My Theory of Global Warming

Ahnimus

So, I've probably mentioned this theory several times before. But I'd like to present it by it's self.

First of all, let's take a look at CO2 and Temperature Concordance
Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Co2-temperature-plot.svg

Notice that the CO2 level and the global temperature correlate with each other. Until we get to our current time on the scale. Here, instead, we see very high CO2 levels, almost twice as high as ever before in history. Yet, the temperature is relatively the same as it has been at this point in the cycle.

Also note that the dips and spikes in the graph represent the Ice Age Cycles.

This means two things, (i) ice ages are inevitable and occur in approximately 100,000 year cycles, (ii) CO2 does not directly translate to global temperature.

My theory is, that whatever affects global temperature (probably sun cycles, or solar rotation) in turn melts the ice covering the natural gases (greenhouse) within the earth. As these gases are released they fill the atmosphere increasing temperature and sustainability of life. However, as the cycle continues and a new ice age ensues the ground becomes frozen over again which inhibits the release of natural gases. In this theory global temperature more directly affects greenhouse gases, than vice versa. All biological waste releases these gases, which implies to me that somehow these gases are essential to the biosphere, to sustain life.

If the theory that CO2 drastically impacts temperature were true. We would all be dead right now.

I like how George Carlin puts it "Save the planet? The planet doesn't need saving, it's us that's going to die."

Just as the dinosaurs before us, except that we have already survived an Ice Age, according to several sources, the last Ice Age was 10,000 years ago, and the term Ice Age is relative to glaciel presence on the planet. By this definition we are still in an Ice Age.

The popular theory of CO2 and Global Warming serves only the anti-Globalist movement. Which I'm not opposed to, but lying about Global Warming isn't the way to do it.

yogsothoth

Your theory is pretty close to the mark of what I think too, except I have a slightly different conclusion.

Those records show about a ~10C warming about every 100,000 years, with a corresponding 50% rise in co2a.

I doubt those ~10C temperature rises in the past from glacial to interglacial periods are primarily caused by the ~50% co2 rise in the past too. I agree with you that the co2 rise in that time is probably caused by the temperature rise in some way.

I also agree that the temperature rises are possibly started by something in nature with some kind of 100,000 year cycle. Perhaps some kind of solar or orbital factor.

The climate science community don't believe the 10C rise is caused by the 50% co2 rise either. The IPCC's climate sensitity range puts a doubling of co2 as causing a 2C-4.5C rise in temperature. That means a 50% co2 rise will cause between a 1C and 2.2C rise in temperature. So this falls short of being able to explain the full 10C of warming, even though it can explain some of it.

Also there have been two studies which support the idea that the co2 rise started about 800 years after each temperature rise, and not before them. Which further backs up what you were saying about the co2 rise being an effect of the temperature rise and not an initial cause.

However once co2 has risen due to temperature, it in turn will cause more temperature rise as you mention, ie acting as a positive feedback or amplifier. So at least some of the later of the 10C warming (which took place over thousands of years) can be explained as due to the co2 rise, even if it is only about 10% of it.

The recent rise from pre-industrial co2 levels (280ppm-380ppm) is only a 35% rise, so the expected warming would be between 0.7C and 1.5C. There's also a lag time for climate response so this maximum temperature is not reached immediately. A bit like how switching a heater on in a room may eventually lead to a 5C rise in temperature but that maximum takes time to reach.

This is the popular theory of co2 and global warming with man-made additions so far leading to about 1C of warming (not all happened yet), or at least this is how I understand it. Although you are probably right that some people think global warming theory says those past temperature rises are all caused by co2.

edgarcamp

I tend to agree we are only a small part of the problem, but could be better stewards of the enviroment. The earth is an ever changing environment that goes through it's own cycles no matter what we do. She will be here and has been here far longer then humans. Problem is, that isn't as sexy a cover story as, "We are destroying our planet."
It does bother me though that we have not taken better care of the planet, I just don't place all the blame for global warming on the human race.
Now, litter, sewage and pesticide run-off, acid rain, smog, etc.,yeah, that's all us!

I think that's #100!!!

Julien

global warming is partly natural.
as you said, you canb follow curves of temperatures and CO2.
At this stage, we are in the high of the curve. CO2 increases and temperatures also. The problem is that the human factor is to be added to the natural trend. That makes temperatures, CO2, SO4, etc. increase too much and too rapidly, and higher than in previous cycles.
Those curves are obtained by measuring concentrations in old ices (for example in Vostok in north Russia)

yogsothoth

vostok is in antarctica although it is a russian station

macgyver06

doesn't Carbon Dioxide Trap Heat on the terrain from rising to the atmosphere..sorta like a clogging artery of hot air...

gue_barium

I think Ahnimus makes good sense in his post. However. he only addresses the C02 issue in how it affects the environment, and not how it affects human health. A healthy environment (i.e. clean water, clean air) goes hand in hand with healthy animal life (including human) existence. Humans will eventually have to adapt to Global warming whether it is a natural occurance or not.

On that note, to say, that C02 emissions are ineffectual to the health of the planet is like saying I like to sit in my apartment with the tailpipe of my car running in the window, and it doesn't bother me.

CorporateWhore

So we were right not to sign Kyoto?

Ahnimus

gue_barium wrote:

I think Ahnimus makes good sense in his post. However. he only addresses the C02 issue in how it affects the environment, and not how it affects human health. A healthy environment (i.e. clean water, clean air) goes hand in hand with healthy animal life (including human) existence. Humans will eventually have to adapt to Global warming whether it is a natural occurance or not.

On that note, to say, that C02 emissions are ineffectual to the health of the planet is like saying I like to sit in my apartment with the tailpipe of my car running in the window, and it doesn't bother me.

Trees breath CO2 and recycle it for us. With the huge logging industry, we have no shortage of trees. I wouldn't suggest filling a ballon with CO2 and inhaling it. But I don't feel that CO2 in the atmosphere is particularily a threat to us.

gue_barium

Ahnimus wrote:

Trees breath CO2 and recycle it for us. With the huge logging industry, we have no shortage of trees. I wouldn't suggest filling a ballon with CO2 and inhaling it. But I don't feel that CO2 in the atmosphere is particularily a threat to us.

I think there are such things as excesses, as is the case now (America being the #1 C02 emitter in the world), and equilibrium in regards to the natural world we live in. If we have the knowledge to adapt and incorporate and improve toward that equilibrium I don't see why not.

BTW, I also agree that politics have hijacked the environmental movement, and distorted it beyond recognition in some cases. Even Arnold, in California, is getting in on the act as he sees great economic/industrial windfall in the enviromental movement and the new technology it will take to transform.

I don't mind that so much.