The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Jantar]

...So, because water vapour is a greenhouse gas this provides a positive feedback for the other climate forcing factors such as greenhouse gases, aerosols and solar variations.

True. It also provides a negative feedback. As water vapour concentrations increase more water vapour condenses into cloud, and some even freezes to ice crystals to form the various alto clouds (eg alto stratus). These act as a mirror to incoming solar radiation and decrease the radiative effect.

[Quasievil]

Yeah yeah complicated as you guys are making it, the fact is we are about to enter into a whole new generation of ruthless taxation based on Mankind making the planet apparently warm to "catastrophic levels" because of our massive 1.7% Co2 emissions despite the 98.3% natural emissions how can you and do you justify this regime onto us ?????

My argument is Mankind is Not responsible for global warming

so prove me wrong

[Mikkel]

Yeah yeah complicated as you guys are making it, the fact is we are about to enter into a whole new generation of ruthless taxation based on Mankind making the planet apparently warm to "catastrophic levels" because of our massive 1.7% Co2 emissions despite the 98.3% natural emissions how can you and do you justify this regime onto us ?????

My argument is Mankind is Not responsible for global warming

so prove me wrong

Easy.

By burning fossil fuels you heat the global climate - directly. Never mind whether the CO2 does anything or not.

Now, had you said - "My argument is Mankind is Not solely responsible for global warming" - we couldn't possibly argue with it.

[Badjelly]

No, it isn't a red herring at all. The world's largest carbon sink is the ocean. CO2 becomes more soluable in water as the water temperature decrease, and less soluable as the temperature increases. Because of inertia (already mentioned a few pages back) it takes centuries for atmospheric temperature change to filter down to the ocean depths and release or absorb CO2. So a rising global temperature, like we have seen since the last mini ice age 200 years ago is only now starting to show up as increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. CO2 concentrations will continue to rise for hundreds of years after the global temperature starts to fall again.

Does your theory have anything to say about the C13/C12 isotope ratio? The C13/C12 isotope ratio in atmospheric CO2 has been decreasing since about the time fossil fuel burning began (from tree ring and ice core data) and is still decreasing. This is consistent with a fossil fuel source and not (I think) consistent with an ocean source. See

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...ities-updated/

which cites a few papers that I'll look up when I get a chance.

Or in other words (see comments at the above link):

a) CO2 began to rise when we starting producing it in earnest, b) its isotopic signature demonstrates it comes predominantly from fossil fuels, and c) such an increase has not happened in at least 800,000 years as far as we can tell.

Furthermore I believe the oceanic inorganic carbon data is good enough these days to show that the amount is increasing (consistent with absorption from the atmosphere) rather than decreasing.

[Badjelly]

...So, because water vapour is a greenhouse gas this provides a positive feedback for the other climate forcing factors such as greenhouse gases, aerosols and solar variations.

True. It also provides a negative feedback. As water vapour concentrations increase more water vapour condenses into cloud, and some even freezes to ice crystals to form the various alto clouds (eg alto stratus). These act as a mirror to incoming solar radiation and decrease the radiative effect.

If the rise in water vapour occurs because the temperature is rising, then it doesn't necessarily cause more clouds to form. It's a rise in absolute humidity but not in relative humidity. Cloud feedbacks might exist, in fact they probably do exist, but they could go either way.

[Badjelly]

Yeah yeah complicated as you guys are making it, the fact is we are about to enter into a whole new generation of ruthless taxation based on Mankind making the planet apparently warm to "catastrophic levels" because of our massive 1.7% Co2 emissions despite the 98.3% natural emissions how can you and do you justify this regime onto us ?????

My argument is Mankind is Not responsible for global warming

so prove me wrong

Yeah, but why do you think our emissions account for 1.7%? And 1.7% of what?

Oh, and sorry for making it complicated, but reality does not have any obligation to make itself simple for your benefit.

[Quasievil]

Yeah, but why do you think our emissions account for 1.7%? And 1.7% of what?

Oh, and sorry for making it complicated, but reality does not have any obligation to make itself simple for your benefit.

Because thats the figure I can quote from my reading, and its 1.7% of total Co2 emissions released into the atmosphere come from man, the remainder comes from natural sources.

your last comment surely doesnt imply that Im simple.

And still no one has or can refute my statement.

[Quasievil]

Easy.



Now, had you said - "My argument is Mankind is Not solely responsible for global warming" - we couldn't possibly argue with it.

Its getting cooler, there is no warming

[MisterD]

but people like Bellamy have pretty much written off the entire scientific community.

The crucial thing to consider about Bellamy is that he is probably the only person on either side of the debate who is honest about their motivation for speaking out. He passionately believes that the whole AGW thing is distracting us from far more urgent matters on the environmental front - the collapse of fish populations, polluted air, polluted rivers, deforestation...you name it.

[Mully]

The crucial thing to consider about Bellamy is that he is probably the only person on either side of the debate who is honest about their motivation for speaking out. He passionately believes that the whole AGW thing is distracting us from far more urgent matters on the environmental front - the collapse of fish populations, polluted air, polluted rivers, deforestation...you name it.

See, this is the point that I see.

Regardless of man's contribution to Global Warming, living somewhere polluted is not pleasant. If cutting down on fossil fuel use with reduce smog, etc, then surely that's a good thing?

Plus it might take cars off the roads, freeing them up for bikes.

[Ocean1]

The major greenhouse gas is water vapour.

If the rise in water vapour occurs because the temperature is rising, then it doesn't necessarily cause more clouds to form.

Back up a tad, gentlemen, if you please.

The source of almost all of the heat energy driving our weather is?

The largest factor in the Earth's albedo is?

Which, as a greenhouse gas is how many orders of magnitude more effective than CO2?

And the largest causal factor in cloud cover is?

[Trouser]

Oh oh.

Is it the...................SUN?

[Mikkel]

Back up a tad, gentlemen, if you please.

The source of almost all of the heat energy driving our weather is?

The largest factor in the Earth's albedo is?

Which, as a greenhouse gas is how many orders of magnitude more effective than CO2?

And the largest causal factor in cloud cover is?

Good points. The answers are of course:

1. The sun.
2. Clouds, snow and ice - i.e. precipitation in a word (potential and water in solid form lying on the ground).
3. Water - but also methane...
4. Temperature.

Yes, the system is self-regulating. If it hadn't been the Earth wouldn't have reached a habitable equilibrium and we'd be looking at something either like Venus or Europa (the moon, not the "continent").

Another point to note is that the radiative heat-loss during the night depends quite a lot upon cloud cover...

[Winston001]

Good discussion lads, I've been here before and think Mikkel et al are doing a good job answering the skeptic/conspiracy theorists. : So I'm going to continue packing for the Cold Duck.

One point however - these arguments miss a rather crucial matter - impact on the biosphere. Even if releasing billions of tonnes of carbon annually, plus lead, zinc, copper etc doesn't affect the climate, it sure as hell affects the micro biota under your feet. And in the sea. If you want any chance of your grandchildren living on this planet, you'll reflect upon the entire food-chain - and how we are systematically poisoning it.

Two (of many) indicators - bee deaths, and ocean acidification.

[Tony W]

Global cooling in the '70s ?

The ozone hole in the '80s ?

Global warming in the '90s

Climate change, currently.

What's next ?