Welcome to the Science Forum Return to Homepage
    C4 Forums    Science    Science Forum    Fundamental questions for the pro-AGW
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
  Login/Join 
APL
Three Silver Stars
Posted
In summary there are serious questions and omissions to the pro-AGW alarmists cannot seem to answer here are some of them. I will start with the term Anthropomorphic Global Warming (AGW) this implies that global warming is caused by man through releasing CO2 in burning fossil fuels.

Question 1: What would happen to the CO2 in the fossil fuels if man had/does not intervene and extract these fossil fuels from the earth and use them?

The answer cannot be nothing here because that is unrealistic the earth’s climate is cyclic in nature and so is CO2. The answer is much more likely, with the earth’s core being molten, is that the CO2 in the fossil fuels would eventually be burnt anyway. This would be highly localised and ejecting huge deadly clouds of CO2 into the atmosphere.
So:

Question 2: Has not the human intervention been a better process than letting nature take it course?

The next questions deal with the CO2/temperature in the ice core data.
See: Temperature and CO2 over the Past 400 Thousand years

This is significant because the fact that there is a corresponding pattern in the rise and fall in pre-industrial CO2/temperatures for over 400,000 years clearly indicates that there is a natural CO2/temperature cycle. That is the pre-industrial CO2 maximum levels (which are substantially lower than today’s) correspond to pre-industrial temperature maximum levels (which are substantially higher than today’s).

This leads to the following questions:

Question 3: If CO2 is the main driver of climate change why with such a substantial increase in CO2 in the industrial era is there no corresponding rise in temperature?

There are 4 possible answer options to explain this discrepancy:

a) That the ice core data is wrong.
b) That the industrial era CO2 values are wrong.
c) That the industrial era temperatures are wrong.
d) CO2 is not a driver of climate change

Whatever option applies the pro-AGW have problems trying to explain question 3 which I would be interested to hear.
 
Posts: 187Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Steve_M
Two Gold Stars
Posted Hide Post
OK I'll give this a go.

1. The oil has been there for 10s (hundreds?) of millions of years, and will likely remain there if we don't touch it.
2. See answer to 1. Also, if a bird is going to poo on your car, would it be better for you to poo on your car before the bird gets there.
3. The question has no basis because the temperatures have risen as expected when you take into account CO2, CH4, aerosols, water vapour, solar radiation, land use changes, blackening of snow by soot and some others I can't think of.
 
Posts: 1170Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Robmb
Two Silver Stars
Posted Hide Post
Here goes

1. Where does this idea come from? It is just as likely that the coal and oil and gas would have remained where it was in thw ground. The molten core doesnt seem to have much to with anything. Carbon sinks dont just give up there up their carbon unless induced.

2?

3 the relationship between co2 concentrations and temp rise isnt linear. i thought that the ave temp increase is seemingly small preceisely because it is an ave global figure. The damage done is from the more local and seasonal temp increases which go to make up this overall increase??
 
Posts: 101Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
APL
Three Silver Stars
Posted Hide Post
1. You cannot say that the CO2 will remain underground forever - unrealistic.

2, Only applies if Q1 is CO2 does not stay underground.

3. The question is based on the pro-AGW premis that CO2 is a driver to such an extend that it severely alters climate - it's about CO2 not CH4, aerosols, water vapour, solar radiation (although funny how these things get quickly dismissed when pointed to as a cause of global warming by sceptics) none of which would explain a lowering of temperature in the situation where CO2 is the main driver - unless of course it isn't in which case the it would explain the discrepancy.
 
Posts: 187Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Robmb
Two Silver Stars
Posted Hide Post
[QUOTE]Originally posted by APL:


That is the pre-industrial CO2 maximum levels (which are substantially lower than today’s)

What relevence to mankind as we know it today has your use of the co2 figures got? To find levels beyond the levels we have today you have to go back so far as to be totally irrelevent to our society. what is the is the point of this line of argument. it is like saying that if we hadnt burnt all the oil and coal nature would have done. Oh but you did say that. Sorry.
 
Posts: 101Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Steve_M
Two Gold Stars
Posted Hide Post
quote:
1. You cannot say that the CO2 will remain underground forever - unrealistic.

2, Only applies if Q1 is CO2 does not stay underground.

3. The question is based on the pro-AGW premis that CO2 is a driver to such an extend that it severely alters climate - it's about CO2 not CH4, aerosols, water vapour, solar radiation (although funny how these things get quickly dismissed when pointed to as a cause of global warming by sceptics) none of which would explain a lowering of temperature in the situation where CO2 is the main driver - unless of course it isn't in which case the it would explain the discrepancy.


OK

1. The oil will remain there for at least the next 1 million years. That should be enough.

2. I'll stick with the same answer.

3. Solar radiation is in the IPCC report. If you look back at many of my posts I mention it. Solar cosmic ray theory isn't because it's questionable. All the things I listed are significant drivers. CO2 the most significant warming one. Aerosols the most significant cooling one.

As you mention the solar effect, I received this today from a climate expert:

quote:

1) The relationship between clouds and cosmic rays, pretty much ignores all
other sources of particles that form cloud condensation nuclei CCN. Factors such as ENSO, volcanoes
and other anthropogenic influences are deemed not to be important.
2) The correlation seems to only be found in low cloud coverage between 1985
and 1994 as measured by satellites. The correlation disappears after 1995,
although the proponents say thats because there is a calibration issue.
However surface observations suggest otherwise. More damning is that for
the last 10+ years there have been papers that showed that cloud variations
over multi year timescales are not reliable from the satellites due to
changes in the number of satellites and their orbits. So calibration is an
issue... for the entire dataset though!
3) Cosmic rays have no overall trend over the last 30 years, whilst
temperatures have increased significantly.
4) A recent experiment claimed to show that gamma radiation could form ions
that form ultra fine particles. It did not show, as a press release stated,
that cosmic rays could form CCN. Evidence that radiation could form ultra
fine particles in the air is many decades old, but it's importance is not
been shown compared to other sources.
4) There are a number of other arguments... I would recomend looking at
www.realclimate.org
5) However the link of cosmic rays to clouds is physically plausible, e.g.
Giles Harrison has some interesting research at Reading on this, but the
size proposed by some people is highly exagerated.
 
Posts: 1170Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
papertiger0
One Silver Star
Posted Hide Post
quote:
whilst
temperatures have increased significantly.

less then one degree over 30 years
 
Posts: 33Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Steve_M
Two Gold Stars
Posted Hide Post
quote:
less then one degree over 30 years


www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/obsdata/globaltemperature.html
 
Posts: 1170Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
 Previous Topic | Next Topic powered by eve community  
 

    C4 Forums    Science    Science Forum    Fundamental questions for the pro-AGW