Saturday, May 05, 2007
Is carbon dioxide the cause of global warming, or the result?
I have occasionally posted on the subject of global climate change. While my emotions are with the "skeptics" -- my impulse is to resist any cause of the Hollywood left, no matter how meritorious it may be -- and I think many of the policy prescriptions of the activists are deplorable, I am increasingly persuaded that some of the climate's manifest warming in recent years is anthropogenic. With that background, I note that several esteemed commenters on this blog have offered the view that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide are the result of warming, rather than the cause. If that were true, it would let humans off the hook and drive us toward very different policy solutions than those proposed by the activists.
Trouble is, there is more than a little evidence that the incremental carbon dioxide in the atmosphere comes from extracted minerals. We know this because there are several isotopes of carbon dioxide, and they occur in different proportions in different sources. In the atmosphere, the percentage of the CO2 isotope that corresponds to that found in fossil fuels is increasing.
Read this, plus the back-and-forth in the comments. What say you?
17 Comments:
By 
10ksnooker, at
Sat May 05, 03:02:00 PM:
There is no doubt that our planet is warming, so is Mars ....
CO2 is a minor contributor to the Earth's greenhouse effect, water vapor accounts for about 95% of the Earth's greenhouse effect, CO2 is much less than 1%, and it is nowhere as effective as say the gas methane. It is not reasonable to view a less than 1% factor as the main forcing function. Occam's razor, it's the sun, the fire beneath our feet, and the cosmos that causes warming, not liberal fantasies. Oddly enough, a rift has been recently discovered running under the arctic ocean with a whole string of active undersea volcanoes. Polar bears take note ...
Historical fact ... During the medieval warm period, about 1000 AD, Greenland was green(hence the name) and grape vines grew all over London, hence the "vine" names of places in London.
A good site to visit
file:///home/bill/.mozilla/firefox/b0j507uh.bill/ScrapBook/data/20070131170307/index.html
When you consider that the oceans contain the largest amount of dissolved CO2 it is easy to conclude that warming releases CO2 from the oceans, same as it does with a warm soda pop on the counter. The ice record confirms, warming precedes CO2 rises by about 800 years, the evidence base concurs.
The entire argument that we are all going to die, because of excess CO2, relies on a base of very shaky computer models which are at best incomplete and at worse missing many key climate drivers entirely. Man just isn't smart enough to predict the weather, much less the climate of the Earth in the future. If we were, you would think we could predict the weather, or when the next hurricane will form -- We can't do either with any certainty.
No one wants a dirty Earth, air, smog, water or any other pollution, but don't equate dirty with not believing man is warming the planet.
By Purple Avenger, at
Sat May 05, 03:21:00 PM:
Unless they controlled for the effect of volcanically generated fossil CO2 (approx 1000ppm in magma), I find the results unconvincing. Major eruptions and lava flows could be a significant source of fossil CO2.
The Pacific "ring of fire" has been particularly active recently.
By Purple Avenger, at
Sat May 05, 03:22:00 PM:
It shouldn't need to be stated, but...temporal coincidence doesn't necessarily imply causality.
By Biotunes, at
Sat May 05, 03:55:00 PM:
Carbon dioxide is abolutely both a cause and a result of warming. This is what is known as a positive feedback loop, and it is a big reason that the trend we are on is so scary. For example, there is loads of CO2 trapped in the permafrost of the arctic; as warming melts the permafrost, significantly more CO2 is released, warming the planet further, etc.
Cooling trends also have positive feedback loops. The best example for that is that increased snow cover in high latitudes increases the albedo of the planet, which is a measure of how much heat is reflected, rather than absorbed by a surface. Snow has very high albedo because it is white, so the more snow, the cooler it gets, etc.
The facts are: CO2 absolutely causes warming, and humans produce a hell of a lot more CO2 than would be produced by non-human processes in the absence of our activities (especially if you add in the positive feedback). I would say at this point that the main debate is really whether any measures we take to reduce greenhouse gass production at this point matter for the future of the planet or would be incidental. In my opinion, there are so many good reasons to start getting off fossil fuels as an energy source NOW that, any positive impact on the climate is extra gravy.
By 
, at
Sat May 05, 07:19:00 PM:
Even the Real Climate guys acknowledge that global warming occurs before Co2 increases.
I've been saying for quite sometime that we need to change the conversation from "Is man causing the earth to warm?" to "Is man-made Co2 going to increase global warming in the future?"
Ice core data indicates that the first question isn't relevant.
However, the second one is the real issue.
By , at
Sat May 05, 07:26:00 PM:
Hmm... the link didn't show up like that in the preview. Sorry.
Biotunes, you really need to read that link. It says the exact opposite of what you adamantly claim is true.
I assume you are also aware that all Co2 in the atmosphere is about 0.03% of the total atmosphere.
And 97% of that is natural and only about 3% man-made.
Perhaps our 0.002% contribution to the atmosphere is the problem. Just strikes me as odd if it is. Especially given that ice core data suggests warming occcurs before Co2 increases.
By Purple Avenger, at
Sat May 05, 07:33:00 PM:
Don't confuse him with one curve leading the other, he's on a roll...
By Assistant Village Idiot, at
Sat May 05, 07:38:00 PM:
I am out of my depth as to the science, and don't pretend otherwise. I am curious how Ruddiman's evidence that we have actually been slowly warming the climate for 8000 years due to agriculture, and that this has averted an Ice Age, is being taken by climate scientists. I found his arguments compelling, but it's not my field. Ruddiman agrees that fossil fuels accelerate this and thinks we should decrease our use of them, but also notes that such fuels are temporary (200-400 years) regardless.
By Diane Wilson, at
Sat May 05, 08:17:00 PM:
Not only is Mars warming; so is Jupiter. There's no escape.
One of the British television channels did a show a few months back called somethign like "The Great Global Warming Swindle". There were long clips on Pajamas Media at the time. They tracked long-term climate change through several tracks of evidence, and it all pointed to solar activity.
I don't claim to be an expert in climate, but I do understand a little about statistics. When someone shows (as the "Swindle" did) climate varying with solar activity over hundreds of thousands of years, it's intriguing. (Again, correlation does not imply causality, but still.) When they show CO2 lagging 80 years behind climate change over the same time frame (warming and cooling), it does destroy the suggestion that CO2 is a possible cause.
Overall, the earth's climate is still on the cool side, historically. Yes, Greenland used to be green. And they're finding moss under the retreating glaciers in the Andes.
Climate change is natural. Hey, anything natural has to be good! We'd better learn to cope.
By , at
Sat May 05, 10:21:00 PM:
Well, if it does turn out in fifty years that we've caused the planet to warm, we'll just have to cool it off. If we can do the one we can do the other.
By , at
Sun May 06, 12:18:00 AM:
Its cuased by HOT AIR from AL GORE and the eco-wackos from the various eco-wacko groups
By Viking Kaj, at
Sun May 06, 03:19:00 AM:
There is no generally accepted scientific proof that global warming is occuring due to increased CO2 levels caused by man. In fact, the bigger long term problem is global cooling. We are presently in an INTERGLACIAL warming period. 12,000 years ago where my house sits now (just north of Princeton) there was a wall of ice a mile high. If you don't believe me, go check the granite boulders in Central Park.
This is just like Al Gore "invented" the internet. Al Gore is trying to invent a political future, and there are more than enough disreputable climatologists who are willing to fuel this fire in an effort to increase their research funding. I will posit that there is a positive corelation between the percieved risk of global warming and the amount of funding made available for climate research.
Most responsible climatologists will use care to venture an opinion on this topic. For example, they still do not have a generally accepted theory of what caused the "Little Ice Age", a period of general global cooling that occured between 1200 and 1800 AD from which we are just emerging, and which in part led to the demise of the Greenland settlements and the extended drought in the American West that caused the fall of the Anastazi. The range of warming we are observing is well within the normal range of variation in the earth's climate over the last 10 million years. If you don't believe me then get a 10 million year record and compare. You will see that things move up and down quite a bit.
As others have noted above, the more important relationship is probably with atmospheric CO2 and the amount of CO2 released from the weathering of calcium carbonate in an equilibrium with dissolved CO2 in the ocean. But it is still far from clear whether this is a cause and effect relationship. One of the better recent theories posits that the rise of the Himalayas have actually had a major impact on global climate by increasing the amount of calcium carbonate rocks available for weathering, and also interfering with the global jet streams. According to this theory, the Himalayas may actually be responsible for the ice ages of the last 30-50 million years.
Of course, it has been far worse. If you don't believe me google the term "snowball earth". There is significant evidence that the entire earth was frozen solid about 500 million years ago. The only scientific debate is whether part of the oceans remained unfrozen so as to be able to sustain life.
That said, there are other important reasons to reduce global hydrocarbon emissions such as acid rain. Also, trees are extremely important to most global ecosystems, so there are signficant advantages to reforestation programs as well. Finally, Parson Malthus was probably right. There is a limit to global population and we are getting ready to test that limit. A lot of the "problems" associated with global warming are due to increased populations living on barrier islands and in low lying coastal areas. Such populations are extremely vulnerable to increased ocean levels that are resulting from global warming, regardless of whether the warming is due in part to man's activites or not.
By , at
Sun May 06, 05:33:00 AM:
If the statistics show that CO2 is a minor element of global warmin g and mans portion of the CO2 emmissions is miniscule then the proponents of this view should get the message out quickly.
After all, ridicule is one of the better ways to attack an argument. Using the above statistics to ridicule the propenents of man made CO2 as being a major cause of global warming would be an effective counter to the massive campaign currently underway.
By Purple Avenger, at
Sun May 06, 10:50:00 AM:
then the proponents of this view should get the message out quickly.
And the preferred venue for this would be the ultra-cooperative cool aid drinking media right?
By 10ksnooker, at
Sun May 06, 06:30:00 PM:
Talk about sea level rise, since the end of the last ice age, not clear which models of SUVs ended it, the sea level has risen some 400 feet. What do you call the latest recent changes in sea level, within the margins of error. Although it could be positive feedback.
Globull warming is nothing more than the latest in a long string of alarmist tactics Liberals use to try and control everything you do.
Why is warm bad? Does anyone think freezing to death is better, like the Neanderthals did? The Earth has spent far more time as a snowball than it has as a place with moderate temperate climate like today. No one knows why -- Just look at the temperature charts for the last eons and see for yourself. An ice age is far more likely than the current alarmist predictions. Maybe Liberals were right the last time, it's fifty fifty, so even odds now.
By , at
Mon May 07, 12:26:00 PM:
As other have pointed out, there has been global warming and cooling before. Why should the climate be stable now? Changing is what climate does best.
I don't see where anyone has made a good case that human action can make the climate stay in one particular desired range.
By RPD -- because blogger is too big of a pain.
By Sofia Scarlett, at
Sun Aug 24, 07:09:00 PM:
Hey I was just wondering why some climatologists seem to think that global warming come before an Ice Age is it because of CO2 emissions?
I've been looking everywhere yet can't find a straight answer.
