Gotcha. However, in the interest of fairness, I have to reference this Wikipedia page:
Climate change consensus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The whole page is worth a gander, but the first paragraph says it all. (Of course, it's Wikipedia, so who knows!).
And how the hell do you know that it was random volcanic originated CO2 which trapped enough heat which caused the end of SE?
is this too simplistic, or straight to the main points?
HowStuffWorks "How Global Warming Works"
I think in order to answer the question "What to believe", you first need to answer the question "Who to believe". Even on the link provided, you have the main article which extensively quotes the IPCC but at the side there are further links to books which, I think you will find, offer alternative theories. Now, if you believe the IPCC is the font of all unbiased knowledge, then by all means accept those findings and therefore anything which is based on them. On the other hand, if you detect any bias in the IPCC or it's workings, then perhaps you should question their findings and any other sources which rely heavily on them.
Not sure I follow that argument. 0.03% -> 0.04% is a 33% increase, so on the simplest assumption that will trap 33% more heat.
Youre right in answering GasDads question: were nowhere near capture saturation, but it wouldnt make much difference if we were:
In a stable situation, solar radiation reaches the Earths atmosphere. Some of it is absorbed by CO2, which is warmed, but most of it reaches the surface, which absorbs it and also warms. The warm CO2 radiates IR, some of which escapes back into space, and some of which radiates downwards to the surface. The surface radiates a mixture of wavelengths, some of which are absorbed by the lower levels of CO2, and some of which escape into space. Again, this warm CO2 also radiates heat in all directions. Some of the upwards radiation is absorbed by the high-level CO2, thus adding to its warming. So we have a situation where the CO2 is trapping heat but also allowing a proportion to escape into space. The warmer something is the more energy it radiates, so a temperature stability is reached when the radiation energy from warm CO2 exactly balances the amount it absorbs.
Now increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Because there are more CO2 molecules around, the effect is that energy radiated from the ground is captured at a lower altitude. This makes it more difficult for it to radiate back into space, so the temperature rises until a new balance is struck.
Note two important points:This greenhouse warming effect is in addition to all other factors which affect the Earths temperature, such as internal heating, tides, non-greenhouse solar radiation, etc. However, as has already been discussed, it may create some feedback effects of its own, such as cloud albedo, increased plant growth, etc. But these cannot in themselves, by the very nature of the effects, prevent some temperature increase.Consider GasDads point about saturation, and assume that all the relevant surface radiation is already absorbed by CO2 . Increasing its level will simply mean that it is absorbed at a lower altitude, so overall warming will still occur. Note that nothing can prevent heat being radiated into space: the issue is at what temperature is the balance struck.
It may take many years to put all the pieces together and the process refined to a point that all variables are known.
And what do we do in the meantime?Sit on our thumbs and wait for the science to be firmed up to a state of 'Beyond reasonable doubt'?By which timeit will possibly be too late to take effect action.Starting the planning process now is the only responsible thing to do.Lets face it, with todays generation of useless, self-serving, egotistical, narcissistic, power brokers, negotiations will take years anyhow.So what is the problem with starting now?
(Just a general question, not a dig at GasDads position)
We don't for sure. But it's highly credible, and nobody has come up with a better idea. It had to have been something like that, and the maths works. Solar flares or asteroidal impact aren't powerful enough and are too short-term to have worked. All the evidence points to a reasonably slow thaw, exactly consistent with greenhouse warming.
It seems to me that you are arguing against the greenhouse effect itself, as opposed to its effect on climate change. If you're not then I apologise for getting hold of the wrong end of the stick. But if you are, then forget it. Nobody disputes that the greenhouse effect is real. The only arguments are how relevant it is to current climate change discussions.
If they actually 'sold' the idea like that - I would have no problem with it at all - it is the evangelical nature of those who unquestioningly worship at the altar of MMCC that I have problem with.
The economic costs are so insignificant (perhaps less than 3% of GDP) that I can't quite see what the fuss is about.
Apology accepted.
I have no problem with the natural greenhouse effect. I am however skeptical about mankind's contribution to this effect and even more so, about how this may affect the climate, and then even more skeptical still about how detremental any climate change might be.
It is you fixation with CO2 to the exclusion of all else (including other greenhouse gases such as water vapour) that bothers me. The fact that you blame CO2 for any historical climate changes, despite there being numerous other scenarios, just reinforces my belief that your reasoning shows extreme bias.
It is quite possible that, during the Ice Age(s) the air would be very dry. Something like sun spot activity or an asteroid impact, could have triggered a partial thaw, resulting in an increase in water vapour which in turn (being a greenhouse gas) could have led to further warming etc. I'm not saying that is what happened, but it is one of a number of possible scenarios as well as your pet CO2 based one. Another scenario is the reversal of the Albedo effect which (you say) might have been the cause of SE in the first place.
It seems to me that many people readily accept any information (or any reference to information from any source) which "fits" with their belief without question. On the other hand, anything which does not "fit" is either ignored or dismissed on the most tenuous "evidence". I'm afraid such blatant bias does nothing to convince me of their arguments. In fact it has the opposite effect (that of course applies to both sides of the debate).
If it's 3% of the UK's GDP that's about £80 billion which I don't think anyone could argue is insignificant. Bear in mind that the NHS receives about £100 billion.
I also have no problem with sensible changes but the percentage reductions that are being quoted are just not feasible unless we abandon industry as we know it.
We do need to improve efficiency. It's about time we had ways of storing power so that we could save energy at night time - making businesses turn all lights of at night could save a great deal of energy. However does that mean we have to be taxed to fund it? I think that the energy companies could take a slice of their vast profits to fund it personally.