Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?

  • 610 Replies
  • 58671 Views

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

*

Online jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4066
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Let's not forget carbon trading schemes. The new capitalist currency.

*

Offline puppypower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 573
    • View Profile
One thing that is not addresses is the good side of global warming. For one thing, a warmer earth will mean more water in the atmosphere and therefore more purified drinking water; rain, for the growing world populations. Warming also means longer growing seasons, which when combined with higher CO2 means more food production to feed the higher world populations. It also means new land may open, providing more space for the world's growing population. New land can also make it easier to find natural resources to feed the industry that will be needed to support a growing population.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4815
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Let's not forget carbon trading schemes. The new capitalist currency.
Wonderful stuff, which has allowed Iceland to import smokestack industries it never had before.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline DanJonesOcean

  • First timers
  • *
  • 1
  • Oceanographer: circulation, air-sea gas exchange, and biogeochemistry. Obligatory: opinions own.
    • View Profile
Follow-up:

The "Skeptical Science" website has a great explanation of why CO2 lags temperature in paleoclimate data. 

"When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit. The warming causes the oceans to release CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise.  Overall, about 90% of the global warming occurs after the CO2 increase."

To put it another way, the fact that CO2 has lagged temperature in paleoclimate data *does not* alter the argument for human-driven climate change.  It's still true that more CO2 in the atmosphere --> more energy at Earth's surface.  There's no way around the greenhouse effect. 

Also from Skeptical Science:
"To claim that the CO2 lag disproves the warming effect of CO2 displays a lack of understanding of the processes that drive Milankovitch cycles. A review of the peer reviewed research into past periods of deglaciation tells us several things:

- Deglaciation is not initiated by CO2 but by orbital cycles
- CO2 amplifies the warming which cannot be explained by orbital cycles alone
- CO2 spreads warming throughout the planet

Overall, more than 90% of the glacial-interglacial warming occurs after the atmospheric CO2 increase"

Since I can't post links, you'll have to google the full piece yourself, unfortunately!

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8740
    • View Profile
One thing that is not addresses is the good side of global warming. For one thing, a warmer earth will mean more water in the atmosphere and therefore more purified drinking water; rain, for the growing world populations. Warming also means longer growing seasons, which when combined with higher CO2 means more food production to feed the higher world populations. It also means new land may open, providing more space for the world's growing population. New land can also make it easier to find natural resources to feed the industry that will be needed to support a growing population.

Or, then again, we could consider what actually hapens in the real world.
http://www.fwi.co.uk/news/thousands-of-livestock-now-feared-dead-in-floods.htm
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 259
    • View Profile
One thing that is not addresses is the good side of global warming. For one thing, a warmer earth will mean more water in the atmosphere and therefore more purified drinking water; rain, for the growing world populations. Warming also means longer growing seasons, which when combined with higher CO2 means more food production to feed the higher world populations. It also means new land may open, providing more space for the world's growing population. New land can also make it easier to find natural resources to feed the industry that will be needed to support a growing population.

Or, then again, we could consider what actually hapens in the real world.
http://www.fwi.co.uk/news/thousands-of-livestock-now-feared-dead-in-floods.htm

Are you saying that the amount of flooding there has been in the 21st century has been above the expected norm?

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4815
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Or, then again, we could consider what actually hapens in the real world.
http://www.fwi.co.uk/news/thousands-of-livestock-now-feared-dead-in-floods.htm
Interesting statistic, and worth putting in context.

2000 sheep dead or missing. There are 22,000,000 sheep in the UK, and we eat about one third of them each year, so the number killed or missing in floods roughly equals the number we would eat in 2 hours.

Tough luck on individual small farmers (the sheep would have been killed anyway) but big deal? I think not.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8740
    • View Profile
One thing that is not addresses is the good side of global warming. For one thing, a warmer earth will mean more water in the atmosphere and therefore more purified drinking water; rain, for the growing world populations. Warming also means longer growing seasons, which when combined with higher CO2 means more food production to feed the higher world populations. It also means new land may open, providing more space for the world's growing population. New land can also make it easier to find natural resources to feed the industry that will be needed to support a growing population.

Or, then again, we could consider what actually hapens in the real world.
http://www.fwi.co.uk/news/thousands-of-livestock-now-feared-dead-in-floods.htm

Are you saying that the amount of flooding there has been in the 21st century has been above the expected norm?
Yes, and I'm not alone in saying that.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8740
    • View Profile
Or, then again, we could consider what actually hapens in the real world.
http://www.fwi.co.uk/news/thousands-of-livestock-now-feared-dead-in-floods.htm
Interesting statistic, and worth putting in context.

2000 sheep dead or missing. There are 22,000,000 sheep in the UK, and we eat about one third of them each year, so the number killed or missing in floods roughly equals the number we would eat in 2 hours.

Tough luck on individual small farmers (the sheep would have been killed anyway) but big deal? I think not.
Your point is valid to the extent that sheep are the only things affected.
That's not a very big extent.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 259
    • View Profile
One thing that is not addresses is the good side of global warming. For one thing, a warmer earth will mean more water in the atmosphere and therefore more purified drinking water; rain, for the growing world populations. Warming also means longer growing seasons, which when combined with higher CO2 means more food production to feed the higher world populations. It also means new land may open, providing more space for the world's growing population. New land can also make it easier to find natural resources to feed the industry that will be needed to support a growing population.

Or, then again, we could consider what actually hapens in the real world.
http://www.fwi.co.uk/news/thousands-of-livestock-now-feared-dead-in-floods.htm

Are you saying that the amount of flooding there has been in the 21st century has been above the expected norm?
Yes, and I'm not alone in saying that.
I was under the impression that there had in fact been less such extreme weather events recently. Certainly around the world.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8740
    • View Profile

I was under the impression that there had in fact been less such extreme weather events recently. Certainly around the world.

That's an interesting  impression.
It's not clear that you got it from the real world- where this sort of thing happens
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/aug/11/extreme-weather-common-blocking-patterns
So, perhaps you could let us know hoe you came to that  belief?

Please disregard all previous signatures.