isn’t the atmosphere too large to be affected by human CO2 emissions?
Let me start by saying that i am a strong believer in AGW.
A recurring argument presented by the deniers is that "the atmosphere is far to large to be affected by human emissions of CO2", would someone be able to explain to me why this is not the case?
Thanks.
The atmosphere may seem to large to be affected but this conclusion is drawn from one’s limited perspective. Actual measurements of CO2 have been regularly conducted and compared with proxy measurements of past levels. The portion since 1958 as directly measured is known as the Kelling Curve.
Since pre-industrial times CO2 levels have risen from 280ppmv to the current level of 387ppmv. Prior to this period CO2 varied little from 280ppmv for several thousand years.
Isotopic analysis of the carbon making up the CO2 molecules present in the atmosphere indicates a growing proportion of "old carbon". This demonstrates the source to be the burning of fossil fuels.
So, atmospheric CO2 has increased by about 38% during the time of industrialized societies and we know a significant source of that increase to be from the burning of fossil fuels.
I can’t give you a technical answer but here’s how I see it:
There are over 6 billion people on the planet. Obviously, in a finite world, there has to come a point where the population is so large and the amount of pollution we cause is so huge that we begin to have an effect on our atmosphere. Many people think we’ve already reached that point. It is common sense to me to see it as a sliding scale - the more CO2 and pollution we emmit, the greater the effect.
Deniers would have you think that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas!
Edit:
Hi there Andy. No, supporters of AGW do not think climate should remain constant. I accept solar variation, Milankovitch cycles and even plate tectonics as variables in climate change.
As your own answer states, CO2 is another variable, and at the moment, it is the only one than mankind has any influence over. That is how we are contributing to global warming. The 10% contribution that you state is a huge upset to the natural balance! Did you know global warming acts as its own catalyst?
Yes, AGW supporters would agree that CO2 accounts only for a small percentage of greenhouse gases, but the argument is that because the Earths climate is such a delicately balanced system, it only takes small changes to have drastic effects.
Thankyou, James E for posting the same links again. Are you all aware of the background of their authors?
Monte Hieb is a mining engineer and "amateur" climate scientist (coal miners benefit personally from shunning AGW).
Mr. Kenneth B lucas ("Reason McLucas"), studied History and Social sciences before spending 23 years working as a janitor while failing to make money as a writer.
Robert Clemenzi writes about his opinions on global warming on his computer programming website. He gives no indication of his qualifications in climate science.
Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source for university essays, and we all know it can be modified. Plus supporters of AGW accept solar variation as a contributor to climate change. Heres a quote from your link "The scientific consensus is that solar variations do not play a major role in determining present-day observed climate change". Theres more like this. Have you even read it yourself? Care to cite primary scientific research papers?
In response to Ottowa Mike. What you have said proves how delicate the atmosphere is -
"The asteroid (or whatever) that hit the Yucatan Peninsula 65M years ago obviously had a huge effect on the Earth for tens or even hundreds of thousands of years."
"The most recent mini-event was the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991. This caused climate change (temperature reduction) for several years. But if you look at the graphs, it’s really just a blip in the long run."
The reason the Earth was able to recover is because these were one off events. Imagine it like the shockwaves of an explosion dying out over time. The problem with current warming is that the source is ever present. When exactly will the planet have chance to recover if greenhouse gases are being continuously emmitted?
References :
I too believe in AGW, but I also accept that a lot more research must be done with more honesty on behalf of scientists and the media before we have a set of unquestionable data. Perhaps only time will tell. Ask me again in 50 years!
Actually, watching the History channel yesterday, I learned that our planet is more connected then previously thought. There was some major volcanic activity in Iceland that ended up killing a lot of people in India and caused major havoc to the weather patterns for a total of three years before the Earth was able to clean up the problem. This makes me further doubt that the past Warming periods were just regional warming. The Earth is interconnected. For me, the additional around 33% of CO2 added by man is low enough compared to water vapor that it increases the warming by no more then 10%. That means that 90% of the growth in temperature is still due to us coming out of what is called a Little Ice Age that even the AGW believers acknowledge. We still are not up to the temperatures seen during the past warming periods. Especially if you look at animal and plant migration.
What I don’t understand is why the AGW crowd thinks that the Earth should remain constant even though there is major proof that the Earth is never constant.
References :
The atmosphere may seem to large to be affected but this conclusion is drawn from one’s limited perspective. Actual measurements of CO2 have been regularly conducted and compared with proxy measurements of past levels. The portion since 1958 as directly measured is known as the Kelling Curve.
Since pre-industrial times CO2 levels have risen from 280ppmv to the current level of 387ppmv. Prior to this period CO2 varied little from 280ppmv for several thousand years.
Isotopic analysis of the carbon making up the CO2 molecules present in the atmosphere indicates a growing proportion of "old carbon". This demonstrates the source to be the burning of fossil fuels.
So, atmospheric CO2 has increased by about 38% during the time of industrialized societies and we know a significant source of that increase to be from the burning of fossil fuels.
References :
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/globalchange/keeling_curve/01.html
Actually the atmosphere is too small, in comparison to the oceans. The oceans are small compared to the rest of the planet.
Geo-thermal forces affect the oceans which in turn affect the atmosphere.
References :
The key central point is the liberal left does not have sufficient intelligence to comprehend is that 99% of the co2 in the atmosphere comes from the oceans being warmed by the sun, This is a key part of the earths natural ecology. When the planet cools significantly as it did during the 400 year long little ice age the cooling oceans absorb co2 into them raising the oceans pH. When the sun warms the planets on earth the warming oceans release co2 in order to provide the co2 as a natural plant food to speed up plant growth providing more oxygen to growing animal populations.
The problem here is the liberal mind just is not complex enough to see and comprehend these natural cycles and the depth of integrations of nature. THis problem has only become a serious problem since liberal minds moved into professions and trades where their minds are to limited and simple to comprehend the extent and natural complexities of the universes natural interactions. What really needs to be done is to return to the population structure of the ancient Indian and Celtic cultures where during the early education process liberal minds were spotted and segregated into specialized schools that would educate them in trades their minds are capable of comprehending.
Unfortunately in modern society the liberal minds are mixed in schools with fully functional minds slowing the entire process causing higher capacity moderate and conservative minds to receive a lower quality education in the hope that the liberal minds will reach higher levels than they otherwise would. All that happens is that fully intelligent students receive retarded low grade educations designed for liberal minds and so the intelligence of the entire society is retarded because idiots want their liberal minded children to be collage professors. We really need to restore the intelligent methods used by the Hindu and Celtic cultures to educate children according to their ability to learn rather than modern societies silly attempt to lower the education received by higher capacity minds to that which liberal minds are able to comprehend. This silliness is what is lowering the general intelligence of our entire society.
Some scientific information revealing the truth about global warming, when it happened and what probably caused it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:0Master_Past_20000yrs_temperatures_icecore_Vostok_150dpi.png
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/global_warming.html
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
http://reasonmclucus.tripod.com/CO2myth.html
http://mc-computing.com/qs/Global_Warming/Atmospheric_Analysis.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation
Where the heat came from and why it was abnormally cold previously
http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~dbunny/research/global/215.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_minimum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum
References :
"… the Earths climate is such a delicately balanced system, it only takes small changes to have drastic effects."
It seems the above statement is what most AGW believers seem to cling to. It’s a particularly emotional and subjective statement which can be related to in many ways. It has images of a wonderful world going along nicely and then something comes along and tips the apple cart and we all go to hell in a hand basket.
Well, I’d argue that the Earth’s climate is actually a fairly robust and stable system. If we look at past cataclysmic events, we have some evidence of that.
Let’s take the most famous mass extinction event, the disappearance of the dinosaurs. The asteroid (or whatever) that hit the Yucatan Peninsula 65M years ago obviously had a huge effect on the Earth for tens or even hundreds of thousands of years. While the dinosaurs didn’t make it, mammals did and this may even be the reason man was allowed to evolve in the first place. So the Earth took a huge punch in the gut (external random event) and recovered fine.
The most recent mini-event was the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991. This caused climate change (temperature reduction) for several years. But if you look at the graphs, it’s really just a blip in the long run. These events indicate the Earth’s climate is fairly robust and not the delicate system that many seem to assume.
Oh and back to the real question. It’s not a matter of how large the atmoshpere is it’s a matter of the effect of a non-natural increase in CO2 levels. One of the main components of climate science is climate sensitivity, or in other words, the climate’s reaction to a change in input parameters. The IPCC and others who believe strongly in AGW assume a high climate sensitivity which means CO2 increases will cause strong warming. Note the word "assume" since in not yet fully known how sensitive the climate is. If the climate has a low sensitivity, then additional CO2 cannot explain the recent warming.
*********************************
Edit: db97531 >>"When exactly will the planet have chance to recover if greenhouse gases are being continuously emmitted?"
Recover from what? Are we currently at the "wrong" CO2 levels or global temperature? Do you know what the "right" levels should be?
Well I can answer that somewhat since I can predict what the pig-headed will say. And they will say that we should affect nature all. We shouldn’t clear land and we shouldn’t emit anything into our atmosphere and we shouldn’t even dig up non-renewable resources. Cut a tree, plant a tree, solar power, wind power, done. Well that ain’t gonna happen any time soon now is it?
I forgot where I was going with this. These discussions are getting tiring.
***************************************
For Triphip2
Lindzen, R. S., and Y.-S. Choi (2009), On the determination of climate feedbacks from. ERBE data, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L16705, doi:10.1029/ http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf
Svensmark, H., T. Bondo, and J. Svensmark (2009), Cosmic ray decreases affect atmospheric aerosols and clouds, Geophys. Res. Lett.,
(accepted 17 June 2009) (find you own link)
"7 billion people, nuff said". …..How does this relate to the question? How does this relate to climate change?
"The actual part of the atmosphere where CO2 gets trapped is a relatively paper-thin layer, so it doesn’t require as much as you would think…" ….And you claim people like me don’t understand science.
You guys are really cramping my brain.
References :
I am sure I could research this topic and put those deniers to rest fairly easily, but I don’t feel like getting dirty right now. So I will just point out some basic concepts that can explain why it’s possible…
1) Almost 7 billion people on earth… ‘nough said…
2) The actual part of the atmosphere where CO2 gets trapped is a relatively paper-thin layer, so it doesn’t require as much as you would think…
3) The time period in which humans have been spewing out the CO2 is very short… It’s not logical to just assume we can not have an affect given the short period we have been studying and contributing to the problem. Scientific evidence suggest otherwise actually.
I have noticed most deniers do not exceed in science. Most of them don’t even understand the fundamental structure of science itself, much less climate science. It’s futile to take most of their arguments into serious consideration. I am still waiting for one of them to present a credible source. A scientific, peer-reviewed journal article (or something of the like) to support their belief and skepticism. Alas, has yet to come. Anyways those are a few examples, but there are plenty more. That’s just off the top of my head.
Jim z: That’s funny I’M ignorant of the science involved… I actually have an Environmental Science degree. But I’M ignorant lol… I have directly heard some of the most respected scientists speak on the subject. I have researched hundreds of peer-reviewed articles during papers I have had to write. I have taken graduate level atmospheric sciences. And I’M ignorant. Dude I would be surprised if you even have a degree, if you do, I am sure it’s in business or something. But of course you think you’re the expert… Stop making it so easy though, that’s all I ask. Bring something credible besides your typical jibberish.
Ottawa Mike:
"The actual part of the atmosphere where CO2 gets trapped is a relatively paper-thin layer, so it doesn’t require as much as you would think…" ….And you claim people like me don’t understand science."
I don’t understand… What exactly about that comment is inaccurate. You’re not actually suggesting that the layer of atmosphere that contains CO2 has a large area relative to the other layers…. The CO2 that is in the lower atmosphere varies in its location, but it is always a relatively thin layer of atmosphere. I mean what is wrong about that? I would like to see your argument there, because just saying that I don’t understand science really hurts your argument… Because it’s not an argument… It also helps mine :). Thanks. And on a side note, you know how many times I have seen that one peer-reviewed article? Yeh it’s the first one that comes up when you google something like "peer-reviewed article against AGW". Haha nice research there…
References :
It isn’t that the atmosphere is too large, it’s that mans contribution is tiny.
Co2 is about 3% of greenhouse gasses, and man made Co2 is 3% of that!
That coupled with the fact that the planet hasn’t warmed for ten years while Co2 levels are still rising seems to put the last nail in the coffin of AGW as far as I’m concerned.
References :
I wouldn’t say the atmosphere is too large to be affected. That is nonsense. We have emitted as much as half the CO2 as is in the atmosphere. That being said, CO2 doesn’t drive the climate. Those that think it does, e.g. Weather Triphip are ignorant of the science involved. It is more about trying to blame humans and industry than actually trying to explain warming and cooling trends. There is nothing in the recent trends that isn’t within historic fluctuation. Blaming those changes on CO2 when CO2 clearly hasn’t been a driving factor in past climate variation is nonsense and non science.
References :