Evidence for CO2 causing global warming?

[mistermack]

Is anybody on this site at all sceptical of the claims for greenhouse gases causing global warming?

I see the figures are pretty clear that there has been a slight warming, of less than one degree, but I've also seen evidence of much higher variation than that in the past, and in fact it's stable periods that seem to be rare in history.
Half of that one degree c was before co2 emissions were in any way significant, so I don't think that period should be included at all. In fact, it should be evidence that there is probably a natural reason for the warming.

What I don't get is, if the case is so overpowering, as the UN claims, why don't they have a website, full of the existing evidence, so that nobody could be left in any doubt.

The billions being spent and wasted could surely include enough for something that would prove the case? Because all I see is claims. I see no hard evidence published.
Evidence of some slight warming, yes. We can find loads of that. Hard evidence of the cause? Nil.
.

[Tigger]

Do we have this topic somewhere else, or is it different?

[Pappa]

How hard do you need your evidence to be? It seems pretty clear cut to me.

[Eriku]

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

...is a start... from there you can click your way to the IPCC's report, which details all the fields and their findings. (or at least a frickin' lot)

Note that there's also a significant lag between the CO2 and rise in temperature, so we've not really seen the effects much yet. At any rate, if people aren't convinced by the scientific consensus, then I think we can all agree that there's at least enough human byproduct out there impinging on other species and threatening to eradicate the incredible heritage the incredible mindless creator that is evolution. That's fucked up enough on its own.

[Tero]

The part of CO2 produced by man is about 3%. Does 3%, in a rather short time, lead to an accumulation over decades?

Our activities with animals and plants also account for other greenhouse gases, methane.

You need a whole bunch of math and statistics, not common..or farmer (as we say in Finnish) sense to predict the emissions.

These emission scenarios, combined with carbon cycle modelling, have been used to produce estimates of how atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will change in the future. Using the six IPCC SRES "marker" scenarios, models suggest that by the year 2100, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 could range between 541 and 970 ppm.[49] This is an increase of 90-250% above the concentration in the year 1750. Fossil fuel reserves are sufficient to reach these levels and continue emissions past 2100 if coal, tar sands or methane clathrates are extensively exploited

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

[mistermack]

That link illustrates what I mean. They are GIVING THE IMPRESSION of giving evidence, without giving evidence.
CO2 is higher, no dispute about that. It could hardly be otherwise.
But has it caused global warming? That's what they need to prove, or at least show evidence for. I've seen none, only eviidence to the contrary. ( and I have looked by the way ).

[Eriku]

Global warming isn't really the issue... that was the main fear when the heat-trapping capabilities of CO2 were understood, but now that we know more about the sensitivities of biospheres and the organisms that reside in them we have other fears; fears that tie into this.

Slight heating of water causing coral bleaching, changes in water temperature screwing up the hydrological currents of the earth, them in turn speeding up the melting of the poles, which gives more water surface which can soak up heat... It heats up, the ocean floor releases more methane, which traps heat more than CO2 does, etc. etc... There's a lot of knock-on effects, and when you've had incidents like the one in the gulf as well, not to mention the similar ones out in precious rain forest jungle, which isn't getting much press, and you really don't think there's a good chance we're threatening to cause irreperable damage? We're releasing billions of years of stored up carbon over the space of a few hundred years, I'm going to put my money on the scientists not fucking with us in a big global conspiracy.

[Tero]

That link illustrates what I mean. They are GIVING THE IMPRESSION of giving evidence, without giving evidence.
CO2 is higher, no dispute about that. It could hardly be otherwise.
But has it caused global warming? That's what they need to prove, or at least show evidence for. I've seen none, only eviidence to the contrary. ( and I have looked by the way ).

What you may be saying, I think, is what most of the denialists claim. The cause and the effect. They claim that because the planet is warming, CO2 levels will rise. The warming is caused by something else, according to them.

But google for CO2 isotopes. It shows how much of it is caused by burning instead of plants and fungi with natural processes. We burn coal, has different ratio of isotopes.

[Animavore]

Start here and work your way through to episode 10 for climate science made easy.

[Pappa]

I'm going to put my money on the scientists not fucking with us in a big global conspiracy.

+1

Plus.... they'd have to have made up all the evidence.

[mistermack]

Global warming isn't really the issue... that was the main fear when the heat-trapping capabilities of CO2 were understood, but now that we know more about the sensitivities of biospheres and the organisms that reside in them we have other fears; fears that tie into this.

Slight heating of water causing coral bleaching, changes in water temperature screwing up the hydrological currents of the earth, them in turn speeding up the melting of the poles, which gives more water surface which can soak up heat... It heats up, the ocean floor releases more methane, which traps heat more than CO2 does, etc. etc... There's a lot of knock-on effects, and when you've had incidents like the one in the gulf as well, not to mention the similar ones out in precious rain forest jungle, which isn't getting much press, and you really don't think there's a good chance we're threatening to cause irreperable damage? We're releasing billions of years of stored up carbon over the space of a few hundred years, I'm going to put my money on the scientists not fucking with us in a big global conspiracy.

Fears we've got coming out of out ears. I was after evidence. You're stacking one fear on top of another there. The truth is that we should act on evidence, not speculation.
CO2 has been much higher in history, that has been proved. As have global temperatures. Neither has led to calamity or any kind of runaway effect.
.

[Animavore]

As I said, watch the videos.

[Eriku]

I'm going to put my money on the scientists not fucking with us in a big global conspiracy.

+1

Plus.... they'd have to have made up all the evidence.

And keep fooling people trained in scientific disciplines to accept it without understanding it. My ex girlfriend, who has a masters in earth sciences, is currently doing her PhD in Climate change, with emphasis on Antarctic ice cores, and she had so much in support of what she was saying... After having her lay it all out to me I just find it hard to turn it away from my mind... It seems very sound to me, and she's not one to just accept without understanding.

mistermack: there haven't been changes in CO2 that have been this rapid, at least not without it resorting to great change in circumstances which have completely screwed up the species that were currently residing. I'm asserting that, but I don't see any proof forthcoming from you yet, so I'll wait till you start digging before I get in a huff and start googlin'.

[mistermack]

That link illustrates what I mean. They are GIVING THE IMPRESSION of giving evidence, without giving evidence.
CO2 is higher, no dispute about that. It could hardly be otherwise.
But has it caused global warming? That's what they need to prove, or at least show evidence for. I've seen none, only eviidence to the contrary. ( and I have looked by the way ).

What you may be saying, I think, is what most of the denialists claim. The cause and the effect. They claim that because the planet is warming, CO2 levels will rise. The warming is caused by something else, according to them.

But google for CO2 isotopes. It shows how much of it is caused by burning instead of plants and fungi with natural processes. We burn coal, has different ratio of isotopes.

But I'm not questioning if CO2 is higher due to man. What I do question is that it has any but the tiniest effect on global temperatures. I want to see the evidence, and if it's not there, I want to know why.
I repeat that temperatures of the globe go up and down constantly, due to natural things that we as yet don't know. WHY, in the face of that knowledge, should we ASSUME that it's CO2?, and not more natural variation?
.

[owtth]

Even if man made CO2 weren't the cause it is only going to exacerbate the changes and should be reduced.