If CO2 can be a cause AND effect of warming why did the earth cool instead of continually heat up?
Answer:
Two things.
The warming effect of CO2 is not "linear". Initial increases have the most effect. As CO2 continues to increase, it's like it gets in its' own way and becomes less effective. So warming slows down naturally (and sea levels are tens of feet higher at that point, we really don't want to go there).
Second, in the past global climate changes were often (not always) driven by the very long Milankovich solar cycles. There are three independent parts to the cycles, each of which can cause warming or cooling. When the three cycles happen to come together in such a way that each is causing maximum cooling, their combined effect can override the greenhouse effect and we get an ice age.
How do we know it's not the Milankovich cycles now? We know when they occur and it's not the right time. According to the present Milankovich cycles, we should be sailing along in a relatively stable climate.
There's a really good book about all this, "The Weather Makers". Should be available at any book store.
http://www.amazon.com/weather-makers-cha...
not as long as we have trees to eat the co2
Thanks for the clarification. Not being a climatologist, I still can't answer your question. Perhaps eventually other factors such as volcanic emissions begin a cooling cycle which triggers a reverse feedback.
Feedbacks are rare and short-lived in nature. They are also inevitable when conditions are in place--so if the oceans were loaded up with CO2 waiting for a trigger point, that trigger point will happen and the feedback will play out until a new equilibrium is reached.
Because the CO2 layer works as an insulator.
What this world needs are more evergreen trees in our cities, parks, forests, and mountains. and less hot air from politicians who give lumber companies like weyerhaeuser and georgia pacific carte blanche to shave the mountains of all vegetation leaving mile high mounds with no trees to absorb the CO2 and give off oxygen.
just a thought.
I have addressed this earlier today. There was confusion as to why some said CO2 historically showed a rise 200 - 1000 years after the initial rise in temperature. I answered that historically that is correct. During the previous ice ages the level of CO2 has risen after the rise in temperature thus being a strong amplifying effect to global warming. (The initial rise was due to natural cycles). Now, at present the CO2 is being released without a prior heating period and is more directly the cause of the heating. At the same time, CO2 is still stored in vast quantity's in other sources than oil. These storage's of CO2 is in the risk of being released by the heat that is caused by man made emissions. I hope this answers your question.
Additional details.
There is, of course, a limit to the quantity in these storage's just as there is a limit to the amount of oil in the world. Also, when these amplifying effects starts to take place, where the CO2 (and other sources) leads to more CO2 being released thus starting a 'cycle', is known as the 'tipping point'. This is when amplifying effects takes over until the environment stabilizes on a new climate.
Jim z (below me):
Have you actually read my answer? I do not exclude natural cycles and I addressed how they have in the past stood for the environmental cycles as well as to the differences of today.
Your question is good and the nonsensical answers is proof of that. Their "CO2 is the cause of everything bad" argument falls apart in trying to explain cooling periods such as the one just experienced from 1940s to 1970s. Clealy the wobbles in the orbit around the sun are the best explanation for periodic episodes of warmth and cold but other factors need to be accounted for such as continents at the poles, volcanoes, etc. It is far more complex system than generally acknowledged and the alarmists know far less than they pretend to.
One phenomenon that cools the earth is if ash gets in the air from massive volcanoes. Some say the Yellowstone National Park is due within the next million years or so for an eruption that could block out the sun and reduce the temp of earth by about 10 degrees for several years. If this were so, maybe it could cause glaciers to form and reverse the cycle, even if it only lasted a year or two.
Edit: I just want to mention, since others seem determined to bring about global warming as quickly as possible by pumping as much Carbon Dioxide into the air as possible, we really can't count on a volcano stopping this process before New York and California, and many parts of other countries are flooded.
For one thing, the ash is like microscopic shards that cut the lungs.
Just because there is a cycle which has been going on, the cycle has disastrous consequences for those who are along for the ride.
We could just as easily say that people die in floods all the time, it's not our fault. But we don't do that. We build levies and dams and things to prevent being wiped out by it. Whether there's a natural cycle or not, we should be working to save ourselves; not throwing up our hands and saying it's not our fault.
let us know if you find any volcanoes that erupted during that time, including ocean vents.
Good man you are using your head good point one more fact to prove GW is a hoax!
The answers post by the user, for information only, FunQA.com does not guarantee the right.
More Questions and Answers: