Sharp Rise In Co2 Levels

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

But there is no historical precedent for an industrialized world, BFTP. Who could possibly argue that the Holocene Maximum was manmade? The fact that the HM happened does not alter the fact that industrialization has pushed-up the atmospheric load of CO2 by around a third, or that CO2 is a greenhouse gas...

And there is no precedent stating that CO2 will keep rising and the planet will keep warming? The answer is no one really knows what the outcome is going to be...but I don't think we will have to wait too much longer either. I still have not seen anywhere which proves that CO2 has warmed the planet and / or whether warming causes CO2 to increase...causation or consequence?

BFTP

[Devonian]

And there is no precedent stating that CO2 will keep rising and the planet will keep warming? The answer is no one really knows what the outcome is going to be...but I don't think we will have to wait too much longer either. I still have not seen anywhere which proves that CO2 has warmed the planet and / or whether warming causes CO2 to increase...causation or consequence?

BFTP

There's no precident for the burning worldwide of fossil fuels in massive quantities. Isn't the fact the CO2 is a ghg good enough for you? And if not why not?

Now, it's clear the extra CO2 is anthropogenic - it really is indisputable. Don't run with that idea the extra CO2 might not be anthropogenic , it's a silly idea

Of course, the warming caused by anthropogenic Co2 might well cause feedback warming.

[Methuselah]

And there is no precedent stating that CO2 will keep rising and the planet will keep warming? The answer is no one really knows what the outcome is going to be...but I don't think we will have to wait too much longer either. I still have not seen anywhere which proves that CO2 has warmed the planet and / or whether warming causes CO2 to increase...causation or consequence?

BFTP

No, but unless someone comes-up with an, as yet undiscovered, sink of an extraordinary magnitude that will miraculuously soak-up all our emissions, it's not easy to predict a CO2 'now you see me now you don't' event anyime soon?

Also, I am still waiting for an explanation as to just how it is, that our CO2 should behave any differently than does its natural counterpart???

[trevw]

And there is no precedent stating that CO2 will keep rising and the planet will keep warming? The answer is no one really knows what the outcome is going to be...but I don't think we will have to wait too much longer either. I still have not seen anywhere which proves that CO2 has warmed the planet and / or whether warming causes CO2 to increase...causation or consequence?

BFTP

BFTP, which bit haven't you seen proof of? That CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming? I believe it can be demonstrated in the lab that CO2 allows UV etc. to pass but absorbs/scatters infra red - as such it is impossible for CO2 not to cause a warming of the atmosphere - in fact I believe we rely on it along with the same effect from methane and water vapour..

I think the current understanding of the instance that people refer to of CO2 'following' temps at the end of a glacial period is the following:

Temps rose due to orbital changes causing retreat of ice over 800 years which in turn reduced albedo causing further warming.

A threshold was reached at which point the increasing temperatures _caused_ an increase in CO2

The CO2 amplified the warming further (as it must) which resulted in more CO2 release etc. (probably from melting permafrost etc.) for the next 4200 years.

This does means that historically CO2 does not tend to initiate warmings (how could it?) but does amplify them once under way. This is to be expected as there is no _natural_ source of enough CO2 to cause warming without a climate change to drive it (possibly excluding supervolcanoes which would undoubtedly effect the climate in other ways).

Unfortunately we in our 'technological brilliance' have changed this fact - we can skip the requirement for a natural generator of CO2 as we are ripping millions of years worth of carbon out of the ground and flinging it in the air in its gaseous form.

So I guess the answer really to 'causation or consequence?' is 'both'. Yet another positive feedback mechanism which we can only hope there is a natural negative counter for.

I am quite skeptical of long term 'runaway global warming' where natural positive feedbacks turn us into a venus like planet, I feel that if the CO2 output were to be stopped then the earth would return to an equilibrium of sorts, but this relies on us stopping which I think is very unlikely in the mid term (next 50 years). There is no natural sink I am aware of that can absorb what we are emitting now let alone what will be being emitted once china ramps up so the CO2 will have to continue to rise and has to contribute to continued warming - with luck at some point a self regulating negative feedback (high altitude clouds etc?) will kick in and mitigate the CO2s effect, but that really is clutching at straws in my humble opinion..

Trevw

[Devonian]

Good post Trevw, nice to be in total agreement with you.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Trevw

Nice post with some good points with which I will go along with as they make sense.

CO2 is not the major GHG and even with its rising figure still cannot be the driving force in the planets current warming cycle IMHO and your post seems to nicely highlight that. Too many scientists don't buy it and I don't either it is too simplified and occupies too small a section of the atmosphere...0.03%.

If as you say when it is released it amplifies the warming then more CO2 is released and more warming. Why then would the planets cycle fail to correct the situation this time when it always has in the past.

1998 was the warmest year on record...we haven't surpassed that since. There has been a 0.6 to 0.8C global rise over the last 100 years although this has not been continual as post 1940 we cooled for 40years and then we have risen again. However, CO2 has continued to rise continually, how does that work then?

BFTP

Edited March 30, 2006 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[Methuselah]

Hi again BFTP,

The point you make about CO2 only occupying .03% of our atmosphere is quite correct...But, IMO, it is just because global temperature is so sensitve to such miniscule amounts of the gas, that makes it so pernicious? As an example: we could add trillions of tons of nitrogen per-year with little or no effect on anything; it accounts for 78% of the air to start with. It's not the major constituents that cause the trouble...

[Thundery wintry showers]

1998 was the warmest year on record...we haven't surpassed that since.

That's debatable- some measures have 2005 as the warmest year on record. Also, 2005 was comparably warm to 1998 despite not having a strong El Nino.

[Scribbler]

Look at the causes – why have CO2 levels risen by so much and so quickly?

What do the following have in common? CO2 emission.

Massive worldwide population increase.

Greater worldwide industrialisation.

More (mis)use of energy.

Burning-off of tropical forests.

Pollution generally – atmospheric and oceanic.

Massive use of fossil fuels.

Destruction of natural environmental CO2 sinks.

And others……….etc.

All these things are virtually new to the last hundred years or so and they have all been accelerating. It’s a bit like compound interest – the increase is on top of last years increase, etc, etc.

One way or another production of CO2 is being increased by mankind and that in turn boosts the level of CO2 because the natural environment just can’t absorb the overdose.

CO2 isn’t the cause of global warming – it’s the result of man’s abuse of the planet.

There will soon come a point at which things begin to fail – the only real question IMO is - when?

[The Penguin]

Is it as simple as that though, Scribbler?

Leaving aside that you’ve doubled up on your list of examples through repetition, I don’t remember ever seeing a graph of historical organically based energy production plotted against the rise in CO2 levels and global temperature increase.

I suppose, as many have pointed out, this would be too simple an analysis anyway due to the many other factors that may influence the climatic system. But it would be interesting to see whether the rather overused mantra “We’ve created an artificial level of CO2 in the atmosphere, so we must be to blame for global warming”, really holds water.

But if the model is too simple, then how much more complicated could it be? Do we know? And if we don’t, how can anyone be so certain that there isn’t something else going on; something we can’t yet understand that may have a bigger impact on the climate than human activity?

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Hi again BFTP,

The point you make about CO2 only occupying .03% of our atmosphere is quite correct...But, IMO, it is just because global temperature is so sensitve to such miniscule amounts of the gas, that makes it so pernicious? As an example: we could add trillions of tons of nitrogen per-year with little or no effect on anything; it accounts for 78% of the air to start with. It's not the major constituents that cause the trouble... :lol:

Pete

I like your arguments, very reasonable opposing propositions and certainly makes one think? I really don't know and I suppose that IS our real problem? Reduce reduce reduce...then surely we can't go wrong?

Penguin, IMO excellent points

BFTP

Edited March 30, 2006 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[Scribbler]

Hi Penguin – nice one!

Pardon my repetition – I was just trying to cover all angles!

Didn't Devonian's link yesterday to Wikipedia provide a suitable graph?

I'm pleased to see that you've used the words SIMPLE and COMPLICATED.

The whole thing is simple, I think. Simple in that we're the cause of the problem and since we won't go away, we're stuck with it.

But it is also complicated in that the individual causes are very complex (as you imply) and no-one can, for certain, point a finger at any one aspect. :lol:

CO2 is getting most of the blame – justifiably IMO, but, as you say, there may well be other factors that we haven't yet taken into effect.

Hi Pete

You say......."such miniscule amounts of the gas"...... but even 0.3% is one hell of a lot of gas. Someone will no doubt tell me just how many tonnes of CO2 that is.

[Methuselah]

Pete

I like your arguments, very reasonable opposing propositions and certainly makes one think? I really don't know and I suppose that IS our real problem? Reduce reduce reduce...then surely we can't go wrong?

Penguin, IMO excellent points

BFTP

Thank you BFTP...You are also making me think, and that's an increasingly difficult thing to do, these days. :lol:

You are dead right about our collective state of not-knowing too; it is a hugely complex set of actual and/or hypothetical feedbacks!

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Someone will no doubt tell me just how many tonnes of CO2 that is. :lol:

Edited March 31, 2006 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[The Penguin]

. . . . . .

Didn't Devonian's link yesterday to Wikipedia provide a suitable graph? :huh:

. . . . . .

Thanks, Scribbler, for that pointer – I’d missed the link previously.

Having looked at the article now, and although it doesn’t show the correlation of CO2 to temperature I was after it’s still certainly interesting, I am struck by how open the interpretation of the data contained there could be.

There is plenty of scope in these graphs for both sides in the GW debate to reference elements of proof in support of their argument.

The problem, as it says somewhere in the text, is that we will not be able to truly interpret the data for at least 150 years.

[trevw]

Trevw

Nice post with some good points with which I will go along with as they make sense.

CO2 is not the major GHG and even with its rising figure still cannot be the driving force in the planets current warming cycle IMHO and your post seems to nicely highlight that. Too many scientists don't buy it and I don't either it is too simplified and occupies too small a section of the atmosphere...0.03%.

If as you say when it is released it amplifies the warming then more CO2 is released and more warming. Why then would the planets cycle fail to correct the situation this time when it always has in the past.

1998 was the warmest year on record...we haven't surpassed that since. There has been a 0.6 to 0.8C global rise over the last 100 years although this has not been continual as post 1940 we cooled for 40years and then we have risen again. However, CO2 has continued to rise continually, how does that work then?

BFTP

This is definitely an interesting discussion :huh: , in part I think because while people have their viewpoints none of us are coming across as having completely made their minds up - I certainly don't feel I'm convinced of AGW beyond turning back, but it's the way I currently 'lean' given the evidence I have seen.

The various interesting comments and links on here have prompted me to do some more reading around, particularly in the area of CO2 not being the main greenhouse gas (as you mention above BFTP). The general understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) is that the warming effect of CO2 is much less than that of water vapour, which is why sometimes it is confusing that climate scientists spend _so_ much time banging on about CO2...

I found a very interesting article here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142

This agrees and breaks down the difference in effect to between 66% and 85% of warming due to water vapour/clouds and to between 9 and 26% for CO2.

However, basically what it is saying is that CO2 is so important because it is a 'forcing' while water vapour is purely a 'feedback'... my initial thoughts were 'why' and 'how' as on the face of it that made little sense.

The difference apparently is that the lifetime or 'residence' of water vapour in the atmosphere is only about 10 days (as opposed to 100s of years for CO2) making it 'reactive'. For a given temperature the level of water vapour thus stabilizes very quickly. So if CO2 were to cause an increase in temp of a fraction of a degree this would increase water vapour levels which would increase temps (and further increase water vapour) until a new equilibrium was reached (to an approximation the water vapour adjusts to maintain constant relative humidity). However if CO2 is reduced for some reason and a slight temp drop occurs then this will cause water vapour to reduce quickly reducing temps and further reducing water vapour until a lower temp/water vapour equilibrium is reached.

so this is the reason that CO2 'is' a big enough driving force to change the climate - it's like a gangster with some water vapour 'heavies' to do the grunt work for it whatever CO2 does water vapour follows..

as mentioned, enjoying all the discussion on here - a distraction from a dull week at work

Trevw

[Scribbler]

Hi trevw

I was looking for information regarding 'residence' of pollutants in the atmosphere and I came across http://www.ecobridge.org – click on Global Warming and explore from there.

I've come across a few better sites but it has quite a number of interesting points. I rather liked (? ?) its statement as follows:

"CO2 lifetime in the atmosphere can range from 50-200 years. Once it enters the atmosphere, there is very little that can be done to reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere." A bit presumptive? :lol:

They also say:

"Keep in mind that in the last 10,000 years, the earth's average temperature hasn't varied by more than 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit."

It's sobering to think that we're only raising the temperature of the earth by tenths of degrees and yet that is enough to cause the equivalent of global panic .

As you also said trevw – a super discussion – lots of biased comments but no bad language! Thanks fellas! B)

[The Penguin]

. . . . .

They also say:

"Keep in mind that in the last 10,000 years, the earth's average temperature hasn't varied by more than 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit."

It's sobering to think that we're only raising the temperature of the earth by tenths of degrees and yet that is enough to cause the equivalent of global panic .

As you also said trevw – a super discussion – lots of biased comments but no bad language! Thanks fellas!

That’s why this is so interesting. The dreaded ‘Hockey Stick’ is often waved at us as proof of impending doom. But the ‘ski jump’ end, in terms of actual fluctuation, is not exactly impressive.

Further, the handle bit (the previous 900 years) is less like a hockey stick and more like Harry Lauder’s walking stick. (Harry Lauder, for the younger amongst you, was an erstwhile Music Hall performer of the early 20th century whose trademarks were a kilt and a walking stick shaped like a car spring. He was also a school pal of Peter T’s apparently.) In other words, the situation before the latest upturn in global temps has never been stable.

So why the panic now? Especially when we wont know the true implications of the current warming in our lifetimes.

At least, not mine.

And I completely agree about the manners exhibited in this debate.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

As you also said trevw – a super discussion – lots of biased comments but no bad language! Thanks fellas!

[Scribbler]

As you also said trevw – a super discussion – lots of biased comments but no bad language! Thanks fellas! B)

Ditto

BFTP :lol:

lol

Lots of brownie points for us from the Mods, eh?!!

[The Penguin]

lol

Lots of brownie points for us from the Mods, eh?!!

Ha! Fat chance.

[Gray-Wolf]

I think we should never dismiss the physical, geographic changes that man has been responsible for over the past 60 thousand years and its effects on the delicate balence of our ecosphere. Some of the 'balences' the system had 'evolved' have been either eroded or destroyed by mans impact on his planet, systems and balences that have always been in place in past climatic fluctuations and that are now fatally flawed.

Many of the current climate models owe their existance to the data from the studies into our 'recent' pasts climates but this data includes the mediating affects of the safegaurds that are now absent. Just today the British Antarctic expedition posted a report on the results of 30yr temp survey which showed warming across the whole of the Antarctic continent at 3 times the rate of the 'current' model predictions, maybe the models are out because they don't have 'factored in' the effects of our 'physical footprint' across the ecosphere?

Edited March 31, 2006 by Gray-Wolf

[full_frontal_occlusion]

That’s why this is so interesting. The dreaded ‘Hockey Stick’ is often waved at us as proof of impending doom. But the ‘ski jump’ end, in terms of actual fluctuation, is not exactly impressive....

.....In other words, the situation before the latest upturn in global temps has never been stable.

So why the panic now? Especially when we wont know the true implications of the current warming in our lifetimes.

At least, not mine.

Good morning everyone. I’ve waited patiently on the sidelines for a long while, observing the game and itching to play but always had to refrain. Work somehow keeps getting in the way.

And a warm hello to you Penguin after such a long while.

Hockey sticks may not look impressive, but wait till one whacks you on the shin. I predict you will exhibit one of three behaviours: Carry on playing with impunity (shin pads or perhaps thick-skin will absorb the impact); stop and remonstrate for foul play (the ref’ will either concede a penalty or force play-on); become volatile, throw down your hockey stick, walk over to me and punch my nose. If you are a particularly nasty cad, you will most likely hit me with said hockey stick!

The latter instance probably represents game over.

That the Earths ecology, atmospheric composition and climate are all complex and intricately linked is, I hope, beyond question. All are in critical balance but highly responsive to (albeit on a timescale far exceeding mere human lifetimes) the incident energy received from the Sun.

This incident energy changes with factors such as Milankovitch cycles, solar fluctuations, rotational precession etc. There are many more variables but these are probably the main influences.

Humans are an adaptive species. Our perception of ‘change’ is based on comparison to the present and within our own time reference. i.e. human lifetimes. Over a longer period, our ability and adaptation to change is almost imperceptible, with the Earth appearing to be in a state of constant equilibrium.

The interesting factor with the hockey stick is therefore not limited to the size of the blade, but the rate at which the blade is growing. (rate of change). Equilibrium will be reached – it always does – the resultant instability while it does so may exceed the ability of humans, and far more, other species to adapt and survive.

ffO.

[Scribbler]

Hello ffO (and Penguin, etc )

That’s right ffO – wait until we’re all exhausted and then pop up, fresh as a daisy!!

You say that the…… “Earths ecology, atmospheric composition and climate”……are all……” in critical balance but highly responsive to……the incident energy received from the Sun.”

I do feel that while they may be responsive to the sun, our influence, one way or another, now considerably outweighs the sun’s influence. I obviously accept that without the sun we simply wouldn’t be here but it is us who have caused the sharp rises in CO2, pollution generally, temperatures, storms, deserts, precipitation, sea levels, etc.

Equilibrium may finally arrive but in the meantime we’re doing our best to make this place totally uninhabitable. The resultant instability ISN’T going to be very nice – and IS something that we should be trying to do something about. Otherwise, as you say, “it may exceed the ability of humans……to survive.”

The hockey stick blade is growing too fast – soon it will outgrow the handle.

[The Penguin]

ffO, wonderful to see you back, drawn like a moth no doubt to this emotionally charged but factually imperfect debate. Rather than going round in circles gain, we may all now actually learn something.

Scribbler. I don't wish to lower the tone of the neighbourhood, (any more than necessary,) but really! We have more influence than the sun?

I think not.

But that's the point really. I find myself in regular agreement with BFTP, for instance, in the belief that the Earth is a big thing, like massive, and we are wee, very very wee, so although the human race may make tiny adjustments to the climate these are insignificant compared to the ebbs and flows of the natural cycles.

As for the hockey stick blade, might this not be just another spike in the handle rather than the defining event in climatic evolution?

Chill man, everything's cool. (It certainly bl**dy is today!)