As I am sitting here thinking about this question, my eyes are drawn to a graph that can be found on page 120 of the following text:
Space Science Reviews (2006) 127: 327–465 DOI: 10.1007/s11214-006-9126-6
Here is what I see. It is a graph with three lines representing Arctic surface temps, Atmospheric CO2 concentrations, Total Solar Irradiance since 1875. As expected, the increase in CO2 tracks roughly with temperature, although it appears to lag a little bit from about 1890 to 1950. I see that TSI tracks much more closely with temperature, especially in the 1890 to 1950 range.
How I interpret this graph is as follows. Temps began rising in about 1890. CO2 caught up with the warming in about 1950 (thus the increasing CO2 after that point). This tells me that TSI certainly has had an effect and continues to have an effect. CO2 may be a symptom of that increase, it may also be an enhancer, especially in the last couple of decades (as reported in Geophys Res Lett, Vol. 33, L05708, doi:10.1029/2005GL025539, 2006).
Why is this important? It points to attribution of warming via a variety of mechanisms. Attribution is important, especially politically. Policy makers need to make sound judgements and if we cannot say what percentage is due to what cause, the policy is being made with incomplete information. That ALWAYS leads to unintended consequences.
Viewing this and other information that is available, I do not understand why we have so thoroughly tagged CO2 as the only culprit in AGW.
2007-06-18 06:17:02
·
answer #1
·
answered by Marc G 4
·
1⤊
1⤋
CO2 is a vulnerable warming gas relative to alot of alternative atmospheric factors. the version is that CO2 is being produced at surprising speedy speeds. the quantity of water vapor interior the ambience will strengthen as temperature rises, it is (a minimum of partly) contributed to with the aid of CO2 rises. CO2 is likewise particularly long-lived interior the ambience. Methane to illustrate is a plenty extra suitable gas, yet breaks down could speedier than CO2 which keeps to be airborne for seventy 5-one hundred fifty years formerly being the two re-absorbed with the aid of vegetation or broken down with the aid of photograph voltaic radiation. look, i'm as unfastened marketplace (in all probability extra so) than you're. yet worldwide warming is actual. lots of the fowl little eventualities are exagerrated, yet anthropogenic worldwide warming is a actuality, and it would not take a rocket scientist to realize that an unplanned, out of control chemistry test on our environment could not be a super thought. A revenues independent carbon tax might mitigate the effect on the financial device, yet might motivate a pass in the direction of a sparkling technological foundation for contemporary economies.
2016-11-25 20:45:32
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I live in the Midwest. When I was growing up, the winters were long and harsh. The later in the 21st we get, the shorter and more green the winters become and the longer and the hotter the summer has become. It is not scientific data that tells me this is happening. It is personal experience. This personal experience alone is enough to convince me global warming is a real deal and a threat (man made or not.) This changing of seasons is not good for it will and is causing droughts in various parts of the world (including the US.) and this will cause famine. get any hotter, and water shortages will become a problem.
The other problem is disease and pest control. Certain insects only thrive in warm climates (such as fire ants and various other poisonous bugs) and are kept in check due to winter's cold. Without out that, they will continue north. Not to mention mosquitoes population will boom due to the longer warm seasons.
The Polar ice caps are melting. This will cause two problems. One, it will raise ocean levels world wide. Since most of the worlds most populated cites happen to be on the coast (New York, Tokyo, L.A, London) this will be a disaster. The second problem is underneath the permafrost in both the arctic and antarctic regions, contains **** loads of methane. This once released will make global warming into a global scorching. In other words, it will put our current global warming on steroids.
As you can tell, there is much to be concerned about global warming.
2007-06-18 03:26:44
·
answer #3
·
answered by gotagetaweigh 4
·
3⤊
2⤋
Water will eventually evaporate, and the problem would persist but not at such a rate. Theres more to worry about what affect too much carbon dioxide will have on fish and organisms in the water.
The solution to the greenhouse effect is two fold. We (humanity) need to plant more plants to use the carbon dioxide and also drastically reduce carbon dioxide emissions from man made sources.
2007-06-18 03:22:35
·
answer #4
·
answered by Jin S 3
·
2⤊
0⤋
It's only slightly soluble in water. And the solubility decreases as temperature increases. So the oceans (by far the largest amount of water on Earth) contain CO2 right now. As they warm, some of that CO2 will be released, making things worse.
Plants can't keep up with us.
Look at this graph.
http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/graphics_gallery/mauna_loa_record/mlo_record.html
The little squiggles are nature doing its' thing. CO2 falls a bit during summer when plants are active, and rises during the winter. The huge increase is us, burning fossil fuels. The natural "carbon cycle" used plants to bury carbon over a very long time, little bit by little bit. We dig them up and burn them, real fast. That's a problem.
Man is upsetting the balance of nature. We need to fix that.
2007-06-18 03:22:01
·
answer #5
·
answered by Bob 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
CO2 is taken care of by thee plants and the plants are doing a great job.
Now to the Methane problem GOD could see that there was a problem . Methane is very light and may rise 55 miles up. Now how did the environmentalist measure what they wrote in there reports. It is a bunch of hype over nothing again. It turns out that methane is very flammable . So as the gas gets at the high altitude it is oxidized by the sun light and it falls back to earth as CO2,more for the plants th recycle. The reason it oxidizes is if u take a walk at Skylab u would find that it could be 350 deg F. in the sunlight.
2007-06-18 07:53:55
·
answer #6
·
answered by JOHNNIE B 7
·
0⤊
3⤋
As Bob pointed out, carbon dioxide becomes less water soluble as temperature increases
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem00/chem00490.htm
Additionally, we are emitting far more carbon dioxide than methane, and it contributes 6 times more to global warming than methane due to its high concentration:
http://globalwarming.enviroweb.org/ishappening/sources/index.html
That is why there's so much "hype" about carbon dioxide - it accounts for ~76% of human-caused greenhouse gas effect.
2007-06-18 05:18:10
·
answer #7
·
answered by Dana1981 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
Carbon dioxide has a greater potential to trap heat from the sun than a lot of other gasses... also, gasses from organic decay, such as methane and ammonia are only very very trace amounts compared to CO2, and normal biological systems exist to refix this nitrogen back into plants... look up nitrogen cycle and nitrogen fixing bacteria. we don't produce any excess of these nitrogenous gasses, so they remain pretty constantly cycled in our atmosphere. we are producing a large amount of CO2, which over time is leading to a net increase, which normal cycles are not able to effectively deal with.
also, CO2 dissolving in water creates carbonic acid... don't you agree that this could be a major problem for aquatic ecosystems.
2007-06-18 03:17:49
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
2⤋
global warmiing is caused due to press of carbon monoxide & several other elements which mess with the natural eco-balance,so actually ur funda is not correct!
2007-06-18 03:36:11
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
brush up ur chem, dude.
2007-06-18 05:52:12
·
answer #10
·
answered by hsarora47 4
·
1⤊
1⤋