Environmental Science

[grumzed]

Nick, as far as I can see, without extensive research, the CO2 lag behind temperature rises in the past is not in contradiction with the present situation. It is also true that CO2 is a "greenhouse gas" and reduces the radiated heat (infra-red) and therefore reduces radiative cooling. Also the current rapid rise in temperatures tracks the industrialisation of the planet very well over what is, from a geological perspective an exceedingly short time. Much less than 800 years.

This is not my specialisation, and I'm guessing neither yours, so I am to a large extent on relying on other's analyses of data and what those who have studied these issues in the detail required. But a note that a quite good precis is this New Scientist article:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659-climate-myths-ice-cores-show-co2-increases-lag-behind-temperature-rises-disproving-the-link-to-global-warming/

There is a new trend in the world for people losing trust in expert opinion. This may be due to social media and also by some politicians to cherry pick to suit their own views. Generally, though, this is not a sensible thing to do as I expect you would agree. This has particularly come to light with the rise of those who believe the many conspiracy theories propagated by Donald Trump and the supporters of Qanon, ideas that the Clinton's ran a Paedophile ring and hosts of other false ideas. Most experts in the field of climatology (not just a small majority) think that the rise in global temperatures is due to man made emissions of greenhouse gases, particularly CO2. And, from what I understand I have no reason to doubt that they are right and we should take it seriously because the consequences of not doing so are quite heavy (especially for those living not very much above sea level).

[Nick]

[HIGHLIGHT]In past times man was not producing CO2, at least not in the past timeframes you are suggesting[/HIGHLIGHT]. Man IS producing CO2 now, from carbon trapped underground for millions of years. This is a new phenomenon. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and will increase the earth's temperature. You are right that the oceans absorbs CO2 and is becoming slightly more acidic near the surface as a result. The increasing acidity is actually measurable and it is seen to be more acidic over recent years.

Despite this, atmospheric CO2 has risen from about 280 ppm in 1850 to 410 ppm now. This level is unprecedented in the historical record from all sources going back at least 1M years.

OMG: Read and understand.

For the third time................

CO2 lags temperature. 800 years after temperature !!

This means the increase in temperature CREATES more CO2 in our atmosphere. CO2 is the product of climate change not the DRIVER.

Please respond to this point!!

[grumzed]

CO2 lags temperature by 800 years. The temperature increases before CO2 goes up.

In past times man was not producing CO2, at least not in the past timeframes you are suggesting. Man IS producing CO2 now, from carbon trapped underground for millions of years. This is a new phenomenon. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and will increase the earth's temperature. You are right that the oceans absorbs CO2 and is becoming slightly more acidic near the surface as a result. The increasing acidity is actually measurable and it is seen to be more acidic over recent years.

Despite this, atmospheric CO2 has risen from about 280 ppm in 1850 to 410 ppm now. This level is unprecedented in the historical record from all sources going back at least 1M years.

[Nick]

Nick, if you look at the web reference I mentioned you will see it has the same graph that you posted but with an extra point which covers the temperature excursion in recent times. The temperature rise we have now is well above the cyclical changes due to other sources and is a very rapid one being in the last 100 years or so. The paper in the reference I sent IS showing the science.

It is certainly true that over very long timescales the earth has had very large temperature changes - even lengthy periods where there were no ice caps. Past CO2 levels, which may well have been responsible, along with other "greenhouse gases", for past temperature changes are thought to be produced by volcanos from greater geological activity than experienced today. And it is certainly the case that modern humans are living through a relatively cool period in earth's history and the change to a warmer period may well be likely. The main difference is the speed of change that has not occurred for 10s of millions of years. The cost to the planet if the temperature changes continue are huge.

I am not an expert in this field, and I assume neither are you, so we rely on guidance from those that are. What seems extraordinary to me is that even though there is a large scientific consensus regarding anthropogenic climate change, there are so many that would deny it. There is certainly a huge correlation between CO2 (and other man made gas emissions) and global temperature rises. However, there are many powerful lobby groups (and even countries) that have vested interests in making such denials. Whilst those of us around today will not see the downsides and costs of global warming, future generations will. It also seems to me that changes that reduce atmospheric pollution and retain the world's forests are  generally good for many other reasons.

It's not showing any science because you haven't recognised and digested the fact that I said.

[HIGHLIGHT]CO2 lags temperature by 800 years. The temperature increases before CO2 goes up. [/HIGHLIGHT]

This means the temperature goes up, warms the sea, which strangely enough takes 800 years to respond. Gives off more CO2 so therefore more is found in the ice core records 800 years after a temperature rise.

Again... Temperature drive CO2 not the other way round. If CO2 was the driver of temperature then the earth would go into an upwards spiral.

CO2 would increase, Earth and sea temperatures would increase, give off more CO2, 'Ad Infinitum'.  The Oceans are giant CO2 capacitors that regulate the temperature / CO2 balance.

[grumzed]

Nick, if you look at the web reference I mentioned you will see it has the same graph that you posted but with an extra point which covers the temperature excursion in recent times. The temperature rise we have now is well above the cyclical changes due to other sources and is a very rapid one being in the last 100 years or so. The paper in the reference I sent IS showing the science.

It is certainly true that over very long timescales the earth has had very large temperature changes - even lengthy periods where there were no ice caps. Past CO2 levels, which may well have been responsible, along with other "greenhouse gases", for past temperature changes are thought to be produced by volcanos from greater geological activity than experienced today. And it is certainly the case that modern humans are living through a relatively cool period in earth's history and the change to a warmer period may well be likely. The main difference is the speed of change that has not occurred for 10s of millions of years. The cost to the planet if the temperature changes continue are huge.

I am not an expert in this field, and I assume neither are you, so we rely on guidance from those that are. What seems extraordinary to me is that even though there is a large scientific consensus regarding anthropogenic climate change, there are so many that would deny it. There is certainly a huge correlation between CO2 (and other man made gas emissions) and global temperature rises. However, there are many powerful lobby groups (and even countries) that have vested interests in making such denials. Whilst those of us around today will not see the downsides and costs of global warming, future generations will. It also seems to me that changes that reduce atmospheric pollution and retain the world's forests are  generally good for many other reasons.

[Nick]

At least they have acknowledged the problem and appreciate it is worldwide one.

They haven't acknowledge anything to do with anthropogenic climate change. They've started to address things that make life in big city's unbearable, and they've accepted that the west is watching and economic issues will arise if they are not seen to be doing something.

Finally: Why did they change the name from global warming to climate change? Anything to do with the fact that temperatures have gone up and down, especially in the southern hemisphere?

[Nick]

Nick, you have selected graphical data covering a very, very long timeline which also conveniently does not show the recent years at all

Of course I've selected a long period, how else do you show a 25 thousand year cycle  .

You've totally missed the point 'conveniently'.
The graph shows you three things that cannot be argued.

1: There is a pattern to our climate, it's called the great year and there is nothing we can do about it. It is controlled by the Sun, our orbit, the earths wobble and our path through space. None of which we can do anything about.

2: CO2 levels are cyclic and follow certain patterns.

3: And the biggy which you totally failed to see, the graph shows that CO2 lags temperature by around 800 years! Which means CO2 is a product of temperature change not a driver.

As I first said, show me the science behind your claim. I've just showed you the science that proves you wrong.

[grumzed]

On China I am fully aware of the huge pollution in the major cities and that China's rapid material growth and high population makes them a major source of greenhouse gases (and other pollutants for that matter). But, as I said, I believe that they will improve this situation in the coming decades and doing this is aided by their centrally controlled economy. At least they have acknowledged the problem and appreciate it is worldwide one.

[grumzed]

I would also say that Corbyn's brother is only a self-proclaimed "expert" on these matters (and in some other areas too) and disagrees with the vast majority of experts in the field.

[grumzed]

Nick, you have selected graphical data covering a very, very long timeline which also conveniently does not show the recent years at all - maybe because of the averaging is done of a very large number of years. You are right that on this timescale there are other cyclic influences on global warming and cooling. However, on this scale, the ocean rises that occurred in past times, if occurred today, would definitely not be acceptable. If you look at the graph in the link below, and read the text, you will note that temperature rises in the last 100 years or so have been very significant. These are not shown on the graph you posted.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide

[Nick]

Well, China has announced a plan to reduce carbon emissions and to have carbon neutrality by 2060.

I take it you've never been to Beijing? Where in summer you can barely see where you're going. It is that bad they banned all cars from the city for months in t lead up to the Olympics.

[Nick]

"Killing the planet" is a misleading phrase because the planet will survive even if all the nuclear weapons on earth were detonated at the same time. "Damaging our habitat" is more appropriate because [HIGHLIGHT]climate change could well damage our habitat[/HIGHLIGHT] and those of lots of other species.

If a proportion of the Antarctic and Greenland ice caps melt, then sea levels rise and that will affect many major cities including London. Also fossil fuels are running out so we should conserve them for applications where there's no alternative and use renewables (mainly electricity) for everything else.

Unfortunately our climate is controlled by the Sun as we are effectively in it's atmosphere. Sunspot cycles have been proven to control a very large proportion of our climate. Go ask Jeremy Corbyn's brother.

[Nick]

The idea is to reduce the CO2 in the air, not remove it all. There is a point of balance that existed for many thousands of years but [HIGHLIGHT]which the world's industrialisation and population growth are responsible for disrupting[/HIGHLIGHT]. This has been somewhat belatedly been recognised and is being corrected. Whether the corrections are fast enough to stop major problems (e.g. huge sea level rises and major climate changes) remains to be seen (though probably not by you or I). One important counter balance is that although the world population is still rising (it has tripled from the 2.5 Billion in 1950) there is evidence that the rate of growth is reducing and may stabilise to about 11 Billion by 2100. However it is doubtful that the current measures will be fast enough to stop events like sea level rises and significant dramatic weather events.

Seriously? You can show the science for that can you? And I don't mean a climate model that is build on the premise that CO2 drives climate, cause I can build a model that shows the complete opposite.

For now lets look at what you've just said. "which the world's industrialisation and population growth are responsible for disrupting". Take a look at the graph below which shows that CO2 have been much higher than present day. CO2 makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere of which anthropogenic additions are about 0.5%, water vapour and other gasses make up the vast majority. Another failure of the science is where the heating takes place: If it was a greenhouse effect it would be in the upper atmosphere where you would see the heating, but its not.


There is also another very interesting thing about the graph below apart from the obvious pattern, very inconvenient to Mr Gore, any ideas?

[grumzed]

I absolutely know what gender I am (I just checked) and certainly enjoy Fish and Chips.   

[Sheepy]

Have they damn civil of them, meanwhile while the Admiral is inspecting his new boats, I am having sustainably fished, fish and chips again.
If you turn your nose up at fish and chips or fishfinger sandwiches that makes you one of those Neo Liberal types, who don't even have a clue what gender they are most of the time.