There have been times in Earth's history when tree's were much larger then they are today.

That negates my point how? Doesn't matter if it's less trees or more people. I'm just saying that CO2 is indeed rising.

Cleveland: "An' I'm jus' sayin' dat trees wur larger in da past."

I posted that trees were "larger". I made no mention to the quantity.

[Edit: Now that I have more time, I'll give more of an explanation]

There's a direct relationship between CO2 concentrations and the size that trees and other plant life are able to ascertain. We know that plants and trees grow faster, stronger, and larger under higher CO2 concentrations. So, it stands to reason that there must have been higher CO2 concentrations in the past.

That doesn't follow. Just because trees were bigger does not imply that CO2 levels were higher.

People are just resisting change for the sake of resisting again!

Even if it did, there have been times in the Earth's history where the entire surface was molten. That doesn't mean we want to live there.

A quick search yields a New Scientist article on the effects of CO2 on plant growth:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11655-climate-myths-higher-co2-levels-will-boost-plant-growth-and-food-production.html

Yes, but what do the old scientist say?

Yay for learning on the internets?

Want to try again?

The point that I was making to counter Tibby's was that just because CO2 is higher then it has been in recent history, it doesn't necessarily mean it's man made or that we have the means to alter it in any meaningful way.

Let me prove the assumption you're making wrong with a simple thought experiment:
If I would be bleeding from a giant cut in my hand, and I would inject myself with one of the clotting factor enzymes. Would hemostasis kick in sooner or would it perhaps occur faster? Or more simply: If I would take a plant and give it the same amount of water, and improved levels of CO2, would it grow faster? Even more simple, let me prove it to you scientifically:
2 CO2 + 2 H2O --- right waveforms of light --> 2 CH2O + O2 + 2 electron donors.

Come on people, we've all heard it: Yes there have been periods in the past with larger amounts of CO2 in the air. Put if you would just look at the data available everywhere! The rate in which the quantity of CO2 in the air is changing is much larger than the 'natural' occurring change. And it is proven that an improved concentration of CO2 enforces the natural greenhouse effect. In general, quick changes in a complex ecosystem are bad everywhere. There are a lot of examples, just two from them: The introduction of cows in Australia and the Great Oxygenation Event. We do not know the results of improved levels of CO2 in our planet's current ecosystem. Why would you (nay-saying-CO2-is-natural people) even want to deny all of these facts in complete uneducated ignorance?

/Rant

A conspiracy that was constructed by the New World Order.

Buahahaha.

I'm not saying that larger plants would create a CO2 sink. Simply debunking the argument that elevated CO2 levels would not have occurred naturally if not for man.

[Edit for clarification: There are obviously more elements that go into stimulating plant growth then just CO2. Larger plants in the past that existed with higher CO2 levels did so at stable levels of nitrogen and precipitation, with milder temperatures. But again, that has nothing to do with the point I was making about higher CO2 levels when man wasn't around to contribute.]

At the height of this warming cycle we're experiencing some compounding effects that have accelerated the situation. For instance, global water temperatures have reached a threshold for which it is no longer an effective heat sink. This among many other naturally contributing factors. The evolution of the industrial age coinciding with these changes was a pure stroke of coincidence. Clearly, it would be easy for someone to see the two and draw a conclusion that there may appear to be a direct relationship. The Ice Core Data actually proves otherwise. It shows that the trend of global warming was already well in progress.

I think it's complete uneducated arrogance that we believe that we have a significant impact on climate change. Maybe it helps us feel important?

Here's my take as I've expressed before in similar threads:

1. We should become more efficient and less wasteful in how we conduct our day-to-day business on Earth. For instance, recycling air pollutant to turn power turbines. Which has the added benefit of off-setting (some of the) manufacturing power costs.
2. The Earth is warming, largely due to a natural cycle with very very very little influence by man. As such, in relative terms, there's nothing we can do about it. Deal with that knowledge.
3. Regulations would hurt small developing countries and further damage the world economy.
4. Dwindling resources are a threat much graver to our long-term survivability then global warming. This is actually something we have the means to address, or at least learn how to address. This is where our efforts (read funding for R&D) should be going towards. It's also very likely that this would involve "cleaner and greener" technologies which would address our contribution (however large or small) to the "Global Warming effort" many times greater then we ever could by addressing "Global Warming" directly.

In short, to respond to Krokodile, it's resisting a huge waste of time and money when it could be much much much better spent.

As someone into natural history, it's quite noticeable the number of species that have turned up and become established in the UK in recent years that were previously considered to be solidly Mediterranean in distribution. It's hard to deny climate change when you can watch a roost of 70 little egrets form up in winter; a bird that only 50 years ago was confined to southern Europe.

As for the forcing factors. I can't claim to have read enough. However, I'm generally inclined to listen to the conclusions of the IPCC - y'know the actual climate scientists rather than political demagogues.

That's true. Maybe we should ask a scientist!

oh


wait

I'm not a climatologist, I get it. It doesn't mean I'm incapable of evaluating the data and drawing my own conclusions. I have formed my opinion based off of the periodic research I've done into the subject over the last 4 years. Maybe you don't agree. I know there's people out that either don't believe in global warming or believe as i do but for different reasons. I haven't seen anyone express their views on the matter as I have. To fully understand the subject matter you have to look at who all is motivated to be on what side of the debate and why. Unfortunately, that information is nearly as important as the actual climate data itself.

It means the conclusions you draw are substantially less credible, yes.

also you're fat

FACT : CO2 causes global warming.
FACT : We emit a lot of CO2.

We shouldn't even have to mention the cows to see that we are contributing to global warming.

I would say that that would go for the majority of the people in this thread. Even if someone in this thread was a climatologist, their experience in the field (or lack there of) puts them on almost equal footing on the subject. This is a discussion thread, so let's have a discussion. If you disagree with something I post, then politely do so. There's no need to make posts such as "your not a scientist so what do you know? hur hur hur" just because you don't agree with me.

Even so, we know which sources are credible and which sources are not. The point of the IPCC is to do exactly what you want to do, evaluate all the data independently and see what implications this has for climate change. The IPCC has no 'agenda' beyond accurately representing the science.

This is certainly more credible than SuperFreakonomics, from a pair of economists publishing a non-peer-reviewed book. Their chapter on global warming is certainly an interesting position (for those that haven't read it, they are not climate change deniers but rather argue that the solution is with geoengineering rather than preventing CO2 emissions). Interesting in the same way KE Drexler has an interesting view of nanoscience. An imaginative vision, but somewhat misrepresentative of the science, and providing fanciful fixes with far more problems than the simpler solution that already exists.

That said, I did get that book for my father for Christmas - having read it very carefully beforehand, so it still looked new.

Except that the IPCC is only looking at a very small piece of the larger picture, the last 100 years or so. So, within that context, "OH MY GOD WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!"

However...

According to the Ice Core data, we're at (or just over) the peak of a 10,000yr temperature increase which amounted to an +11C increase in global temperatures during that time. So when you put it into context, the IPCC is looking at a relatively insignificant piece (1C). Furthermore, from the Ice Core data, it looks like we're on the cooling side of this warming cycle (which occurs about every 100,000yrs) which will take about 25,000 yrs to bottom out. In other words, it'll cool at a rate that is about 2.5 times longer then it heated up. What we've experienced is a warming spike during the beginning of the cooling cycle, which is not at all uncommon. I'm sure we also contributed (a small portion) to it, but when put into context, it's pretty insignificant.

In other words, the climatologists of the 70's were right, we're heading toward another ice age...just not for another hundred generations or so. Seriously, are we so arrogant to believe that the 3% (at best) of the worlds surface area that is at fault for producing heavy amounts of CO2, CFCs, and other pollutants has a significant impact on global temperatures? I'm sorry, but I'm just not buying what you're selling.

[Edit: Again, I acknowledge that we should reduce emissions and other harmful factors. However, my argument is that this should be done through research and development, not by regulations.]

No, the IPCC factors in data from ice cores from the last 1000 years as well.

The report also found that

So the climate change we're seeing is not part of a naturally occurring cycle. This is indeed what the scientists in the 70s thought, but they were wrong. We have accurate data on those events, and they do not explain the climate change we observe in recent times.

The facts that the IPCC concludes are that

1. Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
2. Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations

I understand that you accept 1., but your refutation of 2. doesn't make any sense. What surface area of the Earth is covered by human activity (actually 7% to 11%) is not proportionate to the effect humans can have on the climate. In fact,

and


What we are observing is unlike anything that has occured in the last 650,000 years, and human industrial activity since 1750 is the primary cause. This climate change will, with a high degree of confidence, cause irreversible changes in the climate in the next 100 years, if current levels of CO2 output are not drastically cut before 2050.


This is a problem that human activity has caused, and human ingenuity can solve. I agree the solution is technological, it is unrealistic to expect spontaneous lifestyle changes on a massive scale - and it is dubious how much effect it would have if industry and power generation still emits the same levels of CO2. In a capitalist economy, the only way to encourage certain behaviour is by financial incentives - and so a carbon tax would disincentivise CO2 emissions and generate income to fund alternate technologies. Some implementation of carbon-capture-and-storage may be necessary in the short-term, but it is no long-term solution.

The problem of anthropogenic climate change is real and immediate. If you don't want to believe that, then that's your problem. Fortunately, governments are not listening to climate change deniers - yet are still struggling to form any international agreement on action at anything beyond a snail's pace. In the next 50 years, when lifestyle change is forced upon you by the effects of climate change then governments will be forced to act. By which time, it may be too late.

I certainly hope I'm wrong. I certainly hope the IPCC is wrong. I certainly hope that thousands of scientists across the world are all simultaneously wrong. History teaches us that this sort of hope is foolish.

We could cover the oceans with a green algae mat that would suck the CO2 out of the air, and store it on the see bed in oil deposits!

It's how we got rid of the CO2 in the first place, right?

(1300)

That's still only 13% of the 10,000yr warming half of the cycle. Why not all of it? Why only look at part of the picture?