http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?...
However, it seems to me that this ignores basic physics. We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We know the planet would be 33 deg C colder if not for greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (from a simple blackbody radiation calculation). There is no doubt that greenhouse gases like CO2 can and do warm the planet. There is also no doubt that atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased 37% over the past 150 years, and coincidentally virtually no doubt that this increase is due to human actions.
Now, if you want to argue how much warming this CO2 increase has caused, that%26#039;s one thing. But when people require past examples of carbon dioxide driving climate change as proof that CO2 *can* cause warming, isn%26#039;t this a denial of the basic physics of the greenhouse effect?
Additional Details
1 week ago
jagsfan - see the %26#039;Carbon Dioxide Feedbacks%26#039; section here: http://greenhome.huddler.com/wiki/global...1 week ago
And please let%26#039;s get the facts straight - CO2 is the second most common greenhouse gas on Earth, behind water vapor, which is a feedback, not a forcing.1 week ago
eric - I%26#039;m only addressing the claim made by many deniers (see first link) that there is no proof CO2 can drive global warming.A real understanding of the topics comes from a graduate level education in physics. The Master%26#039;s enrolments are given here
http://www.aip.org/statistics/trends/hig...
Note that only about 300 Masters degrees in physics are produced annually in the US and only 200 are US citizens. The PhD enrolments are higher. The current annual US production of physics PhD graduates is about 2750, of which 1500 are US citizens.
http://www.aip.org/statistics/trends/hig...
An upper limit on the number of qualified US physicists (not all graduate and some die before the end of their career) is approximately 1700 per year * 40 year career = 68000. This represents about 0.02% of the US population and most of this 0.02% have IQ%26#039;s in the top 1% of the population. You can make the argument that global warming is a logical consequence of molecular physics to this small segment of the population. The result is near unanamous endorsement of the theory of global warming.
Oreskes, N. 2004. Beyond the ivory tower: The scientific consensus on
climate change. Science 306(5702): 1686.
The other 99.98% of the US population matter politically, but are frankly irrelevant to the physics discussion. In a forum like YA, the discussion is necessarily political and perception is more important than truth. A majority of the population percieve that the scientific elites are right, but for a vocal minority of deniers stating the scientific case does not matter.
* You must be logged into Answers to add comments. Sign in or Register.
Other Answers (15)
-
Here%26#039;s a simple logical proof.
A green house gas lets sunlight through, but traps heat in the atmosphere. (definition of a green house gas)
More heat warms the planet and affects climate. (basic physics)
Therefore, green house gasses affect the climate. (conclusion from above)
Carbon dioxide is a green house gas. (a property of CO2)
Since CO2 is a green house gas, and green house gasses affect the climate, then CO2 affects the climate.
Humans are releasing large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. (fact)
A change in CO2 means a change in the climate.
Therefore, humans are changing the climate. (but how much is not certain).
Temperature is not rising
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/dia...
As a greenhouse gas CO2 sucks!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Atmos... -
Let%26#039;s get a couple of points straight here, %26quot;Master of Science%26quot;:
There has never been any argument that greenhouse gases - of which CO2 is a small proportion of them - are responsible for the suitable weather on our planet for our type of life. That%26#039;s a given.
The historical records show that CO2 rises AFTER the heating, pure and simple. CO2 is given off when oceans heat up, plants expire more and the myriad other reasons things %26quot;give up%26quot; their CO2 when heated. It is simple SCIENCE. Try it for yourself; heat up some water to boil in a pot and measure the CO2 increase...
And why do all you %26quot;The Sky is Falling%26quot; types keep referring to the last 150 years? Not because there was some sort of suggestion that the Industrial Revolution wasd the start of this CO2 rise is it? You bet it is; just another way from the Anarchists amongst us to peddle their anti-technology nonsense... but I digress 8-)
150 years ago, when the IR fired up, do you reallly think that the burning of coal and wood in tiny parts of the world to run miniscule steam engines hjadf any effect whatsoever on the climate of this planet? How can you people possibly say that the temperature is Anthropogenically-driven from that time when we didn%26#039;t get into REAL oil-burning until well into the 20th century?