bpors:

Thanks for your thought provoking comment. I have a few questions regarding the part where you said, "CO2 output, and CO2 absorption - without excessive human activity - is in equilibrium. We add a small amount every year that the environment cannot absorb. The CO2 sinkholes (i.e., rainforests, oceans) cannot take in all the extra output. There is a little extra in the atmosphere every year. Over 100 years, that’s a lot! About fourteen percent of CO2 in the atmosphere today is from man made fossil fuel consumption. And it’s growing every year."

My questions for you are:

1. If, as you say, CO2 output and CO2 absorption without excess human activity is in equilibrium, does it matter what this level of CO2 concentration actually is?

2. Given that if question #1 is answered “no”, how can you claim that “We add a small amount [of CO2] every year that the environment cannot absorb?”

3. Given that if question #1 is answered “yes” (the level of CO2 concentration DOES matter), then at what level of natural CO2 concentration will the addition of manmade CO2 cause the equilibrium to become unsustainable?

4. Given that if question #1 is answered “yes”, and if you don’t know the answer to question #2, is it legitimate to claim that “We add a small amount every year that the environment cannot absorb?"

Jon,

What most people fail to appreciate is that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (the UNFCCC) – comprising about 180 member countries from the gamut of differing political, economic and cultural ideologies – accept the ‘message’ given by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the IPCC) – itself promulgated by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). These people/organisations are not stupid (although a few here on OLO may disagree). Indeed, ‘climate change’ poses such a worldwide threat that it has been placed on the United Nations Security Council’s agenda.

You are right; we (humanity) must find a more ‘mature’ way of growth and development. AGW is a symptom of humanity’s immaturity, and while there will always be ‘debate’ about the nuances and details in the corridors of the science academies/institutions, it is (as it should be) left up to politicians (and those that elect them), economists and captains of industry ... the decision makers, to decide what to do with the scientists’ consensus message.

This is what the current ‘debate’ is really about (and will be played out at the UNFCCC’s Copenhagen meeting in December) – it will not be about the science. It will be about how we (humanity) are going to adapt to a changing climate, and how we can live in a more sustainable way. Those that think the real debate is about science (in general) or ‘climate science’ (in particular) are stuck in the mud (at best) or are deluding only themselves (at worst).

Notwithstanding, we (humanity) must act to overcome a global problem.
My question to you (and others) is; do we have the leaders to take us there?

BAYGON, my post was in relation to the misinformation in the first few posts. Yes, I agree with what you are saying in your last post.

I stumbled upon a George Monbiot piece (2005) that dealt with what has become known as "junk science":

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/may/10/environment.columnists

From then on for quite some time I tried to find a strong argument against AGW, as an excercise to test its validity. Every publication, article, argument, or claim I could find ended up smashed against the research done by the IPCC and other world authority publications on climate. I checked out claims of cloud formation and solar cycles, cosmic rays, that CO2 is a relatively weak greenhouse gas, temperature records in populated areas giving biased readings, heating oceans are the source of the CO2...etc.

Just one example: if warmer oceans are emmitting more CO2 and thats the source of the extra atmospheric CO2, why is it that the CO2 level of the oceans is increasing?

One lie rears its head and gets knocked down, and its replaced by two more. Are the oil companies the source of all this stuff, or did it start that way and then got a life of its own? Who knows.

And what did I find doing this research? For me about 90% of the anti-AGW so-called research is junk science. I could write the same stuff, if I read scientific publications real fast, missing paragraphs here and there and not trying to understand in depth what it was I was reading. Then I would just cherry pick a few "facts" suited to my POV, and run with that. Its no wonder scientists get fed up with all the misinformation floating around.

Minor quibble bpors,

The IPCC don't do the research (insofar as 'climate science' is concerned) - they correlate the 1000's of published and peer reviewed research conducted by 1000's of 'climate scientists' and disseminate the results.

The simple fact remains: the oceans, atmosphere and terrestrial biosphere are not absorbing the GHG's as quickly as we are emitting them (this is simple arithmetic). The rest (chemistry, physics, etc) is well founded and very robust.

Again, is it not better to concentrate on how to adapt, and develop in a more sustainable way? This is where everyone can have profound input.

Agreed Q&A, what concerns me is the attraction to some people of trying to stop, reverse or control the climatic process.

There is a great folly in the AGW thought school in my opinion, to think we can tweak this or that gas and get such and such result.

It makes some people feel better about change if they can blame someone, e.g."those deniers are the problem", when really refusing to deal with and accept change is the problem.

You can see a stage of this on this site through anger, which appeared to reach a crescendo a week or so ago when there were a lot of Climate Articles around.

Yes, we should just try to adapt, spend money on development of areas that will help, not just spin, marking time or going backwards.

The climate is changing, we have never been more aware of it as a group in all of history, some people want to stop it and blame others, some want to accept it and move on. Currently we really don't know enough about climate as much as our egos tell us otherwise.

A watershed moment approaches us in Denmark later this year. There will be disappointment, and it will be interesting to see how that is dealt with.

To Q&A and Daisym's questions:

"1. If, as you say, CO2 output and CO2 absorption without excess human activity is in equilibrium, does it matter what this level of CO2 concentration actually is?"

Yes. Higher CO2 concentrations will dramatically affect the weather closer to the poles due to the greenhouse properties of CO2. That in turn will affect global weather. In the hotter climates there is so much water vapour a little extra CO2 wouldn't make much difference. But where the air is dryer at the poles it will.

2. Given that if question #1 is answered “no”, how can you claim that “We add a small amount [of CO2] every year that the environment cannot absorb?”

3. Given that if question #1 is answered “yes” (the level of CO2 concentration DOES matter), then at what level of natural CO2 concentration will the addition of manmade CO2 cause the equilibrium to become unsustainable?

You mean when the feedback effects causes runaway climate changes? I have recently read where the upper CO2 limit of 300ppm is the ideal, and we are above that now. I have also read where if great methane deposits frozen in Siberia get let out due to warming it would have a major effect on climate.

Do what I did and look it up, and test what you read.

Also, we are in the middle of an abnormally low and long solar minimum which is dampening global temperatures. Some people who love to say that the sun is the major influence on global temperatures (true), also tend to forget to mention this when discussing the flattening out of recent global temperature readings.

Q&A,

you are right. But it is hard to concentrate on how to adapt, and develop in a more sustainable way if there is such a large push saying there is no need as there is no threat. The claims made that there is nothing to worry about influenced Bush policy for years.