Do man-made global warming 'skeptics' believe humans haven't increased atmospheric CO2?
We've already had several 'skeptics' on YA claim that the greenhouse effect doesn't exist.
Recently in another question, a 'skeptic' claimed that "man has nothing to do with the tiny wee bit of extra CO2 in the atmosphere, and is powerless to change it." Of course, this ignores the scientific evidence proving otherwise:
And to be fair, I know most 'skeptics' accept the basic physics of the greenhouse effect. Do most 'skeptics' also accept the observational data proving that humans have increased the atmospheric CO2 concentration ~37% since the Industrial Revolution?
- bob326Lv 5il y a 1 décennieMeilleure réponse
Last of the moh... said
"Mankind has literally doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere."
"We know CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas"
Do we? Compared to what?
To evans below me:
I would be careful about attacking the idea that CO2 has increased. Mauna Loa measurements agree with hundreds of other reporting stations around the world, including satellites. And they agree fairly well with various proxy studies.
"We have increased the atmospheric CO2 level by an estimated 58,000 ppm"
Oh dave, it's people like you that really give skeptics a bad name. I do not appreciate it.
Crazy conservative said:
"Final point, as CO2m is added, it has a diminishing return on it's ability to absorb heat. This means that eventually, we can add all the CO2 we want and it will have no ability to increase temps."
First part basically correct, second part incorrect.
Eric C said:
"But I am highly sceptical that co2 will act as a positive feedback"
In this case, CO2 isn't a feedback. But even if it was, I don't know why you would be skeptical of the idea that it would be positive.
"I believe we've increased co2 by 100 ppm. That's what I've read. Not a lot of co2 to be raising the temperature of the globe. 100 extra parts? Out of 1,000,000? Seems like an insignificant contributor to me."
Considering CO2 accounts for roughly 10% of the overall greenhouse effect , a 37% increase in concentration should cause warming. Exactly how much it has and will has not been shown conclusively (or remotely close to conclusively).
Come on skeptics, if you are going to argue, at least get the basics right.
- evans_michael_yaLv 6il y a 1 décennie
Oh, I'd say we've increased the results of our atmospheric testing for CO2. Does that count? It helps to plant a testing station on the side of the most active volcano in the world...
Edit (bob326): I never said CO2 levels haven't increased. Historically, CO2 rise has lagged temperature rise by roughly 800 years, give or take. Given the fact Earth has been warming for far longer since the last major Ice Age, I know CO2 levels are on the rise. I simply find the story of Keeling and his Hawaiian monitoring station quite amusing. One man's quest to turn a part-time gig into a life-long career in one of the most beautiful locations in the world...
"What had begun as a temporary job for Keeling was turning into a lifetime career — the first of many careers that scientists would eventually dedicate to climate change. The 1963 funding hiatus was not the last of his problems. To sustain the Mauna Loa observations over the next two decades, he and his supporters had to keep up what one administrator called 'a nontrivial fight.' "
- il y a 1 décennie
Yes we increase the CO2 concentration and yes it is a greenhouse gas. But we emit so very little CO2 compared to the natural concentration as to be irrelevant.
Also , CO2 is such a minor gas. It only absorbs about 8% of light's wavelengths. And of the wavelengths it does absorb, much of them overlap with what water vapor absorbs. Final point, as CO2m is added, it has a diminishing return on it's ability to absorb heat. This means that eventually, we can add all the CO2 we want and it will have no ability to increase temps.
- davemLv 5il y a 1 décennie
We have increased the atmospheric CO2 level by an estimated 58,000 ppm. The rest is natural.
It takes 289,000 ppm. CO2 to raise the temperature one degree. If you don't believe that check it out, it's correct. So our contribution so far has been less than two tenths of a degree. We don't have enough known fossil fuels to burn to make up the other eight tenths and change our climate by one degree.
That's why junk science has blown this all out of proportion. It's why they won't debate it too. They know full well they cannot support their claims. Neither do they care, since it's all political.
- Que pensez-vous des réponses ? Vous pouvez vous connecter afin de voter pour la réponse.
- il y a 1 décennie
I believe we've increased co2 by 100 ppm. That's what I've read. Not a lot of co2 to be raising the temperature of the globe. 100 extra parts? Out of 1,000,000? Seems like an insignificant contributor to me.
- Anonymeil y a 1 décennie
First off, your quoting of "real-climate.org" means you are getting a deliberately and intentionally biased point of view.
For fun, you could actually think about the subject: consider all of the perfectly natural ways C02 is used by plants and released into the atmosphere. Think about oceans full of algae both consuming and dying and releasing C02.
Consider that all of the plants on the earth use C02 as food.
Consider that every bit of foliage of any kind that dies produces c02 as it decomposes.
Consider that the weight of the atmosphere is about 14.5 pounds per cubic foot. (Its weight boggles the mind.) It's 29.1 million tons per square mile or (rounded,) 57.145 quadrillion tons. We are much less than a flea on an elephant's backside. -- .
Then consider how puny in comparison human beings and our activities are. Go to google maps, zoom out to the 20 mile scale on sattelite view and look at how much of the earth there is, compared to what evidence you can see of people. (turn off the map part, and you won't see much.)
Then, since you're clearly concerned about global warming, go look up news articles about the weather for the last year, and notice that virtually the entire world was complaining about colder than normal, and much colder than normal temperatures. It even snowed in Baghdad last year, and there is no one on earth who remembered the last time that happened.
Add that to the fact that global warming true believers are attributing significance to a trace change in a trace element measured downstream from a C02 producing volcano, and... well, it doesn't mean much.Source(s) : http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202... http://www.debunkglobalwarming.info
- eric cLv 5il y a 1 décennie
Yes. I also accept the basic premise that an increase in greenhouse gases will cause temperatures to rise. But that increase even to to IPCC will be about one degree Celsius. But I am highly sceptical that co2 will act as a positive feedback, let alone a strong one, that will cause catastrophic warming. I am also highly sceptical that increases in temperatures will cause more extreme weather events.
- il y a 1 décennie
The human contribution to co2 is actually negligible. The alarmists throw large numbers out there like 186 billion tons a year, but in reality that's around 0.28% of the total greenhouse gas contribution the entire planet gives(all animals and natural gas vents.).
If you want to add human contribution to water vapor, the number goes up to 5.53%
- il y a 1 décennie
well, CO2 levels have definetly increased dramatically, no thanks to mankind. which leads to all the stuff about "saving the world" and "stopping pollution" , which is all really great. exspecially because humans have been really bad to the Earth. But its stupid to say to, stop the greenhouse effect. that effect is the natural fluxuation of the Earth warming and cooling. Acctually, the Eath is coming out of a ice age. But whats bad about global warming now is the rate tht the Earth is warming up, thanks to CO2 levels. thats it u might want to check out : 6 degrees could change the worldSource(s) : school and a realy smart teacher
- KenLv 5il y a 1 décennie
My own casual observance would indicate that 90% of the doubters have given up claiming humans aren't causing the rise in CO2. That was a popular "skeptic" argument in the past, but it would be inconceivable for anyone to expect that claim to be taken seriously any more.
So the retreat position (for those who have some irrational bias against agreeing with the vast majority of climate scientists in the world) is to claim that the rise is too small to have any effect or some unnamed negative feedback will offset the warming.