Am I still allowed to question climate change?

There are other things that cool and make the earth warmer, so it will never be a straight line.

 

What do you think?

AGW? Undecided but if forced would probably err on the side of the majority.

My issue here, though, is with Smithy's simplistic more CO2 = higher temperature cossit's common sense innit?

The situation, as you say, is much more complex than that. Even if you take away all of the other factors then more CO2 = higher temperature would still not necessarily be correct. There will , for instance, be a point where all the heat remains in the atmosphere so any more CO2 will make no difference. Obviously an extreme but it illustrates this ridiculousness of Smithy's claim.

At lower concentrations there is no way of knowing the exact relationship between the concentration of CO2 and temperature, even without the other factors. As I hinted earlier, progressively thicker glass doesn't make the literal greenhouse progressively warmer so when does the thickness (read "concentration") stop being a factor?

All the above, plus the various political issues attached should illustrate why I am on the fence atm.

Note that all the above is from my own head with no requirement for quotes from partisan websites or organisations or fluffy circular arguments.

Now, what do you think?

Like any heat source, when its turned down it gets cooler, it’s not rocket science.

It's far more complicated than rocket science.

---------- Post added 21-03-2013 at 11:25 ----------

AGW? Undecided but if forced would probably err on the side of the majority.

 

My issue here, though, is with Smithy's simplistic more CO2 = higher temperature cossit's common sense innit?

 

The situation, as you say, is much more complex than that. Even if you take away all of the other factors then more CO2 = higher temperature would still not necessarily be correct. There will , for instance, be a point where all the heat remains in the atmosphere so any more CO2 will make no difference. Obviously an extreme but it illustrates this ridiculousness of Smithy's claim.

 

At lower concentrations there is no way of knowing the exact relationship between the concentration of CO2 and temperature, even without the other factors. As I hinted earlier, progressively thicker glass doesn't make the literal greenhouse progressively warmer so when does the thickness (read "concentration") stop being a factor?

 

All the above, plus the various political issues attached should illustrate why I am on the fence atm.

 

Note that all the above is from my own head with no requirement for quotes from partisan websites or organisations or fluffy circular arguments.

 

Now, what do you think?

That's pretty similar to my current position, although I think maybe I'm a little bit more cynical regarding the 'evidence' that gets presented, the IPCC have been proven to be alarmist fear mongers lacking in basic scientific rigour and a lot of other science funding depends on supporting the case for AGW.

The IPCC says that the worste case scenario is for a 3.2 degree c temperature rise by 2100. This would cause a sea level rise of less than knee high.

 

Do you have anything which says this is wrong?

 

If not why are you worried?

I think that will be an average sea level rise. It could mean a spring tide would flood London, Bristol, Hull, half of East Anglia. No loss, you might say, but you'd end up paying for it in the end.

---------- Post added 21-03-2013 at 12:03 ----------

In the late Ordovician period CO2 was at about 10-15 times the level of today..yet there was an ice age....

Having a quick read it would seem that the earth was much more volcanically active, and that CO2 levels were very high, the temperature rose (sea temps of 45 deg C), and sea levels rose. Towards the end of the Ordovician, the fracturing continents of Gondwanaland effectively snuffed out a lot of the volcanic activity, by parking themselves on top of the upwellings. Rock weathering in the tropical climate was intense, but as the volcanic CO2 dropped away and no commensurate drop in CO2 scrubbing, the CO2 levels dropped by half, triggering a short ice age and a mass extinction.

I think that will be an average sea level rise. It could mean a spring tide would flood London, Bristol, Hull, half of East Anglia. No loss, you might say, but you'd end up paying for it in the end.

If any modern city disapears below the waves due to a 1 foot sea level rise it is inhabited by idiots.

Last centuary the sea rose by 18cm. This centuary it might be twice as bad. Twice as many cities will disapear. That's 2 x 0 = 0.

But if the co2 level was so high and is responsible for GW then how did the ice form in the first place?

Did CO2 level rise after the ice formed due to lack of tree and phytoplankton. If the planet was covered in plants that use CO2 then the level would drop, with less CO2 it would get colder and ice would start to form, ice reflects the suns energy so it gets colder, plants can’t grow so can’t remove CO2 so the level starts to rise, but it needs lots of CO2 to counter the effect of the ice reflecting the suns energy. This process takes millions of years so at some point one would expect there to be ice and high levels of CO2, also much of the land mass including Africa was at the south pole.

---------- Post added 21-03-2013 at 12:59 ----------

The IPCC says that the worste case scenario is for a 3.2 degree c temperature rise by 2100. This would cause a sea level rise of less than knee high.

 

Do you have anything which says this is wrong?

 

If not why are you worried?

Sea level rise isn't the biggest concern.

I think that will be an average sea level rise. It could mean a spring tide would flood London, Bristol, Hull, half of East Anglia. No loss, you might say, but you'd end up paying for it in the end.

 

---------- Post added 21-03-2013 at 12:03 ----------

 

 

Having a quick read it would seem that the earth was much more volcanically active, and that CO2 levels were very high, the temperature rose (sea temps of 45 deg C), and sea levels rose. Towards the end of the Ordovician, the fracturing continents of Gondwanaland effectively snuffed out a lot of the volcanic activity, by parking themselves on top of the upwellings. Rock weathering in the tropical climate was intense, but as the volcanic CO2 dropped away and no commensurate drop in CO2 scrubbing, the CO2 levels dropped by half, triggering a short ice age and a mass extinction.

Even with CO2 levels dropping by half they'd still be 5-8 times higher than now...yet still the ice formed ....

---------- Post added 21-03-2013 at 13:15 ----------

Did CO2 level rise after the ice formed due to lack of tree and phytoplankton. If the planet was covered in plants that use CO2 then the level would drop, .

No trees in the Ordovician..as I understand it anyway..

No trees in the Ordovician..as I understand it anyway..

Whatever photosynthetic organisms was around at the time would have struggled to servivie in an ice age, so CO2 would rise, and at some point the claimate would warm enough to melt the ice and photosynthetic organisms would once again thrive.

Whatever photosynthetic organisms was around at the time would have struggled to servivie in an ice age, so CO2 would rise, and at some point the claimate to warm enough to melt the ice and photosynthetic organisms would once again thrive.

What was creating CO2 then? And given that it's a greenhouse gas with a short life span, why a several thousand year lag before any warming occurred?

What you're describing is a feedback loop though. CO2 rises, planet warms, plants do well, they suck up all the CO2.

What makes you think that plants aren't going to suck up the excess CO2 now?

Even with CO2 levels dropping by half they'd still be 5-8 times higher than now...yet still the ice formed ....

I'm not sure how much has changed in terms of understanding since this:

http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/PhanCO2%28GCA%29.pdf

…all cool events are associated with CO2 levels below 1000 ppm.

 

A CO2 threshold of below 500 ppm is suggested for the initiation of widespread, continental glaciations, although this threshold was likely higher during the Paleozoic due to a lower solar luminosity at that time. Also, based on data from the Jurassic and Cretaceous, a CO2 threshold of below 1000 ppm is proposed for the initiation of cool non-glacial conditions.

 

A pervasive, tight correlation between CO2 and temperature is found both at coarse (10 my timescales) and fine resolutions up to the temporal limits of the data set (million-year timescales), indicating that CO2 operating in combination with many other factors such as solar luminosity and paleogeography, has imparted strong control over global temperatures for much of the Phanerozoic

What was creating CO2 then? And given that it's a greenhouse gas with a short life span, why a several thousand year lag before any warming occurred?

Plate Tectonics.

What you're describing is a feedback loop though. CO2 rises, planet warms, plants do well, they suck up all the CO2.

What makes you think that plants aren't going to suck up the excess CO2 now?

We are destroying them, using the land they need to grow and polluting the oceans they need to grow.