Does CO2 affect temperature immediately?

Question

OK, a few weeks ago before the end of term an ex-tory politician came in to school to speak about climate change. He told us that when we put CO2 into the air it takes 150 to take effect, so, he said, the warming we are currently seeing is due to the CO2 we (Britain, that is) put into the atmosphere 150 years ago.

He said that if that relatively small increase in CO2 caused such a large in temperature, then imagine what will happen 150 years from now when the CO2 we are currently putting into the atmosphere takes effect.

Now when I heard this, I heard alarm bells going off in my head, because it made no physical sense to me that CO2 should just hang around in the atmosphere doing nothing for 150 years and then take effect.

So my question is, is what he said true, and if not, how long does it take to take effect or is it immediate.

The only reason I can think of that he might have got it wrong is that he mistook the time CO2 stays in the atmosphere before returning to the ground via plants etc.

Please provide citations etc.

Thanks

Answer 1

First of all, you people need to educate yourselves on what is now called Climate Change instead of global warming. The reason being that it has been determined that the Earth has been cooling since 1998. Also, your question should raise a red flag in regards to the BS

that has been told to you. CO2 if you care to do the research, is .07 of 1 percent in the make up of the earths atmosphere. Seven tenths of 1 percent folks. Global warming is like the Matrix, it is the Illusion that has been pulled over your eyes to justify the work of some scholars who have been searching for relevance in their own lives.

Answer 2

The politician was wrong.  Once CO2 is in the atmosphere, it will absorb and re-radiate heat immediately.

It is true that CO2 can remain in the atmosphere for long periods of time, as long as 200 years.

http://www.stanford.edu/class/e297b/Hybr...

So perhaps what the politician was trying to say is that CO2 emitted 150 years ago may still be impacting global warming today, and CO2 emitted today may still be causing global warming 150 years from now.

Answer 3

Nope

It's hard to believe that the cult of global warming has grown bigger than the one called scientology.What in the name of xenu happened to people???!!!

The reason people are fighting over this is because this is a serious issue.But I don't believe the lie of man-made global warming.I believe that it has the potential to bankrupt our economy based on flawed and overblown data that has been declared nonsense by a substantial portion of the scientific community.

I also believe that elevated c02 levels are benificial in many ways.Trees grow better,which helps put oxygen into the air,and the food crops grow and produce more food.

I guess you could label me a skeptic.

Answer 4

First part of Bob's answer, I agree with.

As for "this time versus prior warm periods" he's comparing to scales of hundreds of thousands of years, not with hundreds of years.    It's been warmer, for multi-century periods, when CO2 levels were lower.   We don't know why.   Thus we cannot just infer that this time the warming is caused by us.    I do however think it's safe to say that the whatever the effect of the CO2 we're emitting now, it's being felt now.

Answer 5

Bob is right.  The politician may have been confusing feedback warming (which can take place over many years) effects with the warming directly caused by CO2. As long as the extra CO2 remains in the atmosphere (150 years is a reasonable average estimate) it will keep the surface temperature warmer and thus fuel the feedback processes.

Some of the on-going feedback warming effects may include:

1) Decreased albedo as surface ice area is reduced

2) Release of permafrost trapped methane/CO2

3) A warmer ocean is able to absorb less CO2

Sorry, I don't have a link off hand that nor time to find one right now.

Answer 6

SORRY... NO!

Global Warming MEANS "World Wide Warming!" It is ONLY A Political Term = NOT based in Real Science!

The EARTH is covered by "Three Quarters WATER!" Basic Science, it takes ONE-Btu to raise One Cubic Centimeter ONE Degree Centigrade!

HOW many "Gazillion Cubic Centimeters are there ONLY on the Surface of Planet Earth COVERED by 3/4 Water?"

HOW many Btu's would it take TO RAISE THE SURFACE TEMPERATURE ONE DEGREE?

DO THE MATH!

And, were are the Million TEMPERATURE MEASURING SITES on the Many Oceans THAT TELL US THAT THE OCEAN TEMPERATURES ARE RISING? Not!

Oh yes, POLAR temperatures have varied LESS Than one degree in the past 100-Years. Noticed I said VARIED, = NOT RISEN!

Thanks, RR

So what is causing our current warming, it is the sun.

http://web.dmi.dk/solar-terrestrial/spac...

http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2003/s...

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/06...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/...

The fact that only the earth’s surface is warming points to direct heating from the sun rather than heating due to greenhouse gasses. Also other planets in our solar system are warming pointing to a common cause of warming, that common cause being the sun.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/0...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/sola...

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/sola...

The global warming crowd says our glaciers are melting and animals will suffer this is another false claim.

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/co2sci...

Answer 7

I would love to hear an answer from a believer about why temperature during the Cambrian didn't follow the CO2 rise up to 7000ppm or so.

Answer 8

Yes and No. The majority of the CO2 being emitted into the atmosphere is coming from volcanic eruptions.  We are not helping with fossil fuel consumption.  Effects are not immediate compared to geological time.  However, if we cut in half the world wide CO2 emissions tomorrow, the effect would not be realized for 50 years.  I am afraid we will have to pay for our past "sins".  For our children, we should start immediately to reduce our contribution. The pulling of the oil, gas and water from the geological subsurface structures, is increasing the instability of the surrounding plates, thus increasing in geologic instability.

Answer 9

immediate....

if you need an example...the exhaust from an automobile should do well.  

Answer 10

No, what he said isn't true.  The effects of CO2 are essentially immediate.  There's no physical mechanism that would cause a delay.

Note that, in past warmings CO2 DID rise after temperature did.  That is because CO2 is bot a cause of warming (the greenhouse effect) and an effect of warming (warm ocean waters release CO2).

In all past warmings CO2 lagged behind temperature, because warming started for natural reasons, and CO2 was mostly an effect.

This time THERE IS NO LAG.  CO2 and temperature are going up together, because CO2 is mostly a cause.

Answer 11

The search below will lead you to a paper that backs up a large portion of what I am going to say.  

The first law of thermodynics.  

Where is the energy stored?

Where is the heat stored?

Where is work going?

In simple terms,  something would have to be hotter and transfer to something cooler, or work would have to be stored.  

Another question, how does CO2 in the atmosphere @ -5 deg C "re-radiate" and transfer heat to the surface of the earth at 15 deg C.  

Answer 12

There is very little relation between co2 and temperatures.  Scientist have no idea what the temperatures would be if co2 levels doubled or halved, there is very little data to even determine if the temperatures would even go up or down.

Co2 isn't the major player in global temperatures.  The ocean curents and the Sun play far greater rolls in the Earths climate.

Answer 13

You are correct.  Any absorption of thermal radiation by CO2 is immediate.

The only problem with correlating CO2 and global warming, is that satellites show the earth has not warmed in ten years, and actually cooled over the past three years, while CO2 continues to rise.  See:

http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/9632/...

The conclusion most folks would draw from this graph is that CO2 is not a significant factor in global temperature.

I would also discount anything said about science from a non-scientist.  They are just repeating what someone else said or wrote, and most likely getting it wrong.

As far as endorsements of global warming by eminent scientific societies, here is one that manages to avoid endorsing anything:

"Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."

-- American Physical Society Council November 18, 2007



Note that is no mention of carbon dioxide, temperature change, direction of temperature change, or even if anything is significant.

That statement is true no matter which way you lean on the global warming issue.

Answer 14

There is no credible evidence to suggest that CO2 is the cause of warming.  If you look at the data of historical climate change, you'll see that CO2 levels increased AFTER temperature increase.. not before.

It's cause then effect, not effect then cause.  

Answer 15

Good thinking Alex. Politicians often try to override the exceptions with their own rules.

It's also hard to believe that CO2 has and immediate effect. Plants absorb CO2 over time and CO2 benefits plant growth over time.

Check this link which has data on the subject.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm#...