The climate has been changing even before the human population increased. It has been warming since after the peak of the last Ice Age. The success of the human species in increasing its population is largely due to the disappearing of the ice since after the last Ice Age, since before the Industrial Revolution, and which is continuing even today.
The problem here is that even those scientists who agree in climate change are divided between two camps: 1) those who say we are entering into a new Ice Age, and 2) those who say we will be entering into an era of climate warming. This is therefore not a settled issue.
If you listen to the new Ice Age advocates, the action to bring down CO2 levels will even hasten the coming of this ice age. So we should not be surprised if the public is divided because the scientists are not unanimous on this matter.
Personally, I think both groups are wrong, and I suspect that the lack of agreement on the conclusions is due to the flow of money which is the real subject matter in Copenhagen. Scientists should forget Copenhagen because politics and finance is going to distort scientific conclusions. Take note that Copenhagen is not talking about the forests. It is talking about control and redirection of industrial development via limits to CO2 emissions.
There is not yet enough scientific data for the arrival of a proper conclusion. For example, without a determination in terms of the aggregate capacity of the biosphere to absorb CO2, then the worry about increase in CO2 levels may be unfounded.
Then there is the fact that carbon related emissions are heavier than air, and therefore we should not expect CO2 to increase its levels in the atmosphere because it will eventually precipitate. And there is the matter of thermodynamics which make improbable that 400 ppm of CO2 will have any impact on the 999,600 ppm of nitrogen, oxygen and water vapor in the atmosphere. A direct association in terms of heat transfer and association is not possible given the percentages.
While it is true that deforestation has diminished the ability of the biosphere to absorb CO2, there has yet been no determination as to how much human and microbial activity contribute to absorption (NASA have said that 50% is absorb by plankton and other ocean plantlife). The activity of people to store food, clothing, build homes, and increase its population including livestock (all of these being carbon related materials) has not been given numbers or included in the discussion. The symbiosis between the flora and bacteria in the production of Oxygen, CO2, methane and water has not been quantified.
And then there is the wobble of the Earth which definitely will change the climate patterns of the planet, this has not also been factored in or that its contribution has been isolated. Definitely, the change in surface positions relative to the sun is expected to shift the occurrence of seasons in the different places.
And back to deforestation, the dynamics here involve hydrologic activity (the release of vapor and the retention + deposition of water in aquifers and forests lands), the release of oxygen, and the deposition of CO2 into the soils in the form of wood and leaf decay residuals. Scientist are not even talking about this in terms of being able to give specific quantities of the total production mix, and how each element produce will impact on one to the other and vice versa. For example, how much more heat will water vapor absorb from the sun if its quantity will go up to 5%. Without factoring water into the equation, considering that there are more clouds in the sky than CO2, any attempt to make a conclusion will be automatically false.
And finally, no scientist is talking about the increase of moisture in the atmosphere, and the constancy of the saltiness of the oceans as indicators of where the waters from the ice caps are going. If the oceans have not been diluted by the melting ice, it means that the waters did not stay in the oceans. If the waters do not stay in the oceans because of evaporation, two things are false about the Gore predictions: 1) the ocean waters will increase its levels, 2) increase of CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Also, Sarah Palin is likewise wrong. Both Palin and Gore are in error together with the polarized scientists who are behind each.
In conclusion, it is not CO2 that is changing the weather; it is the water that is moving its locus from the ice caps to the atmosphere plus the Earth's wobble.
The problem here is that even those scientists who agree in climate change are divided between two camps: 1) those who say we are entering into a new Ice Age, and 2) those who say we will be entering into an era of climate warming. This is therefore not a settled issue.
If you listen to the new Ice Age advocates, the action to bring down CO2 levels will even hasten the coming of this ice age. So we should not be surprised if the public is divided because the scientists are not unanimous on this matter.
Personally, I think both groups are wrong, and I suspect that the lack of agreement on the conclusions is due to the flow of money which is the real subject matter in Copenhagen. Scientists should forget Copenhagen because politics and finance is going to distort scientific conclusions. Take note that Copenhagen is not talking about the forests. It is talking about control and redirection of industrial development via limits to CO2 emissions.
There is not yet enough scientific data for the arrival of a proper conclusion. For example, without a determination in terms of the aggregate capacity of the biosphere to absorb CO2, then the worry about increase in CO2 levels may be unfounded.
Then there is the fact that carbon related emissions are heavier than air, and therefore we should not expect CO2 to increase its levels in the atmosphere because it will eventually precipitate. And there is the matter of thermodynamics which make improbable that 400 ppm of CO2 will have any impact on the 999,600 ppm of nitrogen, oxygen and water vapor in the atmosphere. A direct association in terms of heat transfer and association is not possible given the percentages.
While it is true that deforestation has diminished the ability of the biosphere to absorb CO2, there has yet been no determination as to how much human and microbial activity contribute to absorption (NASA have said that 50% is absorb by plankton and other ocean plantlife). The activity of people to store food, clothing, build homes, and increase its population including livestock (all of these being carbon related materials) has not been given numbers or included in the discussion. The symbiosis between the flora and bacteria in the production of Oxygen, CO2, methane and water has not been quantified.
And then there is the wobble of the Earth which definitely will change the climate patterns of the planet, this has not also been factored in or that its contribution has been isolated. Definitely, the change in surface positions relative to the sun is expected to shift the occurrence of seasons in the different places.
And back to deforestation, the dynamics here involve hydrologic activity (the release of vapor and the retention + deposition of water in aquifers and forests lands), the release of oxygen, and the deposition of CO2 into the soils in the form of wood and leaf decay residuals. Scientist are not even talking about this in terms of being able to give specific quantities of the total production mix, and how each element produce will impact on one to the other and vice versa. For example, how much more heat will water vapor absorb from the sun if its quantity will go up to 5%. Without factoring water into the equation, considering that there are more clouds in the sky than CO2, any attempt to make a conclusion will be automatically false.
And finally, no scientist is talking about the increase of moisture in the atmosphere, and the constancy of the saltiness of the oceans as indicators of where the waters from the ice caps are going. If the oceans have not been diluted by the melting ice, it means that the waters did not stay in the oceans. If the waters do not stay in the oceans because of evaporation, two things are false about the Gore predictions: 1) the ocean waters will increase its levels, 2) increase of CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Also, Sarah Palin is likewise wrong. Both Palin and Gore are in error together with the polarized scientists who are behind each.
In conclusion, it is not CO2 that is changing the weather; it is the water that is moving its locus from the ice caps to the atmosphere plus the Earth's wobble.