How much do you think CO2 impacts global temperature?

Question

According to some AGW deniers, CO2 has little to nothing to do with the Earth's temperature.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080825130336AAKhSAJ&r=w&show_comments=true&pa=FZB6NWHjDG3N56z6v_2wXz.50BzgKFO.Db0caeQhNcwIxGEwkzqItX8XrswSXGK5WPLjtsKpBeYPzBaNP_QJWA--&paid=add_comment#openions

However, if you do a simple blackbody calculation, you find that the planet would be 33 deg C colder if not for the greenhouse effect.

http://geography.berkeley.edu/ProgramCourses/CoursePagesFA2006/Geog40/L5.pdf

And CO2 is the #2 greenhouse gas on Earth (behind water vapor), responsible for 9-26% of the greenhouse effect.

So how much do you think CO2 impacts global temperature? And what do you think of the fact that the most prominent AGW denier on YA believes it has no impact whatsoever?

Answer 1

I read a recent US government study that was done over a 20 year time span which concluded that the ocean and air temp had not been showing any change in the average temp over that time period. The atmosphere is Nitrogen and Oxygen 99% approximately.CFC's eat ground level ozone because they are heavier than air.I saw another study that predicted that all human and industrial activities since 1850 has caused the CO2 level to change from 350 ppm to 375 ppm and that 6 billion people breathing adds more CO2 than anything else.I will agree that we need to be vigilant and smart about our ecology or we will ruin it for everybody.Does anybody know how much a active volcano can spew into the atmosphere,because when Mt.St. Helens erupted years ago I remember drastic weather changes and that was nature.

Answer 2

Dustin your answer to this question is so far from the truth it's exactly the sort of scenario the global warming advocates are using to bring in the carbon trading scheme into practice. It's a total scam. CO2 does not make up 75% of the atmosphere at all. The fact is that it only makes up .04% and 99.9% is at ground level. CO2 levels change after climate change and not the cause.

Global Warming or Climate Change, which ever you choose to use, is as normal as the sun rise and has been going on since the formation of the planet. There is absolutely not concrete evidence that human activity has anything to do with it. If you use recorded data you will find that since 1998 the temperature has been cooling but the ones who want this stupid carbon trading act to go through deny that fact.

Oxygen is not flammable, it only supports combustion. If oxygen was flammable then you wouldn't need to put petrol through the engine of your car.

While I accept climate change is taking place and has nothing to do with human activity, global warming is a hoax.

Answer 3

Very little. Nothing of significance.

Answer 4

The greenhouse effect balances the earth's temperatures, true.  But adding a tiny amount of extra CO2 hasn't made a difference so far.  And even if we burned all the fossil fuels left on earth we'd still see a negligable impact.

Jello's answer was to the question about CO2 driving climate change.  His answer is true in that the alarmists have never proven otherwise.

Answer 5

Well, Dana, I think the above have given your answer... there are a lot of people out there who are:

Too lazy to learn and/or simply ignore the facts

e.g. "There is absolutely not [sic] concrete evidence that human activity has anything to do with it"

Ignorant of basic science

if plants could cope, why have CO2 concentrations almost doubled?

"CO2 makes up 75 percent of the earth's atmosphere", "Most of the fossil fuels we burn omit CFC's", "Global warming [is] caused by CFC's and not CO2" - all complete nonsense

I would be tempted to advise you just to give up - no one seems to be listening or worse, want to listen, to the science, but after the initial answers there were some good counter-arguments and valuable contributions so maybe there is hope!

As for my modest thoughts:

1. it has been proved beyond my reasonable doubts that CO2 has a significant impact upon planetary temperatures

2. Joe voices my doubts about that prominent denier as well - I have seen him get some best answers but they should have been called "best agreement with the asker's prejudices"! As his Q&A are private, and he resorts to blocking those who disagree with him (censorship usually indicates a fear of truth) it's hard to say how he got all those best answers - certainly not in GW (he's not listed in the top 10). Suffice to say if he was in the Tour de France or the Olympics, I'd be asking him for a few samples for testing...

Actually quite funny - he brags about being the most prolific answerer in GW yet has very few best answers in that category... basically means he gives a good answer perhaps just 380ppm!

Edit to Dave H:

First, let me say that it your response was one of the ones that led me to write "some good counter-arguments and valuable contributions" (even though I disagree with you!).

As for your question, I did not say that "anthropogenic" CO2 "has had a significant impact upon planetary temperatures", just plain old CO2...

As for the links suppoting that, I've added some below.

Answer 6

The amount of Trees and plants to absorb the Co2 and give OUT oxygen to put it SIMPLY!

Answer 7

Has there been any experiments set up to see how much CO2 has an impact? Something like figuring out how much additional heat is trapped for each kg of CO2 added to a closed environment? I don't know how much CO2 impacts global temperature exactly because I'm not a climatologist. It does have an impact, Venus is hotter than even Mercury, the closest planet to the sun, because of the greenhouse effect. And like you said, the planet would be 33 deg C colder if not for the greenhouse effect. It has enough of an impact to accelerate (if not cause) global warming.

As for the AGW denier...well, I have no idea how he got so many best answers, but I haven't seen him get a single additional best answer since I joined YA. Only he has come up with an "argument" worthy of a satiric answer so far...one day I might lose my inner tranquility in the face of a really stupid question and go on a satire spree.  

Answer 8

Co2 makes up 60-75% of earths atmosphere...but doesnt affect the temperature much

Answer 9

Dana Co2 level increase is a after the fact, side effect of previous warming not the cause of it and in itself is only the 3rd ot 4th ranked GH gas not 1st as you like to claim. The real life increase in Co2 is trailing the warming by 50 to 80 years as is supported by all historical evidence. The whole concept that this global warming scam is built on comes from a mistake in logic by a chemist back in the late 1800s when things started warming up at the end of the 2nd half of the little ice age. His arguments were adopted by a group of anti-industrial/anti-technology religious fanatics known as Luddites after their prophet to try and return society to its grander days in the early medieval period when nobility meant something. Oh yes, just like today the major adherents of this cult were the 2nd and 3rd sons of the minor nobility and in some cases the 1st sons who had squandered their inheritances on life style instead of productivity.

The anti Co2 cult was enhanced again when the argument was taken up during the late 20s when warming became noticeable and a industrial chemical firm had come up with a fluorocarbon instead of an oxycarbon refrigerant they claimed was not only superior to Co2 as a refrigerant it also would end the threat of global warming caused by Co2. This refrigerant was known as Freon and was in recent years banned because it was suspected of damaging the ozone layer. Now because of the low performance of other substituted refrigerants Co2 is making a huge comeback in the refrigeration industry, especially in newer auto air-conditioning systems that are more compact and efficient.

In the 1970s the Co2 equals warming theory was once again brought forward by a couple of low end climate scientists Mann/Hansen to first warn of the immanent plunge into a new and disastrous ice age because of the production of Co2 by vehicles and industry. This even though it got major media news play flopped like a lead balloon. Then they got involved with a shyster politician that had major oil company connections dating back to his fathers involvement with them who said clearly people are not afraid of cold but they are of heat.

So this politician writes a disaster is coming because of the warming that will be caused by the huge amounts of Co2 the world is pumping into the air. Mann/Hansen then revised their materials to forecast ever rising temperatures in sync with rising Co2 levels. Well when they checked closely they found that world temperatures had no relationship with Co2 levels and instead followed sun spot activity so they had to alter world temperature records to reflect a temperature increase matching the Co2 increase. This worked fine up through 2000 because things were warming up after the 70s cool period at that time. Then after 2000 temps leveled off and started dropping a little and their altered temperature curve that matched the increasing Co2 curve began to radically separate from reality even more than it had from the beginning of the scam when they had interjected an artificial .5C jump that placed the current 1998 peak well above 1934 when it was actually about .1C below 1934. This radical difference between actual recorded temperatures and reported ones quoted by Mann/Hansen is what brought about NASA action to review national and international records. The US national records have been repaired and now reflect the fact that global warming is more than a myth, it is an outright con game played for profit at the highest political and economic levels.

Answer 10

It does not impact it at all. The source you used for that is very liberal.

Answer 11

You are correct in stating that CO2 accounts for 9 - 26% of the greenhouse gas warming (no doubter above presented any evidence that level is false). I wonder if any of the doubters above have even tried to read the Trenberth/Kiehl paper on Earth's Annual Global Mean Energy Budget? Probably not, as it's a lot easier to assume you know something than to actually put forth the work of learning it.

http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/cou...

After over 100 years of scientific studies on the climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO2, the mean estimate is about 3 C with a standard deviation of just under 1 C (e.g. 1 - 5C with 95% confidence).

http://members.aol.com/bpl1960/ClimateSe...

Answer 12

bestonnet wrote

"What about the blackbody calculation for Venus?"

Ts*√(√(1-ɑ)*Rs/(2*Dv))=232°K

Where Ts=temperature of the sun (5778°K), ɑ=albedo (~.75 for venus), Rs=radius of the Sun (6.96*10^8 meters), Dv=distance between Sun and Venus (1.08*10^11 m or ~.723 AU)

Earth's blackbody temperature is ~255°K. The main difference is due to the large albedo on Venus from sulfur dioxide clouds and sulfuric acid droplets. Otherwise, Venus would be much warmer than Earth (Obviously, this is the blackbody temperature--not including GHGs).

Master_B wrote

"Well to contradict you there, look at 1816 the year without a summer. Volcanic eruption emitted ,many times more CO2 in one eruption than man could produce in several lifetimes"

No it didn't.

"Just interesting to note that as CO2 increases it seems to reflect the sun's heat instead of absorbing it as was proven with the world's temperature dropping"

You are confusing the effect of the massive amounts of aerosols that Tambora emitted with the effect of the relatively small amount of CO2 emitted. Aerosols reflect solar irradiance.

Ken wrote

"After over 100 years of scientific studies on the climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO2, the mean estimate is about 3 C with a standard deviation of just under 1 C (e.g. 1 - 5C with 95% confidence). "

I calculated the standard deviation to be about 1.5 (I later found that your page said the same thing).

Adam C wrote

"it's hard to say how he got all those best answers - certainly not in GW (he's not listed in the top 10)."

Jello has 1078 best answers in GW, and he is listed number 1 in the top ten answerers in the GW section. And I have no clue how he got so many BAs in GW--I have never seen him give a real good answer.

Answer 13

co2 is a greenhouse gas, that much is agreed on though its strength as a greenhouse gas is disputed, most believe it has a mild effect. It currently forms 0.054% of the greenhouse layer so I cant see how it would be the no. 2 warming gas! It is acutually very minor given its mild greenhouse effect and small % of the overall effect. (only Al gore and IPCC think its a major driver, and this is an un-proven theory, they add un-substantiated feedbacks to make this happen in there models)

Some people believe co2 cools the earth rather than warm it, as during volanic eruptions when large amount of co2 has been suddenly released global temperature were recorded as dropping, though it is argued the release of partuculate matter such as carbon into the atmosphere may have caused the cooling by creating a shading effect.

But I do not dispute that it could cause warming, I however, also consider that negative feedbacks may well cancel its effect out and at worst it has only a minor effect masked by other stronger gasses and climate systems. And of course only a small percentage of co2 is attributed to man, some state 3% but given the varies sink we do not understand it could be more or less.

This demonstrated by the fact the signature of global warming is not evident after years of people looking for it.

Historically co2 has always followed warming, not led it, so there is no evidence so far that is can drive the temperature. It is however plausible that adding co2 could have small effect.

From stomatal evidence we know co2 has been higher in the past without the help of man. The icecores have been shown in 2007 to be an unreliable method for measuring historic co2 as the ice absorbs co2 slowly even at such low temperatures, and the ice cores do not match with stomatal data. Stomatal data shows co2 has been higher than today in recent times.

what we do know is co2 is essentional to life, it helps plants grow and it along with other gasses help keep the earth warm (mostly water vapour).

An increase in co2 is beneficial to wildlife and man, increased co2 improves plant growth and fruit harvest (so more animals are supported), it reduces the plants need for water and enables plants to inhabit poorer soils (due to reduced stomata), this means poor soils and dry arid areas can be re-populated, areas of etheopia with failing crops could return to fertile land. Also it has been shown that as the sea warms, coral growth increases due to benefits to their supporting algae making them more hardy. this is backed up by hard evidence rather than model projections.

Predictions of increased wind shear due to warming will prevent huricanes from forming and with reduced temperature gradient there willbe less extreme weather. With the current warming we have experianced there has been no evidence of more extreme weather, infact in some cases the oposite (again evidence rather than model projection).

Disease and deaths from the cold will be reduced with warming, which far outways the increase in deaths due to heat. Growing seasons would be increased benefiting agriculture and forestry, reducing food costs thus benefitting the poor.

And we know during previous warmer periods the polar bears didnt die out and the sea didnt rise. Increased precipitation and evaporation accounts for any glacial ice melt (though glaciers are more effected by snowfall than temperature) or thermal expansion. The only increase we will see will be at the constant rate we have experianced for the last 10,000 years since the ice age due to the slow melting of the antarctic since (180mm / 100 years).

So if it is increasing the earths temps, what does it matter? Warm weather has always been beneficial for man and nature historically, cooling is far worse for the world. If co2 does cause warming, good on it!

Fact is its a predominatly natural effect which we have little control over, so sit back, hope the current cooling trend is coming to an end and look forwards for the warmer weather.

By the way, I am not endorsing the burning of fossil fuels etc... we still need to find better alternatives and avoid polluting the atmosphere anyways, regardless of whether or not co2 is an issue. Instead of wasting money on the IPCC and carbon trading we should be investing in cleaner sources of renewable energy. We need cheap effective fuel sources for the developing world if we want to eradicate poverty and disease.

Scare tactics will push some to act but it will undermine science and cause public mistrust of authority, it is not beneficial to anyone.

Answer 14

I don’t care about your spat with Jello. According to your profile you’re 27. Get over it and stick to the topic  /Environment/Climate change.

Your question is “How much do you think CO2 impacts global temperature?”

Some things in this area are very well know and accessible to anyone.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas.  A minor one (your claim of between “9-26%” of the greenhouse effect is rather  larger than my reading on the subject), but a greenhouse gas nonetheless. The ‘Greenhouse Effect’ is, as far as I’m aware (I’ve never seen anything remotely studious that disputes it), an accepted truth in that it keeps our planet warmer than it would otherwise be.



For anyone that wants to learn about CO2 and its part in the greenhouse effect I recommend http://brneurosci.org/co2.html

In the context of AGW (still the focus of this site as far as I’m aware), I believe your question is not

“How much do you think CO2 impacts global temperature?” but

“How much do you think ANTHROPOGENIC CO2 impacts global temperature?”  

Now THAT is the whole fulcrum of the debate.

There is no doubt that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is increasing. The data has been measured in the same place, in the same way, under the same conditions for 30 years. It is freely available to all at  http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/data/data.htm...

The big question is, has the increased Anthropogenic  portion of this minor greenhouse gas caused climate change?

I have never seen anything to demonstrate that this is the case.

If I have missed this important piece of information then PLEASE FORWARD ME THE DETAILS of the causal link between anthropogenic CO2 and ‘Global Warming’.

I’ve asked for this many times, but despite the science being ‘settled’, no-one has yet sent me anything remotely ‘scientific’ in this regard.

Re your literal question, “How much do you think CO2 impacts global temperature?” I offer the following.

CO2 concentration is rising (see link above)

Global temperatures have stopped rising.  Take your pick...

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temper...

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabled...

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/rese...

The North Pole has not melted (otherwise this web cam would be on the ocean floor),  http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/...

Re the North Pole I suggest you might read some more about Arctic winds and ocean currents.

The oceans are getting cooler ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomali...

Sea Levels are falling (this can’t happen if the globe is warming).

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_...

But CO2 levels are still rising month on month... we should be getting warmer shouldn’t we? go figure?

How does CO2 impact global temperature?... not a lot.

Has the globe warmed on average in the last 100 years? Yes... but it's also been cool and warm in that time. I can't see the anthropogenic CO2 connection to temperature. You're the expert...please help me.

EDIT. Adam, you say "it has been proved beyond my reasonable doubts that CO2 has a significant impact upon planetary temperatures"

Can you please direct me to the documents that show how anthropogenic CO2 has had this "significant" effect? I've somehow missed them.

Many thanks.

DaveH

Answer 15

Well to contradict you there, look at 1816 the year without a summer.

Volcanic eruption emitted ,many times more CO2 in one eruption than man could produce in several lifetimes. Just interesting to note that as CO2 increases it seems to reflect the sun's heat instead of absorbing it as was proven with the world's temperature dropping

Answer 16

What about the blackbody calculation for Venus?

I think that's an even more dramatic demonstration that CO2 does impact global temperature (were it not for CO2 Venus should be colder than Earth).

Answer 17

All scintific estimates (including believers) is that increases by humans of co2 in the atmosphere will be minor (one degree Celsius over one hundred years without feedbacks).  But your hypothesis is that this warming will be amplified five to six times over to cause catastrophic warming.  These strong positive feedbacks that you claim exists in the earth's atmosphere is not settled science.  There are many papers that question climate sensitivity.  If the feedback mechanisms were settled science, the models would also be accurate (which they are not).