Volcanoes spew massive quantitites of CO2 but it is reasonable to conclude that volcanic disruptions in global CO2 balance are accomodated on a geologic timescale . . . if that were not the case we wouldn't be having this conversation. On the otherhand, it is unlikely that carbon sinks like tropical forests have ever been burned at the current rate (which simultaneously removes a carbon sink and produces tremendous amounts of CO2).
No one debates that global CO2/carbon cycle is a wonderful ballet of nature or that humans are haphazardly liberating CO2 (typically from fossil fuels) and modifying sinks. The question that hasn't been answered is "does it matter". The anti-"do something" crowd typically cites some study showing increased CO2 actually accelerates plant growth. Of course, they never explain that it's the balance between nutrients NOT the absolute amount of a single one that produces optimum growing conditions. But these people don't care b/c all they see is a debating point. When astrophysicists go to work for think tanks, their objectivity and scientific integrity takes the toll. Baliunas is a somewhat distinguished scientist and she is spot on some accounts but she's dead wrong about the economic impact of Kyoto-like interventions . . . primarily for the same reason she claims global climate change is wrong.
No one debates that global CO2/carbon cycle is a wonderful ballet of nature or that humans are haphazardly liberating CO2 (typically from fossil fuels) and modifying sinks. The question that hasn't been answered is "does it matter". The anti-"do something" crowd typically cites some study showing increased CO2 actually accelerates plant growth. Of course, they never explain that it's the balance between nutrients NOT the absolute amount of a single one that produces optimum growing conditions. But these people don't care b/c all they see is a debating point. When astrophysicists go to work for think tanks, their objectivity and scientific integrity takes the toll. Baliunas is a somewhat distinguished scientist and she is spot on some accounts but she's dead wrong about the economic impact of Kyoto-like interventions . . . primarily for the same reason she claims global climate change is wrong.
i dont know, i think i believe bush when he said we need to research more to see the exact cause of global warming..........bhaaaaaa!!!!!
CO2 and global warming aside, can anyone count on their hands or for that matter even name half of the stuff (vitamins, birth control, aspirin, etc) that we consume on a daily basis that is in our "natural bottled spring water." What is really in what we eat and drink everyday and bioaccumulation scares me far more than pinpointing the relationship between CO2 emissions and shrinking glaciers.
Noone has mentioned the most significant greenhouse gas there is yet, water vapor, aka humidity.
The greenhouse effect from CO2 is negligible in comparison. Pretty sure this was there before man....
The greenhouse effect from CO2 is negligible in comparison. Pretty sure this was there before man....
XZeroII
Lifer
- Jun 30, 2001
- 12,572
- 0
- 0
True, but what will be the consensus tomorrow? or the next day? Just 30 years ago science was advocating the exact opposite of what they are advocating now. I'm not saying that nothing should be done, but think about it. Same evidence, different conclusions... What else will they flip-flop on?
Actually it's been mentioned several times . . . including by me. Greenhouse gas effect of CO2 would be negligible if you compare it to the gross effect of water vapor. But that's not the whole story. If every cloud disappeared then the Earth would be damn hot while the sun is shining and very cold when the sun has set. Clouds and the heat capacity/circulation of the oceans play a complex role in regulating global temps. A minor change in arctic temps sufficient to increase the amount of glacial melting might be sufficient to slow the global conveyor that distributes energy through the oceans.
Who knows if it will actually happen but why take the chance? Banning Hummers and other gas guzzling toxic emission spewing vehicles and power plants is a responsible way of balancing the excess utilization of the present against the unknown future needs of the planet.
It is possibly more conjecture than anything else with CO2 as the main culprit. You have to note that there are other gases that are present in the atmosphere, such as halogenated hydrocarbons, water vapor, and other hydrocarbons (methane). It seems to me that something is off balance with the atmosphere, especially when the glaciers that have been in certain areas since the last Ice Age are disappearing. One could be correct that it is a cycle of the planet, however it is curious to me why now? Why is the this long term record on our planet disappearing so rapidly? This is the problem that scientists have with global warming. Is it a normal cycle? Perhaps, if there was a consistent record to use. Geology is one part of this record, however glaciers are another part (frozen gases/dust in ice) and lastly our atmosphere. I do find it alarming that one portion of our precious information melting away and no way to preserve it from many parts of the planet to give a better picture of the atmosphere through the years. It is difficult to state anything definite, since no scientist can use any reliable data beyond 150-200 yrs.
The main theme is the following: There are no real clear cut answers, just curious questions.
The main theme is the following: There are no real clear cut answers, just curious questions.
It's funny though.
As someone already said, some people would stand with creased foreheads and proclaim how nothing has been proved until they're washed away by a giant wave or killed by the sun.
We already know we are contributing to the increased pace of global warming, and while water vapour remains the single dominant gas by far of the greenhouse gases it is the amount of carbon dioxide in the air that is increasing, and we are releasing lots of it.
Volcanoes do too, but not nearly as much as we do. Furthermore, they produce more global cooling than warming.
What I'm saying is that we have no historic pirnts pointing towards a temperature increase equal the one we are in now, the one we will probably experience, and the one that has happened these last 50 or 100 years, and since we know we are contributing to it, we should take care.
Yeah, my sentences turn out pretty long.
As someone already said, some people would stand with creased foreheads and proclaim how nothing has been proved until they're washed away by a giant wave or killed by the sun.
We already know we are contributing to the increased pace of global warming, and while water vapour remains the single dominant gas by far of the greenhouse gases it is the amount of carbon dioxide in the air that is increasing, and we are releasing lots of it.
Volcanoes do too, but not nearly as much as we do. Furthermore, they produce more global cooling than warming.
What I'm saying is that we have no historic pirnts pointing towards a temperature increase equal the one we are in now, the one we will probably experience, and the one that has happened these last 50 or 100 years, and since we know we are contributing to it, we should take care.
Yeah, my sentences turn out pretty long.
Actually, the increase in the last 100 years of 1 degree fahrenheit is underwhelming at best. There have been such fluctuations long before man ever had an impact on the climate. In the last 1000 years the Earth has been both hotter than today and colder than today. Sorry, I am not willing to pay $3 a gallon for gas just because the Earth might warm up a little.
You call 1 degree F underwheling whereas I find it as cause for concern. From everything I've read, most geologists believe the Earth should be in a a "cooling phase" right now and yet still coincidentally the average temperature of the eath has risen since the industrialization of man. Hmm...
In the last 10,000 years, the Earth's average temperature hasn't varied by more than 1.8°F. I would call a 1°F shift in 100 years significant.
There are other indicators that aren't too promising:
- Decrease of snow cover, sea-ice ice extent and the retreat of mountain glaciers in the latter half of the 20th century. (see original post for an example)
- Rise in global average sea level and the increase in ocean water temperatures.
- Likely increase in average precipitation over the mid- and high-latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, and over tropical land areas.
- Increase in the frequency of extreme precipitation events in some regions of the world.
There are other indicators that aren't too promising:
- Decrease of snow cover, sea-ice ice extent and the retreat of mountain glaciers in the latter half of the 20th century. (see original post for an example)
- Rise in global average sea level and the increase in ocean water temperatures.
- Likely increase in average precipitation over the mid- and high-latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, and over tropical land areas.
- Increase in the frequency of extreme precipitation events in some regions of the world.
Hi,
It always surprises me how global warming threads end up more in politics and news than in highly technical - especially when they're a quasi-proof of whether "it is or it isn't".
As a scientist I know that if everyone was to go and dig up everything they could find on the internet or in the newspapers or from a selected set of sources on my area of research then they could put together a very wild idea or two! IMHO it comes down to this - you need a *little* trust (and boy is that lacking of late). If I were to trust anyone (not being an expert in this particular field) then I'd bet my life on the consensus of a large body of learned scientists. i.e. the Royal institution here - and whatever the equivalent is in the US.
Sorry for the patronising tone! I didn't mean for it, it just came out that way.
Cheers,
Andy
It always surprises me how global warming threads end up more in politics and news than in highly technical - especially when they're a quasi-proof of whether "it is or it isn't".
As a scientist I know that if everyone was to go and dig up everything they could find on the internet or in the newspapers or from a selected set of sources on my area of research then they could put together a very wild idea or two! IMHO it comes down to this - you need a *little* trust (and boy is that lacking of late). If I were to trust anyone (not being an expert in this particular field) then I'd bet my life on the consensus of a large body of learned scientists. i.e. the Royal institution here - and whatever the equivalent is in the US.
Sorry for the patronising tone! I didn't mean for it, it just came out that way.
Cheers,
Andy
I am still waiting to hear an explanation why 3/4 of the last century's warming took place before 1940, or before there was a buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere. Dr. Drake from the University of Leeds also contends that between 5000BC and 3000BC global temperatures were 1 to 3 degrees celcius warmer than today.......I guess that the Egyptians must have had larger SUV's than we have today......
To my knowledge NO ONE has ever done a global survey of worldwide temperatures during the early 20th century. It's only been a few decades over which we've been able to collect simultaneous data from all over the globe. An Egyptian climate specialist can scarcely make claims about Egypt's climate much less global patterns. Climate science will always be plagued by the complexity of the systems at work. But that's not an excuse to despoil the planet.
Someone mentioned $3/gallon gasoline but you are already paying MORE than that b/c our military presence in the Middle East is in part due to our dependence on their petroleum (in the past, present, and future). By 4th quarter 2004 their will be multiple hybrid vehicles on the market allowing people to choose everything from econobox (Civic/Prius) to entry-luxo SUV (RX330).
Our dirty power plants are a function of lobbyist influence and civilian waste. The ever increasing size of American homes and energy consumption could easily be curtailed without substantially affecting our "lifestyles". There is no American right to consume to satiety. As soon as America comes to grips with the true "costs" of gluttony the better off everyone will be.
Someone mentioned $3/gallon gasoline but you are already paying MORE than that b/c our military presence in the Middle East is in part due to our dependence on their petroleum (in the past, present, and future). By 4th quarter 2004 their will be multiple hybrid vehicles on the market allowing people to choose everything from econobox (Civic/Prius) to entry-luxo SUV (RX330).
Our dirty power plants are a function of lobbyist influence and civilian waste. The ever increasing size of American homes and energy consumption could easily be curtailed without substantially affecting our "lifestyles". There is no American right to consume to satiety. As soon as America comes to grips with the true "costs" of gluttony the better off everyone will be.
Except that a new home..even a new larger home consumes far less power than an older smaller home.
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,800
- 6,356
- 126
Originally posted by: Jmman
I am still waiting to hear an explanation why 3/4 of the last century's warming took place before 1940, or before there was a buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere. Dr. Drake from the University of Leeds also contends that between 5000BC and 3000BC global temperatures were 1 to 3 degrees celcius warmer than today.......I guess that the Egyptians must have had larger SUV's than we have today......
There was a buildup of CO2 before 1940, it started approx 200 years ago. There is no debate as to CO2s' effect, there is debate on the results of that effect.
First of all, in this country we pay more for gas than $3/gallon.
Second of all, how many climatologists can you find that support that your statement? It sounds to me as if though you've read some right-radical book?
http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/fgwscience.asp
The earth has not been hotter, as far as most scientists can tell, than today. Also, that you find a 1.1 degree Fahrenheit raise in the average globe temperature under one century 'underwhelming at best' is ..well, I hope you never breed.
So the Earth was never warmer than today, huh? So the poles were once ice-free because it was colder than today??!! My advice to you my friend is to step away from the bong before you injure yourself any further.....
Here is an article that says that the Earth's climate based upon ice core samples went through a dramatic shift in temperature in the short span of just 20 years....interesting read......
link
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter