You are right - water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas.
But we must understand water vapor's role as a greenhouse gas and how it differs from the other greenhouse gases, mainly CO2.
Unlike CO2, which is considered an external forcing (which I'll elaborate on in a minute)- the level of water vapor in the atmosphere is a function of temperature.
We know that “Water vapor is brought into the atmosphere via evaporation – and that rate depends on the temperature of the ocean and air.”
So as the temperature rises, evaporation increases and more water vapor accumulates in the atmosphere. And since water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas, any additional water vapor will absorb more heat, further warming the air and causing more evaporation.
So we can agree that the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is dependent on temperature and water vapor in the atmosphere traps heat. Yes?
(And you're probably wondering if water vapor's so important, why aren't scientists focusing on it instead of CO2?)
Well, since water vapor is dependent on the evaporation rate - the water vapor concentrations fluctuate regionally, and human activity does not significantly affect water vapor concentrations except at local scales, such as near irrigated fields.
Additionally the average residence time of a water molecule in the atmosphere is only about nine days, compared to years or centuries for other greenhouse gases such as CH4 and CO2.
So what's this all mean? – basically water vapor is a feedback mechanism which responds to and amplifies the effects of external forcings, such as other greenhouse gases.
Therefore more water vapor = more heat = more water vapor.
This is considered positive feedback and water vapor has an amplifying effect on these other, external forcings.
So what the heck are these external forcings?
It's something that can "push" the climate in the direction of warming or cooling. Examples include changes in atmospheric composition (e.g., increased concentrations of greenhouse gases), solar luminosity, volcanic eruptions, and variations in Earth's orbit around the Sun.
With me still?
If so you're probably thinking, well if there's so many external forcings, why blame only CO2, couldn't one of these other factors be causing climate change?
Well let's examine these other factors, and see if we can rule them out, one by one:
Ok, so it's not solar luminosity, how about Volcanic eruptions:
It's true that volcanoes can impact climate change. “During major explosive eruptions huge amounts of volcanic gas, aerosol droplets, and ash are injected into the stratosphere. Injected ash falls rapidly from the stratosphere -- most of it is removed within several days to weeks -- and has little impact on climate change. But volcanic gases like sulfur dioxide can cause global cooling, while volcanic carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, has the potential to promote global warming.
This looks promising, maybe volcanic eruptions be our answer? let's look further...
Well, if volcanic eruptions are ruled out, what about: Earth's orbit:
Earth has indeed experienced warming and cooling cycles roughly every hundred thousand years due to orbital shifts, but such changes have occurred over the span of several centuries. Today's changes have taken place over the past hundred years or less.
And orbital cycles are currently in an overall cooling trend which would be expected to lead towards an ice age, but the 20th century instrumental temperature record shows a sudden rise in global temperatures.
Dang, it's not earth's orbit either – I guess it could be some of the - Other greenhouse gases:
Well we've already ruled out the most dominant greehouse gas, water vapor, as the cause since it's a feedback mechanism. So what are the other, most abundant greenhouse gases – could they be driving climate change?
Well, CO2 is the next most dominant contributor with the other gases playing only minor roles in climate change.
So if we rule out water vapor, and the other minor greenhouse gases, then the bottom line is that atmospheric carbon dioxide acts as a thermostat in regulating the temperature of Earth … and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has fully documented the fact that industrial activity is responsible for the rapidly increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
You must be a global warming denier. LOL. Congrats on 3,000 Gypsy!
I second the congratulations, and would like to say thanks for hanging with us. Wouldn't be the same without you.
Thanks guys I hadn't even noticed it till you brought it up. I am not a denier since it hasn't went up in 16 years! LOL. BTW, I clearly remember the 1970's mantra of the coming global ice age too. Pardon me while I check to see if the sky is falling.
There are seven billion of us on this planet. I can remember when there were three.
My grandchildren may easily see twenty. Nobody knows how to limit this number.
Limit birth rates or lower life expectancy – that's how we we would do it.
Implementing those policies is a whole different can of worms and deserves a thread/debate of it's own ...
webmost:
They will all need to eat. What will feed them? Water, soil, warmth. Look at a map.
If Northern Canada and Siberia could be thawed and tilled, my word! Not to mention the cost
of heating oil. If it is warming, warming is far from a curse; it is a timely godsend.
I really don't see how anyone can refute this.
I'll take take a shot:
So even if we overlook the other consequences of global warming and focus solely on the impacts to the global food supply, we can examine the impacts to agriculture and livestock.
“Agriculture is extremely vulnerable to climate change.Higher temperatures eventually reduce yields of desirable crops while encouraging weed and pest proliferation. Changes in precipitation patterns increase the likelihood of short-run crop failures and long-run production declines.
Although there will be gains in some crops in some regions of the world, the overall impacts of climate change on agriculture are expected to be negative, threatening global food security.
Analysis suggests that agriculture and human well-being will
be negatively affected by climate change:
• In developing countries, climate change will cause yield declines for the most important crops. South Asia will be particularly hard hit.
• Climate change will have varying effects on irrigated yields across regions, but irrigated yields for all crops in South Asia will experience large declines.
• Climate change will result in additional price increases for the most important agricultural crops–rice, wheat, maize, and soybeans. Higher feed prices will result in higher meat prices. As a result, climate change will reduce the growth in meat consumption slightly and cause a more substantial fall in cereals consumption.
• Calorie availability in 2050 will not only be lower than in the no–climate-change scenario—it will
actually decline relative to 2000 levels throughout the developing world.
• By 2050, the decline in calorie availability will increase child malnutrition by 20 percent relative to a world with no climate change. Climate change will eliminate much of the improvement in child malnourishment levels that would occur with no climate change.
• Thus, aggressive agricultural productivity investments of US$7.1–7.3 billion2 are needed to raise calorie consumption enough to offset the negative impacts of climate change on the health and
well-being of children.
So even if we only focus on the agricultural impacts of climate change - yes – it's still a bad thing.
I was just thinking...... If given a choice, would you prefer global warming, or global cooling? I mean, its' gonna do one or the other. Climate patterns change naturally. Which would you prefer?
Can it be prevented? Yes
We know the cause and we know what the solutions are to fix it.
However, I find this question very misleading, because after reading the examples you gave:
webmost:
North American CO2 emissions fell 1.3 percent last year amid slowing economic
growth. In China, the world’s biggest emitter, greenhouse gases from fuel
rose more than 9 percent in 2011. What? You're going to tell them wogs to knock it off?
You're going to tell India and Indonesia "no productivity for you, boys, missed the
boat, good times is over, you gotta stay stuck in the third world." Sure. That'll
go over. Get a grip. If Nigeria wants a steel mill, they're not going to get one
powered by solar panels.
I think the question you're really asking is “will it be prevented.”
And that's based on one's opinion.
My opinion:
We're certainly moving in the right direction – public awareness is up, business practices are changing, and we're seeing a shift in public conscience to reduce our carbon footprint/environmental impact.
However, only time will tell if we, the global human population, will make real, significant changes before the impacts of climate change become irreversible.
Yes we do.
Long story short, less “man-made” greenhouse gases.
I'm tired and not going to spell it out for you, but if you would truly like to see some ideas on how we can slow down and stop the negative effects of man-made climate change; these articlesare agoodplace tostart.
webmost:
10) Should we prevent it?
Plainly not.
If you've read this far and still think we shouldn't do our best to prevent it – then I doubt I can say anything else that will change your mind.
Instead, I'll leave you with this video of Naderev Saño, the lead negotiator for the Philippines at the Climate Conference in Doha, making a passionate appeal for real action on climate change.
Thanks for bearing with me as worked to organize my thoughts and format these replies in (what I hope) are fairly easy-to-read chunks.
beatnic:
I was just thinking...... If given a choice, would you prefer global warming, or global cooling? I mean, its' gonna do one or the other. Climate patterns change naturally. Which would you prefer?
If we're talking about man-made warming or cooling --- I'd prefer neither.
But if we're talking about natural warming or cooling, then it doesn't make a bit of difference to me.
Thanks for taking the time to write all of this. That's all well and good, but the earth's atmosphere is not warming. CO2 doesn't increase the temperature of the atmosphere. Show me any chart or formula that that show's the correlation. I'll wait until it is proven. Scientifically.
Thanks for taking the time to write all of this. That's all well and good, but the earth's atmosphere is not warming. CO2 doesn't increase the temperature of the atmosphere. Show me any chart or formula that that show's the correlation. I'll wait until it is proven. Scientifically.
Then perhaps you misunderstood my answers to questions 3, 4, 5 & 6.
I would encourage you to re-read them and look at the links/studies I provided - which show that:
1) yes the earth is warming and
2) man-made greenhouse gases *CO2* are the cause of this warming
If you have specific questions or take issue with the evidence I've posted please let me know and I'll be happy to respond.
However, with all due respect, I'm not going to waste my time posting additional information for you - since it seems to me that you've already made up your mind on this subject.
Also, if you do re-read my posts, and would like to debate this further ... I'd first like you to answer the question I posed in my response to the original questions #3 & 4:
jgibv:
So back to my original question, if this is not it, then what would settled science, or a consensus look like?
Thanks for taking the time to write all of this. That's all well and good, but the earth's atmosphere is not warming. CO2 doesn't increase the temperature of the atmosphere. Show me any chart or formula that that show's the correlation. I'll wait until it is proven. Scientifically.
Global warming...... you bet....... happens all the time......
Now plot atmospheric CO2 on the same chart, and you'll see no correlation.
Ok, here's a couple charts that compare atmospheric CO2 and temperature...
(Annual atmospheric carbon dioxide (NOAA) and annual global temperature anomaly (GISS) from 1964 to 2008.)
(Green line is carbon dioxide levels from ice cores obtained at Law Dome, East Antarctica (CDIAC). Blue line is carbon dioxide levels measured at Mauna Loa, Hawaii (NOAA). Red line is annual global temperature anomaly (GISS))
That looks like a correlation to me...if you do not agree, please explain.
Unless I missed something --- this chart does not compare the exact thing you requested above ... temperature vs. atmospheric CO2.
Temperature is nowhere to be found on this chart ... from the link:
"This chart represents a plot of the percent U.S. area that exhibits drought conditions per the Palmer Drought Index. ... In addition, the chart displays a plot of monthly CO2 levels during the same time range."
Please, correct me if I'm reading your chart wrong and let me know if I missed something??
I assume you'll get to it soon....??
I eagerly await your response.
jgibv:
Also, if you do re-read my posts, and would like to debate this further ... I'd first like you to answer the question I posed in my response to the original questions #3 & 4:
jgibv:
So back to my original question, if this is not it, then what would settled science, or a consensus look like?
The EDF offers a nice summary saying:
"Scientists are certain the Earth has been warming for 100 years. Here's how they know."
And the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) reports that “Earth's surface air temperature has risen more than 1.1°F (0.7°C) since the late 1800s. This warming of the average temperature around the globe has been especially sharp since the 1970s....(and) since 1980, the rise in greenhouse gas emissions from human activity has overwhelmed the aerosol effect to produce overall global warming.”
There's also NOAA's indicators which include:
The Global Surface Temperature is Rising
U.S. Surface Temperature is also Rising
Sea Level is Rising
Global Upper Ocean Heat Content is Rising
Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover is Retreating
Glacier Volume is Shrinking
U.S. Climate Extremes are Increasing
Energy from the Sun Has Not Increased
And don't forget NOAA's borehole analysis which found that “this record, totally independent of data and methods used in other studies, shows the same thing: the Earth is warming dramatically.”
Thanks for all this jgibv. I thought the Nasa link to the global warming in 26 seconds was impressive. I read through the page and came across the following..."You’ll note an acceleration of those temperatures in the late 1970s as greenhouse gas emissions from energy production increased worldwide and clean air laws reduced emissions of pollutants that had a cooling effect on the climate, and thus were masking some of the global warming signal." So help me out please. Do you know anything about the pollutants that cool the climate? I'm asking because I hadn't heard of it before.
Thanks for all this jgibv. I thought the Nasa link to the global warming in 26 seconds was impressive. I read through the page and came across the following..."You’ll note an acceleration of those temperatures in the late 1970s as greenhouse gas emissions from energy production increased worldwide and clean air laws reduced emissions of pollutants that had a cooling effect on the climate, and thus were masking some of the global warming signal." So help me out please. Do you know anything about the pollutants that cool the climate? I'm asking because I hadn't heard of it before.
You're welcome
Thanks for taking the time to read this, and even if we don't agree on some of these points, I hope that you've learned something new from these posts.
But I digress, to answer your question:
The big "pollutant" or gas - that can cause cooling is sulfur dioxide.
Sulfur dioxide is part of a group of highly reactive gasses known as “oxides of sulfur.”
And in the stratosphere sulfur dioxide will convert to sulfuric acid, which condenses rapidly to form fine sulfate aerosols.
These aerosols increase the reflection of radiation from the Sun back into space, cooling the Earth's lower atmosphere or troposphere.
The largest sources of SO2 emissions are from fossil fuel combustion at power plants (73%) and other industrial facilities (20%). Smaller sources of SO2 emissions include industrial processes such as extracting metal from ore, and the burning of high sulfur containing fuels by locomotives, large ships, and non-road equipment.
EPA first set standards for SO2 in 1971. EPA set a 24-hour primary standard at 140 ppb and an annual average standard at 30 ppb (to protect health). EPA also set a 3-hour average secondary standard at 500 ppb (to protect the public welfare). In 1996, EPA reviewed the SO2 NAAQS and chose not to revise the standards.
You can read more at the EPA's website here and here.
Hope this helps answer your question.
Thanks for all this jgibv. I thought the Nasa link to the global warming in 26 seconds was impressive. I read through the page and came across the following..."You’ll note an acceleration of those temperatures in the late 1970s as greenhouse gas emissions from energy production increased worldwide and clean air laws reduced emissions of pollutants that had a cooling effect on the climate, and thus were masking some of the global warming signal." So help me out please. Do you know anything about the pollutants that cool the climate? I'm asking because I hadn't heard of it before.
Here's the whole article. It tries, as you do, to make sense out of a host of factors that control atmospheric temperature, only one of which is CO2. We can all pull up articles and charts showing our side of the argument. Personally, I think sun spot activity is the major cause of climate variation. If that's the case, we're in for a long cold spell. The thing that strikes me most about one of your these charts is that it shows CO2 levels at Mauna Loa, an active volcano. That's like taking the temperature reading from a parking lot. Let's revisit this in 10 years or so.
Here's the whole article. It tries, as you do, to make sense out of a host of factors that control atmospheric temperature, only one of which is CO2.
Fair enough, but then aren't you doing the same by saying that:
beatnic:
Personally, I think sun spot activity is the major cause of climate variation. If that's the case, we're in for a long cold spell.
And if you think it's sunspots, then ok - that's fine if that's what you'd like to think.
But webmost originally asked for scientific proof/consensus, and I believe you also had an earlier post requesting science as well.
That's what I've tried to provide here, if I haven't then my apologies.
But from what I've read/seen/heard --- sun spots, as we currently measure them - do not account for the climate changes we're seeing.
beatnic:
The thing that strikes me most about one of your these charts is that it shows CO2 levels at Mauna Loa, an active volcano. That's like taking the temperature reading from a parking lot. Let's revisit this in 10 years or so.
You are correct, that graph/chart uses CO2 measurements from the Mauna Loa (volcano), Hawaii.
However, I think it's important to realize why this site was used, despite it's location being close to an active volcano.
Hawaii is centrally located in the Pacific Ocean, far from continental CO2 sources, so the background air at Mauna Loa Observatory is well mixed and has a steady hourly concentration.
Also, being at a high altitude of 11,141 ft, it's above the inversion layer where most of the local effects are present.
And since the Mauna Loa volcanic source is only a few km away, the plume gas is poorly mixed with background air upon reaching MLO, resulting in a large increase in the minute-scale variability of the CO2 concentration. Therefore, final measurements are adjusted to account for local outgassing of CO2 from the volcano.
Thanks for all this jgibv. I thought the Nasa link to the global warming in 26 seconds was impressive. I read through the page and came across the following..."You’ll note an acceleration of those temperatures in the late 1970s as greenhouse gas emissions from energy production increased worldwide and clean air laws reduced emissions of pollutants that had a cooling effect on the climate, and thus were masking some of the global warming signal." So help me out please. Do you know anything about the pollutants that cool the climate? I'm asking because I hadn't heard of it before.
Chemtrails eh Kid? My mind loves those conspiracy theories. Heck I was sure JFK was shot from the grassy knoll until I saw a program that thoroughly debunked the multiple gunmen theories. But then again I'm still wondering if the mafia wasn't behind it because they wanted to get back into Cuba and JFK wouldn't do it. Anyhow, one other thing was weird, when i first pulled up the link I got a totally different video from the second time I pulled up the link. What I got out of the 2nd video was their theory is agencies are spraying out of jets to try to affect the weather etc. ?
Thanks for all this jgibv. I thought the Nasa link to the global warming in 26 seconds was impressive. I read through the page and came across the following..."You’ll note an acceleration of those temperatures in the late 1970s as greenhouse gas emissions from energy production increased worldwide and clean air laws reduced emissions of pollutants that had a cooling effect on the climate, and thus were masking some of the global warming signal." So help me out please. Do you know anything about the pollutants that cool the climate? I'm asking because I hadn't heard of it before.
Chemtrails eh Kid? My mind loves those conspiracy theories. Heck I was sure JFK was shot from the grassy knoll until I saw a program that thoroughly debunked the multiple gunmen theories. But then again I'm still wondering if the mafia wasn't behind it because they wanted to get back into Cuba and JFK wouldn't do it. Anyhow, one other thing was weird, when i first pulled up the link I got a totally different video from the second time I pulled up the link. What I got out of the 2nd video was their theory is agencies are spraying out of jets to try to affect the weather etc. ?
JFK??? I did a paper on the assassination lots of research yes multiple parties involved,, thats another subject. As far as the chemtrails,, just puttin it out there.. Not sayin I agree with every youtube video or support every aspect but it is compelling and you'd have to think we've (govt) have at least experimented with this.
@ beatnic --- Can you please post the source(s) of those last two charts? I can't seem to find anything from the URL as they both link from a private dropbox account.
I tried to do a reverse image search but that showed a few different source URLs and I didn't want to pursue an incorrect source.
I'm interested in reading more about this, because like I mentioned before --- what I've read/seen/heard states that sunspot/solar activity is not the source of warming.
Thank you.
Thanks for all this jgibv. I thought the Nasa link to the global warming in 26 seconds was impressive. I read through the page and came across the following..."You’ll note an acceleration of those temperatures in the late 1970s as greenhouse gas emissions from energy production increased worldwide and clean air laws reduced emissions of pollutants that had a cooling effect on the climate, and thus were masking some of the global warming signal." So help me out please. Do you know anything about the pollutants that cool the climate? I'm asking because I hadn't heard of it before.
Chemtrails eh Kid? My mind loves those conspiracy theories. Heck I was sure JFK was shot from the grassy knoll until I saw a program that thoroughly debunked the multiple gunmen theories. But then again I'm still wondering if the mafia wasn't behind it because they wanted to get back into Cuba and JFK wouldn't do it. Anyhow, one other thing was weird, when i first pulled up the link I got a totally different video from the second time I pulled up the link. What I got out of the 2nd video was their theory is agencies are spraying out of jets to try to affect the weather etc. ?
JFK??? I did a paper on the assassination lots of research yes multiple parties involved,, thats another subject. As far as the chemtrails,, just puttin it out there.. Not sayin I agree with every youtube video or support every aspect but it is compelling and you'd have to think we've (govt) have at least experimented with this.
I wouldn't doubt that if there was a potential technology such as weather control that we (USA) would be involved in researching it. But let's get to the real story, you've got to tell us now...Who shot JFK? LOL!
Sh!t... sorry. I missed this bit until just now. Let me Start at your beginning and read through. Must admit I haven't been following -- been waiting for the finish.
Now, isn't this more sensible than just dismissing everyone who disagrees as trogloditic flat earth morons worthy only of contempt?
Thanks for the links, beatnic.
I hope to get a chance to look at them today.
webmost:
jgibv:
webmost, FYI I'm done.
Sh!t... sorry. I missed this bit until just now. Let me Start at your beginning and read through. Must admit I haven't been following -- been waiting for the finish.
Now, isn't this more sensible than just dismissing everyone who disagrees as trogloditic flat earth morons worthy only of contempt?
No problem, sorry it took me a while and was quite a bit of text/info to get through. Look forward to getting your thoughts.
Comments
But we must understand water vapor's role as a greenhouse gas and how it differs from the other greenhouse gases, mainly CO2.
Unlike CO2, which is considered an external forcing (which I'll elaborate on in a minute)- the level of water vapor in the atmosphere is a function of temperature.
We know that “Water vapor is brought into the atmosphere via evaporation – and that rate depends on the temperature of the ocean and air.”
So as the temperature rises, evaporation increases and more water vapor accumulates in the atmosphere. And since water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas, any additional water vapor will absorb more heat, further warming the air and causing more evaporation.
So we can agree that the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is dependent on temperature and water vapor in the atmosphere traps heat. Yes?
(And you're probably wondering if water vapor's so important, why aren't scientists focusing on it instead of CO2?)
Well, since water vapor is dependent on the evaporation rate - the water vapor concentrations fluctuate regionally, and human activity does not significantly affect water vapor concentrations except at local scales, such as near irrigated fields.
Additionally the average residence time of a water molecule in the atmosphere is only about nine days, compared to years or centuries for other greenhouse gases such as CH4 and CO2.
So what's this all mean? – basically water vapor is a feedback mechanism which responds to and amplifies the effects of external forcings, such as other greenhouse gases.
Therefore more water vapor = more heat = more water vapor.
This is considered positive feedback and water vapor has an amplifying effect on these other, external forcings.
So what the heck are these external forcings?
It's something that can "push" the climate in the direction of warming or cooling. Examples include changes in atmospheric composition (e.g., increased concentrations of greenhouse gases), solar luminosity, volcanic eruptions, and variations in Earth's orbit around the Sun.
With me still?
If so you're probably thinking, well if there's so many external forcings, why blame only CO2, couldn't one of these other factors be causing climate change?
Well let's examine these other factors, and see if we can rule them out, one by one:
How about Solar luminosity (basically meaning the energy from our sun):
“Changes in the Sun's brightness over the past millennium have had only a small effect on Earth's climate, according to a review of existing results and new calculations performed by researchers in the United States, Switzerland, and Germany.
Our results imply that, over the past century, climate change due to human influences must far outweigh the effects of changes in the Sun's brightness”
Ok, so it's not solar luminosity, how about
Volcanic eruptions:
It's true that volcanoes can impact climate change. “During major explosive eruptions huge amounts of volcanic gas, aerosol droplets, and ash are injected into the stratosphere. Injected ash falls rapidly from the stratosphere -- most of it is removed within several days to weeks -- and has little impact on climate change. But volcanic gases like sulfur dioxide can cause global cooling, while volcanic carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, has the potential to promote global warming.
This looks promising, maybe volcanic eruptions be our answer? let's look further...
“While sulfur dioxide released in contemporary volcanic eruptions has occasionally caused detectable global cooling of the lower atmosphere, the carbon dioxide released in contemporary volcanic eruptions has never caused detectable global warming of the atmosphere. This is probably because the amounts of carbon dioxide released in contemporary volcanism have not been of sufficient magnitude to produce detectable global warming. For example, all studies to date of global volcanic carbon dioxide emissions indicate that present-day subaerial and submarine volcanoes release less than a percent of the carbon dioxide released currently by human activities .”
Well, if volcanic eruptions are ruled out, what about:
Earth's orbit:
Earth has indeed experienced warming and cooling cycles roughly every hundred thousand years due to orbital shifts, but such changes have occurred over the span of several centuries. Today's changes have taken place over the past hundred years or less.
And orbital cycles are currently in an overall cooling trend which would be expected to lead towards an ice age, but the 20th century instrumental temperature record shows a sudden rise in global temperatures.
Dang, it's not earth's orbit either – I guess it could be some of the -
Other greenhouse gases:
Well we've already ruled out the most dominant greehouse gas, water vapor, as the cause since it's a feedback mechanism. So what are the other, most abundant greenhouse gases – could they be driving climate change?
Well, CO2 is the next most dominant contributor with the other gases playing only minor roles in climate change.
So if we rule out water vapor, and the other minor greenhouse gases, then the bottom line is that atmospheric carbon dioxide acts as a thermostat in regulating the temperature of Earth … and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has fully documented the fact that industrial activity is responsible for the rapidly increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
So, with the other possibilities ruled out, then it's not surprising then that global warming can be linked directly to the observed increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide and to human industrial activity in general.
Limit birth rates or lower life expectancy – that's how we we would do it.
Implementing those policies is a whole different can of worms and deserves a thread/debate of it's own ... I'll take take a shot:
So even if we overlook the other consequences of global warming and focus solely on the impacts to the global food supply, we can examine the impacts to agriculture and livestock.
“Agriculture is extremely vulnerable to climate change. Higher temperatures eventually reduce yields of desirable crops while encouraging weed and pest proliferation. Changes in precipitation patterns increase the likelihood of short-run crop failures and long-run production declines.
Although there will be gains in some crops in some regions of the world, the overall impacts of climate change on agriculture are expected to be negative, threatening global food security.
Analysis suggests that agriculture and human well-being will be negatively affected by climate change:
• In developing countries, climate change will cause yield declines for the most important crops. South Asia will be particularly hard hit.
• Climate change will have varying effects on irrigated yields across regions, but irrigated yields for all crops in South Asia will experience large declines.
• Climate change will result in additional price increases for the most important agricultural crops–rice, wheat, maize, and soybeans. Higher feed prices will result in higher meat prices. As a result, climate change will reduce the growth in meat consumption slightly and cause a more substantial fall in cereals consumption.
• Calorie availability in 2050 will not only be lower than in the no–climate-change scenario—it will actually decline relative to 2000 levels throughout the developing world.
• By 2050, the decline in calorie availability will increase child malnutrition by 20 percent relative to a world with no climate change. Climate change will eliminate much of the improvement in child malnourishment levels that would occur with no climate change.
• Thus, aggressive agricultural productivity investments of US$7.1–7.3 billion2 are needed to raise calorie consumption enough to offset the negative impacts of climate change on the health and well-being of children.
So even if we only focus on the agricultural impacts of climate change - yes – it's still a bad thing.
Yes
We know the cause and we know what the solutions are to fix it.
However, I find this question very misleading, because after reading the examples you gave: I think the question you're really asking is “will it be prevented.”
And that's based on one's opinion.
My opinion:
We're certainly moving in the right direction – public awareness is up, business practices are changing, and we're seeing a shift in public conscience to reduce our carbon footprint/environmental impact.
However, only time will tell if we, the global human population, will make real, significant changes before the impacts of climate change become irreversible.
So yes, it can be prevented.
Long story short, less “man-made” greenhouse gases.
I'm tired and not going to spell it out for you, but if you would truly like to see some ideas on how we can slow down and stop the negative effects of man-made climate change; these articles are a good place to start. If you've read this far and still think we shouldn't do our best to prevent it – then I doubt I can say anything else that will change your mind.
Instead, I'll leave you with this video of Naderev Saño, the lead negotiator for the Philippines at the Climate Conference in Doha, making a passionate appeal for real action on climate change.
Thanks for bearing with me as worked to organize my thoughts and format these replies in (what I hope) are fairly easy-to-read chunks.
If we're talking about man-made warming or cooling --- I'd prefer neither.
But if we're talking about natural warming or cooling, then it doesn't make a bit of difference to me.
I would encourage you to re-read them and look at the links/studies I provided - which show that:
1) yes the earth is warming and
2) man-made greenhouse gases *CO2* are the cause of this warming
If you have specific questions or take issue with the evidence I've posted please let me know and I'll be happy to respond.
However, with all due respect, I'm not going to waste my time posting additional information for you - since it seems to me that you've already made up your mind on this subject.
Also, if you do re-read my posts, and would like to debate this further ... I'd first like you to answer the question I posed in my response to the original questions #3 & 4:
(Annual atmospheric carbon dioxide (NOAA) and annual global temperature anomaly (GISS) from 1964 to 2008.)
(Green line is carbon dioxide levels from ice cores obtained at Law Dome, East Antarctica (CDIAC). Blue line is carbon dioxide levels measured at Mauna Loa, Hawaii (NOAA). Red line is annual global temperature anomaly (GISS))
That looks like a correlation to me...if you do not agree, please explain.
-----------------------------------
Unless I missed something --- this chart does not compare the exact thing you requested above ... temperature vs. atmospheric CO2.
Temperature is nowhere to be found on this chart ... from the link:
"This chart represents a plot of the percent U.S. area that exhibits drought conditions per the Palmer Drought Index. ... In addition, the chart displays a plot of monthly CO2 levels during the same time range."
Please, correct me if I'm reading your chart wrong and let me know if I missed something??
I assume you'll get to it soon....??
I eagerly await your response.
Thanks for taking the time to read this, and even if we don't agree on some of these points, I hope that you've learned something new from these posts.
But I digress, to answer your question:
The big "pollutant" or gas - that can cause cooling is sulfur dioxide.
Sulfur dioxide is part of a group of highly reactive gasses known as “oxides of sulfur.”
And in the stratosphere sulfur dioxide will convert to sulfuric acid, which condenses rapidly to form fine sulfate aerosols.
These aerosols increase the reflection of radiation from the Sun back into space, cooling the Earth's lower atmosphere or troposphere.
The largest sources of SO2 emissions are from fossil fuel combustion at power plants (73%) and other industrial facilities (20%). Smaller sources of SO2 emissions include industrial processes such as extracting metal from ore, and the burning of high sulfur containing fuels by locomotives, large ships, and non-road equipment.
EPA first set standards for SO2 in 1971. EPA set a 24-hour primary standard at 140 ppb and an annual average standard at 30 ppb (to protect health). EPA also set a 3-hour average secondary standard at 500 ppb (to protect the public welfare). In 1996, EPA reviewed the SO2 NAAQS and chose not to revise the standards.
You can read more at the EPA's website here and here.
Hope this helps answer your question.
Here's the whole article. It tries, as you do, to make sense out of a host of factors that control atmospheric temperature, only one of which is CO2. We can all pull up articles and charts showing our side of the argument. Personally, I think sun spot activity is the major cause of climate variation. If that's the case, we're in for a long cold spell. The thing that strikes me most about one of your these charts is that it shows CO2 levels at Mauna Loa, an active volcano. That's like taking the temperature reading from a parking lot. Let's revisit this in 10 years or so.
But webmost originally asked for scientific proof/consensus, and I believe you also had an earlier post requesting science as well.
That's what I've tried to provide here, if I haven't then my apologies.
But from what I've read/seen/heard --- sun spots, as we currently measure them - do not account for the climate changes we're seeing.
You are correct, that graph/chart uses CO2 measurements from the Mauna Loa (volcano), Hawaii.
However, I think it's important to realize why this site was used, despite it's location being close to an active volcano.
Hawaii is centrally located in the Pacific Ocean, far from continental CO2 sources, so the background air at Mauna Loa Observatory is well mixed and has a steady hourly concentration.
Also, being at a high altitude of 11,141 ft, it's above the inversion layer where most of the local effects are present.
And since the Mauna Loa volcanic source is only a few km away, the plume gas is poorly mixed with background air upon reaching MLO, resulting in a large increase in the minute-scale variability of the CO2 concentration. Therefore, final measurements are adjusted to account for local outgassing of CO2 from the volcano.
More info on how the measurements are adjusted can be found here.
As far as the chemtrails,, just puttin it out there.. Not sayin I agree with every youtube video or support every aspect but it is compelling and you'd have to think we've (govt) have at least experimented with this.
I tried to do a reverse image search but that showed a few different source URLs and I didn't want to pursue an incorrect source.
I'm interested in reading more about this, because like I mentioned before --- what I've read/seen/heard states that sunspot/solar activity is not the source of warming.
Thank you.
and
http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/
http://www.c3headlines.com/temperature-charts-historical-proxies.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Easterbrook
Now, isn't this more sensible than just dismissing everyone who disagrees as trogloditic flat earth morons worthy only of contempt?
I hope to get a chance to look at them today.
No problem, sorry it took me a while and was quite a bit of text/info to get through. Look forward to getting your thoughts.