Comments on: Part 3 of 5: Causes of Past Climate Change http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/06/29/human_cause-3/ Blogging the science and policy of global warming Mon, 16 Nov 2009 07:13:20 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5.2 hourly 1 By: Climate 411 » Global Warming Test: The Real Answers - Blogs & Podcasts - Environmental Defense Fund http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/06/29/human_cause-3/comment-page-1/#comment-1099 Climate 411 » Global Warming Test: The Real Answers - Blogs & Podcasts - Environmental Defense Fund Fri, 18 Apr 2008 22:22:22 +0000 http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/06/29/human_cause-3/#comment-1099 [...] Today’s temperature is probably higher than it’s been in at least 1300 years - mostly due to human activities. [...] [...] Today's temperature is probably higher than it's been in at least 1300 years – mostly due to human activities. [...]

]]> By: After Gutenberg » Paying the Price of Our Dawdling http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/06/29/human_cause-3/comment-page-1/#comment-804 After Gutenberg » Paying the Price of Our Dawdling Sat, 16 Feb 2008 13:17:00 +0000 http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/06/29/human_cause-3/#comment-804 [...] response to anthropogenic forcing.” John Sterman Carbon dioxide concentrations are higher today than they’ve been in 650,000 years, and our emissions rate is increasing. It’s crucial that we start aggressively cutting [...] [...] response to anthropogenic forcing." John Sterman Carbon dioxide concentrations are higher today than they've been in 650,000 years, and our emissions rate is increasing. It's crucial that we start aggressively cutting [...]

]]> By: Climate 411 » Why a Bill in 2008: Price of Waiting - Blogs & Podcasts - Environmental Defense http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/06/29/human_cause-3/comment-page-1/#comment-797 Climate 411 » Why a Bill in 2008: Price of Waiting - Blogs & Podcasts - Environmental Defense Thu, 14 Feb 2008 23:23:06 +0000 http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/06/29/human_cause-3/#comment-797 [...] The price of waiting, even a year or two, is simply too high. Carbon dioxide concentrations are higher today than they’ve been in 650,000 years, and our emissions rate is increasing. It’s crucial that we start aggressively cutting [...] [...] The price of waiting, even a year or two, is simply too high. Carbon dioxide concentrations are higher today than they've been in 650,000 years, and our emissions rate is increasing. It's crucial that we start aggressively cutting [...]

]]> By: Climate 411 » Our Best Posts on the Basic Science of Global Warming - Blogs & Podcasts - Environmental Defense http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/06/29/human_cause-3/comment-page-1/#comment-759 Climate 411 » Our Best Posts on the Basic Science of Global Warming - Blogs & Podcasts - Environmental Defense Wed, 30 Jan 2008 20:00:29 +0000 http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/06/29/human_cause-3/#comment-759 [...] We Know Humans Cause Global Warming 1. A 175-year-old Puzzle 2. What Chemistry Tells Us 3. Causes of Past Climate Change 4. The Medieval Warming Period 5. The Only Explanation [...] [...] We Know Humans Cause Global Warming 1. A 175-year-old Puzzle 2. What Chemistry Tells Us 3. Causes of Past Climate Change 4. The Medieval Warming Period 5. The Only Explanation [...]

]]> By: Sheryl Canter http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/06/29/human_cause-3/comment-page-1/#comment-309 Sheryl Canter Wed, 10 Oct 2007 19:56:25 +0000 http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/06/29/human_cause-3/#comment-309 We addressed this in a <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/07/11/global_warming_swindle/" rel="nofollow">previous post</a>: Swindle: Ice core data shows that higher CO2 concentrations follow, rather than precede, temperature increases, therefore higher CO2 concentrations don't cause higher temperatures. The Truth: The ice core observation is correct, but it doesn't mean higher CO2 concentrations don't cause higher temperatures. It just means that other things can cause warming, too. Human impact on climate change has been statistically discernable for only the last 50 years. Prior to that, change was initiated by natural factors such as variations in solar energy output. But this warming then caused the release of CO2 into the atmosphere, leading to more global warming. What the ice core data actually show is an amplification effect. Warming (however triggered) leads to the release of CO2, which causes more warming. (For more, see Bill's previous post on "<a href="http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/06/29/human_cause-3/" rel="nofollow">Causes of Past Climate Change</a>".) We addressed this in a previous post:

Swindle: Ice core data shows that higher CO2 concentrations follow, rather than precede, temperature increases, therefore higher CO2 concentrations don't cause higher temperatures.

The Truth: The ice core observation is correct, but it doesn't mean higher CO2 concentrations don't cause higher temperatures. It just means that other things can cause warming, too.

Human impact on climate change has been statistically discernable for only the last 50 years. Prior to that, change was initiated by natural factors such as variations in solar energy output. But this warming then caused the release of CO2 into the atmosphere, leading to more global warming. What the ice core data actually show is an amplification effect. Warming (however triggered) leads to the release of CO2, which causes more warming. (For more, see Bill's previous post on "Causes of Past Climate Change".)

]]> By: Dave http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/06/29/human_cause-3/comment-page-1/#comment-308 Dave Sat, 06 Oct 2007 22:32:02 +0000 http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/06/29/human_cause-3/#comment-308 Global warming skeptics often say that, when viewed at a finer scale than that shown above, CO2 does not lead temperature increases historically, but instead lags it -- the opposite of that expected if CO2 is the main factor causing the increased temperatures. Is this claim accurate? If so, it strongly suggests that CO2 and temperature are both being driven by other factors. There is a suggestion of a weakness in the connection between CO2 and temperature in the graph above -- CO2 levels at present are way, way up compared to historical levels, but temps are only a bit higher comparatively. Global warming skeptics often say that, when viewed at a finer scale than that shown above, CO2 does not lead temperature increases historically, but instead lags it — the opposite of that expected if CO2 is the main factor causing the increased temperatures. Is this claim accurate? If so, it strongly suggests that CO2 and temperature are both being driven by other factors. There is a suggestion of a weakness in the connection between CO2 and temperature in the graph above — CO2 levels at present are way, way up compared to historical levels, but temps are only a bit higher comparatively.

]]> By: Climate 411 &#187; Swindles in the &#34;The Great Global Warming Swindle&#34; - Environmental Defense http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/06/29/human_cause-3/comment-page-1/#comment-307 Climate 411 &#187; Swindles in the &#34;The Great Global Warming Swindle&#34; - Environmental Defense Wed, 11 Jul 2007 23:41:32 +0000 http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/06/29/human_cause-3/#comment-307 [...] Part 3 of 5: Causes of Past Climate Change [...] [...] Part 3 of 5: Causes of Past Climate Change [...]

]]> By: Sheryl Canter http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/06/29/human_cause-3/comment-page-1/#comment-306 Sheryl Canter Wed, 11 Jul 2007 20:54:36 +0000 http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/06/29/human_cause-3/#comment-306 The argument that anything big business supports is by-definition evil doesn't get you very far. To make change happen, big business has to be on board. Here's a post by Annie Petsonk - International Counsel at Environmental Defense - that explains how carbon markets work, using the market in Europe as an example: <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/06/27/eu_carbon_market/" rel="nofollow">What's Really Going On in the European Carbon Market</a> As you'll see if you read that, the cap-and-trade model is already working. This is do-able. It can work. We just have to get our legislators to act. The argument that anything big business supports is by-definition evil doesn't get you very far. To make change happen, big business has to be on board.

Here's a post by Annie Petsonk – International Counsel at Environmental Defense – that explains how carbon markets work, using the market in Europe as an example:

What's Really Going On in the European Carbon Market

As you'll see if you read that, the cap-and-trade model is already working. This is do-able. It can work. We just have to get our legislators to act.

]]> By: Brian S. http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/06/29/human_cause-3/comment-page-1/#comment-305 Brian S. Wed, 11 Jul 2007 16:02:47 +0000 http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/06/29/human_cause-3/#comment-305 Sheryl, Senator Feinsteins bill seems nice but it is no solution. Why do you think all these power plants are on board? I am sure there is a huge surplus or possible surplus of these "extra points" that these power plants can buy from eachother to cover their butts. Besides they are projecting around 110 billion dollars generated from these "auctions" of extra points by the year 2036. Come on, 29 years away and we only have 110 billion to use on research the whole time? That wont cut it, considering our government spends hundreds of billions PER YEAR on defense. I think we can squeeze a little money from some places to provide research and development. Did you know that clear back in the 1970's there were cars developed that were more gas efficient than a lot of the cars we have on the road today. What happened? Are our automakers on board with oil companies? I sound like a radical, but if man was able to get to the moon almost 40 years ago, I am confident we can do better than we are now on technologies. Maybe the big companies are shelving the breakthroughs. Sheryl, Senator Feinsteins bill seems nice but it is no solution. Why do you think all these power plants are on board? I am sure there is a huge surplus or possible surplus of these "extra points" that these power plants can buy from eachother to cover their butts.
Besides they are projecting around 110 billion dollars generated from these "auctions" of extra points by the year 2036. Come on, 29 years away and we only have 110 billion to use on research the whole time? That wont cut it, considering our government spends hundreds of billions PER YEAR on defense. I think we can squeeze a little money from some places to provide research and development. Did you know that clear back in the 1970's there were cars developed that were more gas efficient than a lot of the cars we have on the road today. What happened? Are our automakers on board with oil companies? I sound like a radical, but if man was able to get to the moon almost 40 years ago, I am confident we can do better than we are now on technologies. Maybe the big companies are shelving the breakthroughs.

]]> By: Sheryl Canter http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/06/29/human_cause-3/comment-page-1/#comment-304 Sheryl Canter Fri, 06 Jul 2007 16:34:54 +0000 http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/06/29/human_cause-3/#comment-304 Good question, Brian! Cap-and-trade legislation would provide the market incentive to make that happen. Let's hope Congress passes it soon. Good question, Brian! Cap-and-trade legislation would provide the market incentive to make that happen. Let's hope Congress passes it soon.

]]>