Evidence for CO2 causing global warming?

[Feck]

You don't think that for us to artifically cause a huge increase in the CO2 concentration would cause the mechanism to change somewhat? It CAN'T follow the temperature if we're injecting huge quantities into the atmosphere, throwing it off its regular cycle.

You can look up the percentages of CO2 in the air. It's miniscule. And it's not that powerful anyway as a greenhouse gas. Water vapour has the biggest effect by far. And methane is far more powerfuls , but less abundant.
In any case, it's academic, because it's purely theoretical. The models that they are pushing can be made to show the exact opposite, just by making tiny changes to the parameters.
Basically, the models are showing exactly what people want to show, any that show the opposite are ignored or re-loaded. The ones that forcast warming are kept.
.

And any global rise in temperature creates more Methane ,If you had looked at the series of Video that Ani recommended you might have seen how a small rise in co2 can cause this . You ask for evidence in the same way that fundies ask for proof of Evolution but yet you refuse to look at any evidence presented to you just like them . You are assuming almost a criminal conspiracy amongst scientists around the world why ?

[mistermack]

mistermack, some of the comments you've made suggest you think that scientists are knowingly or unknowingly falsifying claims of dire consequences purely to stay on the science treadmill. Surely there would be as much cash in disproving climate change as there would be in proving it?

If you disagree with the last question there, I assume it's because you feel there is less funding for science that goes againt the current scientific consensus on climate change.

Could you elaborate a bit on the things I'm talking about?

Well, what they are doing is dodging the issue. I'm saying that the real issue is to show EVIDENCE that CO2 is so directly linked to global temperatures, that the current warm period is DIRECTLY caused by raised CO2. Surely that's not asking too much, and if they can't, then there is something very wrong.

The people who push this are not generally guilty of falsifying evidence, they are just blatantly going for one result only. And blatantly drawing inferences that they would NEVER dare to in any other field. Science is normally INCREDIBLY critical of conlcusions drawn from evidence. With global warming it's just not so. If you criticise, you're labelled a denier. If you dared to suggest that it's not down to CO2, you just wouldn't get work.
So those who have their doubts keep it to themselves. Who can blame them? We all need to eat.
.

[mistermack]

And Beige, you only have to read up on the evidence. The ONLY link established between CO2 and warming, is that CO2 levels rise consistently, 800 years approx after a warm period. This is put down to warmer surface water in the oceans being circulated down to the depths, reducing eventually the ability of the ocean to store so much CO2.
.

As far as I know, that applies to Ice Ages, ice ages are a different kettle of fish, because the warming after those is triggered by orbital shifts, not carbon dioxide. It's a different mechanism entirely to the current warming.

No, that link holds good over a huge swathe of time, including warm and cold periods. Look it up.
.

[PsychoSerenity]

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

Excellent videos. Thanks for the link.

I'll read the rest of this thread when I've finished watching them.

[beige]

Well, what they are doing is dodging the issue. I'm saying that the real issue is to show EVIDENCE that CO2 is so directly linked to global temperatures, that the current warm period is DIRECTLY caused by raised CO2. Surely that's not asking too much, and if they can't, then there is something very wrong..

but that isn't how science works. It's not possible to prove a direct link positively, so yes it is asking too much. What we can do is this:

- Establish a mechanism by which C02 might influence the global climate.
- Establish a positive correlation historically and currently between C02 and climate.
- Establish causality by ruling out possible alternatives.

Any evidence I've come across supports the above, that historical positive correlation does exist by any reasonable interpretation of the available data I've seen.

What we have is evidence that supports a link between C02 and climate, both currently and historically. We obviously can't be sure that C02 is going to be the thing that's causing the current warming, no. No one ever will be completely sure, but what we know of C02 fits the bill perfectly, and if it is something else, there is absolutely no indication of what it might be, or how it might work - as such, we can't really make any alternative conclusion.

As for the lag times, again it's related to Milankovitch Cycles, I have looked it up and found nothing much to support what you're saying, that's why I asked you where you got that idea from - so I can read it for myself and perhaps see more clearly where you're coming from, I think perhaps that I might be misinterpreting you somewhere along the line.

[owtth]

And Beige, you only have to read up on the evidence. The ONLY link established between CO2 and warming, is that CO2 levels rise consistently, 800 years approx after a warm period. This is put down to warmer surface water in the oceans being circulated down to the depths, reducing eventually the ability of the ocean to store so much CO2.
.

As far as I know, that applies to Ice Ages, ice ages are a different kettle of fish, because the warming after those is triggered by orbital shifts, not carbon dioxide. It's a different mechanism entirely to the current warming.

No, that link holds good over a huge swathe of time, including warm and cold periods. Look it up.
.

People (myself included) are presenting you with opinions and facts from which you conclude the exact opposite of what is apparent, it is incredibly frustrating and nonsensical.

[Robert_S]

I still don't have enough proof that Tesco is not a hoax perpetrated by the whole of the UK (is Ireland in on it too?) on us innocent and trusting Merkins.

[Animavore]

I still don't have enough proof that Tesco is not a hoax perpetrated by the whole of the UK (is Ireland in on it too?) on us innocent and trusting Merkins.

We were just following orders. It's all England.

[mistermack]

Beige, even in articles pushing CO2 caused global warming, the 800 year lag is accepted. And it's there in the original hockey stick graph. They have since worked on that, to try to get it out, or at least, less pronounced.
The cause you can argue about. It doesn't follow the orbit wobble faithfully, like the ice ages have been shown to.
But one fact is inescapable. If a rise in CO2 causes a rise in temp, then there can be NO LAG. The CO2 should show a clear 50 year LEAD. Not any kind of lag, except in response to very exceptional climate events.
The trend should be there in ice cores, and cores from lake bottoms. It should be crystal clear. But the link doesn't exist in any cores.
I have read plenty about global warming, and I always look for EVIDENCE, not opinions. I still can't find it. If anyone can link to evidence of temp FOLLOWING CO2 changes, especially within 50 YEARS! I would be very interested.
.
.

[beige]

Beige, even in articles pushing CO2 caused global warming, the 800 year lag is accepted. And it's there in the original hockey stick graph. They have since worked on that, to try to get it out, or at least, less pronounced.
The cause you can argue about. It doesn't follow the orbit wobble faithfully, like the ice ages have been shown to.
But one fact is inescapable. If a rise in CO2 causes a rise in temp, then there can be NO LAG. The CO2 should show a clear 50 year LEAD. Not any kind of lag, except in response to very exceptional climate events.
The trend should be there in ice cores, and cores from lake bottoms. It should be crystal clear. But the link doesn't exist in any cores.
I have read plenty about global warming, and I always look for EVIDENCE, not opinions. I still can't find it. If anyone can link to evidence of temp FOLLOWING CO2 changes, especially within 50 YEARS! I would be very interested.

Yeah, I have nothing against the lag itself, it's actually consistent with what we know.

When the orbit shifts in such a way that more energy from the sun hits the earth, we get warming. This warming reduces the solubility of C02 in the oceans, over time this means that C02 builds up in the atmosphere following a higher solar output. The increased C02 levels then further compound the problem by causing positive feedback, increasing temperature further and causing less and less C02 to be retained, and letting more into the atmosphere over a longer period of time. Eventually, when the solar output falls again the oceans are able to take up more C02, so then following a cool period the C02 later falls, and in the same way as before, the positive feedback aids further cooling. It's not just C02 that affects that climate, there are a number of factors, and depending on which factor is "forcing" the climate, we see different things happening - in the case of these lag times, C02 is not forcing, it's solar output.

This is the normal cycle, the rises and falls in solar energy reaching the earth ordinarily guide the climate more than C02. That's fine, we accept that and there isn't much we can do. However, at this moment in time, it's not changes in solar output affecting the climate, we're outputting enough C02 in a very short space of time (geologically) that our influence is outweighing the solar influence. And that's the worry, because we don't really know how that will affect us, eventually the planet will stabilise itself and recover, but that takes a very long time - and the question is if humanity can adapt to the potential consequences of this. I hope that's clear enough.

[mistermack]

Feck, I have read about the methane component. But this is something that is going on worldwide every day of the year. Methane is always being produced, but there is no evidence it has ever had an effect on climate.
There was a movement recently to point to frozen methane at the bottom of the sea as a deadly hazard, that cause catastrophic climate change if the world warmed a few degrees.
Less well publicised is that the same people did studies in greater depth, and now conclude that it won't happen, and probably never happened.
You only get the scare stories in the media. Anything pointing the other way, you have to find for yourself.

Think of this. The world in the past was LOCKED into a severe ice age, with much lower CO2 levels, much higher reflection from the polar ice, and all the methane locked up by the cold, and little being produced

And from all that, the earth warmed. No manmade CO2 involved.
It went from ice age to warm age.
Compared to that, our 0.5 degree warming is zilch.
All that happened without us, how can we possibly make such confident conclusions from a half of one degree?
.

[mistermack]

Beige, even in articles pushing CO2 caused global warming, the 800 year lag is accepted. And it's there in the original hockey stick graph. They have since worked on that, to try to get it out, or at least, less pronounced.
The cause you can argue about. It doesn't follow the orbit wobble faithfully, like the ice ages have been shown to.
But one fact is inescapable. If a rise in CO2 causes a rise in temp, then there can be NO LAG. The CO2 should show a clear 50 year LEAD. Not any kind of lag, except in response to very exceptional climate events.
The trend should be there in ice cores, and cores from lake bottoms. It should be crystal clear. But the link doesn't exist in any cores.
I have read plenty about global warming, and I always look for EVIDENCE, not opinions. I still can't find it. If anyone can link to evidence of temp FOLLOWING CO2 changes, especially within 50 YEARS! I would be very interested.

Yeah, I have nothing against the lag itself, it's actually consistent with what we know.

When the orbit shifts in such a way that more energy from the sun hits the earth, we get warming. This warming reduces the solubility of C02 in the oceans, over time this means that C02 builds up in the atmosphere following a higher solar output. The increased C02 levels then further compound the problem by causing positive feedback, increasing temperature further and causing less and less C02 to be retained, and letting more into the atmosphere over a longer period of time. Eventually, when the solar output falls again the oceans are able to take up more C02, so then following a cool period the C02 later falls, and in the same way as before, the positive feedback aids further cooling. It's not just C02 that affects that climate, there are a number of factors, and depending on which factor is "forcing" the climate, we see different things happening - in the case of these lag times, C02 is not forcing, it's solar output.

This is the normal cycle, the rises and falls in solar energy reaching the earth ordinarily guide the climate more than C02. That's fine, we accept that and there isn't much we can do. However, at this moment in time, it's not changes in solar output affecting the climate, we're outputting enough C02 in a very short space of time (geologically) that our influence is outweighing the solar influence. And that's the worry, because we don't really know how that will affect us, eventually the planet will stabilise itself and recover, but that takes a very long time - and the question is if humanity can adapt to the potential consequences of this. I hope that's clear enough.

Yes, it's clear. I react to being told it's all established and beyond argument, when it's anything but. My own position is "we don't know". But I still ARGUE that we SHOULD know, if what we are being told is true.
If global temperatures react that strongly to CO2 levels, it should be CLEARLY written in the ice cores etc. And it would be practically impossible to come out of an ice age.
If you look what happens in an ice age, with the huge areas of reflective ice, lower CO2 and less methane being produced, how could the world possibly come out of it with just a slight increase in solar radiation? Surely what we got extra due to the wobble, we would be losing from reflection by the ice?
There must be much more going on than we know.
.

[Feck]

Yet again you are comparing climate change due to natural phenomena over thousands of years with a sudden rise in both global temp and man made Co2 We have rapid climate change that is not in response to these slow natural cycles . No amount of you saying 'it's just a model ' will change the fact that as more data is collected the model seems to be predicting things better and better . I do not know what you would accept as proof I suspect that such conclusive proof as you would accept may not be available But the climate change skeptics are running out of ideas to explain the increasing amount of data that we are gathering that supports the theory .

[beige]

Yes, it's clear. I react to being told it's all established and beyond argument, when it's anything but. My own position is "we don't know". But I still ARGUE that we SHOULD know, if what we are being told is true.
If global temperatures react that strongly to CO2 levels, it should be CLEARLY written in the ice cores etc.

It is

And it would be practically impossible to come out of an ice age.
If you look what happens in an ice age, with the huge areas of reflective ice, lower CO2 and less methane being produced, how could the world possibly come out of it with just a slight increase in solar radiation? Surely what we got extra due to the wobble, we would be losing from reflection by the ice?
There must be much more going on than we know.

There are numerous ways the climate can be affected, all it needs is a couple of short bursts of activity one way or another to kickstart the feedback processes that flip the northern hemisphere from ball of ice, to sunny paradise. Over the glacial erosion reduces available landmass, and thus area for reflection, particular times of high volcanic activity.

As for it not being significant, I disagree. It only takes a couple of degrees to make some really big changes to the way we have to live our lives, and being half a degree on our way is a mighty big step. I do feel the actual mechanism itself, and whether its taking place is well beyond discussion, it's happening whether we like it or not. Still up for debate is more how it will actually affect us, which is somewhat less certain.

[mistermack]

Yet again you are comparing climate change due to natural phenomena over thousands of years with a sudden rise in both global temp and man made Co2 We have rapid climate change that is not in response to these slow natural cycles . No amount of you saying 'it's just a model ' will change the fact that as more data is collected the model seems to be predicting things better and better . I do not know what you would accept as proof I suspect that such conclusive proof as you would accept may not be available But the climate change skeptics are running out of ideas to explain the increasing amount of data that we are gathering that supports the theory .

Yes but half the rise took place before there was any substantial rise in CO2.
People seem to be ignoring that. So you have a half of one degree, clearly with no CO2 cause. Then there was a drop in temperature, when I was born. Then a rise from the mid sixties. None of this followed CO2 levels.
We are concluding everything from a forty year period, which is nothing, in climate terms. If climate followed CO2 levels within forty years, we would have the evidence.
I'm not just saying, "you can't prove it", I'm saying that the evidence OUGHT to be crystal clear, and giving my reasoning.

It's estimated that CO2 levels have been more than THREE TIMES higher in the past than todays levels. How could the world possibly cool, from that situation, if all the scare stories are true?
.