Life Sciences > The Environment

Why do we blame carbon dioxide for global warming?

(1/21) > >>

Henry Pool:
Without Carbon dioxide there wouldn't be any supper on the table. Yet, if we read the papers and magazines it is singled out as the biggest culprit for global warming. The problem is: I have never seen any evidence for this from any real physical tests. Is it really true? If yes,
How much is the influence of varying amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere on global warming? I am particular interested in the range of 0 - 500 ppm . (Current CO2 content in the air is about  375 ppm. It has increased by about 70 ppm's since 1960 and it is apparently increasing by about 2.5 ppm per annum)

 

   

dentstudent:
Here is a lecture given by Nicholas Stern recently. It is his Blueprint for a Safer Planet and was given at the London School of Economics. It's very interesting...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/series/science/podcast.xml

Click on the link, and it's the second podcast down.


IIRC, there is no chance of CO2 levels remaining below 500 ppm. 550 is a minimum, and could very easily go to 750.

Henry Pool:
yes, I did listen, and he does exactly the same as what everyone else does in this field, blame carbon emissions and resulting green house gas for global warmimg, without offering any physical evidence or proof.

dentstudent:
You're welcome.


And in response to your question, noone blames CO2 for ALL the GCC (please stop calling it GW - it isn't). CO2 is PART of it, and is perhaps the most easily addressed. It is well established that CO2 is a GHG, yes? Increased GHGs increases retained energy, yes? CO2 has increased by 25% in the last few decades, yes?

I'm not sure I see what the problem is. Yes, there are other influences on GCC, but (to use that awful phrase) CO2 provides the low-hanging fruit, and it is predicted through extensive modelling, that GCC in response to CO2 increases, is not linear due to feedback processes. By the time that it has reached 750 ppm, there is a roughly 50% likelihood of an increase in temperature of 6 or 7°C, which will have profound effects on the net carbon storage of forests, for example. They will no longer be sinks, but sources due to reductions in photosynthesis, reduced productivity and increased mortality. And if the forests go, not to put too fine a point on it, you're buggered. Completely. Because of CO2.

Henry Pool:
SORRY, thanks, for your help!

But I am not there yet! I am trailing years behind. I must first be convinced that CO2 is a green house gas, for which I have not yet seen any physical evidence. My current opinion is that CO2 absorbs in the infra red region, meaning it blocks IR, keeping it out, rather then in. (Similar to ozone blocking UV). So I say that CO2 is not a green house gas. My current theory is that global warming is (mostly) caused by just heat (caused by human activity).   

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page