global warming

[Mexico]

Does co2 increase lead temperature rise or does temperature rise lead co2 increase? If co2 leads temperature then the rise of 30 ppm in the last 40 years means we are truly in big trouble. If temperature leads co2 then it appears that there's not much we can do about it because there may be little human influence on global temlperatures.

[Taz]

My understanding is that a CO2 increase leads to a temperature rise.

Here's a good site that explains why wth lots of references:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

[Xaneden]

As carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere, it traps infrared (or is it UV?) radiation from the sun, which has entered the atmosphere too. In doing this, the surface of the planet increases in temperature, thus leading to warming. However, I think it's necessary that people kind of gain a perspective on this change. We're talking about an increase of near on a third, but still, that makes CO2 have an atmospheric concentration of 0.04%. Considering the massive reduction in CO2 that the planet has already gone through, one can't help but feel this is a somewhat close to the natural progression, and perhaps a little overhyped.

That's my 2p anyway.

[Lee H]

CO2 is not the "baddy gas" now. Oh no that role has been given to methane as apparently this is a lot worse when it get's into the higher sections of the atmosphere.

You might wanna read this as well

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwa...ent/index.html

[dangel]

so are they banning baked beans as a result?

[Lee H]

so are they banning baked beans as a result?

Nah, although their blaming cows this week.

Next week it will be back to Aerosols and the the weekend after coal burning might get a look in. The weekend after that it's scheduled to whinge about all the printers producing low level ozone

[Mexico]

Thanks for your honest attempts Taz and Xaneden. The reason I asked is because there seems to be some uncertainty now on which causes which. Have a look at this:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13

Is there an inverse effect to begin with for around the first 800 years. Does the D temperature and D co2 have something to do with the question?

That's delta temperature and delta co2 which means the rate of change. The hockey stick theory seems to indicate that the change has been much more rapid in the last 30 years since measurements have been taken of co2 at Mauna Loa.

Anyone have any more ideas?

[Gr44]

I'm no expert on the matter. But I think one thing we all need to realize is that unless you actually know some related science, in-depth at that... none of us can really make a good judgement.

Reason being, its so high profile with so much money at stake that the information that comes out I wouldn't personally trust with a barge pole.

Every single country on this planet either has something to lose or gain by going with varying theorys about global warming. What that may be will vary on country to country, though it would seem if CO2 = warming then poorer countrys will get alot richers and richer countrys will slow down/get poorer.

Not to mention all the oil companys and fat cats who have too much money to lose!

My 2p....

[frumpet]

though it would seem if CO2 = warming then poorer country's will get alot richers and richer countrys will slow down/get poorer.

I disagree with that.

The consequences of global warming and reduction of CO2 emissions will actually result in poorer countries remaining poor whilst wealthier countries will stand to actually become even wealthier.

The problem is that the wealthy countries all emit large amounts of CO2 and have done so for the past century as they have industrialised and increased productivity through factories, vehicles, etc. We've now reached a point where concerns about CO2 have meant that, bar the US, the wealthy countries have reached an agreement to collectively reduce CO2 emissions (Kyoto Protocol).

However, this agreement does nothing to benefit poorer countries who have not industrialised or have only partly industrialised and have low CO2 emissions. These countries cannot afford the technology to meet emissions targets whilst increasing economic growth. Their main argument is literally 'the wealthy countries have emitted large amounts of CO over the past century and have become extremely wealthy whilst potentially damaging the earth, so why should we not follow?'. An example of this is China, which has the fastest economic growth of any country and is also now the 2nd largest CO2 emitter. If they had aimed to grow with reduced carbon emissions then no doubt they would not be in the economic position they are in right now.

Wealthier countries stand to become even wealthier when you consider where the technology to reduce carbon emissions (hydrogen fuel cells, fusion power, etc) is being developed.

As for the main question, it depends on who is backing the scientists. Currently, the majority of research into global warming is being undertaken by the US, who are also, by far, the country with the highest CO2 emissions. So it's not surprising you'll get conflicting results and views from the US.

[phoenixmystic]

Speaking as a scientist and environmental engineer in this field I feel I can add the following things.

In regards to the methane it is known that this does play a part however the emissions of the organic compound is so small in comparison to the oxides that its effect is negliable.

Many North American corporations argue that co2 will be increasing anyway and temperature is rising out of natural cycle. However the rises observed are well aboved natural cycles and as such it is widely accepted thatit is a man made issue.

The kyoto protcol was set up to try and stop this by countries reducing there emissions. The north american goverment refused to sign this agreement and continue to to the major polluters whilea;so being the biggest criticsof others practices. Less developed countries such as china refuse to cut emissions basing there arguments on history. It isworth note that the air is so bad in some parts of china people need to wear respirators as part of everyday life. Noteven England during the industrial revolution got that bad.

Attempts to reduce emssion invole environmentaly friendly technology but while people wasste electricity and North American wives insist or driving 4x4 it is not going to take off. An attitude change globealy needs to occur before technology will beaccepted. SOme is in use by corporations but only for good pr and to cut costs rather than help the planet.

It is mostly accpeted now that we are now past the point of no return. The emissions operate on a fly wheel effect. If all co2 emissions ceased now, levels would still continue to increase. THegulf stream is cooling, th polar caps will melt and drought will increase andscare water will beomcome even more scare. SEveral countries have already issued hose pipe bans. British reserves in wales are seriously depleted this summer.

It is unlikely things will change to human nature.YEs people saysomething should be done about traffic on roads, but how manyof these people will stat with themselves by walking or taking the bus? Not many, they will just moan and then expect others to change around them.

[phoenixmystic]

AS a last note in regard to frumet comment to the kyoto and poorer countries. Theywere never signed up. They get to participate in the carbon trading scheme in which they stand to benifit by selling there qoutas to the over producing nations.

It is also a questiom of efficency a CCGT power plant in the uk runs at around .8 efficiency while the coal of china runs at only .33 at best. The result is englandcan producemore power with less emissions from fossil fuels.

[Mexico]

Thanks all, though I am still not any clearer on whether co2 leads temperature or vice versa. My suspicion, based on the majority of science is that it is the former.

[TeePee]

It's part of the natural cycle of the Earths temperature. It will very soon result in us plunging into another Ice AGe. Probably within the next few million years...

[phoenixmystic]

While that is true, The sheer level of dioxide in the atmosphere is way above natural levels. There is one school of thought which suggests that we should be in an Ice age situation now but pollution has stopped that and delayed it, as it prevents the realease of heat.

Thatis the sole defence from the corporation over the ice caps. However no one really takes note untill it effects them.AN example would be the U.S.A. A few decades ago it was thought the o zone hole would form over the United states and so there was a big anti CFC drive. When it was later discovered the hole was going to form somewhere else they went back to polluting.

[G4Z]

http://www.john-daly.com/ges/surftmp/surftemp.htm

An interesting link saying that the observed temprature increase may have been over estimated because of errors in ground based measurements.

Not sure what to make of it so far, interesting tho.

[G4Z]

I just finished reading the whole thing and I noticed that its dated "10th May 2000".

I wonder how the author accounts for the antartic ice shelf that sheared away recently.