CO2 levels are not natural

Talk Electrician Forum

Help Support Talk Electrician Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

binky

retired and loving it!
Supporting Member
Joined
May 7, 2008
Messages
14,658
Reaction score
1,781
Location
Sunny Plymouth
Now I've been meaning to post this for a while. Many of you argue that the current climate change is natural and not due to the more recent activities of mankind and subsequent population explosion. The chart below is based on ice core sampling which can give us CO2 and weather data for the last 600,000 years - other data does exist but ice cores are the most accurate apparently. As you can see, CO2 and global temperatures trace each other quite closely in and out of 7 ice ages. Until you get to more recent times, when CO2 shoots up from around 1850 in-line with the industrial revolution and explosion of the human population. The forecast levels of CO2 are shown in the second chart based on not adopting green tech.- look up CO2 charts, most cover the later 1000years to show more detail. When you see these charts I just don't see how you can argue the current global warming / climate change is anything other than man made. Blue line is CO2, red is temperture. NB the ice age labels are above the troughs in temperature - kind of look like they are against the peaks, they aren't.

atmospheric_co2_temperature_da_744.jpg

co2-and-heat-graph.png

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Logic says that as we develop and go through transitions of different energy production and industrialisation techniques, we will inevitably increase pollution to this earth. Pre industrial revolution there was minimal pollution by comparison, this trend will continue until such time as we ACCEPT that WE NEED TO CHANGE, unfortunately mans desire and greed will only continue to fuel the increase. 

As a thought if you take a look at ALL the possessions you own, ask yourself how much of it do you actually NEED, as opposed to WANT. I'd suggest that 20% you need and the other 80% you want, so if we look at that on production scale then 80% of pollution could be reduced straight there? 

 
at least modern appliances and cars are getting better. Fashion is one of the things I dislike, a whole industry developed to create consumption and subsequent waste.

 
All that graph is is a teams views on climate change.  I could put on here another 20 graphs showing the opposite.  Some even show the difference in graphs prior to the Obama administration and those produced during.  

 
that particular graph has been around for quite a while. It is not the work of 1 team and is legitimised by 99.9% of scientists involved with climate science. Don't see what Obama has to do with anything, he has only been around for about 10 years which is micro-seconds in climate change terms. Far more detailed graphs exist for more recent years, but the overall trend is what matters, not this year versus next year. Arguments over cause and effect will always rumble on, but there is no way you can argue the current Co2 levels are normal (well you could, but you would look rather silly).

Please feel free to post counter arguments Essex.

1 more for you - puny humans don't affect anything......hopefully the link will work!

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi8xtPS_MnKAhVL0hoKHXIXCcQQjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.desdemonadespair.net%2F2015%2F06%2Fgraph-of-day-carbon-emissions-and-human.html&psig=AFQjCNEx-LGBetQcyj21sXaxM-j-v240IA&ust=1453983173355709

 
You have to understand that coming from Essex which is the epicentre of all things greed associated he was taught that was the norm so global warming can't be anything to do with human consumption !!!!😜

 
that particular graph has been around for quite a while. It is not the work of 1 team and is legitimised by 99.9% of scientists whom receive money to prove climate change is man made involved with climate science. Don't see what Obama has to do with anything, he has only been around for about 10 years which is micro-seconds in climate change terms. Far more detailed graphs exist for more recent years, but the overall trend is what matters, not this year versus next year. Arguments over cause and effect will always rumble on, but there is no way you can argue the current Co2 levels are normal (well you could, but you would look rather silly).

Please feel free to post counter arguments Essex.

1 more for you - puny humans don't affect anything......hopefully the link will work!

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi8xtPS_MnKAhVL0hoKHXIXCcQQjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.desdemonadespair.net%2F2015%2F06%2Fgraph-of-day-carbon-emissions-and-human.html&psig=AFQjCNEx-LGBetQcyj21sXaxM-j-v240IA&ust=1453983173355709


Corrected that for you......  :Blushing

 
MYTH 1:  Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.

FACT:  The HadCRUT3 surface temperature index, produced by the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office and the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, shows warming to 1878, cooling to 1911, warming to 1941, cooling to 1964, warming to 1998 and cooling through 2011. The warming rate from 1964 to 1998 was the same as the previous warming from 1911 to 1941. Satellites, weather balloons and ground stations all show cooling since 2001. The mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8 C over the 20th century is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects"). Two science teams have shown that correcting the surface temperature record for the effects of urban development would reduce the reported warming trend over land from 1980 by half. See here.

There has been no catastrophic warming recorded. 

MYTH 2:  The "hockey stick" graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature decrease for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase.

FACT:  Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17th Century the "average global temperature" has been rising at the low steady rate mentioned above; although from 1940 – 1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare.

The "hockey stick", a poster boy of both the UN's IPCC and Canada's Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and has now also been proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as well. It is a computer construct and a faulty one at that. See here for more information.

MYTH 3:  Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus causing most of the earth's warming of the last 100 years.

FACT:  Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased by about 120 part per million (ppm), most of which is likely due to human-caused CO2 emissions. The RATE of growth during this century has been about 0.55%/year. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result.

MYTH 4:  CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.

FACT:  Greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, (about 97%) of water vapour and clouds, with the remainder being gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O, of which carbon dioxide is the largest amount. Hence, CO2 constitutes about 0.04% of the atmosphere. While the minor gases are more effective as "greenhouse agents" than water vapour and clouds, the latter are overwhelming the effect by their sheer volume and – in the end – are thought to be responsible for 75% of the "Greenhouse effect". (See here) At current concentrations, a 3% change of water vapour in the atmosphere would have the same effect as a 100% change in CO2.

Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention these important facts.

MYTH 5:  Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming.

FACT:  The computer models assume that CO2 is the primary climate driver, and that the Sun has an insignificant effect on climate. Using the output of a model to verify its initial assumption is committing the logical fallacy of circular reasoning. Computer models can be made to roughly match the 20th century temperature rise by adjusting many input parameters and using strong positive feedbacks. They do not "prove" anything. Also, computer models predicting global warming are incapable of properly including the effects of the sun, cosmic rays and the clouds. The sun is a major cause of temperature variation on the earth surface as its received radiation changes all the time, This happens largely in cyclical fashion. The number and the lengths in time of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the surface temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer ocean water expels gases, some of which are CO2. Solar radiation interferes with the cosmic ray flux, thus influencing the amount ionized nuclei which control cloud cover.

- See more at: http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3#sthash.F02qDSUy.dpuf

MYTH 6:  The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has proven that man–made CO2 causes global warming.

FACT:  In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft approved and accepted by a panel of scientists. Here they are: 
1)     “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”
2)     “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”

To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming. 

MYTH 7:  CO2 is a pollutant.

FACT:  This is absolutely not true. Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is.  CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously. Unfortunately, the Canadian Government has included  CO2 with a number of truly toxic and noxious substances listed by the Environmental Protection Act, only as their means to politically control it.  The graph here shows changes in vegetative cover due to CO2 fertilization between 1982 and 2010 (Donohue et al., 2013 GRL). A major study here shows that CO2 fertilization will likely increase the value of crop production between now and 2050 by an additional $11.7 trillion($US 2014). See here for more discussion.

MYTH 8: Global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes.

FACT:   There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that supports such claims on a global scale.  Regional variations may occur. Growing insurance and infrastructure repair costs, particularly in coastal areas, are sometimes claimed to be the result of increasing frequency and severity of storms, whereas in reality they are a function of increasing population density, escalating development value, and ever more media reporting. See here for graphs and discussion of extreme weather.

MYTH 9:  Receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof of man-made global warming.

FACT:  Glaciers have been  receding and growing cyclically for hundreds of years. Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming out of the very cool period of the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries. Scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers growing and then retreating. It’s normal. Besides, changes to glacier's extent is dependent as much on precipitation as on temperature.

 MYTH 10:  The earth’s poles are warming and the polar ice caps are breaking up and melting.

FACT:  The earth is variable. The Arctic Region had warmed from 1966 to 2005, due to cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean and soot from Asia darkening the ice, but there has been no warming since 2005. Current temperatures are the same as in 1943. The small Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica is getting warmer, while the main Antarctic continent is actually cooling. Ice cap thicknesses in both Greenland and Antarctica are increasing. North polar temperature graph here. South polar temperature graph here. See here for sea ice extent.

- See more at: http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3#sthash.F02qDSUy.dpuf

 
Well Essex that is an impressive reply but total nonsense. If all those facts were indeed correct, the latest conference on climate control would not have been so heavily debated.

Whilst everyone assumes that the burning of fossilised fuels is the main reason, there are others.

 
I am still a MMGW skeptic.

So CO2 levels have gone off the scale in an unprecedented rise.on the blue trace of your graph.

WHY therefore have temperatures not risen drastically?  The red trace shows stable temperatures at about the "normal" cyclical high point, where global warming theory says they should be rising fast.

I don't dispute CO2 levels are high, but I am not convinced of cause and effect.  How do we know the CO2 levels in the historic data have been changing up and down BECAUSE of temperature changes, rather than temperature going up and down BECAUSE of changing CO2 levels?

I won't take efforts to tackle "MMGW" seriously until someone starts having a serious discussion about stabilising the human population level. Without addressing that, Humans will have made themselves extinct by war or whatever as too many fight for too few resources long before the planet is wrecked.

 
What about the 37,000 scientists that have signed a petition stating man are not responsible for global warming?

 
Whilst I have my views on what we contribute to this natural/induced phenomena, I find it odd in that we debate it with such conviction whether for or against, yet the reality is we will not live long enough to know the true extent of the damage we do?! 

Remember we are only borrowing this planet from the future generations! 

 
Your posting copied from friends of science, who believe all warming is the result of the sun contradict themselves, if you go to the same page and look at the graph, bottom left, states that sun-spot activity is down and therefore we should be cooling, Now here's a link to a reputable science journal:-  https://www.newscientist.com/article/2074055-2016-will-be-even-hotter-than-2015-the-hottest-year-ever/

Looking throught he various articles on the FoS site most of these date back to pre 2006 - shed loads more reserach has been completed since and variuos arguments about effects of climate change have been postulated. Now 37000 scientists is a small amount if the scientists in the world, and it is fair to say a lot of the early 'dooms day' scenarios have been downgraded in line with better climate modelling, though to be frank, our understanding of climate is still quite lacking. However, it can't be missed that CO2 is rising to unprecedented levels, so lets have a look at the myths

1/ if the climate is cooling since 2001 explain last year - the hottest ever recorded, Een if you accept that the 'hot-spot' argument is correct it still says temperature rise is happening, at a reduced rate, but still happening. It also tells us that the hotspots are using more energy - we know that. This anlogy was confirmed by 2 teams, how many teams contradict this. Inceidentally be 'catastrophic' they mean 2degC, we have already achieved half of that.

2/ FACT the graphs I posted show temperature data for 600,000 years, we should now be cooling if you look at those graphs

3/ CO2 isn't the only gas in the atmosphere, but it is the one directly related to buring fossil fuels. Additonal CO2 has the effect of trapping more irradiated heat from the sun - hence the name greenhouse gas. Methane is far worse. The planet has never had so much CO2 in the atmosphere an dis now at unprecedented levels, the fact that CO2 generally trailed temperture previously means the current high and rising levels of CO2 is interesting as it isn't the result of natural causes, if it was the wrold would be hotter first. Now there may not be much CO2 in the atmosphere, like wise there is only a thin layer of loft insulation in my loft, but what a firkin difference it makes to the warmth of my house. What ecologits are really worried about s the gentle effect of CO2 will be supplemented by Methane from defrosting the permafrost in the Artic circle. Most of the tundra is basically  a big bog and only defrosts the top layer every summer. Should the depth of bog defrosted increase, like any 'hot bog' it will release large amounts of methane which climatologists are concerned will result in much larger temperture rises. Either way th current level of CO2 means we moving into uchartered territory.

4/ is it getting warmer and wetter  - speaks for itself.

5/ the planet is warmed by the sun, we know that life would  not exist without it. 2 years ago lack of sun spots was of concern, albeit the mini-ice age would be offset by global warming. Last year the biggest sun-spot ofr 25 years was observed. It is the quantity rather than size that matters, more activity = warmer planet. Add more greenhouses gases to the equation and it is possible we will have the hottest planet temperatures ever?? As for the computer models, they have been developed a lot since the early limited versions toinclude water vapour etc etc. If you think about it, computers have only really been around for 20 years, look how rapidly they have improved - do you think that climate modelling hasn't progressed rapidly aswell. Another old argument

6/ 1996 - out of date. Incidentally 'proof' will only be had when it is too late, ie when it becomes fact. Lung cancer from smoking was only proved well after the obvious had been observed (late 1980s I think)

7/ Don't recall CO2 as being desribed as a pollutant, but the benefit to plant growth is an interesting point, and one I agree with  - I've never sad all global warming is bad. However of you live in one of the recently flooded areas it certainly is!

8/ Hurricanes in December in the USA, a hurricane hit Brazil about 10 years ago - never happened before, think this is also out of date. Simple science warmer planet means more water evaporation from the sea, means hotter and larger storms. Checkout how hurricane Katrina went from cat1 to cat 5 as traversed over the warn waters of the Gulf of Mexico.

9 and 10/ so where's the firkin ice gone. Reports this year of finding drowned polar bears for the first time - lace of ice, massive amounts of polar ice has gone. Massive glaciers have totally disappeared. But this comment misses another point, if you chuck loads of ice in the sea it gets cooler -  until the ice melts and it doesn't refernce the hickness of the sea ice. Think this is more accurate http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2015/05/new-tools-for-sea-ice-thickness/

As for the natural cycle argument I refer you back to the graphs I posted - something isn't natural!

 
I won't take efforts to tackle "MMGW" seriously until someone starts having a serious discussion about stabilising the human population level. Without addressing that, Humans will have made themselves extinct by war or whatever as too many fight for too few resources long before the planet is wrecked.


If you look at other graphs that show population change CO2 is directly related, I actually regard CO2 as just an indicator, the real causes are all the activities of humans ie deforestation, changing farming patterns, bigger cities etc etc. All of these affect how the planet can respond to change.

 
Don't worry Binky. I do not post these 'facts' because I believe them. Just to show that depending on your view point and agenda you can find facts and statistics to suit any agenda. 

 
LIES

DAMNED LIES

and

STATISTICS

make them what you want to, they are all the same,

opinions, that is all you have, and, it just happens to be different from someone else's, 

Can YOU prove otherwise,?

I mean YOU, not some statistic, 

if you cannot actually prove it one way or another, then you can NOT state it as a fact, you are believing someone else,

much the same as taking someone else telling you a circuit is dead, do you actually prove it yourself, or blindly believe what you have been told,?

I know what an idiot would do,,,, 

 
oh definetly, but no-one argues with those graphs, just everything else, and they do speak for themselves - people affect the world. Over-hyping 'facts' by zealots is the biggest problem. Within the scientific community, climate change has moved in the last ten years from 'if' to 'why' and it is coming up with interesting arguments about CO2 being good for plants (which is atually quite obvious). We still don't really understand the full workings of climate, but it's getting better all the time.

 
Any way. 37,000 scientists signed a petition to say they do not believe climate change is man made. Why did these scientists do this?

 

Latest posts

Top