Who will pay for Climate Change?

[spacejamz]

Imagine that...

Self Pwnage....is it ever not funny???

 

[Paratus]

Imagine that...

Ever hear of Carbon 14?

It's radioactive. Living things take it in while they're alive. It has a half life of 5700 years. So when the natural carbon cycle puts CO2 into the air a portion of it contains C14.

Now the oil we burn, care to guess how old it is? Do you think it has much C14 left? Here's a hint, it's basically all gone.

So wow we can tell the make up of the CO2 in the air and whether it's from natural sources or human.

Isn't science neat when you aren't blinded by ideology?!

 

[Paratus]

Absolute bullshit and the Achilles heel of your entire premise on global warming. There is zero to back that up. We don't know that we can even change global temperatures, for better or for worse.

We are measuring today an imbalance in the amount of energy the earth receives from the sun and how much we radiate. We measure it with satellites launched by NASA and NOAA.

Biff what happens when a body takes in more energy than it gives off?

(Hint this is basic physics)

 

[Paratus]

Excellent summary. I also cant understand why there isn't widespread critism for other fields of science. Climate scientists recieve funding the same way as any other sciencists, from geneticists to laser optics researchers.

The properties of CO2 don't rely on whether or not the planet is warming up.

Thanks!

 

[spacejamz]

Ever hear of Carbon 14?

It's radioactive. Living things take it in while they're alive. It has a half life of 5700 years. So when the natural carbon cycle puts CO2 into the air a portion of it contains C14.

Now the oil we burn, care to guess how old it is? Do you think it has much C14 left? Here's a hint, it's basically all gone.

So wow we can tell the make up of the CO2 in the air and whether it's from natural sources or human.

Isn't science neat when you aren't blinded by ideology?!

So how does that explain what caused the Ice Age to happen and then end?

 

[drebo]

We are measuring today an imbalance in the amount of energy the earth receives from the sun and how much we radiate. We measure it with satellites launched by NASA and NOAA.

Biff what happens when a body takes in more energy than it gives off?

(Hint this is basic physics)

So we need to build a great, big solar reflector to keep the Sun out. Got it.

 

[Paratus]

So how does that explain what caused the Ice Age to happen and then end?

Well according to this article increased solar heating in the Southern Hemisphere warmed the oceans, reduced the polar ice caps, and released more CO2. The increase in CO2 and reduced polar ice caps increased heat retention, ending the ice age. Carbon dating was used to follow the flow of warmer water from the southern to the northern hemisphere.

Of course we directly measure the Suns output today and the make up of the atmosphere and what happened then is not the same as what is happening now.

Any other questions?

 

[Paratus]

So we need to build a great, big solar reflector to keep the Sun out. Got it.

While that would work, (Simpsons did it!), I wouldn't recommend it.

You do understand that basically all the energy that drives the climate comes from the sun?

 

[spacejamz]

You do understand that basically all the energy that drives the climate comes from the sun?

Wait? so man isn't responsible for climate change??? LOL

 

[Paul98]

Wait? so man isn't responsible for climate change??? LOL

as he said just before that.

"Of course we directly measure the Suns output today and the make up of the atmosphere and what happened then is not the same as what is happening now."

 

[spacejamz]

as he said just before that.

"Of course we directly measure the Suns output today and the make up of the atmosphere and what happened then is not the same as what is happening now."

So which statement should we believe then??? That the sun drives climate change or not?

I did read those statements right, didn't I???

 

[Paul98]

So which statement should we believe then??? That the sun drives climate change or not?

I did read those statements right, didn't I???

Not even slightly, go back and reread what you quoted.

 

[spacejamz]

nevermind...

 

[spacejamz]

Not even slightly, go back and reread what you quoted.

I mis-read what he said...my bad...I don't agree but I see the point he was trying to make.

 

[Paul98]

I mis-read what he said...my bad...I don't agree but I see the point he was trying to make.

What don't you agree with?

 

[xBiffx]

You really should work on obtaining your ged. I know science and mathematics seems infinitely complex to you, but some basic understanding of the scientific method may help you make more rational decisions in your life. If not, im sure theres always an opening at Goodwill for you.

Not that it makes any difference to you but you are speaking to a Chemical Engineer w/ many years of experience.

Get back to me when you have scientific proof that man is the cause of global warming. Until then, like I said, all you have is conjecture and correlation none of which says man is the cause.

 

[boomerang]

OFA Gets Zero Attendance for Climate Change Rally

Not a single person showed up at the Georgetown waterfront Tuesday for a climate change agenda event put on by Organizing for Action, the shadowy nonprofit advocacy group born out of President Obama’s 2012 campaign, the NRCC wrote in its blog.

Love the first tweet... :biggrin:

 

[palehorse]

ofa gets zero attendance for climate change rally

love the first tweet... :biggrin:

lol! :d

 

[werepossum]

Not that it makes any difference to you but you are speaking to a Chemical Engineer w/ many years of experience.

Get back to me when you have scientific proof that man is the cause of global warming. Until then, like I said, all you have is conjecture and correlation none of which says man is the cause.

Hey, an engineering degree cannot compare to a liberal arts degree. You probably can't even read a TelePrompter!

More seriously, ocean acidification clearly is caused by man-made action. The relative C13 content makes this clear. If like me you are skeptical of the current state of climate science, why not just concentrate on ocean acidification? If it stabilizes the climate - assuming the climate is currently less stable than is desirable - then great. If not, at least we've mitigated one problem.

 

[Paratus]

Not that it makes any difference to you but you are speaking to a Chemical Engineer w/ many years of experience.

Get back to me when you have scientific proof that man is the cause of global warming. Until then, like I said, all you have is conjecture and correlation none of which says man is the cause.

Well as a chemical engineer with many years of experience would you mind giving us the chemical formula for combustion of a generic hydrocarbon?


And then providing us with the range of light frequencies that CO2 is transparent and which it absorbs?

 

[xBiffx]

More seriously, ocean acidification clearly is caused by man-made action. The relative C13 content makes this clear. If like me you are skeptical of the current state of climate science, why not just concentrate on ocean acidification? If it stabilizes the climate - assuming the climate is currently less stable than is desirable - then great. If not, at least we've mitigated one problem.

How is that a man-made action and not just a natural cycle of slowdown of growth of vegetation and other life in the ocean? Perhaps its man causing this but how can we say for sure? I don't see how C13 alone points to man and not just another natural process. Again, just like other environmental issues, man could be the cause but there is no definitive proof. Nor is there any proof that man can do anything about it. If we caused it, then yes, by all means stop anything that might add to it, but there is no way to prove any amount of money is going to reverse it.

 

[werepossum]

How is that a man-made action and not just a natural cycle of slowdown of growth of vegetation and other life in the ocean? Perhaps its man causing this but how can we say for sure? I don't see how C13 alone points to man and not just another natural process. Again, just like other environmental issues, man could be the cause but there is no definitive proof. Nor is there any proof that man can do anything about it. If we caused it, then yes, by all means stop anything that might add to it, but there is no way to prove any amount of money is going to reverse it.

1. Radioactive isotopes have a known half life. This gives a rough age for all the carbon in the atmosphere.
2. Natural sources of old carbon are fairly rare, so we can assume that most of the old carbon added to the atmosphere is of human origin. This can also be roughly checked by calculation, as we have a fair handle on how much coal, natural gas, etc. is released through human activity, so we aren't likely to miss a significantly large natural source of old carbon.
3. CO2 diffuses into water as a fairly straightforward function of temperature and salinity/harness versus atmospheric CO2 concentration. Calculating the actual amount of CO2 contained is horrendously complicated as you no doubt know, depending upon convection currents, temperature stratification, and biological processes, but it remains roughly proportional to atmospheric CO2 concentration because relatively speaking the sea is empty while having near-ideal mixing mechanisms. When atmospheric CO2 concentration increases, oceanic CO2 concentration increases. If man increases atmospheric CO2 concentration, then man increases oceanic CO2 concentration. The amount by which oceanic CO2 concentration lags (or leads) atmospheric CO2 concentration depends on some very complicated factors and thus varies in different areas, but as a whole this relationship is remarkably linear for such a vast and complicated system. Given the isotope tags and the reasonably good correlation to calculated production and concentration, I don't think it can be argued that this is not a man-made phenomenon, and while there are certainly feedback loops to control this CO2 spike, other man-made stressors are probably limiting their effectiveness. I don't think the Earth or the oceans are at risk of mass extinctions, but both can certainly be degraded, especially from our point of view. I don't think marine life in general cares whether a given biomass is in decapods or isopods, but I for one don't fancy frying up a mess of giant breaded ocean cockroaches or set up an aquarium of wild-caught tropical reef cyanobacteria.

On paper this increase is good because CO2 is often the limiting factor and thus the seas become more productive, but there are also a number of things that are bad about it. Many delicate creatures and ecosystems are already stressed by other factors such as siltation and pollution, and when a creature is stressed it may be unable to take advantage of a greater food supply. Dissolution of metals is increased as water acidifies, and while this can be beneficial (adding micronutrients which may themselves be limiting factors) a number of metals such as cadmium, nickel, lead, zinc, and even copper can be toxic in very small doses which limits productivity.

Some of our most productive marine environments are shallow warm water reefs, and CO2 is often scarce there, but productivity is so high that micronutrients are generally the limiting factor. Creatures here are adapted to very stable environments and in addition to the other stressors, the very acidity stresses them. Reef-building corals themselves are stressed by high acidity.

Even creatures which are highly tolerant of a range of acidity/salinity may be adversely affected. Because of nutrient enriched runoff, coastal zones typically are highly productive. That productivity can actually be counter-productive (pun intended) because as primary producer populations grow, so must their decay products. Primary producers typically give off more oxygen than they consume, but must be either eaten or scavenged. Where more primary producers grow than can be consumed, their unconsumed bodies sink to the bottom to be consumed by bacteria. In oceans, outside the littoral zone most primary producers are pelagic, but most scavenging bacteria are benthic or demersal. As these bacterial populations explode, they use up all the available oxygen, leading to dead zones which can sometimes be bigger than most states. Where higher order creatures exist at all, they are those which can exist in highly degraded habitats, and these tend to not be useful to humans or to most sea fauna. Worse, many of the scavenging bacteria which flourish in such degraded habitats reduce sulfur and/or nitrogen compounds to get the oxygen necessary to survive, which further toxifies and acidifies marine ecosystems. None of this is good.

 

[xBiffx]

-snip-

I've read that website too. Its a lot of correlation that implies nothing concrete with regards to human activity. No direct links, just a lot of happenstance that seems to point to burning of fossil fuels if you want to see it. There are also plenty of other causes for C13 levels going up. Not saying it isn't humans, but there is nothing guaranteeing this. The whole hypothesis for this even uses the word assume in its main point. Not entirely convincing as the only reason for this observation. This is my point, there are other explanations but some would have you believe that it must be humans burning fossil fuels.

Not saying it isn't but none of this says that it, for sure, is either.

 

[werepossum]

I've read that website too. Its a lot of correlation that implies nothing concrete with regards to human activity. No direct links, just a lot of happenstance that seems to point to burning of fossil fuels if you want to see it. There are also plenty of other causes for C13 levels going up. Not saying it isn't humans, but there is nothing guaranteeing this. The whole hypothesis for this even uses the word assume in its main point. Not entirely convincing as the only reason for this observation. This is my point, there are other explanations but some would have you believe that it must be humans burning fossil fuels.

Not saying it isn't but none of this says that it, for sure, is either.

Web site? Dude, that was all my own original rambling!

 

[Gintaras]

To arrogant american species:

Save The Planet