL: LOL.
Thanks to Barry and Albert!
"LOL".
At what? All them starving people to come, including maybe your kids? :)
Too bad, the truth always gets laughed at until it's too late.
Sorry, that was rude. But I think you'll just have to wait and see what happens as the temperature warms.
It won't be good.
It was thought of long ago but discarded by the current crop of one world govt. czars because reducing greenhouse gas gives them an excuse to redistribute wealth from rich to poor countries despite the sure trajectory toward worldwide mass starvation down the line, but actually keeps the option open later after they've done their damage. Check this out:
Hi William:
Perhaps you've visited, "An Inconvenient Truth", and been impressed by the presentation, like I have. Perhaps you've enjoyed commenting online about it, like I have.
Now you've blogged about it. (I haven't... yet.)
Opinions are like armpits. We've all got them and some of them REALLY stink, lol.
("Except Mine", is NOT an option, unfortunate as that may sound..)
Why? Because opinions are like armpits...(YOU KNOW THIS.)
So, just for me, in MY little world; I don't expect everyone to fall in love with my brand of armpit.
My favorite restaurant has lots of menu items I like and quite a few I would probably hate to eat.
My waitress knows me by name, food preference and state of wakefullness. She is a very savvy gal. She KNOWS that her tip rides upon HOW she uses that information.
She does NOT try to bludgeon, cajole or drag out a discussion about foods I hate and would NEVER order.
She KNOWS she would get no tip. Or, if I'm particularly tired...maybe some kinda smart-alec answer.
Like some of the above.
Nice article.
Stop arguing with the customers.
I'm in the process of writing this thing about the Reader.
Stop by. I'm open all night.
HubCrafter
"Stop arguing with the customers."
LOL. Thank you for stopping by.
I do get a little snippy sometimes. I try to listen to all perspectives but sometimes I get tired. I'm sure we all do.
TL, and anyone else I've been rude to, I apologize. I'll try to be nicer in the future. ;)
William,
I'm really undecided on man made global warming, but I do have one logical question. Name one currently logical technological alternative to fossil fuels? Please make it logical and don't rely on unproven future possible developments.
Tom - that's a hard one!
And I'm no expert either.
My opinion? We should have invested in solar 30 years ago.
But, since we are in the situation we are in, I think that we need a combination of solutions. For one thing we can't continue to use energy like we have been. Retrofitting houses to conserve energy, changing our urban planning from sprawling exurbs to walkable neighborhoods with all the necessities of life nearby, developing mass transit on a much larger scale, shifting to local agriculture to cut the carbon footprint of our food, eating less meat, etc.
As for energy sources? Maybe nuclear. I don't have a position for or against it, I can give you arguments from both sides.
A combination of small scale solar (solar water heaters and geothermal heating/cooling require minimal energy input), large scale solar and wind, tidal.
If we can cut our use of coal totally we'd be in great shape. I don't have a big problem with petroleum for our cars, I think it's better than ethanol and biodiesel. Hybrid cars are better than electric cars, in my opinion.
So the answer is, there is no one particular alternative.
How feasible is the combination of solutions I've listed? I don't know. But I do think our survival depends on changing our ways very quickly.
Interesting article that appears to be well documented. I don't know what's causing global warming but I do know the planet is warmer than it was when I was a kid living in Washington DC in the 50s. We'd have snow on the ground by late October EVERY year. Now, snow comes rarely (the big storm that recently hit the east coast is unusual) and temps from Oct - Dec are often in the 50s and 60s, unheard of when I was growing up. Something's going on, for sure.
How can we trust the data you put forth. IT HAS BEEN TAMPERED WITH! The scientists behind this really screwed things ups. Haven't you heard about Globalgate? Read upon it.
Even Russia says the scientist ignore the data from almost half of their weather reporting stations because it did not agree with their hypothesis. Check it out at
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/
And here's another site http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/16/russian-iea-
And how come in the last 3-5 years the temperature has been coming down, ever since the sun's solar flares have subdued?
The Science behind this has been screwed up and, if it actually is causing global warming, and if global warming will actually hurt, who know it might improve things, the scientest and politicians have done us a big disgrace on the whole thing.
Even more, the whole global warming has turn into nothing but a ploy by the socialists and communist to destroy the USA. Copenhagen displayed this so much. Not to promote my own hub, but you need to check it out http://hubpages.com/hub/Was-Copenhagen-A-Fight-To-
Adn the graph you showed appears to have had the data changed at least 2 or 3 times. What? So how are we supposed to believe any of it now. NASA is being sued because of the misrepresentation they show with this chart.
We need to get to the bottom of this, with real data, but it seems the scientist are saying the original data has disappeared. What? Wow, what a dis-service they have done to us!
Keep on hubbing
LOL Ed, global warming is religion, reasoning does not work with these people.
Merry Xmas everybody :)
Thank you PWalker! I don't suppose you have any snow in Hawai'i now? ;)
Hi Eovery:
Have you looked at my series of hubs on the evidence that the earth is warming? The global temperature records that you refer to are far from being the only information we have that shows warming. The ice caps are melting, spring is coming earlier, snow cover is decreasing, glaciers are melting, animals are migrating northward, etc.
So - while I doubt that all the temperature data has actually been falsified, even if it has there is still evidence of a warming earth.
The planet has not cooled during the past 3-5 years - this is a myth. The last 10 years are the warmest on record. Don't believe me? Look at the arctic ice, which has seen record decline in this decade.
"Adn the graph you showed appears to have had the data changed at least 2 or 3 times. What?"
Which chart are you talking about?
As for socialist plots, honestly, the instant you start saying things like this you lose credibility. I will grant you - the solutions will probably not come from above. Copenhagen was pretty worthless as far as I can tell.
In any case, thanks for stopping by. I encourage you to read further and study this. Don't just go by what the skeptics blogs are telling you. Look at the science that is being done. Go to the journals.
All I ask is that you search around. You are being mislead. If you do not know that NASA has changed the data few times you really need to research this. It used to be flat, then they say they found a calculation problem and fixed it, which cause the data suddenly rise.
You can believe what you want. In 70's and 80's the earth was going to freeze. Didn't happen, then it was global warming, and as the last 3 years has cooled off, it has changed into Climate Change. The experts can't make up their minds, but they have it all covered either wise.
You really need to research both sides, because all of your data has been compromised and has lost all creditability!
Misha, long time no hear. Take care my dear Russian Friend!
Merry Christmas to all.
Keep on hubbing!
I'm not buying any of this crap. What would you have us do , 1 child policy and stop breathing? Piss off and go plant a tree they breath co2 btw. Guess your the idiot who thinks it's a good idea to put mercury and lithium in the water or spray aluminum in the atmosphere? Holdren must be at your Xmas party for all you illuminated ones...
I will never understand the nay-sayers on this issue. Denial -- the last refuge of the thoughtless. Great article. And may I put one big raspberry here for the comment above mine. (Idiot!!)
Thanks William
Core samples show CO2 builds up years after warming.
So are we to throw hard core evidence out the door?
If CO2 is so bad how come we are all not dead?
I guess the medieval warming period never existed. No industry or SUVs or CO2. Explain that one away. Or is that inconvenient?
Those graphs were built with models based weather patterns. They don't even take their own temperature readings. When they were asked for the data they were based on they said they moved to a smaller facility and chucked the data because they didn't have the storage. Really?
Good scientist just don't do that.
There has been no increase in overall temperatures over the last 7 years.
Since those of you who believe this garbage you can pay my share of the cap and trade tax. That should make you feel better that your doing something about conditions that are far bigger that your are.
We can't even control a thunderstorm let alone global temperatures.
Joe -
I've asked you to show me some of your sources that you supposedly researched in scientific journals. You never delivered.
The "CO2 lags temperature" bit is old and tired and has been dealt with elsewhere. Google it. Same with the Medieval warming period. Scientists, who actually work and publish papers in the field of paleoclimatology, have looked at the MWP and found that it was regional to Europe.
"Those graphs were built with models based weather patterns. "
Which ones? The temperature data is real temperature data, so is the CO2 data. The predictions were made by computer models, yes - but notice how close the reality has come to the predictions.
If you doubt this, read my hub about global temperature records:
http://hubpages.com/hub/Is-Global-Warming-Real-Her
and if you still doubt that the earth is warming, visit my other hubs that lay out the evidence for a warming earth.
Wow, everywhere I go there are angry denialists...
You make a very good case and you should certainly ignore those who expect you to go educate yourself. You've obviously already done that and more. Thank you all the great links!
Great hub and keep up the rational debate rather than allow yourself to be drawn into the ad hominem blather.
Thanks for the encouraging words HF. Yeah, I feel like I've done all the hard work for them and they still refuse to look!
How many of you understand this simple concept - garbage in, garbage out.
The models can't account for the COOLEST decade on record and the records only go back a little over 100 years.
As for scientific journals, if the editors delete information and opposing viewpoints, the journal is garbage.
Now take that and read the "stolen" emails from the leading "climatologists." Even Jesse Ventura, the liberal independent good friend of Al "Climate Jesus" Gore, found that it comes down to one thing MONEY.
And before you bash me, I am an academic and understand "peer review". If the data given to me to peer review is bogus, I can only base my facts on the erroneous data given in the article. I also know that editors have bias, and routinely deny articles that go against the conclusions they want.
"the COOLEST decade on record"
Um? Where do you get this?
I've covered this already. Visit my other hubs. The earth is warming. The evidence is out there.
We are angry when we see "Global Warming" idiots like Al Gore, who flies around in his big jet, buying carbons credits so that he appears to be green, but he is only in it for the money pushing green products! And he makes a film which has so many wrongs and made up data.
And when we see a global warming summit in Copenhagen which turns into a Socialistic ploy to control the USA. They can't take us down with military ploys, but have to attack us from politically from within. So why shouldn't we be pissed.
Then we find out the data on all the global warming has been tampered with. There are just as many scientist and expert who do not agree with the global warming.
So where does this leave us? All I know is the so called experts for global warming have screwed up badly.
Keep on hubbing!
Again, food for thought. Tonight ex-governor Jessie Ventura had a show on TV addressing global climate warming. ck. out this info. and draw ur own conclusion. World Conservation Bank. and connection to Maurice Strong, former UN head and Edmond (sp?) de Rothschild Yeah, those Rothschilds. and consider the Euro, a single European currency hoped to one day be the world currency, tied with this bank and these men. Who's getting rich off Cap & Trade, 1 is Al Gore with his backing/partnership of Hara Inc. Oh yeah, what about all those polluters, read big business, oil, mfg. All legal with the purchase of carbon credits. Which leads us to us, we get the shaft and more pollution. Tks. W., that's pronounced like Duh bya in Texas, not far from Dallas.
Gayla
The main problem with old measurements is that instruments are not reliable, the same thing people in 2050 will say about instruments used today. Logic though can help us a lot. 100 years ago poles where covered by ice and we had 4 seasons. Now ice is melting, the seasons are roughly 2 and the world warmer. What's happened? There are much less trees and pollution then 100 years ago so probably that's the reason why CO2 causes the increase in temperature. Not all the world is so wise as in places like Finland or Sweden where they plant one or two trees for every tree cut. Maybe because the rest of the world needs space for concrete buildings or big roads. Opinions are opinions, facts are facts. Yesterday I was able to go outside with a t-shirt, the world is warmer. And I live in Northern Italy, not in the South.
Great hub William, go on. Thanks to hub like this people can begin to think in a different way. Because either we begin again to respect this world or Nature will give us some lessons, as it has already begun to do. But there will be always someone who thinks Nature can be manipulated or twisted (like Ogm). Maybe for a need to control?
Great hub man. And Merry Christmas.
hypnodude,
Do you understand science? I know you live in Europe where the religion of anti-capitalism reigns supreme, but science is science, until it is bullsh*t.
I guess when the UN, that bastion of fair thought, Concludes something that that is it. Let me explain again, for my lay science friends, manipulated data is bogus. Sorry, you are wrong. More evidence exists that climate change is caused by sunspot activity.
I guess if you go against the POLITICAL body know as the UN or the Politician know as Al "I own a carbon credit company" Gore, you are wrong. Do you want real science?
Google these "real" scientests:
MIT's Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology Richard Lindzen
Noah Keenlyside of Germany's Leipzig Institute of Marine Science
I could go on, but the first premise of science is it is never non-debatable. Science is continually questioned and for the UN or Al "the thug" Gore to claim otherwise shows either their bias or ineptitude.
You can live how you want, buy your small car, ride a bike whatever, but don't tell me that the science is in, no the fix is in, get ready to pay. Follow the money.
Tresero - next personal attack and you will be banned.
"More evidence exists that climate change is caused by sunspot activity."
Prove it. Show me your scientific papers that show this evidence. Or give me a link to some data.
The fact is, sunspot activity has a minimal impact on climate. You think temperature data is manipulated? Fine - look at all the other evidence that the planet is warming.
Sure, question science. Be my guest.
But Al "the Thug" Gore? Don't make me laugh. This conspiracy theory garbage is turning your brains to mush apparently.
Follow the money indeed:
Cherokeebandit and Eovery - I'm not a big fan of top down agreements and treaties. I think Copenhagen will be as worthless as Kyoto was. Cherokee - you are right, it's the little guys who get the shaft. The people who emit the CO2 will find a way to profit from their pollution.
It's a little over the top to point to a conspiracy. Rich people will be rich people and write the laws to benefit themselves. That's just human nature.
Anyway, the value of the treaties and laws aside, Global warming is happening, and it is caused by CO2. That is all I am trying to say here. I'm not arguing for any particular solution. I don't even care what Al Gore has to say. I'm just laying out the proof of global warming.
Hypnodude - thank you for the comment. Tresero seems to question your education - I wonder if he can write Italian as fluently as you write English?
Unfortunately none of this data is now pure. It is all tainted by the idiots that stacked the data and then were dumb enough to chat or email each other about what they have done. And the effect of what they did is the worthless press release that came out of Copenhagen. In the end they have hurt the world more than any one thing or country with massive carbon emissions.
Hi BaliMermaid - thanks for stopping by and commenting.
I think the 'taint' is more in how the public sees the data. The science itself is pretty solid. Climategate was more of a PR coup for the skeptics than a blow to the science.
tresero, Great idea to "follow the money." The trail leads right to Exxon and the electric power and coal mining companies. I seem to recall that professor Lindzen is or was taking money from Exxon. Aside from that he has the reputation for being an inveterate contrarian on several subjects besides climate change.
Here is an article that shows how NASA is changing the numbers.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_
It is quite an eye opener! So as I say, our data has been compromised, and some heads should role.
Keep on Hubbing.
Interesting hub, isn't 1880 to the present a rather short time to be inferring an abnormal pattern of global climate change? When was the highest atmospheric concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere by the way? Also isn't blaming global warming on CO2 rather ignoring the massively complex system that governs temperature and assuming that all the other factors are perfectly stable?
Eovery - I'm looking into that to provide some links but as far as I know the corrections were minimal. Again, in my hub on global temperatures I go over the different data sets. Global temperature records are maintained by three different agencies: NASA, Hadley Climate Research Center (which had emails hacked in climategate) and NOAA. The World Meteorological Organization recently took a look at global temperature records from all three organizations and found that they match up with each other and the datasets are sound.
Lymond: thanks for dropping by.
You are right, in the grand scheme of things 130 years is a pretty small span of time. But we can look back at temperature records for nearly a million years. The National Academy of Science released a report in 2004 (I think) that said basically we can be pretty certain that temperatures now are higher than at any time in the past 1000 years at least.
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676
But of course, current temperatures aren't really the issue. The real question is, how much will temperatures rise in the future? And that is what the climate models are for. Scientists have been refining these models for 30 years now, and as I pointed out in the hub, the model predictions for the past 30 years seem to be pretty accurate.
"When was the highest atmospheric concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere by the way? "
There is more CO2 in the atmosphere now than there has been in the past 15-20 million years. The highest concentration of CO2 was many more millions of years ago, I don't have that info off the top of my head. However, much of the carbon that was in the atmosphere back then has been turned into coal and petroleum over the years. If we burned all those fossil fuels, we would return the atmosphere to the state it was in those days.
It is an accepted scientific fact that CO2 blocks heat, that's why it's called a greenhouse gas. If there is more CO2 in the atmosphere, the temperature will rise.
"Also isn't blaming global warming on CO2 rather ignoring the massively complex system that governs temperature and assuming that all the other factors are perfectly stable?"
Yes, and climatologists adjust for this. As I said in the hub, climate models cannot reproduce past and present climate with only the "natural" factors like ocean and wind currents, orbital cycles, and solar intensity. CO2 must be factored in.
William,
I agree with some of your alternatives. The total abandonment of coal is not necessary. Coal was being made into gasoline in Nazi Germany and five miles from where I live in the early 1960's In Cresap West Virginia. The cost per gallon was $0.11 while refined oil gasoline cost $0.09.
I used to be pro-nuclear until Three Mile Island. Now I'm not so sure.
There could be dire effects from a massive wind power project. The energy taken by wind mills or turbines will have an environemental effect. The conservation of energy applies. This is also true with tidal. Even with massive solar. There are unintended consequences with many proposals.
"It is an accepted scientific fact that CO2 blocks heat, that's why it's called a greenhouse gas. If there is more CO2 in the atmosphere, the temperature will rise."
And if the rise in temperature leads to melting glaciers, flooding deep ocean cells dependent on salt content with fresh water, shutting them down, decreasing the movement of heat energy from equatorial regions to higher latitudes causing cooling as a net effect? What about geographical distribution. What about decreasing levels of oceanic iron right now leading to a reduction in oceanic plankton as a carbon sink? (Also, although I don't have time to look up hydrocarbons as sizable carbon sinks, I very much doubt that "much of the carbon that was in the atmosphere back then has been turned into coal and petroleum" specific to what we are releasing back by burning hydrocarbons) The math models don't have a scooby what the actual long term and stable effect of a few decades of warming will be, nor do they have the ability to predict knock-on effects and can only factor in items such as states of major carbon sinks to a small degree. Relying solely on a single factor to predict future temperature is like predicting the path of a ball thrown 50ft in the air by looking at the first 10ft of its altitude graph without reference to acceleration. Those "natural" factors have their own chains and those mathematical models have somewhat debatable adjustments at the moment.
As a side note, there is a theory that CO2 follows temperature not vice versa...
TL: here's something I wrote a few years ago about plants, global warming, and CO2:
Lymond - yes, you are right that the planet's climate is unpredictable. The truth is we don't know exactly how climate change will unfold. It could be very slow and gradual, or very sudden - and in our lifetimes we could see drastic swings from warmth to cold or vice versa. This could have catastrophic results for our civilization, and the unpredictability makes it even more dangerous.
You mention ocean currents shifting from Glacier melt. Are you familiar with the Younger Dryas? As the earth was warming from the last ice age, glaciers in Greenland melted and formed a huge lake in the ice. When the ice around the lake melted, all that freshwater suddenly poured into the ocean, causing a massive shift in global climate and sending the earth back into another mini ice age for a few thousand years.
Climate can change very rapidly.
Something else we need to worry about is feedbacks. As the earth warms, it will create new conditions favorable to more warming. For example - as the sea ice at the north pole melts, the ocean water will absorb more heat. The ice reflects heat. So the less ice there is, the more heat will be absorbed, and the ice will melt faster - leading to more heat absorption.
Another feedback is the methane that is stored in the permafrost. As the permafrost melts, this methane will be released and cause even more global warming. This could be happening right now - and by the time we realize it is happening it will probably be too late to stop it.
These feedbacks are one reason for the observation that CO2 has lagged temperature increases in the past. The glacial cycles of the past 800,000 years or so were caused by orbital shifts called Milankovitch cycles which changed the amount of solar radiation that the earth receives. After the planet's climate reached a certain temperature, the feedbacks kicked in and CO2 and methane were released, leading to further warming.
The thing about our present situation is that the elevated CO2 levels we have now were not caused by natural processes but by our own activities. So as the planet warms from our activities, more of the feedbacks will produce more warming, leading to conditions that we haven't seen in millions of years.
Lymond - another note - there are many signs that the earth is reaching its capacity for absorbing excess CO2. Much of the CO2 we have released thus far has been absorbed into the oceans, mitigating the greenhouse effect. However it looks like we are reaching a saturation point, which means more CO2 going into the atmosphere.
Thanks :).
Yesterday at Palermo (Sicily) there were 26°C and people went to swim in the sea. And if I'm right some countries have begun to discuss who's the owner of territories around the North Pole, since they are going to be free from ice soon. But maybe this doesn't mean the Earth is going warmer.
Happy holidays to everyone.
First... I hope everyone had a great Christmas!
Science does one of two things to prove a theory. They physically test it or go out and find physical evidence. No evidence or conclusive test has been shown that CO2 causes warming. It is theory.
Computer models do not constitute physical testing of evidence.
When they went out to find evidence they found the opposite within the core samples which you dismiss because its old. Dinosaurs are old yet would you deny they exist despite the evidence?
PS you want sources. How many names of scientist that I follow do you want?
Happy holidays to all, Merry Christmas Joe.
"Science does one of two things to prove a theory. They physically test it or go out and find physical evidence. No evidence or conclusive test has been shown that CO2 causes warming. It is theory."
I have outlined the evidence above. Scientists have made predictions based on the greenhouse theory and the observations fit the theory.
Computer models are not the only evidence. They are tools for prediction as well - and the predictions made by the models have come true.
"When they went out to find evidence they found the opposite within the core samples which you dismiss because its old. "
I didn't dismiss the evidence because it's old, I dismissed the argument as one that's been thrown around by skeptics for years. A few comments up I addressed the observation that CO2 lags temperature in the ice core data. Feedbacks cause CO2 and other greenhouse gases to be released into the atmosphere at a certain temperature. This doesn't invalidate the AGW hypothesis, in fact it strengthens it because during each interglacial we can see further warming as more CO2 is released.
As for sources - you indicated in the forums that you've read many scientific papers on global warming and rejected the theory based on these papers. I would like citations of the papers - title, date, author, and journal.
I haven't had the time to read all the comments on this hub but from what I have read it appears that everyone, or most of you, have yet to understand that the "human" influence on global climate changes is minute compared to the natural forces of nature, ie: volcanic activity, animal activity, etc. How vain of the human race to believe that we have any significant effect on the planet we live in by our living habits. True, we might eventually create a sub-atomic chain reaction of explosions that would wipe us all out, but "Mother Earth" will survive without us! I suggest you all get the movie "Not Evil, Just Wrong" and get the other side of the spin we have all been subjected to by the "saint" of the global warming hoax, Al Gore!
Joseph, thanks for stopping by.
You'll notice that I haven't referred to Al Gore in any of my hubs about global warming. The evidence comes from scientists, not Al Gore, and it was there long before he began to film "An Inconvenient Truth."
We can get into semantics if you want, but you are basically right - "mother" nature will still be here long after we are gone.
The issue is, are we altering the environment enough that we humans will start to see negative consequences?
It should be pretty clear by now that we are.
Well we agree to disagree. Computer programs are not evidence. As long as they refuse to release the there data and the source code will be no evidence.
Names are all I'm willing to give. The effort to compile the info you want is not worth the amount of time it will take (and you know that) nor is the work justified to satisfy one person.
I can post some them here if you like perhaps this evening. Besides, the names will make it very easy to find what you want.
Like I said before Google isn't research.
dusanotes has a youtube video in latest hub that was great. It is a little old, but it still applies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2jijuj1ysw
Keep on Hubbing!
I read so many of you lapping up the info that william has provided and thats all great as long as you tell the truth, there are reports out there saying that CO2 is the same now as it was back in the late 1800's, 20 years ago scientist warned of impending cold, in the last two years around the world record cold temperatures have been recorded, there is a warm current close to the ice caps for the past year, there is NO SCIENCE to prove that humans cause global warming, we are simply seeing things revolve, its time to stop punishing and destroying others for the sake of power and to suppress the human race world wide! Al Gore did not invent the internet and certainly doesn't have enough knowledge to predict global warming. get on with your lives folks!
LOL American Romance. I guess you haven't read my other hubs on the subject?
As i said in my hub, we'll have to agree to disagree :) on a parting note though, do you really want to encourage anything your government can get its sticky little paws on and tax you for? Voluntary payments for your carbon footprint are a precursor to tax and all i'd trust my government to do is make it worse!
Hi Lymond - I don't necessarily disagree with you that the gov't might well make this all worse.
Really all I'm trying to do is show the scientific case for global warming caused by CO2. I'm not sure what the best solution is.
Hello William,
Glad I found this hub of yours, because my next hub will take a position OPPOSING human-caused global warming.
The fact that 14-20 million years ago, earth had CO2 levels as high as they are today points to the fact that natural CO2 sinks and dynamic exchanges can produce global warming WITHOUT human beings.
Also, I get the impression that the huge natural concentrations of CO2 in the earth blow away the miniscule production of CO2 by humans. I just don't know whether the proper accounting has been made here by the pro human-caused warming tribe.
And I get the sense that there are possible problems with ice core sampling's reliablity -- I need to check this out further.
Your opening graph has some very sporadic temperature increases associated with CO2 increases in the years 1920-1940. The proportionate rise in temperature compared to CO2, weighed against similar proportions over preveious years, seems very erratic and makes me question the true causal link based on this correlation.
I also believe that two arguments are being confused: (1) CO2 causes global warming and (2) CO2 PRODUCED BY HUMANS causes global warming.
Still further, CO2 is NOT the only greenhouse gas. H2O blows CO2 away, comparitively speaking. Also, methane is a pretty big contributor that seems to be overlooked (as I understand it). In other words, cow and flea farts might be as much to blame as those crazed, SUV-driving soccer moms (^__^).
Anyhow, you see where I'm going, and I hope I can get it all together soon.
Your hub is a great resource for the competition.
Nicely done.
Yours truly,
Robert Kernodle
Hi Robert,
Thanks for stopping by. Point by point below:
"The fact that 14-20 million years ago, earth had CO2 levels as high as they are today points to the fact that natural CO2 sinks and dynamic exchanges can produce global warming WITHOUT human beings. "
Yes. The climate was also much warmer then.
There are natural sources of CO2 - many of them are recognized as feedbacks, which I have discussed in these comments. CO2 and Methane is stored in permafrost and methane clathrates:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothe
"Also, I get the impression that the huge natural concentrations of CO2 in the earth blow away the miniscule production of CO2 by humans. I just don't know whether the proper accounting has been made here by the pro human-caused warming tribe"
There is plenty of evidence that the current CO2 concentratinos come from human sources. For one thing, CO2 from fossil fuels has different isotopes than naturally occurring.
I'm not sure about the accounting though. I'm pretty sure that humans have actually emitted much more CO2 than we can see in the atmosphere, which indicates that much of it is being taken up by the ocean.
"I also believe that two arguments are being confused: (1) CO2 causes global warming and (2) CO2 PRODUCED BY HUMANS causes global warming."
Nah. In this hub I am showing the scientific evidence that CO2 causes global warming. Perhaps in another hub I will show the evidence that the current CO2 increase is due to human activity.
"Still further, CO2 is NOT the only greenhouse gas. H2O blows CO2 away, comparitively speaking. Also, methane is a pretty big contributor that seems to be overlooked (as I understand it). In other words, cow and flea farts might be as much to blame as those crazed, SUV-driving soccer moms (^__^)."
H2O is a recognized feedback. It doesn't persist in the atmosphere like CO2, for one thing. For another, it responds to changes in temperature. Warmer temperatures produce more water vapor, colder temps produce less. So yes, it functions as a greenhouse gas - but it wouldn't cause climatic warming on its own because it can't accumulate in the atmosphere unless the right temperature conditions already exist.
Water vapor also has complicated effects. Clouds, for example, can hold in heat at night but also block sunlight during the day.
Methane is also a great contributor. I think people concentrate on CO2 because it is easier to reduce our CO2 emissions. We can do without fossil fuels. We can't do without agriculture.
Good luck with your hub, I"ll check it out.
William,
YOU SAID:
"H2O is a recognized feedback. It doesn't persist in the atmosphere like CO2, for one thing."
I SAY: Does NOT persist in the atmosphere?! Of course it does -- water vapor is pervasive all the time ... at global volumes that make CO2 look like a drop in the bucket. And as I have always understood it, water holds an incredicble amount of heat.
YOU SAID:
"For another, it [water vapor] responds to changes in temperature. Warmer temperatures produce more water vapor, colder temps produce less."
I SAY: I feel it not quite correct to say that temperatures "PRODUCE" or "DON'T PRODUCE" water vapor. Higher temps hold more, and colder temps hold less, but once a given amount is there, it controls the heat that holds or does not hold more of it. Given the huge, huge porportion of earth that is water, why would this certainly not have a major driving effect on temperature overall?
YOU SAY:
"So yes, it [water vapor] functions as a greenhouse gas - but it wouldn't cause climatic warming on its own because it can't accumulate in the atmosphere unless the right temperature conditions already exist."
I SAY: So you propose that temperature controls water vapor, but water vapor does not control temperature in turn, even though you recognize a feedback? This does not seem quite right.
YOU SAY:
"Water vapor also has complicated effects. Clouds, for example, can hold in heat at night but also block sunlight during the day."
I SAY: Yes, precisely, and perhaps we are not properly calculating those complicated effects properly into our assessments of warming. As I am getting a hint, clouds might be a wild card in the equation that we are not dealing with properly.
I still have much to do to frame my next hub adequately to address these issues, and I might fail, even after all that. This issue is not so settled as popular opinion has it.
Robert Kernodle
Robert - I think a better way of stating the role of water vapor in the atmosphere would be to call it an amplifier.
If the local climate of an area has a certain regular temperature, that area is going to have a pretty consistent range of water vapor levels in the atmosphere. If the temperature (or some other factor) changes, water vapor will increase or decrease accordingly. If it increases, it will likely have an amplifying effect on the warming that has already occurred.
But the concentration of water vapor will not increase on its own.
That's the difference.
see also here:
http://www.slate.com/id/2182564/
and here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005
and here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_vapor_feedback#
Thanks for the comments. Let me know when you have finished your hub!
Hey William,
Yeah, I was doing a little more preliminary study on the water vapor/CO2 amplifying relationship, and realized that my previous comment was a bit naive with regard to this reality.
I need to hone my feel of this relationship a bit more. Water seems to have a more immediate recycling behavior in and out of the air. What I wonder, however, is whether CO2's natural recycling in and out of the air is being accounted for properly. I get the sense that natuarl CO2 exchanges, sources, sinks are not AS accounted for in the Global warmers' prognostications of doom. Again, I'm trying to get all by ducks in a row, researchwise.
It's very confusing -- so much information on BOTH sides of the issue. I've considered aborting my next hub because of the seeming lack of resolution between the two sides of the dabate, but that would be wimpish wouldn't it? So, I've just got to spend the time it takes to reach my best understanding of this issue.
In other words, my hub on this topic might be a while in coming.
Robert
Hey William,
Yeah, I was doing a little more preliminary study on the water vapor/CO2 amplifying relationship, and realized that my previous comment was a bit naive with regard to this reality.
I need to hone my feel of this relationship a bit more. Water seems to have a more immediate recycling behavior in and out of the air. What I wonder, however, is whether CO2's natural recycling in and out of the air is being accounted for properly. I get the sense that natuarl CO2 exchanges, sources, sinks are not AS accounted for in the Global warmers' prognostications of doom. Again, I'm trying to get all by ducks in a row, researchwise.
It's very confusing -- so much information on BOTH sides of the issue. I've considered aborting my next hub because of the seeming lack of resolution between the two sides of the dabate, but that would be wimpish wouldn't it? So, I've just got to spend the time it takes to reach my best understanding of this issue.
In other words, my hub on this topic might be a while in coming.
Robert
Robert - Kudos to you for doing your best to find the truth. I agree that there are uncertainties, and there might even be something driving climate change besides CO2.
But as far as I know there is no other compelling theory with as much evidence as the greenhouse theory.
I can tell from your thoughtfulness that your hub will be a good one when it comes!
Sorry about the duplicated comment. A strange glitch happened in my computer system. For a moment all my comments disappeared. Then somehow they all came back, but this last one in duplicate. Aliens? (^__^)
This will be my last comment here so as not to clutter up things any further. Let's resume our exchange later in my infamous hub to come or in a forum on this topic, when I get more educated, biased, whatever.
Ta ta for now,
Robert
How incredibly refreshing to encounter someone with the willingness to be rational and apply some critical thinking to a problem.
Kudos to Robert Kernodle!
There are ~6 billion people some of them burn about
~86 million barrels/day
Duh of course there will be a huge amount of heat produced.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm
When deniers say the earth was warmer or colder in the past; of course it was, crocodiles used to swim in the Polar sea and there have been many previous Ice Ages. That does not change that humans have a huge impact on their environment.
Anyway, people are basically like the lobster in hot water any gradual danger is just not dealt with.
Kudos William R. Wilson for your stamina and reasonable responses to the so-called "reasonable doubters".
That was an informative, realistic post.
Unfortunately, there are still some people, due to false propaganda, that believe Global Warming isn't real and that it is a hoax.
Keep up the good work, and spread the word......
Thank you Kevin! Good luck with your own site, and come back here to visit often!
qontendah - thanks for the comment. Somehow it got marked as spam. I have remedied that now.
qontenday, Have you ever heard of the earth losing heat throw the atmosphere, Global warming says the CO2 acts as a barrier (simplified) and not let the heat out. We can create heat but is it retained, or is it lost.
By the way, I have been sitting in -25 to -5 degrees F for about a week now. I would appreciate a little warming.
Keep on hubbing!
Eovery - it's cold here too!
Some of the heat is retained, some lost. The more CO2 and methane in the atmosphere, the more will be retained.
Thanks for dropping in again!
Here's a nice hub just released by vjajavela
http://hubpages.com/hub/Its-All-In-Gods-Hands-Next
Check it out. Not all scientist and expert believe in the global warming and have some good data and theories about other things going on.
Keep on hubbing!
Thank you Eovery - I'll look into this and might publish a hub about it!
I've had a great read here. I believe I'm missing out on great information about this topic on climate change given the merits and demerits I gleaned from here, including those from the comment/reply portion. Very interesting. My very elementary perception about the subject matter as a retired teacher who taught Science 3 years before retirement, is really wanting in content. I'm learning. Thank you.
I ventured on writing a hub about global warming. You may want to check it out.
Hi Lita - thanks for reading and I'm really glad I could provide some new information for you!
G.W. is also the cause of thousands of environmentally dispaced people worldwide.
Thanks for the great hub.
As a worker in the oil and gas industry it seems we are always right in the middle of this controversy.
I get to read points from both sides.
It is obvious you took the time to do your research and because of that the hub is now listed on my blog.
Cheers
Dale
Thank you Dale!
Once again Your Research is great, I love that your getting alot reaction. I've been looking around for more articals that seperate that which is a natural effect from those that are caused by allot of Countries refuseal to respond, as well as a large percent of our own.
You have done excellent research on this project. I don't know why some people won't believe in global warming. When when they believe that we are the one's destroying this planet?
We are having global warming in the south this month.
Thanks for your science hub. I haven't heard much on the subject lately.
I missed a clear simple explanation. Although this hub has lots of great reference material, I was frustrated not having a more simplistic explanation right up front and before the massive reseach. Trying to learn new subjects and stay current is harder than I thought it would be.
The level of stupidity has reached staggering proportions in the U.S. How do these people get out the front door in the morning without Glenn or Rush telling them to turn right once they are out of the bedroom?
The sun would not warm the lower levels of the atmosphere while cooling the upper levels - but that is exactly what is happening.
The amounts of CO2 the author quoted are exactly correct, from 280 to 380. Some project amounts as high as 1200, but there is no doubt that it will continue to rise for at least another 50 years regardless of what we do.
I agree with one thing nicomp said above - we are terrific at confusing correlation with causation - and the correlation I mostly see is 53% in the U.S. who refuse to accept evolutionary theory compared with our decreasing comparitive scores in high school science and math skills versus the rest of the world.
But I guess we want our ignorance ratings high in order to offset our low worldwide healthcare ratings to keep us fair and balanced.
Here, let me help - just cut taxes and GW will disappear.
In another 4 years or so, Carbon Dioxide in the Earth's atomosphere is going to hit 400 parts per million. That should wake some people up. It hasn't been this high in a very long time, and world was much warmer when it was this high. The atmosphere is going to catch up.
See the current CO2 data:
breakfastpop Level 8 Commenter 2 years ago
Food for thought...The ice age is not upon us. Clearly the planet is warming, but who do you want to blame for this? I repeat, slow down and figure out the truth.. Great hub, even if I'm not sure about your conclusions.