Global warming does not exist - have we done this one yet

[EternalOptimist]

We all know that CO2 is a warming blanket, if it was not there at all, the world would be a frozen wasteland. But we are not going to turn Earth into Venus by switching on a light bulb like some of the more alarmist MMGW lobby would insist that we believe.

er.. 65% of ghg is water vapour, 10% is carbon dioxide (very roughly) last time i checked

[Goatfell]

It would be nice.

Why not similar factual programmes on this subject. No propoganda or sensationalism...just 'Here's how it is, and you choose what you think...we will not tell you'...

And we have, Al Gore's brilliant film "An Inconvenient Truth"

But it ain't gonna happen, too many entrenched positions at the moment, unless of course a new, better apocalyptic threat is found, then watch the defections and backtracking turn into a flood... ahh, now there's an idea

[DimPrawn]

er.. 95% of ghg is water vapour, 3.5% is carbon dioxide (very roughly) last time i checked

[DodgyAgent]

And we have, Al Gore's brilliant film "An Inconvenient Truth"

But it ain't gonna happen, too many entrenched positions at the moment, unless of course a new, better apocalyptic threat is found, then watch the defections and backtracking turn into a flood... ahh, now there's an idea

He has made a lot of money out of it by impressing idiots like you.

[KimberleyChris]

er.. 95% of ghg is water vapour, 3.5% is carbon dioxide (very roughly) last time i checked

I'm not really trying to rock any boats here, but it is a fact that 'some' CO2 is a good thing, and 'too much' CO2 (or none) is a bad thing.

There is a natural balance. The earth would be many degrees cooler without its ancient naturally-present CO2, and we would not be having this little chat if it was not there. It's part of the 'Goldilocks zone' habitability system.

The 'debate' is about how much we can screw about with the CO2 level. Many MMGW sceptics and heretics (like me) believe that the planet is quite resilient to these changes, and is big and ugly enough to look after itself, and the alarmists would have you believe that a 100W light bulb left on will kill us all.

My only grouse is in the way that the information has been fed to us. I have a natural mistrust of anybody who even wants to be a politician.

The truth is probably somewhere in between the two rival camps, but as usual the politicians have their own agendas too. I never got an answer to my question "Why is the planet still crawling with climatologists when the politicians already know all the answers"

[shaunbhoy]

I never got an answer to my question "Why is the planet still crawling with climatologists when the politicians already know all the answers"

Because that particular trough is still brimfull of tax dollars.

HTH

[EternalOptimist]

In that case KC, it might be worth looking at the range of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere before mankind even existed.
If you find three, four or ten times the current amount and that life thrived on the planet, you will have your answer.

what if it were twenty times ? which it was

we are currently at a very, very low level of concentration

[BlasterBates]

We all know that CO2 is a warming blanket, if it was not there at all, the world would be a frozen wasteland.

Scientists haven´t said that and in any case CO2 is not a potent global warming gas on it´s own. The argument is that it´s a catalyst. i.e. it´s effect is leveraged by the water vapour which is actually the key greenhouse gas. But the sensitivity of the climate to CO2 is in dispute.

[KimberleyChris]

Oh, I forgot the bit about water vapour.

Again, this is a bit of a see-saw. The water vapour is of course there because it evaporates from the warm oceans, which are nice and warm because of the natural CO2, and round-and-round it goes.

One 'heretic' theory is that more CO2 will warm things up, causing more evaporation, causing more clouds, which are white and will therefore reflect more sunlight back into space which will cool things down again. I don't know enough to call the shots, so we need our resident statistician Mr Clarke to tell us if the cloud albedo effect is strong enough to help us or not. Some clever man must have done the sums before now.

[pjclarke]

You might well gnash your teeth about the error bars above, but I dont remember seeing ANY on the hockey stick graph

You're kidding?



It's the grey bit. All subsequent studies fell inside the error bars of the 'original'. And the title of the paper was ..."Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: inferences, uncertainties, and limitations", that is it was all about the uncertainties ...