Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
Okay, I never said anything about global warming guys. I mentioned my carbon footprint. Well here's a PSA for you: carbon in the atmosphere sucks, whether you believe in global warming or not. Pollution is shit and I was proud to be doing my bit to curb it. Why would anyone give me shit for making a conscious effort to make the world just a tiny bit better?
Carbon Dioxide is an essential part of our atmosphere and does not equal smog or pollution. Your body expels CO2 as does every other complex animal on the planet. How can you not know this?
Anthropogenic Global Warming theorists (alarmists?) are concerned that the collective impact would could one day affect the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere to make a difference in temperature, but they did not ever call it "pollution." The more extreme proponents of the theory imply that the impact has already started. In Earth's history, CO2 has a REVERSE correlation with temperature and has never driven it (higher temperatures prompt the oceans to release more dissolved CO2 as they warm over hundreds of years). That isn't to say that it can't, but it has to be proven, especially in the face of a more direct correlation with sunspot activity/solar output.
"Carbon footprint" specifically implies
your impact on atmospheric carbon levels based on the output directly caused by your consumption, which is bullshit on so many levels ("drop in a bucket" is laughably inadequate for describing it). The only "impact" of any concern is that which is implied in AGW
Theory, and yet you claim to have not referenced it in your original post. Just so you know, that is the ONLY implication "carbon footprint" CAN have because it is the reason the term exists.
Just so you know in the future going forward, "carbon footprint" is as politically charged as "man-made global warming," so you started the thread with politics. The natural warming of the oceans and the stored CO2 thereby released will change the composition of our atmosphere drastically more than burning all fossil fuels on Earth. If CO2 AGW is possible, it will only be if we somehow turn CO2 into a a driving factor rather than a minor greenhouse gas and it subsequently enhances itself by warming the oceans and actually releases a significant amount. This presents a "chicken & egg" scenario, where one seemingly can't happen without the other.
FWIW, water is the primary greenhouse gas by a laughable long-shot. Warmer temperatures quickly change the climate and cause even more water to evaporate, which is a near-instant reinforcement effect, unlike the 600-800 year ocean-contained CO2 reinforcement, which only goes to prove that CO2 HAS NOT driven temperature in the past as the added levels did not sustain the temperature. Consequently, the new climate would have more cloud cover which reflects more heat/energy back into space. The climate would be different, possibly catastrophically, but it would be generally stable and far from being a "run-away greenhouse effect."
The spectrum of light absorbed by CO2 has significant overlap with water vapor and other greenhouse gasses and, thus, the more voluminous and directly reinforcing water vapor competes for the sun's energy in the atmosphere, robbing CO2 of what little impact it could have. What little warming impact CO2 could have had was already performed by water and the other more significant greenhouse gasses, leaving excess absorptive capacity within the spectrum CO2 allows. It's a little like adding more solar cells (CO2) underneath panels that already cover and completely shade it (other greenhouse gasses), except that the top-most panel is somehow converting that energy into mass and getting bigger/more expansive the more it absorbs.
The only reason water doesn't cause a run-away greenhouse effect is because it stabilizes as cloud cover reflects light, but it and the other greenhouse gasses still rob CO2 out of near 100% of it's modeled impact. This is why the computer models are so drastically wrong and are so much more responsive to added CO2 than our real atmosphere (they are programed to have CO2 absorb what the others already get to first).
Yes, the other greenhouse gasses, are also more significant than CO2. What you don't see is that the absorptive spectrum of all greenhouse gasses is largely outside of the visible light spectrum. The atmosphere is pretty darn "opaque" in these ranges from the GH gasses that currently sustain the atmosphere and the visible light allowed through does not equate to excess capacity for CO2.
Facebook
Twitter