Anthropogenic Climate Change Contribution

[stigma15]

Okay, to start with, I know there are probably other threads that cover this topic. However, I couldn't find one that dealt specifically with my question.

I think it is plausible that anthropogenic global warming is occurring, but can someone explain (or point me toward an explanation) of how anthropogenic greenhouse gases (which account for less than 5% of Earth's greenhouse effect) can cause such radical climate change?

To me, it seems that mankind's carbon emission contribution should be directly proportional to the warming that it's causing. But warming is much greater than one would suspect simply taking into account anthropogenic GH gases.

Is it that our current temperate climate is sort of a greenhouse "sweet spot", and that even a small amount of GH gases (say an extra 2ppm per year of CO2) throws it off balance and causes warming at alarming rates?

[Ara Pacis]

It's not much different than how a human lit match can burn down a whole forest of trees: Feedback mechanisms.

[novaderrik]

it's all my fault.. i have a tv on in the background right now, a few lights turned on (none of which are compact flourescents), and i like to drive old gas guzzling cars.

[novaderrik]

It's not much different than how a human lit match can burn down a whole forest of trees: Feedback mechanisms.
that sounds like something that would be said on an episode of Star Trek to explain a very complicated scientific problem in one easily digestible sentence.

i like it.

[Ronald Brak]

I think it is plausible that anthropogenic global warming is occurring, but can someone explain (or point me toward an explanation) of how anthropogenic greenhouse gases (which account for less than 5% of Earth's greenhouse effect) can cause such radical climate change?

The earth's total greenhouse effect it about 33 degrees. That is, without any greenhouse gases, the earth would be about 33 degree colder. So the small amount that humans have increased the greenhouse effect by is sufficient to account for all the warming the earth has experienced over the past 100 years (0.74 +/- 0.18 degrees). And it only takes a small temperature increase to cause radical changes, especially when the temperture increase occurs very rapidly, as it is now.

[cshores]

I'm glad to see that not everyone has glibly swallowed the "global warming is all our fault" theory hook, line & sinker. Still, we should conserve resources as much as possible. That works much better than "buying carbon credits" for one of Al Gore's mansions. Cheaper too.

[Neverfly]

I'm glad to see that not everyone has glibly swallowed the "global warming is all our fault" theory hook, line & sinker.

I think we are partly responsible.
The CO2 evidence cannot be denied.

however, I think full responsibility gives us Way Too Much Credit...

[lomiller1]

With no atmosphere planets behave roughly as blackbodies. With an atmosphere IR photons on the way out hit greenhouse gas molecules keeping their energy trapped, which raise the planets temperature. The earth is ~33 deg C above its blackbody temperature, so the total greenhouse effect is ~33 deg.

The reason only certain gasses platy a role is that to have an effect you need to have an absorption band that overlaps with the blackbody temperature of the earth. The primary gasses that do (by total effect) are Water vapor and CO2 and to a lesser extent Ozone and Methane. Of these water vapor is by far the most common, but it’s also weaker “pound for pound”, and just to complicate matters the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is a function of temperature.

CO2 by itself accounts for about 25% of the total greenhouse effect and humans are directly responsible for ~40% of the CO2 currently in the atmosphere. We’ve actually released nearly twice that much, but thus far the oceans have been able to absorb a lot of what we emit.

Unfortunately the oceans ability to hold CO2 decreases as they warm up, so that can’t continue indefinitely. A second unfortunate problem is that the amount of water vapor in the air is a direct function of air temperature. Warm (or cool) the planet for any reason and water vapor will increase (or decrease) to create even more warming (or cooling). While not nearly strong enough to create a runaway condition water vapor feedback will amplify any warming/cooling influence to the tune of 2X – 3X. Water vapor feedback is one of the main reasons comparatively tiny changes in the Sun’s output can have an effect on the earth’s climate.

On the fortunate side, even though total warming from CO2 is ~8 deg, doubling CO2 doesn’t double the total warming. The best current estimates say that every time you double CO2 you create 3 deg of warming, but some estimates place this as high as 4.5 deg once long term feedback is accounted for.

[HenrikOlsen]

Of these water vapor is by far the most common, but it’s also weaker “pound for pound”, and just to complicate matters the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is a function of temperature.
And at high concentrations where it condenses to clouds, it blocks incoming sunlight thus making the net effect negative, for even more complication in modeling the effect.

[GOURDHEAD]

CO2 by itself accounts for about 25% of the total greenhouse effect and humans are directly responsible for ~40% of the CO2 currently in the atmosphere. We’ve actually released nearly twice that much, but thus far the oceans have been able to absorb a lot of what we emit. What is the source of these data? I've read that 90% of the greenhouse effect is from water and that most of the remaining 10% is from CO2 with some small fraction of the total CO2 being reasonably attributable to human activity. I believe that each set of data is likely an overstatement favoring the views of the respective source. How can a layman evaluate the accuracy of such assertions?

[HenrikOlsen]

You're right that a large part of the effect is from water, but that's the part that defines the baseline, since water is essentially in an equilibrium determined by the current temperature.
To simplify, if you add more water vapor you'll get more rain and the water is gone again, but if you raise the temperature it takes more water vapor before it rains so the temperature drives the concentration rather than the other way.

This means that people trying to figure out what causes changes in temperature will mostly ignore the water vapor and focus on the rest of the greenhouse gasses such as CO2 and methane, while people who're trying to push the idea that humans have very little effect will include water vapor, since that'll make the numbers for the anthropogenic part look much smaller.

[Ara Pacis]

How can a layman evaluate the accuracy of such assertions?

They can't. That's why you have to trust the scientists or become one.

[peteshimmon]

I have posted before my suggesion that
ships propellors are causing a small amount
of damage to the plankton in the seas. They
are important in removing CO2 I understand.

[InAwe]

ships propellors are causing a small amount
of damage to the plankton in the seas. They
are important in removing CO2 I understand.
Of course, you must also realize that plankton are consumed in enormous quantities by larger fauna. (They're the bottom of the food chain, after all.) Unless there is evidence to support the effect of ship propellers being significant, I would assume the reproductive capacity of the plankton is more than sufficient to compensate for such loss.

In general, I think feedback mechanisms, both compensating actions, such as growth and reproduction of living organisms, and reinforcing actions such as changes in reflectivity with ice surface area, or the increase in total quantity of greenhouse gases with rising temperature, makes modeling the effects of climate change quite difficult.

Another source of uncertainty may be transparency of the atmosphere to solar radiation. There is at least some evidence that particulate pollution, both directly and because it can lead to more and smaller droplets of water in clouds, is causing a significant reduction in the amount of sunlight reaching the earth's surface. If true, the rate of global temperature increase could actually be lower than it otherwise would be, and efforts underway to reduce particulate pollution (largely for improved health) could increase the rate of warming. (Ironically, human activity - even pollution - has its own compensatory effects!)

To me, the biggest question mark in the entire debate is the predictive value of our models, and I'm concerned when extraneous issues get in the way of frank discussion of the state of our knowledge and the implications of the real uncertainties in the predictions. The entire focus seems to be on finding any evidence that supports a less severe problem, rather than on the entire range of uncertainty, including the possibility that the situation might be much worse than current models predict.

I recall a comment from a geologist following the eruption of Mt. St. Helens. Essentially, he said that one of the lessons learned was that the effects of a catastrophic event can be far worse than the "worst case" scenario.

[InAwe]

For more on loss of solar heating by increased reflectivity of the earth's atmosphere see, for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming
(Just in case my posts are still being monitored if they contain links.)

[Ronald Brak]

The effects of clouds are certainly complex because they both reflect heat into space and reflect it back down to earth. Lower altitude "fluffy" cumulus clouds generally have a greater cooling than warming effect, as they on average reflect more heat into space than back to earth, while high altitude cirrius tend to have a warming effect as the ice crystals they are made of tend to let solar energy pass through but block infrared energy from getting out. The time of day that clouds form also has an effect as they only warm at night as there is no incoming sunlight to reflect. And if the clouds are brown like over China they reflect less sunlight.

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/aug2007/2007-08-01-02.asp

[lomiller1]

I have posted before my suggesion that
ships propellors are causing a small amount
of damage to the plankton in the seas. They
are important in removing CO2 I understand.

Oceans have been a significant net absorber of human CO2 emissions. The 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 since the industrial revolution only accounts for about 1/2 of the CO2 humans have emitted by burning fossil fuels. The rest has been absorbed by the oceans.

[GOURDHEAD]

They can't. That's why you have to trust the scientists or become one.Are you saying that the scientists have such a poor understanding of the problem that they can't put together a coherently logical story that the rest of us could be sufficiently informed to choose between alternative views?

[dmr81]

Are you saying that the scientists have such a poor understanding of the problem that they can't put together a coherently logical story that the rest of us could be sufficiently informed to choose between alternative views?
The consensus view among climate scientists is summarised in the IPCC reports. Their latest summary report is here (http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-syr.htm).

[Torsten]

What is the source of these data? I've read that 90% of the greenhouse effect is from water and that most of the remaining 10% is from CO2 with some small fraction of the total CO2 being reasonably attributable to human activity. I believe that each set of data is likely an overstatement favoring the views of the respective source. How can a layman evaluate the accuracy of such assertions?

Hi Gourdhead: I'm a layman in this field, but I believe it is possible for us to get a good sense around what I bolded in your quote above. I posted the following on this board not long ago and it directly addresses that:

Between 1900 and 2002, human activity has released 1,027,063,000,000 tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere, according to this source (http://earthtrends.wri.org/text/climate-atmosphere/variable-779.html). This is 1,027 billion tonnes.

In 1900, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 was 297 ppm (rounded), according to ice core data from Law Dome (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/lawdome.combined.dat). I used the 75 year smoothed figure from the bottom of the list. The 20 year smoothed figure is 296 ppm.

At the south pole in 2002, the annual average CO2 concentration was 371 ppm, data from here (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/cmdl-flask/spomm.dat). For contrast, at Mauna Loa, it was 373 ppm, data here (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/cmdl-flask/mlomm.dat). I'll use the south pole data as it is geographically closer to Law Dome, but I think you'll recognize that the difference is minimal. (The path to these data files can be confirmed by going to this page (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/cmdl-flask/cmdl-flask.html), clicking on the name of the measurement site, and then on "digital data".)

This means that over that period, the atmospheric concentration has changed by 371 - 297 = 74 ppm.

From this table (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/convert.html#3.), we find that 1 ppm of atmospheric CO2 is equal to 2.13 Gt of carbon in the atmosphere. That means that from 1900 to 2002 there has been an increase of 74 x 2.13 = 157.6 billion tonnes of carbon in the atmosphere.

However, how much CO2 is that? From that same table (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/convert.html#3.) we learn that a molecule of CO2 weighs 3.664 times as much as one of carbon. Therefore, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by 3.664 x 157.6 = 577 billion tonnes.

Compare how much the human activity has released into the atmosphere over that time, and how much it has grown by: 1,027 versus 577.

Clearly, not all that we have put there has stayed. In fact, 450 billion tonnes, or 450/1027 = 44% has disappeared. The sink for this CO2 is mostly in the ocean. Note that we have witnessed acidification of the ocean, which is the consequence of mixing CO2 and water. I think the literature published by people who are more familiar with the various processes is not too different from what I have just calculated, but help me out if I'm wrong here.

When I was challenged on the emissions data, I subsequently found another credible data source for fossil fuels emissions here (http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob.htm). Try downloading their csv file, and summing the total for the years 1900-2002. You'll have to multiply by 3.664 to get the equivalent tonnes of CO2. The sum for 1900-2002 from the totals column is ~288 Gt of C, or 1056 Gt CO2, greater than the figure I supplied earlier. This could be due to the discrepency between tons reported prior to 1950, and tonnes later in the record. Assuming a 2000 lb ton being used prior to 1950, I calculate 1039 billion tonnes of CO2 released over that period from fossil fuels alone.

I think that each of the sources of information I used can be verified elsewhere (as I did with the emissions data) and is unlikely to represent a conscious overstatement.

Note that I have only covered the period 1900-2002. Our species has been spewing large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere for a bit longer than that, and I think we consider the amount that it exceeds ~280 ppm to be the net human contribution. At more than 35%, I consider it more than a small fraction of the total.

[lomiller1]

Are you saying that the scientists have such a poor understanding of the problem that they can't put together a coherently logical story that the rest of us could be sufficiently informed to choose between alternative views?


No scientists can ever really do that. Either they “dumb it down” by glossing over the technical details or they go into the technical details and only other people with similar qualifications can understand. Crackpots thrive because the technical details needed to understand why they are wrong are either incomprehensible or uninteresting to the average person, and because they can throw out claims faster then the technical details needed to debunk those claims can be given.

For the average person, the best test is “what’s going on in the scientific literature” they don’t really need to understand the literature fully, just see what’s being discusses, and what gets picked up on. That second part is a big one BTW. All too often even when people do appeal to peer review literature, they forget that what other scientists pick up on and follow up is the most important part of the process.

[peteshimmon]

The famous graph from Hawaii showing increasing
CO2 should be more closely examined. Last time
I saw it there was a definite rate of increase
from 1990. Why? Also was the tragic oil well
burning in Kuwait an inadvertant giant
calibration event?

The small variation over a year is fascinating
as a sign of spring in the Northern Hemisphere.
Does a graph of Oxygen levels show the same
variation I wonder. Of course Oxygen is not
a trace gas like CO2 but nevertherless is the
variation detectable and anti phase to CO2?

Plankton recreates in vast "blooms" seen in
satellite pictures of coastal waters. Where
shipping goes. I would be surprised if this
aspect has not been investigated. Easy to
sample water before and after a supertanker
to see any change.

[Ara Pacis]

Are you saying that the scientists have such a poor understanding of the problem that they can't put together a coherently logical story that the rest of us could be sufficiently informed to choose between alternative views?

Error. The ability to understand physical phenomena in technical terms is unrelated to the ability to explain research in non-technical terms.

[Ara Pacis]

I have posted before my suggesion that
ships propellors are causing a small amount
of damage to the plankton in the seas. They
are important in removing CO2 I understand.

Wouldn't this be offset or subsumed by the human reduction of plankton consumers and changes in river output?

[Ronald Brak]

The famous graph from Hawaii showing increasing
CO2 should be more closely examined. Last time
I saw it there was a definite rate of increase
from 1990. Why?

This graph?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svg

CO2 is increasing much faster than we want it to, but doesn't appear to pick up significantly in 1990.

[GOURDHEAD]

Thanks Torsten, you presented the kind of story I've been seeking.

[ggchuck]

The consensus view among climate scientists is summarised in the IPCC reports. Their latest summary report is here (http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-syr.htm).Is the IPCC the only credible source to support AGW? There is concern that the IPCC findings may be influenced by politics more than science. Consider this article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/08/31/eaclimate131.xml
The 'consensus' on climate change is a catastrophe in itself
By Christopher Booker

By far the most influential player in putting climate change at the top of the global agenda has been the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
[...snip...]
The common view of the IPCC is that it consists of 2,500 of the world's leading scientists who, after carefully weighing all the evidence, have arrived at a "consensus" that world temperatures are rising disastrously, and that the only plausible cause has been rising levels of CO2 and other man-made greenhouse gases.

In fact, as has become ever more apparent over the past 20 years –not least thanks to the evidence of a succession of scientists who have participated in the IPCC itself – the reality of this curious body could scarcely be more different.

It is not so much a scientific as a political organisation. Its brief has never been to look dispassionately at all the evidence for man-made global warming: it has always taken this as an accepted fact.

Indeed only a comparatively small part of its reports are concerned with the science of climate change at all.
[...snip...]
The idea that the IPCC represents any kind of genuine scientific "consensus" is a complete fiction.

[dmr81]

Is the IPCC the only credible source to support AGW?
You misunderstand what the IPCC does (http://www.ipcc.ch/about/index.htm). It does not carry out the research itself, it reviews the research carried out by the experts in the field, therefore its reports represent the consensus of those experts (http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm).

There is concern that the IPCC findings may be influenced by politics more than science. Consider this article: [...] By Christopher Booker
So, you are accusing the IPCC of being "influenced by politics more than science", using as a source an extreme right wing journalist who knows nothing about science? :rolleyes:

[ggchuck]

So, you are accusing the IPCC of being "influenced by politics more than science", using as a source an extreme right wing journalist who knows nothing about science? :rolleyes:The source is evaluating the objectivity of the IPCC in their selection and interpretation of the reports available. That is not a scientific observation but an observation of the social and political make-up of the body that presents the information. In this case, political acuity is beneficial.

[dmr81]

The source is evaluating the objectivity of the IPCC
The article you quoted is advocating a political conspiracy theory and is not appropriate for this forum.

[Acolyte]

AGW is a a farce. In the 1970's I was part of a project at school to find out what the effects and preparation could be for the coming Ice Age. That's because, at the height of the global cooling that had been occurring since the early 1940's, while the purported expansion of human CO2 production was occurring, the scientists were concerned that particulates in the atmosphere were causing the measured cooling.

Now we have, in spite of a lack of actual evidence, Global warming and because it's supposedly all our fault, the governments now get to tax us for it. The corporations are happily ready to increase their prices provided we pay the increase. At least in the 70's, the 'scientists' didn't indulge in the redefinition of the data to make their case - they had real measurements with which to make their points.

Australia, the 'poster child' for Global warming has somehow managed to ignore the past century of REAL data - see Australias Variable Rainfall (http://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/Products/AustraliasVariableClimate/AustraliasVariableRainfall_HighRes.pdf) and for the past year the weather in Melbourne has consistently been under last year in maximums, minimums, averages and totals. Strangely this fails to make headlines. Our dams are not increasing in fullness, not because there hasn't been rain (La Nina is in full swing) but because the Government followed the IPCC lead and redefined the measurements.

It has been shown that Northern Ice Cap and Southern Ice Cap normally exist in a reciprocal relationship, yet the news that the Arctic has this year reversed the loss of ice cover while the Antarctic has continued the decade-long increase seems to be not being reported.

The models used by the IPCC consistently fail to reproduce current weather, even when fed current and past data as to what is actually occurring, yet strangely, the IPCC and adherents prefer to modify the measurements than to change the models. Exactly the opposite of how science (the real stuff, not the political stuff) is meant to work.

Often quoted is how 2500 IPCC 'scientists' can't be wrong, and yet it is a small minority of those 'scientists' who have a degree. If numbers matter, 32,000 Americans with relevant degrees, (BS or above) disagree. (see Global Warming Petition (http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GWPP/Qualifications_Of_Signers.html) for details.

The facts are being revamped because the supposed models of how things are do not match the facts. On a regular basis the IPCC 'scientists' are altering the data collected up to decades ago because such data fails to confirm their previously stated opinions that not only is there Global Warming but that humans are if not solely then at least majorly responsible for it.

This is not and has never been science. Science involves having a theory, devising a way to check it against the reality, then, if the reality disagrees, modifying the theory.

AGW has never, since Thatcher started the campaign to show why Britons needed Nuclear Power rather than coal, been about the Science. When Admin Assistants and Bureaucrats have equal say in the science to those with supposedly a science background, science is the last thing we will see being done.

When tree rings that fail to show events we know from history to have happened are used to show those events can't have happened, science has vanished and political expediency has come to fruit. Adding tree ring data to that collected in urban areas simply isn't good math - anyone who has done math or science above junior high level can tell you that - the data sets are based on entirely different criteria - yet even after being called on it, the IPCC keeps re-presenting the hockey stick graph while relabeeling it.

When, (to bring Astronomy into things) changes in planets as diverse as Mars and Pluto (as well as others) are ignored so that politicians can claim we are ruining the Earth, it is time for Science to call a halt to the garbage being spewed.

The presentation of how poorly the arctic is doing using a 16 year old English girl paddling to the North Pole looked impressive - until they showed those poor penguins stuck on an ice floe. Never mind that given the ice floe melting the penguins would simply swim away, she was going to the North Pole!

As a poster piece for Global warming you think [someone might have told them that the reason polar bears don't eat penguins is they'd have to swim too far for a meal! Yet this was presented in the expectation we'd swallow it as evidence for the vanishing of Arctic ice!

Global Warming is unproven as a unique condition for planet Earth. Anthropogenic Global Warming fails even the tests of a valid hypothesis and the lengths to which proponents go to alter the data, cover up the real situation and protest their credentials should make anyone who has even entered a science classroom run away screaming.

AGW believers will still be telling us all about how the winters were warmer than we think from the London Glacier radio station.

[Torsten]

yet the news that the Arctic has this year reversed the loss of ice cover while the Antarctic has continued the decade-long increase seems to be not being reported.

Where do you get your news?

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png

That's all I'm addressing on this one. I'm sure others will have fun with your rant.

(Because the above link is updated daily, I've archived a copy of today's image here. (http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh315/TKphotofolder/BAUT/nsidc_arctic_20080906.png)

[dmr81]

In the 1970's I was part of a project at school to find out what the effects and preparation could be for the coming Ice Age.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

At least in the 70's, the 'scientists' didn't indulge in the redefinition of the data to make their case
Appeal to conspiracy, without a shred of evidence.

they had real measurements with which to make their points.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/obsdata/

for the past year the weather in Melbourne
This issue isn't about recent weather in Melbourne, it's about the long term trend in global average temperature.

The models used by the IPCC consistently fail to reproduce current weather
Climate models are not used to predict the weather. They are used to predict long term trends and in that they have been quite successful (http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm).

the IPCC and adherents prefer to modify the measurements than to change the models.
Appeal to conspiracy, without a shred of evidence.

32,000 Americans with relevant degrees, (BS or above) disagree.
That petition did not disagree that climate change is happening or that it is anthropogenic. Merely that it would not be "catastrophic" in "the foreseeable future".

It did not require qualifications relevant to climate science, merely a bachelor's degree in any science related subject. It represents less than 2% of those who have such science degrees in the US. If you wish to assert that any of them have expertise in climate science, name them and provide details of their expertise.

The facts are being revamped
Appeal to conspiracy, without a shred of evidence.

because the supposed models of how things are do not match the facts.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

On a regular basis the IPCC 'scientists' are altering the data
Appeal to conspiracy, without a shred of evidence.

the IPCC keeps re-presenting the hockey stick graph.

That's because multiple studies have shown that it was correct. Several are linked from this page (http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/fakeddata.html).

When, (to bring Astronomy into things) changes in planets as diverse as Mars and Pluto
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11642

the lengths to which proponents go to alter the data, cover up the real situation
Appeal to conspiracy, without a shred of evidence.

[lomiller1]

It did not require qualifications relevant to climate science, merely a bachelor's degree in any science related subject. It represents less than 2% of those who have such science degrees in the US. If you wish to assert that any of them have expertise in climate science, name them and provide details of their expertise.



There is no way 32K BSc represents 2% of the US total. Even 0.02% sounds low. That list was also famous for including the names of fictional characters and pop culture celebrities (who neither signed nor would be qualified to comment)



That's because multiple studies have shown that it was correct. Several are linked from this page (http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/fakeddata.html).


Case in point, this paper was published just this week. There have been more then a dozen separate reconstructions since 1998 all showing the same thing.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/09/02/0805721105.full.pdf+html

The one you link to is interesting in that it revisits the original paper. It gets exactly the same results proving the complaints about it are specious. Like I said though, even if the original paper was wrong there are better then a dozen newer ones showing the same thing.

[Ronald Brak]

Acolyte, there are no penguins in the Artic.

[G O R T]

Acolyte, there are no penguins in the Artic.

I thought it was fairly obvious that he was making fun of the fact that the media doesn't seem to know this or were using baseless propaganda.

[Ronald Brak]

I thought it was fairly obvious that he was making fun of the fact that the media doesn't seem to know this or were using baseless propaganda.

Oh, right. I thought he/she was confused about the distances polar bears have to swim to hunt seals due to the reduced artic ice.

[Ronald Brak]

For those out there who believe global warming is a plot by scientists to get money I'd like to present some evidence of just how well planned and far reaching the conspiracy is:

"A simple calculation shows that the temperature in the Artic regions would rise about 8 to 9 degrees celcius if the carbonic acid (CO2) increased 2.5 or three times its present value...The world's present production of coal reaches in round numbers to 500 million tonnes per annum, or one ton per square kilometer of the earth's surface."

This was written by Arvid Gustav Hogbom, in "Om Sannolikheton FoSekulara Forandringar I Atmosfarens Kolsyrehalt," in 1894. So here was a guy laying the foundations for a conspiracy that would be of no benefit to him in order to help people a hundred years in the future skim taxpayers' money. Now that's pretty impressive. Is it going too far to suggest that Arvid Gustav Hogbom, along with Fourier, Afred Wallace and others, may form part of a secret cabal of imortal vampires who realized that they might need a source of cash towards the start of the 21st century? Perhaps this cabal was responsible for the Montreal Treaty and the Banning of CFCs? Reducing the amount of ultraviolet light reaching the earth's surface would certainly be in the interest of vampires.

[peteshimmon]

Well I have looked closely at the CO2 graph
now and I think I was misled by a poor
reproduction somewhere. Not an increase in rate
from 1990 but a slowdown then it picks up. Is
this due to a Worldwide economic slowdown at
the time? If so then it is a good calibration
oportunity. Or is it a slowdown in volcanic
activity Worldwide? I cannot help noticing
a slight tendancy to polarisation in this
subject and that some may claim this.

[Torsten]

Hi Pete:

Those are interesting ideas, and I decided to look at the annual carbon emissions from fossil fuels across the globe. It seems reasonable that these would reflect economic activity.

I created the following pair of charts from data found at

http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/emis/glo.html
and
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-mlo.html (This is the Mauna Loa CO2 record)

The chart of annual global emissions certainly seems to reflect periods of economic slowdown, at least as far as I remember those years in my industry within North America.

The cumulative emissions for the second chart commence in 1959. I tried to force the endpoints of each curve to be close together by adjusting the scales in order to see how closely the shape of the curves track one another. No big surprises here.

One thing to remember is that this is the record of emissions from fossil fuels only. The shape of the atmospheric CO2 curve is also affected by changes in land use, interannual fluctuations in net primary productivity, and volcanic activity, and probably a host of other things.


http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh315/TKphotofolder/BAUT/globalcarbonemissionsandppmco2.jpg