Evidence for CO2 causing global warming?

[mistermack]

That's on the nail, Dana.
I had a look at the IPCC page for evidence that Coito referred to, and it's full of questionable stuff, too much to list, but the "evidence" they refer to is in a nutshell that the present temperatures are outside of what would be expected in their models, and thus "statistically significant". AND THAT'S IT.

But they don't labour the point that modern temperatures are MEASURED, whereas past temperatures are INFERRED from MODELS.

Just like in the ice cores, we have no way of knowing with any certainty that short term spikes like the current one didn't happen all the time, down through history.

And as far as I can gather, that is the sum of their evidence linking warming to human activity.
But as I said in the original post, I'm keen to hear of anything else. But I won't hold my breath.
.

[mistermack]

And if the models are wrong and we follow the ideas it will kill the economy and stop growth...

Wait, do we want to stop growth or not? Now it gets confusing.

Plus people want freedom. They want their own personal climate, not some gubment approved forecast.

Unfortunately, growth will not stop whatever you do. Not the growth that counts long-term. The population of some countries like Kenya and Afghanistan are doubling every 25 years, and the overall world population is expanding at a scary pace.
You would need a miralcle to counteract all that with windmills.
.

[Trolldor]

Or you could use a combination of Nuclear and renewables. Solar Power has been increasingly effective when installed as a system for individual homes.

[mistermack]

Of course. I'm all for nuclear. We need a bit of everything when it comes to power, so we're not reliant on one source.
They let it lapse in this country, and now, we would have to buy the technology from the French. But they deserve it, they put the money and work in.
And solar is still improving, I don't know how much more efficiency they can get out of it.
I'm still optomistic for fusion. It needs much more time and investment, but it's the big hope long-term.
.

[datinsky]

Solar energy currently offers around 8% efficiency. Why do you think it has not taken hold yet? It is fools gold counting on solar energy for our future energy needs. Also, there are tremendous limitations to the output of solar energy based on the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

[Pappa]

Solar energy currently offers around 8% efficiency. Why do you think it has not taken hold yet? It is fools gold counting on solar energy for our future energy needs. Also, there are tremendous limitations to the output of solar energy based on the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Maybe now but not for long:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... 414%29.png

There are already plans for huge solar farms in Africa to supply European demand.

Also, solar water panels are hugely more efficient, at heating water directly, they are already being used and there's no sensible reason they couldn't be used on a much wider scale than they are now.

[mistermack]

Solar energy currently offers around 8% efficiency. Why do you think it has not taken hold yet? It is fools gold counting on solar energy for our future energy needs. Also, there are tremendous limitations to the output of solar energy based on the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

That's true, but there's a hell of a lot of it. It depends where you live.
If space is limited, and sunlight is weak, solar will probably never pay.
But if space is no object, and you get a lot of strong sunlight, it could.
After all, mirrors aren't that expensive to make.
.

[RationalMind]

Here's a great site for those interested which rebuts the claims of denialists and their arguments.

As it says on the front page...

Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge themselves to expand their knowledge and improve their understanding. Yet this isn't what happens in global warming skepticism. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet uncritically embrace any argument, op-ed piece, blog or study that refutes global warming.

Now I know a couple here will act like school children and say the opposite, that it's the proponents of global-warming that do this (sort of a "I know you are, but what am I" argument). But the fact is many lines of evidence from scientists all over the world through different lines of enquiry, are coming to the same conclusion. It's ironic that people who claim the whole thing is a conspiracy would claim that people who accept scientific fact as presented by a large body of scientists, especially when authoritative figures on the side of denialists side are generally economists, meteorologists and David Bellamy ( ), are "religious nuts"! This is no different to Arseholes in Genesis making a list of so-called scientists who reject evolution, but when you check the list they're mainly computer scientists!
And in this regard global-warming denialism is no different to evolution denialism or holocaust denialism. Their goal is to undermine current scientific thinking, but as usual, offer no thinking of their own.

Precisely. you have hit it on the head. David Bellamy was famously exposed as a prize idiot live on TV where he was demolished comprehensively.

The silly man knew he was in trouble but he still wanted to get his face on the TV.
He'd got his data ultimately from Lyndon Larouche the conspiracy theorist who belives the British Queen to be the head of a drug running cartel! No different from the dull people who produce Answers in Genesis etc etc. Typical pseudoscientific claptrap.

For more and to view the famous TV incident see:-
David Bellamy and bad science. Bellamy and bunkum

[mistermack]

Even though David Bellamy is clearly all over the place, especially on glaciers, there was one very interesting thing about this video. Bellamy challenged Monbiot to name one piece of evidence that linked CO2 to global warming. Monbiot couldn't. And he spent three weeks on researching the fact that glaciers are shrinking. So why couldn't he give even one piece of evidence for a CO2 link?

[youtubeuk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eOFYAg_ ... r_embedded[/youtubeuk]

Why did he have to blather on about concensus, if there is evidence he could quote?
Bellamy directly challenged him, his response was "there are hundreds". How many did he mention? NIL!! He even brought a piece of paper. Was it evidence? No. It said "we in the royal society believe .....blah blah blah...". That was his evidence.
I think between the lines, Bellamy did to Monbiot on evidence, what Monbiot did to Bellamy on glaciers.

If Monbiot couldn't give one bit of evidence, I'm not holding my breath for any on this thread.
.

[Animavore]

[maiforpeace]

Great cartoon.

[mistermack]

What if CO2 IS having an effect, and we fix it, and the earth dives back into an ice-age?
(which it is almost certain to do, going by the climate record).

[Animavore]

I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean. All that is proposed is reducing the carbon emissions we put into the air. The earth will still produce its own CO2 like it always has. You're making it sound as if the proposal is to suck all the CO2 out of the atmosphere somehow.

[mistermack]

I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean. All that is proposed is reducing the carbon emissions we put into the air. The earth will still produce its own CO2 like it always has. You're making it sound as if the proposal is to suck all the CO2 out of the atmosphere somehow.

No, I was going from the ice-core graphs. The last three ice-ages started with a sudden plunge from precisely the point where we are at now in the cycle.
Looking at the graphs, it looks like it would be hard to stop, once it starts.
.

[Robert_S]

I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean. All that is proposed is reducing the carbon emissions we put into the air. The earth will still produce its own CO2 like it always has. You're making it sound as if the proposal is to suck all the CO2 out of the atmosphere somehow.

No, I was going from the ice-core graphs. The last three ice-ages started with a sudden plunge from precisely the point where we are at now in the cycle.
Looking at the graphs, it looks like it would be hard to stop, once it starts.
.

If we suddenly need some greenhouse gas, it's not really going to be much of a problem for us to make it on short notice.