Devonian

I'd say you're spot on (though, it being 2006 not 1998, what's 'presently possible in terms of global warmth' has changed).

No it isn't :lol: (AFAIK). There is evidence SO2 (well, aerosols) mask warming, due to CO2, but not mask CO2 itself. How could SO2 'mask' CO2?

He cherry picked his starting and ending date to get a flattening trend. If it warms by, say, 2/3C this century there will, I'm sure, still be those claiming it's all natural.

Erm, I don't think cooling pollutants (areosols) mask rising CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere - how could they? They might, though, mask rising temperatures.

So, you throw your sh*t in the street do you? Fact is if it wasn't for campaigners we'd still be slinging sewege in the streets, that's the reality. It's campaigners, those you hate :unsure: , who bring about change. Be thankfull for them, for those agitating now, for those in the past. Ordinary people were to indolent or ignorant to do owt about sewege in the streets and the same is obviously the case wrt CO2 There is NO evidence of a spike in the CO2 record associated with ANY volcanic erruption, either recently, or in the ice cores. That alone ought to convince people of the effect humanity is having... Edit, odd BB software this. Why do two replys to two different posts get put together???

Humm, yup, I know the greenhouse effect is misnamed. I'd go with water vapour being a feedback - http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...ack-or-forcing/ and I doubt that O3 has a greater effect than CO2. Not sure there is a obvious 'it warms > more cloud > it cools' effect - clouds being the maor uncertainty in the models? After all, don't I remember some clouds have a net warming effect on the planet, depends which sort CO2+ WV feedback trigger?

I basically agree, of course other factors effect climate, though I'd like to see evidence of where/when CO2 didn't act as a ghg (even if masked by other forcings).

Nowhere there does a scientist say 'Don't reduce pollution'. Nowhere is it implied that is what we should do. The headline just reinforces my low opinion of Sky News tbh.

I'd echo that, though I find such a prognosis (which might well happen) pretty darn depressing. I guess it just goes to show, we are just animals and we can collectively behave with as little forsight as they do. Otoh, we could address these problems - but not by doing nowt, or by urging doing nowt on those who can do things, or by shrugging shoulders.

The difference is that now the source of the CO2 is clear - now IS different, there wasn't an fossil fuel led industrial revolution before the last ice age.

There is, as far as I know, no evidence CO2 concs would reach the kind of levels at present (let alone where continued anthropogenic emissions mean we are headed) without our help. Why do I say that? Becuase CO2 concs are at the levels they are now due to our activities... Where do you come up with this 'there is no equilibrium CO2 level' idea? There is, again, no evidence CO2 would reach the conc it has without our 'help'. 6 billion tonnes/year EXTRA is a massive amount - far outstripping what volcanioes produce for example. We really need to take in what the graphic showed. Without the human perturbation present CO2 conc would be about 280ppm, there is little evidence that it has changed much (a few tens of ppm's either way) from that figure since the last ice age - http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/p.../20000yrfig.htm . It's a flight of fancy to suggest CO2 could be where it is now, so suddenly by whatever time measure you take, naturally.

Oh, I agree. I just pointed out to the poster that while significant in terms of climate (perhaps/probably highly significant) compared with what the sun does warming us from the depths of near absolute zero it might not, at first glance, seem like 'much'.

CO2 concentration in the atmosphere HAS RISEN by 30% + there is no argument about this. Yes emissions, natural emissions, are vast but SO ARE SINKS. They used TO BALANCE (so Co2 concs stayed pretty much the same over scales of less decades/centuries) now we are ADDING more. Our 6 billion tonnes is enough to raise conc by 30% +. I just can't see they problem you have in accepting this - it makes perfect sense. http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/13.htm . Why doesn't this explain it? A man made imbalance in the normally balanced cycle. What's the problem?

Oh dear, you're not still trying that 3% line are you? Talk about selective :unsure: . Look, it's 3% (or so) of the CO2 in the CO2 cycle it's NOT 3% of the CO2 in the atmosphere - it's a 30%+ increase of CO2 in the atmopshere. Now, I may be wrong but it seems to me the only CO2 that will have an effect on the climate is that CO2 in the atmopshere, not that in the circulation - no?

Aerosols

'No evidence'? Not that warming lags emission (not least because oceans warm slowly)? Not that emissions will continue and almost certainly grow?

No, the change we make is small, but it will have a big impact. Look at it this way: The sun raises temps from close to absolute zero to about -18C. Pre humanity GHG's topped this up to a average world temp of 14C (or so, ball park figures these off the top of my head). People like me are talking of perhaps 2-4C on top of that thanks to anthropogenic ghg's, not much compared to the sun's 270C or so warming is it!!! But 5C cooling is an ice age and 2-4C warming on heck of a lot in climate terms....

Good post Trevw, nice to be in total agreement with you.

There's no precident for the burning worldwide of fossil fuels in massive quantities. Isn't the fact the CO2 is a ghg good enough for you? And if not why not? Now, it's clear the extra CO2 is anthropogenic - it really is indisputable. Don't run with that idea the extra CO2 might not be anthropogenic , it's a silly idea Of course, the warming caused by anthropogenic Co2 might well cause feedback warming.

Your claim is debatable at best - http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/holocene.html or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Holocen..._Variations.png look where 2004 is!).

That's how I see it Trevw

Oh dear.... Look, go over the carbon cycle, note the imbalance, and do the sums (and don't forget about time).

I'm amazed howe people mix up the 3% and the 33%. I'll try again... If the TOTAL amount of CO2 in circulation (the 'carbon cycle') is 100, then each year vast amount get both emitted and absorbed NATURALLY. However, there is, or was, pretty much a BALANCE between emission and absorbtion (there has to be! The amounts involved are so large that if sink or source stopped we'd either expire of CO2 poisoning or the CO2 vanish in years). Now, we are ADDING more CO2, a LOT more. Some of this the planet's CO2 sinks can absorb, but the sinks are clearly overwhealmed else the atmospheric conc of CO2 would not be changing. SO, CO2 rises in conc, now by 30 odd percent. So, while of the CO2 IN THE CO2 CYCLE it's only a small amount, of the CO2 IN THE AIR it's a 33% increase.

You miss the point. The Earth 'IS' overflowing. CO2 conc HAS risen by a third. THis isn't something that can be waved away. Indeed, were it not for thr fact the that sinks (the 'leaks') have managed to remove a good deal of our emissions CO2 would be far higher in Conc thasn it is. Claiming the Earth 'will not keep warming' might be right, but IT IS NOT where the best science points.

Yeah, sorry, not quite got the hang of how this board works. I don't, for instance, see why two replys I made got combined into one long post? Seems a bit odd to me, and does make for long posts. Edit, I've cut the post down a bit B)