The heating effect of CO2 is limited to the physical laws of nature. It has no runaway effect. If that were true, then the 40% of increased CO2 levels would have had a much greater effect.
A warming trend of 0.8C in almost 150 years is totally natural especially when we know that we just came out of "The Little Ice Age" (LIA) that lasted around 500 years and ended around 1850.
Trevor - You are absolutely wrong! Greenhouse gases are what regulate temperature. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas and the most dominant. When temperatures rise then more water vapor is created. The more water vapor then become clouds and eventually rain. Clouds and rain are cooling mechanisms. To say that all greenhouse gases cause even more warming is to be disingenuous.
A source for your scientifically illiterate statements please
time frames are important. you are comparing the last 150 years with 1 billion when humans will not be around. CO2 is the main driver over the last few decades- the sun has not changes appreciably in that time frame.
You're absolutely right, in 1.1 billion years nobody will care about CO2. Brilliant.
Because that is what every body knows
Absolutely not! It is a scam perpetuated by people trying to take away our liberties and money. Back in the 60s and 70s many of the same scientists were touting that CO2 will cause an Ice Age.
Life magazine of January 3, 1970, stated: “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support . . . predictions” such as: “In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution,” and “increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will affect earth’s temperature, leading to mass flooding or a new ice age.”
This is a planned propaganda campaign. To scare people into needlessly seeking safety. This has been admitted many times by even the proponents of the environmental movement.
Quote by Jim Sibbison, environmental journalist, former public relations official for the Environmental Protection Agency: "We routinely wrote scare stories...Our press reports were more or less true...We were out to whip the public into a frenzy about the environment."
Quote by Ottmar Edenhoffer, high level UN-IPCC official: "We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy...Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization...One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore."
Quote by Club of Rome: "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill....All these dangers are caused by human intervention....and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself....believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or….one invented for the purpose."
Plus the fact that at this time the earth has been cooling for well over a decade.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut...
While at the same time the CO2 level has increased substantially. This fact alone should put an end of the argument but there are people with vested interests in this propaganda project and they will not go away without a fight. They are following in, Hitler's minister of propaganda, Goebbels' footsteps.
Joseph Goebbel,
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
So the main and real reason so many people believe in CO2 as a culprit is because of the repetition of the lie.
Hello CM,
Put simply, the Sun is the mechanism that provides the heat and the greenhouse gases are the mechanism by which it is retained. If we had no greenhouse gases in our atmosphere then the heat originating from the Sun would simply radiate from Earth straight into space. Both the Sun and the greenhouse gases are therefore essential in providing us with the climate we have.
On decadal time scales the variation in the Sun is tiny, it averages less than one thousandth from the mean and since the 1970’s it has declined very slightly, right at the time of the most pronounced warming.
On the other hand, greenhouse gas concentrations have gone up by 42% since the onset of industrialisation and 30% in the last 100 years. Clearly this is going to have a greater impact on our climate.
Even if we assume your hypothesis is correct (ignoring the fact that the consequences you’ve stated are wrong) then you’re talking about a timescale of a billion years. Even if a 10% increase in luminosity resulted in a doubling in the level of warming above Earth’s effective temperature (it won’t) then you’re talking about a 1°C rise in temps every 30+ million years. The warming in recent decades has been 15 million times as pronounced.
CO2 and the other greenhouse gases are like Earth’s insulation, temperatures can go up or down either with or without greenhouse gases but by adding them into the mix then more heat is retained. It’s rather like if you stand near a bonfire, the heat coming off the fire will fluctuate but if you stand there naked you’ll be a colder than if you’re wearing clothes. Your argument is that the greenhouse gases (clothes) can’t make any difference.
1 they don't, but it suits their political objectives
2 they are intellectually challenged
3 they don't think at all and prefer to delegate their thinking to proven government liars.
CO2 will not fall in a runaway greenhouse effect. CO2 increaases. The oceans evaporate. The pressure and temperature of the planet in it's current state does not allow water vapour to condense and form liquid. The hydrogen molecules disassociate from oxygen molecules in water vapour and float off into space. This increases the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere as volcanism and other cycles continue with a declining amount of carbon sinks. I think you badly have things a little backwards.
I did the calculations myself, using a simplistic model, and arrived at about a 10% increase in the sun COUPLED with 100% absorption by Earth (unlikely) would be sufficient to boil off the oceans, then disassociation of the H?O into separate parts, then the escape of hydrogen into space, and then an atmosphere with lots of CO? -- a new Venus, in effect. (There was a great paper on this topic, partly wrong in hindsight but the approach remains important today, back in the late 1960's, I think.) Could happen a little earlier than a billion years. We are, in fact, still in early stages of understanding solar details, too. And a lot can happen in a billion years, besides. So, let's just say it's a LONG WAY OUT. On the order of a billion years for talking purposes.
But you make an unsound argument, suggesting that because the sun's output will increase in a billion years from now, that the output has risen and will continue to rise, that today humans cannot be causing a substantial near-term increase in CO? (no question of that) and increasing retained energy from the sun (no question there, either.) We are talking about an effect over periods of decades to a century or so caused by a very recent, new human activity *(burning planetary-wide amounts of fossil fuels on a massive scale) and you are on about a conclusion that likely will take place over a period that is more than ten million times longer and in the interim will be VERY, VERY SLOW by comparison.
To make things much worse for you, we've been measuring solar output on Earth and with balloons and aircraft for a going on a century and have had satellites in space doing the same with the first one up in late 1978, I think, and providing readings starting in 1979 or so. Space-based observations for about three solar cycles already, and counting. A new one called IRIS, now, too. Lots of great stuff. If anything, solar output has remained remarkably steady without the slightest indication of an increase. And I'm talking about measurement noise at the 0.02% level. Meanwhile, Earth's global temperatures are such that EVERY YEAR prior to 1973 had temperatures lower than 1973 and EVERY YEAR since 1978 had temperatures above 1978. See JPG below. Besides, we know why. It's not guesswork.
Your conclusion is simply unsound and, frankly, quite confused. Glad I'm not stuck with your brain.
Umm!! can I suggest you read what YOU wrote, you have answered your own question the Sun will increase activity by 10% (over ~1 billion years) that is a lot of energy added to the Earth atmosphere, deniers get their skirts in a twist over just the short term solar cycle and that is a change of less than 0.01% and only for a year or so. at the peak and dip of each 11 year cycle.
This long term change in the Sun also explains why early Earth could have high Co2 but temps similar to today, A point Lord Mockingtone fails continually to mention to his uninformed audiences when he talks of Co2 levels and temperatures 500,000 million years ago, that would be half a billion years ago or about 5% less output from the Sun.
Change as slow as these are certainly little to do with the current problem that his happening over just a few centuries.
The Sun provides the primary energy that warms this planet, fairly obviously if you reduce Co2 put increase the output of the Sun, you need less Co2 to maintain the same temperature, I would have thought that was obvious. Just as 0.5 billion years ago there was more Co2 but less energy from the Sun.
Plate tectonics will be stopped by the core cooling as the the planet ages, little to do with Co2 in the atmosphere or the atmospheric temperature one way or the other.
As it stands if you take the background temperature of space, the Sun warms this planet as it warms the entire solar system, the greenhouse gases (as they are at the moment) add to that effect and increase the planets temperature ~30c, what we have done (so far) has added a further 0.8c to that effect and will add (as a minimum estimate) a further 2-3c by the end of this century.
Can I suggest, as I often seem to here, that you take a science class.
The Sun is a G2V type star that is expected to increase in luminosity by 10% in the next 1.1 billion years. This will lead to a runaway greenhouse of Earths oceans which will lead to the stopping of plate tectonics and volcanic activity and reducing the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere. Here is my question. If the levels of CO2 fall and Earth gets warmer this must mean CO2 has no real effect on Earth and that the combined forces of water vapor and the suns luminosity are the main drivers of global warming. So why do people think CO2 is the main driver if the following will happen in 1.1 billion years?
Because of the physics, there is no doubt that CO2 can cause warming, how much is the question which is still unresolved as we have not yet worked our earths climate sensitivity to CO2.
Also there could be a lot of other natural causes and feedbacks.
Individual temperature records commonly used by climatologists and paleoclimatologists show that the past 1,000 years have been marked by periodic warm and cold periods, not by a uniform climate trend. The recent warming trend since about 1850 appears to be the continuation of the warming following the Little Ice Age, rather than a sudden upsurge after a long period of relatively uniform temperatures. The detailed temperature record since 1850 shows a temperature decline between 1940 and 1970, which flies in the face of the explanation that a continuous exponential increase in carbon dioxide causes global warming. And the simultaneous record of temperature and carbon dioxide concentration in ice cores indicates that carbon dioxide concentration changes after temperature changes, not before, indicating that carbon dioxide is the result, not the cause, of global warming.
Well , your question is kinda hanging out there, but there is merit, as I see it. If we are assured of allthis CO2, then by preserving the greenery of earth, we are guaranteed cool oxygen like at the casinos. Cigarette? What's entropy?
I don't know what these guys are talking about, but the obvious main reason for global warming is squirrel burps.
Cause they are on crack,but if you want to buy carbon footprints,put it in my bank account that will personally contribute to the horrible effects of global warming,my number is 55555555 I accept 100 but not more than a felony amount of grand theft 1200 ,thanks.
