H2FC

Ok, you've made your point very clearly so please allow me to make mine. Co2 and warming trends are very complicated and not easily explained or understood. Gore was technically right in his slideshow even tho he didn't explain the co2/warming relationship as well as he could or maybe should have. He was more concerned with explaining the greenhouse effect and co2 as it relates to average global warming.

As to which comes first, its a mute question....actually it depends on where or what part of the earth you are questioning as to which comes first. In other words in some places such as at tropical ocean depths the heat would come before the co2 and vice versa in the north pole area at sea level. The main thing to understand is the co2 level in the atmosphere. Co2 is measured in PPM in relation to the atmosphere and the PPC has risen at an alarming rate in the past 150 years and especially within the last 30 or so years. Its now at 385 ppm which is the highest level in the last 650,000 years. I believe (without looking it up) it has risen over 100 ppm since our industrial revolution began. This is obviously (and has been proven) due to mankind burning fossil fuels for energy and recklessly dumping the carbon produced into our atmosphere. I don't think this is in dispute by ANY climate scientist. Its predicted that if this is allowed to continue the co2 ppm will be over 450 by 2050. That will cause our temperatures to rise to unbearable levels and cause the north and south pole ice caps to melt to the extent we will have flooding of coastal areas worldwide. We simply cannot allow this to happen.

I urge all who question what I've posted here to go to http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...-temp-and-co2/ and read all the supporting and referenced links as well. There is a lot of detail concerning this issue...please take the time to read and study it...

__________________
Each day we dump over 70 million tons of co2 pollution into our thin shell atmosphere from burning fossil fuels. This cannot continue.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/tr..._data_mlo.html

tas38

You can help the polar bears, by signing this petition that says...

"Mr. Secretary, please ensure that the polar bear gains the protection of the Endangered Species Act today."

Please sign it at the link below, talk and opions are a dime a 12 pack, but signing your name adds your voice to do some good....

http://www.wecansolveit.org/page/s/polarbears

Edited In:

We been over this stuff many times in these threads, people don't seen to under stand simple things or they under stand them just fine. But their own opion matters much more, it's very clear this is beyond anything the normal. Temps have rised way to fast for it to be normal, no one claims it's all humans nor that we will be wipped out in a year or so. You talk about the 70's when lots less was known by excperts, the world has come along ways since then.

You need to get real here and start looking at the techs used, by experts that they know all this stuff. There is experts around the world studying man made global warming, all the gov'ts are studying it as well. This was not the case in the 70's was it, nor did they have all this new techs and experts working together then. Sharing all the info they collect and learn with each other, they are miles and miles ahead these days.

CO2 gas warming the earth is a fact now, and that whole you was talking about is very much bigger now as well. The people saying this is normal seem to not be up with the times, saying this like humans can;t control the weather. But they know there some many nukes, that they could wipe every living thing on earth many times easy. They are not the weak nukes we drop on WW2 anymore, the new ones make them look like toys.

They don't got slow computers that take up hole buildings anymore, they got super super computers that take up whole buildings. The crunch billions and billions of bits of data per hour, NASA's super super computer showed how everything was made from the big bang even. How the moon was made, the size and speed of the hit on earth to made the moon. They creaked the human DNA code as well, meaning they can make designer humans and all.

They we be able to make people lives a few 200 years in a short time, the cost is slowing this down now. They may well wipe you most sickness that kills people, with in a few 100 years if not sooner again cost is holding them back. They will soon be able to clone body parts from peoples own DNA, again cost is holding this stuff back. And people yelling we are playing god, but that will not stop the next gen from doing it.

The bush admin has pushed these things way back many years, but that will not stop it as it only slowed it down. But talking as if we are in the stone age, and can't even know if humans are warming the earth is silly at best. The facts have shown out this is the case, it does not mean other things are not playing a role in it. They are wipping out trees and land, trash and using up resources like their no tomorrow is playing a big role.

Some if we wipe out 60% of the wild life, what will replace it and what will that mean to us. Will we lease a virus that can wipe out the human race, before we can stop it or even know we got it in time. What kind of life could rise, along with the CO2 levels and the earths temps. What could be released in the ice caps, that we don't know about or that could mutate into a human killing machine. We just don't know this stuff, and it may be to late by the time we do.

__________________
Free Arcade Games http://www.ProGamester.com/

GoPC

Statements and conclusions like these:

You both CLEARLY believe that Co2 drives Temperature and base your entire hypothosis on that fact. If Co2 drives temp and it continues to rise, the earth will warm.

Problem is, it DOESN'T.

I appreciate that you boiled the entire argument down to that one single premise and this is the issue that I have with it. The premise is false. Therefore, every conclusion to draw from that premise is speculative theory at best.

Which comes first is NOT a moot question. It is THE question.

And that is my point.

GoPC

H2FC

GoPC...you obviously did not read the info on the url I posted above about Co2/GW relationship but maybe you were unable to pull it up so I will paste it here. You have based your entire opposition to the MMGW truths on your MIS-interpretation of this information. The very least you can do is read and study it. There are many clickable referenced links throughout the article so you will have to pull up the original story to get them. Go to this website and click on the second article on that page. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/

The lag between temperature and CO2
Eric Steig

When I give talks about climate change, the question that comes up most frequently is this: “Doesn’t the relationship between CO2 and temperature in the ice core record show that temperature drives CO2, not the other way round?"

On the face of it, it sounds like a reasonable question. It is no surprise that it comes up because it is one of the most popular claims made by the global warming deniers. It got a particularly high profile airing a couple of weeks ago, when congressman Joe Barton brought it up to try to discredit Al Gore’s congressional testimony. Barton said:

In your movie, you display a timeline of temperature and compared to CO2 levels over a 600,000-year period as reconstructed from ice core samples. You indicate that this is conclusive proof of the link of increased CO2 emissions and global warming. A closer examination of these facts reveals something entirely different. I have an article from Science magazine which I will put into the record at the appropriate time that explains that historically, a rise in CO2 concentrations did not precede a rise in temperatures, but actually lagged temperature by 200 to 1,000 years. CO2 levels went up after the temperature rose. The temperature appears to drive CO2, not vice versa. On this point, Mr. Vice President, you’re not just off a little. You’re totally wrong.

Of course, those who've been paying attention will recognize that Gore is not wrong at all. This subject has been very well addressed in numerous places. Indeed, guest contributor Jeff Severinghaus addressed this in one of our very first RealClimate posts, way back in 2004. Still, the question does keep coming up, and Jeff recently received a letter asking about this. His exchange with the letter writer is reproduced in full at the end of this post. Below is my own take on the subject.

First of all, saying "historically" is misleading, because Barton is actually talking about CO2 changes on very long (glacial-interglacial) timescales. On historical timescales, CO2 has definitely led, not lagged, temperature. But in any case, it doesn't really matter for the problem at hand (global warming). We know why CO2 is increasing now, and the direct radiative effects of CO2 on climate have been known for more than 100 years. In the absence of human intervention CO2 does rise and fall over time, due to exchanges of carbon among the biosphere, atmosphere, and ocean and, on the very longest timescales, the lithosphere (i.e. rocks, oil reservoirs, coal, carbonate rocks). The rates of those exchanges are now being completely overwhelmed by the rate at which we are extracting carbon from the latter set of reservoirs and converting it to atmospheric CO2. No discovery made with ice cores is going to change those basic facts.

Second, the idea that there might be a lag of CO2 concentrations behind temperature change (during glacial-interglacial climate changes) is hardly new to the climate science community. Indeed, Claude Lorius, Jim Hansen and others essentially predicted this finding fully 17 years ago, in a landmark paper that addressed the cause of temperature change observed in Antarctic ice core records, well before the data showed that CO2 might lag temperature. In that paper (Lorius et al., 1990), they say that:

changes in the CO2 and CH4 content have played a significant part in the glacial-interglacial climate changes by amplifying, together with the growth and decay of the Northern Hemisphere ice sheets, the relatively weak orbital forcing
What is being talked about here is influence of the seasonal radiative forcing change from the earth's wobble around the sun (the well established Milankovitch theory of ice ages), combined with the positive feedback of ice sheet albedo (less ice = less reflection of sunlight = warmer temperatures) and greenhouse gas concentrations (higher temperatures lead to more CO2 leads to warmer temperatures). Thus, both CO2 and ice volume should lag temperature somewhat, depending on the characteristic response times of these different components of the climate system. Ice volume should lag temperature by about 10,000 years, due to the relatively long time period required to grow or shrink ice sheets. CO2 might well be expected to lag temperature by about 1000 years, which is the timescale we expect from changes in ocean circulation and the strength of the "carbon pump" (i.e. marine biological photosynthesis) that transfers carbon from the atmosphere to the deep ocean.

Several recent papers have indeed established that there is lag of CO2 behind temperature. We don't really know the magnitude of that lag as well as Barton implies we do, because it is very challenging to put CO2 records from ice cores on the same timescale as temperature records from those same ice cores, due to the time delay in trapping the atmosphere as the snow is compressed into ice (the ice at any time will always be older than the gas bubbles it encloses, and the age difference is inherently uncertain). Still, the best published calculations do show values similar to those quoted by Barton (presumably, taken from this paper by Monnin et al. (2001), or this one by Caillon et al. (2003)). But the calculations can only be done well when the temperature change is large, notably at glacial terminations (the gradual change from cold glacial climate to warm interglacial climate). Importantly, it takes more than 5000 years for this change to occur, of which the lag is only a small fraction (indeed, one recently submitted paper I'm aware of suggests that the lag is even less than 200 years). So it is not as if the temperature increase has already ended when CO2 starts to rise. Rather, they go very much hand in hand, with the temperature continuing to rise as the the CO2 goes up. In other words, CO2 acts as an amplifier, just as Lorius, Hansen and colleagues suggested.

Now, it there is a minor criticism one might level at Gore for his treatment of this subject in the film (as we previously pointed out in our review). As it turns out though, correcting this would actually further strengthen Gore's case, rather than weakening it. Here's why:

The record of temperature shown in the ice core is not a global record. It is a record of local Antarctic temperature change. The rest of the globe does indeed parallel the polar changes closely, but the global mean temperature changes are smaller. While we don't know precisely why the CO2 changes occur on long timescales, (the mechanisms are well understood; the details are not), we do know that explaining the magnitude of global temperature change requires including CO2. This is a critical point. We cannot explain the temperature observations without CO2. But CO2 does not explain all of the change, and the relationship between temperature and CO2 is therefore by no means linear. That is, a given amount of CO2 increase as measured in the ice cores need not necessarily correspond with a certain amount of temperature increase. Gore shows the strong parallel relationship between the temperature and CO2 data from the ice cores, and then illustrates where the CO2 is now (384 ppm), leaving the viewer's eye to extrapolate the temperature curve upwards in parallel with the rising CO2. Gore doesn't actually make the mistake of drawing the temperature curve, but the implication is obvious: temperatures are going to go up a lot. But as illustrated in the figure below, simply extrapolating this correlation forward in time puts the Antarctic temperature in the near future somewhere upwards of 10 degrees Celsius warmer than present — rather at the extreme end of the vast majority of projections (as we have discussed here).

Global average temperature is lower during glacial periods for two primary reasons:
1) there was only about 190 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere, and other major greenhouse gases (CH4 and N2O) were also lower
2) the earth surface was more reflective, due to the presence of lots of ice and snow on land, and lots more sea ice than today (that is, the albedo was higher).
As very nicely discussed by Jim Hansen in his recent Scientific American article, the second of these two influences is the larger, accounting for about 2/3 of the total radiative forcing. CO2 and other greenhouse gases account for the other 1/3. Again, this was all pretty well known in 1990, at the time of the Lorius et al. paper cited above.

What Gore should have done is extrapolated the temperature curve according this the appropriate scaling — with CO2 accounting for about 1/3 of the total change — instead of letting the audience do it by eye. Had he done so, he would have drawn a line that went up only 1/3 of the distance implied by the simple correlation with CO2 shown by the ice core record. This would have left the impression that equilibrium warming of Antarctica due to doubled CO2 concentrations should be about 3 °C, in very good agreement with what is predicted by the state-of-the-art climate models. (It is to be noted that the same models predict a significant delay until equilibrium is reached, due to the large heat capacity of the Southern ocean. This is in very good agreement with the data, which show very modest warming over Antarctica in the last 100 years). Then, if you scale the Antarctic temperature change to a global temperature change, then the global climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 becomes 2-3 degrees C, perfectly in line with the climate sensitivity given by IPCC (and known from Arrhenius's calculations more than 100 years ago).

In summary, the ice core data in no way contradict our understanding of the relationship between CO2 and temperature, and there is nothing fundamentally wrong with what Gore says in the film. Indeed, Gore could have used the ice core data to make an additional and stronger point, which is that these data provide a nice independent test of climate sensitivity, which gives a result in excellent agreement with results from models.

A final point. In Barton's criticism of Gore he also points out that CO2 has sometimes been much higher than it is at present. That is true. CO2 may have reached levels of 1000 parts per million (ppm) — perhaps much higher — at times in the distant geological past (e.g. the Eocene, about 55 million years ago). What Barton doesn't bother to mention is that the earth was much much warmer at such times. In any case, more relevant is that CO2 has not gone above about 290 ppm any time in the last 650,000 years (at least), until the most recent increase, which is unequivocally due to human activities.

__________________
Each day we dump over 70 million tons of co2 pollution into our thin shell atmosphere from burning fossil fuels. This cannot continue.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/tr..._data_mlo.html

GoPC

That information is very well crafted, to be sure. Several things stand out though...

First of all, the casual dismissal of relevant data that is simply not understood or that doesn't support the opposing theory. The clear admission that the data was interpreted and delivered incorrectly even though the writer of this interpretation feels the general direction is correct.

The idea that despite the continual and factual findings that Co2 has been, in every case, found to follow an increase in temperature, the only truly supporting idea is that once the temperature begins to rise, that Co2 might actually amplify the process... but simply never answers the question on whether or not Co2 actually CAUSED it in the first place.

For example, one group of scientists explain that the ocean absorbs a great amount of Co2 and as the temperatures increase due to solar and earth orbit fluctuations, the oceans release this trapped Co2 into the atmosphere easily accounting for the increased amounts of Co2 in the atmosphere.

Other scientists further explain the effect of the "wobble" mentioned above is visually present in the fact that while the Northern Polar Cap are receding somewhat, the Southern Polar Cap are at there largest in recent documented measurements. This is simply due to the fact that due to the current angle of the Earth, the Northern Polar Cap are far more exposed to the Sun's Heat than usual while the Southern Cap is shrouded in shadows more than usual. Interestingly enough, the Continental United States and all countries in the Northern Hemisphere are also being exposed to more direct Sunlight, heat and flares as well.

Of all the theories flying about regarding explanations of temperature fluctuations, this makes the most sense to me and coupled with the fact that the oceans are releasing added Co2 content as well and the added fact that this all coincides with the historical evidence, I can see NO reason to assume or conclude that what is happening currently is anything more that COMPLETELY NORMAL and cyclical.

Any other hypothesis is pure conjecture and speculation. It is absolutely relevant to clarify whether or not your conclusions are drawn on Co2 creating the warming trend. Because in arguing that an increased level of Co2 might, MIGHT, amplify the results... it certainly does not state that it was the CAUSE.

I'm also wondering why if science agrees that the atmosphere at one point was at 1000 ppm, then what happened to return things to "normal" and why that level of Co2 didn't continue amplifying the results?

I'm pretty sure the fact that Barton didn't bother mentioning that the temperature was warmer during the 1000 ppm period of time, was because his conclusion was that the temperature was the CAUSE of the 1000 ppm of Co2 in the atmosphere at that time.

So in short, that bit of creative literature simply creates more questions. Nothing more.

Thank you though, for the information. It is intriguing.

GoPC

tas38

( I can see NO reason to assume or conclude that what is happening currently is anything more that COMPLETELY NORMAL and cyclical. )

Gopc you seem to miss the fact that we know CO2 is a green house gas, and that the warming is now out side of everything that could be normal. As it's happen in way to short of time, and if we had 1000 ppm of CO2 levels we would be done for. So we can not let them go that high now can we, and you also forget that the models projected things humans could not. Like where and how much the SEA's would warm, the models nailed it right on the money no human could of guess that.

You seem to dismiss all this common sense stuff, well when you add all this up together it's a slam dunk. People can debate many things and stand their ground, but it's plain foolish to debate the way you are. You debate CO2 is not a green house gas out of one hand, while with the other use the fact it is a green house gas to prove it's not. Do you, see how foolish that is ???

To put is very simple, do you be leave CO2 is a green house gas or not ???

Now if you do it's simple more CO2 in the air, will make the earth warmer it's that simple. And if you don't be leave it's green house gas, then you need to go back to the EPA's kids site and study it some more to you under stand it is.

__________________
Free Arcade Games http://www.ProGamester.com/

HarveyJ

Err, we have a freakin' huge hole in the ozone.
It just happens to be in the Southern hemisphere (don't know why, it just is).
Seriously, you cannot go outside for an extended duration in Australia during the daytime and not get burnt unless you're wearing SPF15+... Even overcast days will still burn you from time to time.
Considering that the NSW climate is not so different from L.A.s, I'd like to hear an explanation as to that one.


[/offtopic]
*goes back to looking at purple things*

rusty123

You can argue the points of CO2 till the cows come home. In the end the Earth is still going to heat up, and cool down as it always does, and always has.

There needs to be a shift from the climate change, Global warming hype proper gander. Back to the real issues of stop polluting and craping up the environment, the air we breathe, destroying the ozone layer.

Stop wasting millions, and millions of dollars trying to convince people about man made global warming, with evidence that is so flimsy, you can poke a stick through it. And start spending the money on finding clean renewable sources of energy, planting trees, getting rid of pollution. Abolishing all ozone depletion products.

Raider

Well said, I agree with you on all points..... The hype is the driving force behind the money, the more hype, the more profits, The media is even cashing in on it, Not to mention how many people directly involved in GW would be out of jobs if Global Warming were to end today....

Global Warming is a money making machine based on a lot of hype and Al Gore's "Junk Science".


It's posts like these that are a prime example of why you guys get picked on... I think your free pass is going to expire sooner than you think.

__________________
Biden endorses John McCain

H2FC

[quote][quote=Raider;1449288] If you think you're seeing a lot of MMGW news and events now then just wait....you ain't seen nothing yet!! The awareness movement is growing leaps and bounds with over 68% of the people in the USA now saying mankind is directly responsible for our climate change from burning fossil fuels. Your support and numbers in the naysaying skeptic group is dwindling fast as more people learn the truth and turn away from the sheep mentality.


Yes, you are right...68% of us who know and support the truth are being "picked" on by the 32% who choose to ignore the truth and follow their heros such as Goofball Bush, Lurking Dick Cheney, Dope Head Rush Limbaugh, Idiot Glenn Beck, and other paid for talking heads who blast the MMGW truth. I think the term "insulted by idiots" would be a much better description than being "picked on".

Here's the latest Al Gore slide show on MMGW for your educational benefit. http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/243

__________________
Each day we dump over 70 million tons of co2 pollution into our thin shell atmosphere from burning fossil fuels. This cannot continue.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/tr..._data_mlo.html

fab

Yep, agree totally. We need to stop thinking "green" like Al Gore, i.e, laughing all the way to the bank, and start thinking green like doing something.

__________________
Text Link Ads WhyPark.com - Stop Parking Your Domains. Credit Card Encyclopedia

H2FC

A Matter Of Degrees

As the evidence of global warming has mounted, many international policymakers and members of Congress have focused on the goal of halting worldwide temperatures from rising more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, which would require a global cut in greenhouse gases of at least 80 percent by 2050.

Living in denser communities that put people close to their places of work would have a significant effect on emissions. The primary source of greenhouse gases is carbon dioxide, and every gallon of gas burned produces about 20 pounds of CO2.

Living in multi-unit residences, rather than detached homes, also conserves energy. Multi-unit residences result in 30 to 60 percent less greenhouse-gas emissions than isolated houses, according to the Energy Department, because they use less energy for heating and cooling. -- Juliet Eilperin
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...050301081.html

NOTE For those who claim manmade co2 is not a problem please understand that when you read anything talking about "CUTTING" co2 they are talking about MANMADE CO2....we cannot "cut" the natural co2, manmade co2 is the only one we have any control over. Some skeptics appear to have a problem understanding that. I hope this helps.

Watch the latest Al Gore slide show on MMGW here. http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/243

__________________
Each day we dump over 70 million tons of co2 pollution into our thin shell atmosphere from burning fossil fuels. This cannot continue.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/tr..._data_mlo.html

000

Will MMGW spokespeople, policymakers and hangers on be moving to dense multi-unit residences? That would be nice. Every little bit helps. Once colocated they could easily assemble with like minded comrades to write policies and procedures without dissent. They could convince displaced natives to clear nearby fields by hand, grow food and fuel crops, and prepare healthy meals of root vegetables. Disintegrate family units and reeducate the youths. Nationalize industry. Organize work parties and assign labor tasks to unemployed capitalists and other enemies of the state. Close freeways and convert them to migratory trails for hooved animals. Less is more. Warm is bad. Ice is nice. Which reminds me, a belated happy May Day to all the DNF commies*.

* no dot

H2FC