Global warming, facts pls

[Natachan]

So some background.

About 5-6 months ago I was a firm believer in the traditional climate change story. But I was in an environmental class (because every civil engineering student is required to take classes on environmental science, atmospheric chemistry, and water quality. Why I do not know). I also had to go to lectures from environmental PhDs. One of the lectures stated that the science was still out. He stated that some empirical models showed cooling and that data from the past few years didn't fit with the traditional warming model. My other professor wouldn't comment on temperature, as he was more concerned about changes in water pH as a result of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

So I did a bit of research and found that carbon dioxide is responsible for less than 25% of the total greenhouse effect, and human activity accounts for less than 25% of that. I found that current temperatures are still no higher than those during the "medieval warm period." I'm currently reading a book on atmospheric chemistry. So I'm wondering what the actual facts are on this.

On a related note I endorse efforts to reduce carbon emissions and promote sustainability. And this has promoted that. So, if it was true that climate change is somewhat overblown, is it still ok to exaggerate if it gets people motivated and acting in a more sustainable manner?

[KUSA]

If someone can make a dollar off of it then it will be exaggerated.

[Anomalocaris]

If someone can make a dollar off of it then it will be exaggerated.

If someone can make a dollar off of denying it, then it will be denied.
If someone can make a dollar understating it, then it would be understated.

[archangle]

So some background.

About 5-6 months ago I was a firm believer in the traditional climate change story. But I was in an environmental class (because every civil engineering student is required to take classes on environmental science, atmospheric chemistry, and water quality. Why I do not know). I also had to go to lectures from environmental PhDs. One of the lectures stated that the science was still out. He stated that some empirical models showed cooling and that data from the past few years didn't fit with the traditional warming model. My other professor wouldn't comment on temperature, as he was more concerned about changes in water pH as a result of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

So I did a bit of research and found that carbon dioxide is responsible for less than 25% of the total greenhouse effect, and human activity accounts for less than 25% of that. I found that current temperatures are still no higher than those during the "medieval warm period." I'm currently reading a book on atmospheric chemistry. So I'm wondering what the actual facts are on this.

On a related note I endorse efforts to reduce carbon emissions and promote sustainability. And this has promoted that. So, if it was true that climate change is somewhat overblown, is it still ok to exaggerate if it gets people motivated and acting in a more sustainable manner?

you can argue the causes and the end points. But we are warming up. I don't care if they are phd's or not.

we are coming out of an ice age. err ... we are not cooling down.

[Ryantology]

If someone can make a dollar off of it then it will be exaggerated.

All those petroleum, chemical, energy and automobile companies, on the other hand, purchase the services of scientists who deny climate change out of the goodness of their altruistic hearts, and in the interest of defending the common man from those money-grubbing scientists and their repeatedly-justified consensus conspiracy to ruin capitalism and destroy America.

[ShaMan]

I'm gonna close all the windows and doors and get my own green-house effect going

[Natachan]

you can argue the causes and the end points. But we are warming up. I don't care if they are phd's or not.

we are coming out of an ice age. err ... we are not cooling down.

I don't dispute the trend over the past 100-150 years that it has been warming up. We are coming out of the "little ice age" and some warming is to be expected. My question refers to catastrophic global temperature increase as a result of human influence. I also don't contest the idea that reliance on fossil fuels is unhealthy and unsustainable, and neither do these men. As I mentioned one of them studies water quality and worries how CO2 could affect pH and aquatic life.

[ShaMan]

Are the glaciers melting, or is it just me?

[Lemonvariable72]

If someone can make a dollar off of it then it will be exaggerated.

All those petroleum, chemical, energy and automobile companies, on the other hand, purchase the services of scientists who deny climate change out of the goodness of their altruistic hearts, and in the interest of defending the common man from those money-grubbing scientists and their repeatedly-justified consensus conspiracy to ruin capitalism and destroy America.

Why on earth would the petro, chemical, and energy want to oppose green energy when there the ones producing it and funding green energy?

[Brakeman]

So I did a bit of research and found that carbon dioxide is responsible for less than 25% of the total greenhouse effect, and human activity accounts for less than 25% of that.

Bullshit! Human activity accounts for nearly nearly ALL of the change in CO2 levels. Total CO2 is a combination of rather static levels of carbon in the atmosphere within the carbon cycle. Most of the land mass is covered in seasonal vegetation where plants extract co2 from the air to create plant products during the spring and summer months, but that carbon is released again with the vegetation die-off by decomposition and combustion. This is why the atmospheric CO2 levels have such a distinct seasonal pattern. There are more longterm patterns in the cycle as well matching with longer term plant die off. Some vegetation is buried before full decomposition and converts to fossil fuels over long periods of time. It is the extraction and burning of these fuels that brings new carbon into play and becomes a huge agent of change. The carbon stored in the perma-frost in the artic is the largest trigger event looming. If the typical fill-up at the pump of 15 gallons weighs about 6.4 lbs x 15 = 96 lbs and 85 % of that is carbon which gives us 81.5 lbs of carbon. When this is combined with oxygen from the air you get about 300 lbs of CO2 going into the air that already had a "normal" CO2 cycle balance. With one fill-up! Multiply that by the number of cars in our history and adding in all the coal and natural gas being burnt as well and only a madman would think it would have no adverse effect.

I suppose that climate deniers would also support dumping trash in the grand canyon as it would take years for that to effect the globe as well..