carbon dioxide rise does not mean increased warming?

Question

from the period of 1860 to present, yes there was a global rise in temperature of about 1.3 degrees...but interestingly the majority of this rise occured from 1860 to 1940, and DID NOT simply increase consistently and gradually

from 1940 to 1975, a period of rapid industrialization after the war, the level of CO2 emission boomed, exponentially growing from a level it had never seen before. yet from this period, there was actually GLOBAL COOLING, not warming

many scientists are now suggesting that the relationship between greenhouse gases and CO2 is now obscure, and that people are disregarding this data and simply using a correlation FROM THE LAST 25-35 years to say that temperature rise has correlated with CO2 emission

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDI2NVTYRXU

now lets get real responses that scientifically address this statement, not responses lke "global warming is scientific fact. just accept it dont deny!" or some other dumb response.

consider the arguments of richard lindzen, a harvard trained atmospheric physicist and MIT professor who vehemently rejects anthropogenic global warming

Answer 1

No, CO2 does mean increased warming. Don't take my word for it, read the scientific work below.

It hasn't been a steady rise in temperature, because the causes of warming/cooling have shifted over the last 100 years, as factories and pollution controls have caused different things to go into the air. Natural factors have played some role also.

This interplay of causes has been the subject of much scientific study. Here's one excellent paper, which you could read at a college library:

Meehl, G.A., W.M. Washington, C.A. Ammann, J.M. Arblaster, T.M.L. Wigleym and C. Tebaldi (2004). "Combinations of Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings in Twentieth-Century Climate". Journal of Climate 17: 3721-3727

This graph summarizes the paper, showing how various causes have played their roles in warming over the last 100 years:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

Note that there was not significant cooling from 1940-1975, just a pause in the rate of warming, due to fine particles ("sulphates") being spewed from smokestacks before good pollution controls were put in place by things like the Clean Air Act. But recently our huge increase in burning fossil fuels has overwhelmed everything else.

This is all discussed in exhaustive detail in Chapter 2 of this document, which has dozens of scientific references. You'll need Adobe Acrobat Reader (free download) to read it. It doesn't get any more scientific than this.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

"Many" scientists don't disagree, just a relative few. Proof:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
(this is not someone's opinion, but solid facts)
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

"The fact that the community overwhelmingly supports the consensus is evidenced by picking up any copy of Journal of Climate or similar, any scientific program at the meetings, or simply going to talk to scientists. I challenge you, if you think there is some un-reported division, show me the hundreds of abstracts that support your view - you won't be able to. You can argue whether the consensus is correct, or what it really implies, but you can't credibly argue it doesn't exist."

NASA's Gavin Schmidt

Good websites for more science (not politics):

http://profend.com/global-warming/
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/
http://www.realclimate.org
"climate science from climate scientists"
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

Answer 2

First of all, algae and plants do not emit CO2 they absorb it to grow. They emit oxygen. Ice core data has shown CO2 levels are higher now than they have been in the last 650,000 years. What the ice core data shows also is a trend where as the levels of CO2 rise and fall naturally the temperature follows the exact pattern as the CO2. The oceans also help in the absorbtion of CO2, but eventually it will head back into the atmosphere. A lot of people believe that the oceans and trees will absorb all our CO2, so we can pump out as much as we like. CO2 though can remain in the atmosphere for an average of 100 years unlike methane which only remains in the amosphere for a decade or so. Rising carbon concentrations largely reflect increasing use of fossil fuels. All together globally we pump out 6 billion metric tons of carbon. This figure increases by 2% each each year. So the billions of ton of CO2 that we pump into the atmopshere each stays there for a very long time before getting absorbed. Now if thats how much CO2 is being pumped out at the moment imagine how much will be emitted when countries like India and China which between them hold 1/3 of the earth's population become industrialised and need the same amount of energy. The reason why the US hasn't signed the Kyoto proptocal is simply because India and China havn't and it will also damage their economy (obviously). India and China's arguement is well hang on why should we sign this thing when the gases that are up there are not our gases they are your gases. Thats fair enough, but what happens when those countries become as industrialied as the US and others. The US says well hang we need some assurance that when you guys do become industrialised you will jump on board with us. If The US is using 23% of the world's energy with 300 million people, how much energy will India and China need with over 2 billion between them.

Answer 3

There is no question that CO2 blocks a rather narrow spectrum of IR light and cause a slight increase in temperature unless there is an unknown mechanism in nature to counter it. It is less than a degree from all of human caused CO2 emissions. It is foolish to burn fossil fuels at the rate we are without trying to find better alternatives because it is a rather limited resource. The slight increase in temperature should be considered a great benefit rather than the end of the world. That is where the "believers" leave behind scientific rational thought and become members of the Global Warming Doomsday Cult

Answer 4

We know for a fact that carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases) cause temperatures to rise. This is basic science, has been documented for over 100 years and can be demonstrated in any science lab (you can even demonstrate it yourself at home).

It is so easy to prove that any claim to the contrary demonstrates a total lack of scientific knowledge or a is an outright lie. In the case of this video I suspect it is the latter. The source is Junkscience.com - a website funded by the oil and power companies and the source of some truly bizarre claims about global warming and other scientific issues.

I only watched the first few seconds of the video, that was all that was needed to know it was nothing but propaganda. It starts with a list of names of supposed expert climate scientists. Play the video again and Google each of the names, you'll find that these supposed experts are in fact a geophysicist, geographer, hydrogeologist, amateur meteorologist, environmental scientist, physicist and an electrical engineer / physicist.

You could expect the hydrogeologist (Clark) and the environmental scientist (Michaels) to know about global warming but they lose all credibility when you look at Exxon's annual accounts and find Clark on their payroll and Michael's organisation - the Cato Institute - is funded by Exxon and other oil and power companies.


THE BASICS OF THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT

Quantum mechanics provides the basis for computing the interactions between molecules and radiation. Most of this interaction occurs when the frequency of the radiation closely matches that of the spectral lines of the molecule, determined by the quantisation of the modes of vibration and rotation of the molecule. The electronic excitations are generally not relevant for infrared radiation, as they require energy larger than that in an infrared photon. In simple terms... greenhouse gases absorb thermal radiation because they are vibrating at the same frequency.


TO EACH OF THE POINTS YOU MENTIONED

<< from the period of 1860 to present, yes there was a global rise in temperature of about 1.3 degrees>>

The average global temperature in 1860 was 13.574°C, today it is 14.570°C (based on standard 10 year means, using different means and different base periods provides almost exactly the same figures). The temp rise was 0.996°C (1.793°F).


<< ...but interestingly the majority of this rise occurred from 1860 to 1940>>

1860 = 13.574°C, 1940 = 14.024°C, 2007 = 14.570°C.

The difference from 1860 to 1940 is 0.450°C and from 1940 to 2007 is 0.546°C.


<< and DID NOT simply increase consistently and gradually >>

There's no reason why it should do. Global temperatures are governed by many complex and interacting factors. At any one time several will lead to cooling, several will lead to warming. These cycles span anything from 24 hours to 430,000 years. The net effect of the interactions leads to warming or cooling and the effect changes consistently. Right now for instance, the planet is in a short term natural cooling phase (which itself is a phase within a phase within a phase within a phase within a phase).


<< from 1940 to 1975, a period of rapid industrialization after the war, the level of CO2 emission boomed, exponentially growing from a level it had never seen before.>>

In 1940 atmospheric concentrations of CO2 were 311 ppmv (parts per million by volume), in 1975 it was 332ppmv - an increase of 21ppmv in 35 years. Today it is 387ppmv - an increase of 55ppmv in 32 years.


<< yet from this period, there was actually GLOBAL COOLING, not warming>>

The mid 20th century witnessed what we call 'global dimming'. Levels of black particulate matter in the atmosphere (soot, pollution etc) were so high that they blocked solar radiation (sunlight) from reaching us. This was coupled with record levels of sodium dioxide, a diatomic gas molecule that reflects solar radiation back out into space. The effects of all the pollution back them was to reduce the amount of heat energy we were receiving from the Sun. The subsequent Clean Air Acts that were passed in the latter part of the 20th century saw dramatic reductions in these pollutants and effectively ended the period of global dimming.


<< many scientists are now suggesting that the relationship between greenhouse gases and CO2 is now obscure >>

None that I'm aware of other than a handful that are employed or financed by the oil and power companies. I work with dozens of them and during 24 years as a climate scientist have met thousands of them. I've never met, or even heard of, a single credible scientist that makes this claim.


<< and that people are disregarding this data and simply using a correlation FROM THE LAST 25-35 years to say that temperature rise has correlated with CO2 emission >>

People who have no idea what they're talking about or who are deliberately attempting to mislead may say this. Climate scientists have 542 million years of CO2 data to work with and extensive resources are utilised in extracting many ice core records from around the planet, these provide an atmospheric record going back nearly a million years.

Attention is often focussed on changes since the late 1970's as, during this period, the natural cycles that affect our climate have been more or less in equilibrium and thus provide a scientific control against which other factors can reliably be measured and compared.

Answer 5

industrialization and the automotive industry have 2 effects on the climate;
- Through increase emission of CO2, the Green house effect which is called global warming.
- Through increased emission of solid pollutants, the shading effect which is called global dimming.
These two effects usually cancel each other but global warming causes melting of ice and tropical storms, while global dimming disturbs the rainy season in subtropical zones.
the last few years an attempt to reduce emission of solid pollutants is in progress, by installation of scrubbers on chimneys and car exhausts, this has been reducing the global dimming effect, but increasing global warming in the last decade.

Answer 6

its not true it means rise of global warming as well. for me global cooling is just temporary. time will come that global warming will rise i made a hypothesis based on that source.

Answer 7

the percentage of carbon dioxide in air is just 0.02.
so how much are we going to add ? if u add 100% then the total come to 0.04% CO2 in air. if added 200% > total 0.06% CO2 in air. the followers of GWDC (name given by Bravozul...) say that the 30% addition of CO2 at present. god bless them this comes to 0.006% addition.(0.02+0.006= ? % )
*GWDC=global warming doomsday cult.

Answer 8

no idea