Dana1981 a posé la question dans EnvironmentGlobal Warming · il y a 1 décennie

AGW doubters - what are your thoughts on atmospheric CO2?

I'm going to ask a series of questions to see what level of science AGW doubters are willing to accept, and where the disagreement comes about. This question is a three-parter.

1) Do you accept that atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased from roughly 280 ppm to 380 ppm over the past 150 years?

2) Do you accept that this increase has been caused mostly by humans burning fossil fuels?

3) Do you accept that atmospheric CO2 concentrations had not prior risen above roughly 280 ppm over the past 600,000 years?

12 réponses

Pertinence
  • bob326
    Lv 5
    il y a 1 décennie
    Meilleure réponse

    "how much co2 equals 1 pane of glass in the rhetorical green house?

    2 or 3 or 5 panes wont make it any hotter than 1."

    First of all, yes it will--ever hear of double pane windows? Second, the greenhouse effect does not work like a real greenhouse, which warms by preventing convection.

    1) Yes

    2) Yes (also due in part to land use changes)

    3) Yes

    But I am more in the less-certain-about-the-whole- IPCC-90%-and-need-better- quantification-of- uncertainties group than an AGW doubter. I just had to correct the statement above.

  • Mikira
    Lv 5
    il y a 1 décennie

    1.) Yes, I agree that atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased by about 100 PPM over the last 150 or so years.

    2.) No I feel "the mostly by burning fossil fuels" part is more like an ad to make people want to move away from using fossil fuels. I feel it's more a combination of a lot of factors such as: Cutting down forests without replacing them - this is now being addressed with good forestry practices, but we still have a problem with cutting down the rain forest to plant bio-fuel crops. When the ocean heat up they give off more CO2 then they absorb and I also read that desserts do that too. There is even a possibility that volcanoes are more active in recent years than they were in the past, but that ones harder to know for sure, since it took humans a long time to figure out how many Volcanoes were even on are lovely little planet. So no not just burning of fossil fuels.

    3.) No, since we weren't around back then, to measure it, to know that beyond a shadow of a doubt.

  • il y a 4 ans

    The temperature would drop considerably and the glaciers would be on the march again. Ottawa would be buried under ice within 20 years after the passing of "thermostat laws". Nobody seems to want to acknowledge the fact that the entirety of recorded human history has been lived during an interglacial period of an ice age. Reduce CO2 emissions and the planet gets that much colder. It's a delicate balance, and one that is tipping towards too much CO2 and has been for some time now. Our efforts at industry warm the planet and keep us comfortable, but we are going too far with it. Jack down the emissions just enough, but not too much. Either way, we cannot keep the ice from coming back. It is inevitable.

  • il y a 1 décennie

    1-yes

    2- probably

    3-very rough estimation. possibly true but it has most certainly been higher over longer time scales.

    are you familiar with the "stacking effect" in regard to atmospheric co2 concentrations.?

    how much co2 equals 1 pane of glass in the rhetorical green house?

    2 or 3 or 5 panes wont make it any hotter than 1.

    your obsession with only co2 means you have a one trick pony. & a very small one.

  • Que pensez-vous des réponses ? Vous pouvez vous connecter afin de voter pour la réponse.
  • Anonyme
    il y a 1 décennie

    I'm glad you're using the term "doubters" now -- it shows more sensitivity on your part than lumping doubters/skeptics with blatant deniers -- but perhaps you're not doing anyone a favor by pulling CO2 out of the GCC equation. Assessing the impacts of increased CO2 is a complex process, the science is obtuse, the concept of AGW, apparently, threatening to the dedicated and vocal crowd of doubters and deniers that swims in the waters that are Yahoo. This would be a good question to polish and use in other forums, where you might get an array of thoughtful, insightful answers.

    There are many links I could provide that explain the scenarios associated with increased CO2 in the atmosphere and the nature of greenhouse gases and why industrial levels over time leads to climate change. I've showed them before. You have too, others have as well. Most fade away from the site, disgusted, having exhausted their patience.

    This crowd ain't budging to save our lives. You can quibble with the phrasing til hell freezes over, but this group of "doubters" won't provide the details that allow them to refute the science and overwhelming body of evidence that has been amassed to support the theory of AGW.

    Good questions, all, worthy of serious answers, not chump change.

  • Anonyme
    il y a 1 décennie

    Well how about a document that is strictly about Co2 and how it works with lots of charts and formulas well explained so the believers can correct their faulty calculations. This is a rather large PowerPoint presentation of about 6.5mg done for use in university lectures on geology, climatology oceanography and chemistry.

    http://www.co2web.info/whatisco2.pps

    For other university level materials on these subjects regarding Co2 and its interactions in the environment see the main web page for published peer reviewed materials.

    http://www.co2web.info/

  • Anonyme
    il y a 1 décennie

    1) Thought is was more like 200 years but ballpark, yes.

    2) Probably.

    3) Probably.

    The disconnect is that it's been warmer, for other multi-century periods, and almost as warm, for other multi-century periods, within the last 10,000 years much less the last 600,000, and we don't know what caused most of those periods but since, as you point out, CO2 levels were lower, we know it wasn't CO2.

    So we don't know that what caused those other warm periods isn't what caused this one.

    That doesn't mean that it necessarily ISN'T CO2 this time - just that we can't infer that it is.

    And that inference is the entire case for AGW.

  • il y a 1 décennie

    Hey you skeptics.. Are you saying that CO2 is not efficient at retaining heat??? Cause I can tell you a very simple experiment that can disprove that assumption... All you need is 3 beakers, 3 themometers, a big flask, a UV lamp, some baking soda, and some vinegar... Let me know if you want the details. You should find that CO2 is extremely efficient at retaining heat. I remember something like a 20 degrees difference from regular air in a 20 minute period... Of course I don't think most skeptics do all these experiments and learn the science, otherwise you might not be so skeptic?

  • eric c
    Lv 5
    il y a 1 décennie

    1)No

    2) No

    3) No

    "Historical air analysis by chemical means does not support a

    pre-industrial CO2-concentration of 285 ppm (IPCC), as

    modern climatology postulates. In contrast, the average in the

    19th century in the northern hemisphere is 321 ppm and in the

    20th century, it is 338 ppm."

    "Today's CO2 value of 380 ppm has appeared several times in the

    last 200 years — in the 20th century around 1942 and before 1870 in the 19th century. The maximum CO2-concentration in the 20th century rose to over 420 ppm in 1942."

    "Accurate measurements of CO2 air gas contents had been done from 1857 by chemical methods with a maximum systematic error of 3%. These results were ignored in reconstructing the CO2-concentration of air in the modern warm period."

    http://www.biomind.de/nogreenhouse/daten/AIGnewsNo... (page six)

    See also

    http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2_supp.htm

    If you think that there is something wrong with his analysis see the part that says "papers that support my findings"

    Analysis as to why measurements using ice cores to determine historic co2 values are inaccurate

    http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/zjmar07.pdf

  • Anonyme
    il y a 1 décennie

    For myself I look at trend lines-vs-growth rates. Dam_ ain't nothing like a curve ball. Explain it all you want, I'm all ears.

    ed: First rule of strategics, don't play the other persons game.

Vous avez d’autres questions ? Pour obtenir des réponses, posez vos questions dès maintenant.