Why should Physics be disregarded in support of global warming?

Question

One fact that CO2 levels rise after the temperature, is commonly countered with a response of "That was true in the past, but thats not what is happening now."

This would mean that either the properties of CO2 has changed, or physics is being discounted.

Answer 1

The ice cores show that CO2 lags temps by 800 years. Guess what happened 800 years ago, The Medieval Warm Period. There is no doubt that we are adding CO2 to the atmosphere, but some of the increase is also natural.

Also, when you look at the CO2 and temperature record from the ice cores, temps increase first and 800 years later the CO2 starts to increase, but then hundreds or thousands of years later, the temps will peak out and begin to fall sharply while CO2 is still increasing toward it peak. So temps fall for approximately 800 years while CO2 is still peaking.

http://www.socialtext.net/data/workspaces/wired-mag/attachments/what_causes_ice_ages:20070210074612-0-3917/files/0Master_ClimateChangeGraph_740ka_Dome_C_Temp-CO2_REVISED_150dpi.png

CO2 has no real statistical correlation with temperatures over the past 600 million years.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1644060/posts
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/The_Geologic_Record_and_Climate_Change.pdf

So what is the major climate driver? The geological record shows that solar activity controls the climate. The changes in solar intensity alone can't do that, but studies show that solar activity has an influence on low level cloud cover and clouds reflect solar energy away from the surface of the earth. When solar activity is high, we have fewer low level clouds and when activity is low we have more low level clouds.

http://www.spacecenter.dk/research/sun-climate/Scientific%20work%20and%20publications/resolveuid/86c49eb9229b3a7478e8d12407643bed

Solar activity has been higher in the past 7 decades than it has been in the last 8000 years.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sunspot_record_041027.html

Answer 2

As someone with 2 degrees in physics, I can tell you that you're the one disregarding physics.

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. It's a known physical principle that an increased atmospheric concentration of any greenhouse gas will increase the warming of the planet.

Your argument is a logical fallacy. "Generally A follows B, therefore A cannot cause B". Poor logic.

Historically there was no source of CO2 independent of temperature. Natural cycles caused the Earth to warm (or cool), and when it warmed to a certain point, the oceans could no longer absorb as much CO2 (because CO2 is less soluble in warmer water). Then once CO2 accumulated in the atmosphere, it amplified the existing global warming.

Now there is a source of CO2 independent of global temperature - humans burning fossil fuels. CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are increasing, so the planet is warming as is expected based on the physical characteristics of a greenhouse gas.

If the planet were not warming due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere, then physical principles would be violated.

Answer 3

I don't think you have a full understanding of the science.

#1 - the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has doubled since the start of the industrial revolution. In other words, since we started digging carbon sinks out of the earth and pumping it into the atmosphere, the levels have doubled. That's only 150 years or so. That hasn't happened in the past.

#2 - The level that carbon is at now is higher than it has been through any natural cycles in the past.

#3 - The earth has this little thing called a carbon cycle. Every living thing on this planet is carbon-based. Plants and trees are what we call "carbon-sinks" - they hold a certain percentage of carbon. A large percentage of carbon is held in the carbon sinks that we mine for fossil fuels. SO, we are not only cutting down trees and bringing up fossil fuels at an alarming rate, we are also burning those fuels every day and putting them into the atmosphere.

The carbon cycle is a closed system. There is a fixed amount, and it all has to be somewhere.

It's a pretty simple equation.
Fewer carbon sinks + more carbon emissions = more carbon in the atmosphere.

But I'm sure you're right, humans have absolutely no impact on the earth.

Answer 4

there is no contradiction. and not in spite of regards to technological understanding. Comprehension of words, my buddy. till now, temperatures rose and released CO2 in all probability via melting or doing something. Now, we launch CO2 via emissions, which supposedly reasons temprature boost. CO2 continues to be an identical. And changing it would make that area of chemistry, not physics.

Answer 5

Exactly, is rising CO2 the cause or the effect? The answer is that we don't really know.

Before we commit Millions/Billions of dollars to reducing green house gases, we need to know that we are on the right track. Our resources are limited and green house gases may not be the answer. We may have to accept the coming climate changes and adapt our infrastructure to cope.

Answer 6

No. That's not what is said.

What is said is that CO2 can work TWO ways.

It can cause global warming (greenhouse effect), and it is released from ocean waters as they warm. That's basic science.

In the past warming was started by the Sun, and CO2 was mostly an effect. That is proven by the fact there was a lag between the start of these events of hundreds of years.

What is different this time is that THERE IS NO LAG. CO2 and temperature are going up together. It's one of many proofs that this warming is mostly caused by man made CO2.

Most all the scientists of the world know this is true for good reasons. It's the deniers who disregard physics (and chemistry and mathematics).

Good websites for more info:

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 7

I'm glad you brought this up. Since I never actually took physics and the advanced chemistry I did have only touched on physics a little bit, I didn't know how to formulate this type of question. I am how thinking about looking up physics courses on the Internet. I thought the formulas I learned in chemistry were amazing and complex.

I was also wondering how Trigonometry/Calculus related to this. The math formulas I learned in those courses were also quite complex and related to the world around us.

Answer 8

Well, Al Gore didn't address this issue, therefore it doesn't exist. Just look at the internet, it didn't exist before Al Gore invented it and acknowledged it. Al Gore probably hasn't invented CO2 yet, but when he does this will be addressed.

When this is what you run up against when you question a THEORY there can be no civilized discussion. Facts are no good against a THEORY.

Answer 9

It's science by committee, all other fields of natural science require theories to be supported with data that correlates with said theory. The AGW crowd adds a new layer of confusion, it is called the climate model, and trust us, its right, because we input temperatures, and spit them right back out. So the science is settled.

Answer 10

The "science" of global warming is very selective.

These facts don't fit into the current template of global warming, so they must be dismissed. It sounds more like spin from a politician, than logic from scientist.