Climate Change and it's causes

[victim77]

I am currently watching a documentary called "The great global warming swindle" and it has brought up some good points. It states that CO2 levels have never been the cause of climate change but instead a side effect. From Ice samples they say that they have found that there is about a 800 year lag between Temperature and CO2 levels. They also point out that between 1940 and 1960, which was the beginning of mass industrialization in developed parts of the world, the temperature actually dropped. I am not saying that this documentary is correct but it does make me a little more skeptical. I think that climate change, if it is a falsification, has taken the spot like away from more pressing environmental issues such as deforestation. And in actuality I see the processes used to obtain fossil fuels here in Canada more harmful then the actual use of them.

[Lynx]

There is mounting evidence of climate change. We're not making progress in reducing carbon dioxide emissions so we're left with little choice but to adapt to climate change. The initial debate over the causes of climate change has become moot.

[butterfly]

Here's a refutation/ critique of the documentary by credible scientists (highly recommended reading.)
http://www.csiro.au/files/files/pfb4.pdf

[bellyscratch]

I'm just starting an essay about climate sceptics and how the internet is becoming a battle ground for the climate change debate. It has come out of a lecture I had about climate change sceptics and a lot of it focused on 'the great global warming swindle'. Much of what said will probably be in the link butterfly posted.

Here's a couple of websites that are aimed at refuting these debates
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/07/23/anti-global-heating-claims-a-reasonably-thorough-debunking/

[Picky Bugger]

Pfff it is happening get used to it, the science backs it up but the problem is more complex than many people seem to think...

[Klaatu]

These counter-warming skeptic docs may be financed by the coal / oil companies. (yet another reason
to trash the entire capitalist system for all of the lies they perpetuate) But be that as it may, skeptic's
information is bogus.

They feel as though CO2 is "bubbling out" of the oceans, for example. This is nonsense, because CO2
has extremely low water solubility in the first place, and must be forced under pressure to dissolve
(think of sodapop.) It is a good thing CO2 does have this low solubility, because if it had high solubility,
most CO2 would have dissolved out of the atmosphere, and all land plant life would vanish (because
plants feed on CO2.) In fact plants never would have grown in the first place, eons ago, if CO2 had high
water solubility.


The "cooling" is the result of two things: random volcano particles, and sulfates, which reflect sunlight.
Sulfates are the result of industrial air pollution. The big problem now, along with CO2, is black carbon soot.
The dark color absorbs sunlight radiation and has a heating effect. This soot coats the arctic snow, melting it.
The same thing is happening in the Himalayas from billions of cooking fires, and the thousands of coal
electric plants and diesel exhaust pipes in that area.



Do not believe these lying capitalists. We all know the deception they propagate and criminals they
can be, don't we?

[Delirium]

I am currently watching a documentary called "The great global warming swindle" and it has brought up some good points. It states that CO2 levels have never been the cause of climate change but instead a side effect. From Ice samples they say that they have found that there is about a 800 year lag between Temperature and CO2 levels. They also point out that between 1940 and 1960, which was the beginning of mass industrialization in developed parts of the world, the temperature actually dropped. I am not saying that this documentary is correct but it does make me a little more skeptical. I think that climate change, if it is a falsification, has taken the spot like away from more pressing environmental issues such as deforestation. And in actuality I see the processes used to obtain fossil fuels here in Canada more harmful then the actual use of them.

Co2 is a greenhouse gas which prevents the reflection of heat energy into outerspace. The earth cannot warm itself without the greenhouse effect past the baseline provided by the heat of the molten core. Co2 is one of the main contributers to the warming of the planet.

From 1800 - 2000 there has been a huge increase in Co2, this also happens to be the period of industrialization. No coincidence.

Multiple problems converge to create climate change, human and natural causes. These issues are not independent from one another.

[superiority]

The thing is that carbon dioxide, in addition to being a forcing, is also a feedback. This means that higher mean temperatures = frozen carbon dioxide is released. It is true that in some cases, a rise in temperatures has been observed to lead a rise in CO2 levels (in other cases, CO2 has led temperature). This does not negate the fact that CO2 affects temperature, and does not mean that in those cases CO2 did not have an effect on temperature after its concentration began to rise.

The cooling period in the mid-twentieth century is well-understood, and was somewhat misrepresented on TGGWS. This (http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t63/izzy_bizzy_photo/capture.jpg) is apparently the graph they used, while in a better-sourced image (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png), the drop doesn't look nearly so dramatic and the overall trend is more evident. The accepted explanation for the cooling is the drop in the use of some types of aerosols, which for a short period countered the effect of rising CO2 levels (no longer, alas). Note the close correlation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_Change_Attribution.png) between the observed temperature and temperature as predicted by current models.

[OneNamedNameLess]

Some environmentalists and scientists believe climate change could be related to more frequent flooding for instance in Bangladesh. Major floods are now occuring far more often. This should be a major concern as it effects food production to an alarming extent. As a leftist and environmentalist this is what worries me most about the results of climate change considering the world's growing population. Food prices will increase and more will starve.

As for the deniers, I believe many are out to cover up the true causes which for me have been intensified by the capitalist system. Organisations such as Greenpeace, whether people approve of them or not, have exposed a correlation between skeptics and an interest in reducing the public's fears about climate change.

[Klaatu]

"This means that higher mean temperatures = frozen carbon dioxide is released."

It is conceivable that some CO2 could just barely freeze in the coldest recorded
temperatures of an Antarctic winter, but this would amount to some vanishingly minimal
effect on the globe as a whole. (Good point, though.):thumbup1:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antartica#Climate


"Antarctica is the coldest place on Earth. The coldest natural temperature ever recorded on
Earth was -89.2 °C (-128.6 °F) at the Russian Vostok Station in Antarctica on 21 July 1983"
"Temperatures reach a minimum of between -80 °C and -90 °C (-112 °F and -130 °F) in the
interior in winter and reach a maximum of between 5 °C and 15 °C (41 °F and 59 °F) near
the coast in summer."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide
Frozen CO2 sublimation temperature
-78.51° C or -109.3° F

CO2 solubility in water
1.45 g/L at 25°C, 100kPa
(101.3 kPa = 760 mm Hg = 1 atmosphere of pressure)

The amounts of CO2 dissolved in the world's oceans are at an equilibrium with the CO2
concentration of the atmosphere. While it is true that dissolved CO2 (which has low solubility)
could "bubble out" of solution due to a rising temperature, this shift in equilibrium is so small
(due to a 1° - 2°C) change in ocean temperature, it could not account for the larger changes
in atmospheric concentrations brought about anthropogenically over the last 200 years.

Another possibility: Acid rain (from coal-burning) reaction with limestone rock, which is
composed of Calcium Carbonate. (Acid + carbonates = CO2) A considerable portion of earth's
CO2 is locked up in carbonate rock. Another good reason to put a permanent end to coal burning.

[Coggeh]

Co2 is a greenhouse gas which prevents the reflection of heat energy into outerspace. The earth cannot warm itself without the greenhouse effect past the baseline provided by the heat of the molten core. Co2 is one of the main contributers to the warming of the planet.

From 1800 - 2000 there has been a huge increase in Co2, this also happens to be the period of industrialization. No coincidence.

Multiple problems converge to create climate change, human and natural causes. These issues are not independent from one another.
Why does temperature fall during the post war economic boom if this is true?

Considering the make up of co2 in our atmosphere which is tiny , coupled with the anthropogenic contribution to this make up which is extremely small and with the natural heating/cooling effects of the planet , I would consider myself a skeptic to the idea that humans are the cause I do agree that it exists obviously, but not so much that I'm not open to the idea of learning more because this is a scientific battle not a political one , their is right and their is wrong .

Their is no opinions/certain viewpoints . So i could be right but I could be wrong too so I simply just don't know yet . And no before you ask , I'm not working for exxon mobil (anymore:p)

Going to have a read of butterfly's link.Should be interesting.

[superiority]

It is conceivable that some CO2 could just barely freeze in the coldest recorded
temperatures of an Antarctic winter, but this would amount to some vanishingly minimal
effect on the globe as a whole. (Good point, though.)

I meant carbon dioxide that was trapped in frozen water, of which there are non-trivial amounts. In addition, there is a lot of organic (carbon-based) matter trapped in said ice, and there are also issues with the relative reflectivity n stuff of ice, land and water.

[Klaatu]

Yes, that is right. There is CO2 in the ice. Also there is much methane
trapped in the (now-frozen permafrost) tundra of high latitudes. This
is of great concern also, as the permafrost melts, since methane has
an even greater effect on warming than CO2. Unfortunately, capitalist
coal-oil industries only seem to care about their profits...

Coal, Electric Industries Big Winners in Climate Bill Deal
http://washingtonindependent.com/43264/coal-electric-industries-big-winners-in-climate-bill-deal

[Lynx]

As the ice pack in the Arctic Ocean melts, Earth's albedo will be lowered, potentially capturing more of the sun's energy.

The oil companies expect the Arctic Ocean to become available for oil+gas exploration and commerce. Canada, Russia, Denmark, Norway and the USA are in the process of dividing up the region in anticipation.

[Klaatu]

And thus the beat goes on. More oil burning > More CO2 > More warming > More climate change

Can we break the cycle? I submit that capitalists are ultimately responsible for this mess.

[Lynx]

I don't believe the cycle will be broken anytime soon. It may take 40+ years to change the way we produce energy worldwide. Capitalism is responsible for putting profit ahead of just about all other concerns.

[Klaatu]

That is why the change to renewable energy must be forced. The so-called "free market" is NOT going
to make this change on it's own until the price of alternative energy becomes cheaper than fossil fuel.
But at that point, we will be in a crisis stage. We have not learned a shred of anything since the first
energy crisis shockwaves started in the early 1970s. We still have oil-coal companies making every
effort to thwart new technologies.

Rome is burning, and Nero fiddles.