I agree. Plants like CO2 and it's not harmful per se. But a apparently too much in the atmosphere is not a good thing. Not sure if that makes it a "pollutant" but that's only a label.
If all the pollutants were removed from the atmosphere the planet would get warmer and you would see more extremes of temperature. With ref to the poll there should be an option of selecting more than one as its probably a combination of 2 and 3.
For those who agree that CO2 levels are rising rapidly (and if you don't, what don't you like about the data?), what do they put this down to if it has nothing to do with mankind? What's the alternative theory? If you think they are rising and physicists and chemists tell you that increased concentrations will create a greenhouse effect, what don't you like about this theory? You want to say that they are wrong and that their decades of research counts for nothing? BBC News - Iceberg breaks off from Greenland's Petermann Glacier Yeah, I know. Just another random occurrence.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof - in this case, the claim that global warming is occurring plus the claim that mankind is substantially responsible. There is a great deal of conjecture that these claims are true, there is ample circumstancial evidence in support of the case for them - but there are no extraordinary proofs. This is why there is a debate and the two sides are these: those fearful of the future, and those fearful of disturbing the status quo. For me, it's a no-brainer. We are eliminating huge tracts of woodland, one of the major processes that locks-in carbon, away from the atmosphere. Not only that, we are burning more and more fossil fuels, which releases carbon that has been locked-in for millions of years, into the atmosphere. More CO2 plus fewer processes for locking in said carbon ... uh, where's the problem working that puzzle out? There's no smoking gun - so, for policy makers, there's no problem that outweighs the short-to-medium term chaos that awaits a major shift in our energy-generation strategies. We will one day have a strategy for all of this - I suspect that the one percent of the population who survives the apocalypse to come will work it it out.
Well put. A bit like refusing to convict someone you strongly suspect (have pretty much all the evidence) of a crime because you can't find the murder weapon - the smoking gun. This would be all the more likely if the suspect is someone very powerful with strong connections who could make life difficult for you if you convicted them. If you had the gun, you'd have to convict them. If they were a nobody, you'd be more likely to do so on the basis of the evidence that you have. Basically, it's just a lot easier to bury your head in the sand, especially if the consequences of doing nothing aren't going to affect you personally that much.
Going by those graphs we can safely assume that 200 years ago there was no CO2 at all. Is that right?
This chart wouldn't have been put together by the same people who predicted 18ft sea level rises, would it..?
I have no idea, if you can find a credible link to a predicted 18ft rise in sea levels we can compare the sources. The graphs in my link are actual measurements from current levels of atmospheric CO2 and historic data showing actual levels of atmospheric CO2, if you look at the animated graph and either watch the whole thing or zip it on to the last 30 seconds or so you can see a slow fluctuation in CO2 levels of between 185 and 300 Parts per million between 800,000 years BC and the start of industrialisation at which point it goes up like a rocket. It's just a guess but I'd say those two facts are probably connected.
No they're not, that's my point. They represent 'corrected' measurements in the same way some scientists 'corrected' their measurements to come up with an 18ft sea level rise. And look how wildly inaccurate that was This is just one representation, there are others showing very different results, and I don't know which to believe. I need conclusive proof.
You keep mentioning this 18ft sea level rise but I've yet to see the claim. I'd also like to see some of these other representations and who has produced them. The supposed disagreement amongst established climatoligists is usually on matters of scale, a minor difference is presented by the "anti" lobby as disagreement whereas the facts of the matter are that all peer reviewed scientists that have studied the subject agree that our activities are having a significant effect on the planet's climate, there may be some dispute about the level of change but that is on matters of scale, for example a 25% increase in CO2 concentration or a 26% increase, not that there is no increase or that our activities have not caused that increase. Even if you (and I mean a generic "you" not you specifically) disagree that either the climate is changing or that we have had any effect on that change there are major benefits to cleaning up our act and producing more efficient means of producing the energy we all need.
I've never said that I don't believe that the climate is changing, and nor would I berate anyone for trying to lead a greener life. But I don't believe the figures offered by the IPCC because they are a politically-led group, and there are too many people with far more knowledge than me prepared to argue against them. Scientific funding may have a part to play; the IPCC signatories may be thus purely to gain funding, and there are cases where scientists have threatened legal action to get their names removed from any IPCC media. But equally the nay-sayers might be saying nay just to get their faces on the telly, and thus procure funding. What I'm saying is this: For every graph you put up, there will be another showing contrary evidence; for every scientist who says that manmade CO2 is killing us, another will pop up to poo-poo the previous one. I don't know what to believe - and nothing in this thread has altered my view in any way - so I need straight, honest, genuine proof that manmade CO2 is hurting us. And I don't think I'll ever get it.
Absolutely, only the low hanging fruit on the energy tree has been picked and there ain't going to be anymore just around the corner, so that meens we have to get by with less and that means major change, whether we like it or not.
Ice cores, carbon dioxide concentration, and climate An extract from the above link. Fig 1 also shows that carbon dioxide and methane (main greenhouse gases) occur in higher concentrations during warm periods; the two variables, temperature and greenhouse gas concentration, are clearly consistent, yet it is not clear what drives what. The correlation coefficient is 0.81 between CO[SUB]2[/SUB] content and apparent temperature, on the whole. During deglaciation the two varied simultaneously, but during times of cooling the CO[SUB]2[/SUB] changed after the temperature change, by up to 1000 years. This order of events is not what one would expect from the enhanced greenhouse effect. Correlation doesn't prove causation. The oceans are a significant sink of CO2, solubility of a gas is less at higher temperatures, therefore increasing global temperatures could drive an increase in CO2, not the other way around. Note the correlation also between temperature and methane and dust in the atmosphere.
That's a faulty conclusion, John. Whilst you are right in saying that warmer temperatures reduce the solubility of CO2 in sea water, it is not entirely accurate to say that "warmer temperatures drive up CO2 levels, not the reverse". If another source of increased atmospheric CO2 is responsible for a warmer climate (say, the burning of fossil fuels, or a global increase in volcanic eruptions), it will be this that drives up temperatures, and the release of CO2 from the sea - a positive (and unpleasant) feedback loop leading to runaway global warming. I'm not arguing that this is actually happening, I'm just arguing the logic chain.
