Co2

[Allen K. Littlefield]

Thanks, so far so good. Now since we have had heating and cooling of the planet since it began, just what accounted for the rise and fall? Since we had no SUVs where did all the CO2 come from that caused the planet to warm and then where did it go to cause it to cool? Or, as I suspect, it may have had to do more with the sun than 'gasses'. Yes, the atmosphere traps heat that would be lost in space but why this cycle of cooling and heating? Was there a natural expansion of CO2 then a loss of it that would account for the change? Plus, at the risk of being redundant, just how was it discovered that CO2 is responsible for these changes? Why isn't the sun and its cycles more responsible? Why is the solution higher gas taxes and a return to third world living? Old age wants to know.

AKL ps there are more trees and green here in Ulster county than there were a hundred years ago. You can see all the stone walls running through the now woods. I suggest a ride in an airplane or helicopter.

Originally Posted by tonycarreon

in essence the sun's radiation (mostly as light) passes through the atmosphere and hits the ground where it is partially absorbed and partially reflected back into space (as light). the absorbed radiation is eventually emitted back up towards space. if there was no atmosphere then the radiation would pass on into space. however the earth's atmosphere absorbs and releases the radiation back towards the surface (including the oceans and ice caps) or out into space. the more "greenhouse gases" in the atmosphere, the higher the chance the radiation will be emitted back towards the surface instead of into space.

yes plants absorb carbon dioxide and release oxygen, and we're are cutting down forests and planting smaller trees that will take hundreds of years to have an appreciable effect on CO2 absorption all the while we're putting more CO2 into the atmosphere. the oceans are also responsible for capturing CO2 but in doing so they change the pH which has an ill effect on marine life. ice is also a good captor of CO2 but with warmer temperatures the ice melts and releases the CO2 back into the atmosphere.

the reason CO2 is a target is because it's the second highest contributor to the "greenhouse effect" behind water vapor and one we can "do something about." in addition, CO2 remains in the atmosphere for a lot longer than other gases so doing something now will have a positive effect many years from now.

[Topless]

Here you go...
http://scienceofdoom.com/2009/11/28/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-one/

This is probably the best explanation I have seen as to the greenhouse effect of CO2. The author presents his information clearly in common language without all the political snark found on most climate websites. He also covers many other areas of climate science so if you like what you see browse around a bit. I think his science is first rate.

My personal opinion for what it is worth:
Increased man made CO2 must cause increased warming at some level. Whether it will result in catastrophic consequences is a much more difficult question. I believe the sun has been underestimated in it's effect on climate change and if we get a quiet period (no sunspots over 50 years) the earth will cool and mask man made warming effects completely for a while. I classify myself as a lukewarmer.

[Allen K. Littlefield]

Originally Posted by Topless

Here you go...
http://scienceofdoom.com/2009/11/28/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-one/

This is probably the best explanation I have seen as to the greenhouse effect of CO2. The author presents his information clearly in common language without all the political snark found on most climate websites. He also covers many other areas of climate science so if you like what you see browse around a bit. I think his science is first rate.

My personal opinion for what it is worth:
Increased man made CO2 must cause increased warming at some level. Whether it will result in catastrophic consequences is a much more difficult question. I believe the sun has been underestimated in it's effect on climate change and if we get a quiet period (no sunspots over 50 years) the earth will cool and mask man made warming effects completely for a while. I classify myself as a lukewarmer.

Thank you both for a considered and non emotional response. I will check out your reference.

AKL

[Allen K. Littlefield]

Originally Posted by Allen K. Littlefield

Thank you both for a considered and non emotional response. I will check out your reference.

AKL

I read the article and found it very informative. The conclusion and following letters were very on the mark.

Where I stand at this point: There is still no accounting for the rise and fall of CO2 in past years where we have had ice ages and warm cycles. What produced the extra CO2 then and what made it vanish? It still seems that if the sun is more intense then the CO2 will hold more of that and that seems why we would be "warming" and not necessarily the fault of the gas itself. Again, the solution of higher taxes and less energy seem very self serving to the Political parties rather than solving the problem. Like tobacco, if it is so dangerous then just ban it rather than tax it. Stop all fossil fuel or anything else that produces CO2 (remove your cats as they produce CO2) and depend totally on wind and solar. Remember hydro is out because of the endangered fish etc. No clear answers out there but I still recall all the graphs and charts that proved we were going into and ice age back in the 60's. I stand somewhat more enlightened but not convinced, not by a long shot. Will keep an open mind however while I still wait for the proof positive the Man is causing the planet to warm.

AKL

[thstone]

Your question goes straight to the heart of the global temperature debate which currently seems to have (at least) two competing theories: Solar driven and C02 driven.

In the solar driven theory, increased sun activity causes C02 levels to rise which warms the planet. This warm period is then followed by a slower cooling period as the increased sun activity wanes and the planet absorbs the excess C02. This theory appears to fit the ancient historic data based on Antarctic ice cores.

In C02 driven theory, the use of fossil fuels and resulting increase of C02 emissions overwhelms the natural solar driven thermal cycle and has changed what would classically be expected to be a cooling period (because of lower sun activity) into a recent warming period. This theory appears to fit recent (50 to 80 year) data and this is the "smoking gun" that most people use as their reference point in saying that global warming is "proven" to be caused by man.

However, the water gets pretty muddy when all of the data from the past 50-years is analyzed in regards to the influence of the sun, C02, and global temperatures. At this point, there is no overall scieentific consensus on what causes what or how significant of an influence any particular driver (solar or C02) might have on global termperature.

The scientific community continues to research and debate these two theories today and neither has been proven to be the only correct theory.

Without a clear concrete scientific basis some people are concerned about using these theories as the basis for public policy decisions while others contend that waiting for the science to be fully proven only delays implementing some obvious fixes that are likely to be required regardless of the outcome of the scientific theory and that we might as well start now.

This can be a touchy subject. Hope that I didn't make anyone mad.

[Allen K. Littlefield]

Originally Posted by thstone

Your question goes straight to the heart of the global temperature debate which currently seems to have (at least) two competing theories: Solar driven and C02 driven.

In the solar driven theory, increased sun activity causes C02 levels to rise which warms the planet. This warm period is then followed by a slower cooling period as the increased sun activity wanes and the planet absorbs the excess C02. This theory appears to fit the ancient historic data based on Antarctic ice cores.

In C02 driven theory, the use of fossil fuels and resulting increase of C02 emissions overwhelms the natural solar driven thermal cycle and has changed what would classically be expected to be a cooling period (because of lower sun activity) into a recent warming period. This theory appears to fit recent (50 to 80 year) data and this is the "smoking gun" that most people use as their reference point in saying that global warming is "proven" to be caused by man.

However, the water gets pretty muddy when all of the data from the past 50-years is analyzed in regards to the influence of the sun, C02, and global temperatures. At this point, there is no overall scieentific consensus on what causes what or how significant of an influence any particular driver (solar or C02) might have on global termperature.

The scientific community continues to research and debate these two theories today and neither has been proven to be the only correct theory.

Without a clear concrete scientific basis some people are concerned about using these theories as the basis for public policy decisions while others contend that waiting for the science to be fully proven only delays implementing some obvious fixes that are likely to be required regardless of the outcome of the scientific theory and that we might as well start now.

This can be a touchy subject. Hope that I didn't make anyone mad.

No, you have hit the nail on the head. I just can't get my arms around the cure that gives more money in taxes to the govt. and leads to a lower standard of living and subsequent 'dependency' as the cure. NO legislation should be based on unproven 'theory', at least IMHO. Thanks for the solid contribution.

AKL