Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Karlis

Confirming carbon's climate effects

43 posts in this topic

Harvard scientists are helping to paint the fullest picture yet of how a handful of factors, particularly world-wide increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide, combined to end the last ice age approximately 20,000 to 10,000 years ago.-- While the research strengthens the link between CO2 and the Ice Ages, Shakun believes it also reinforces the importance of addressing CO2-driven climate change in our own time. arrow3.gifRead more...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeh, well, all knew it except big coal and big oil. They still claim that carbon has nothing to do with it and that humans are not responsible for the increase of carbon in the atmosphere...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeh, well, all knew it except big coal and big oil. They still claim that carbon has nothing to do with it and that humans are not responsible for the increase of carbon in the atmosphere...

We have no other real alternatives that can meet the current needs we have demanded. Solar, wind and bio cannot meet them. Nuclear will never be accepted on the scale it would be needed. Carbon fuels are all we have and we will have to choose comfort, growth and overall lifestyle being seriously diminished or accepting the ravages that carbon causes. My guess is that we will do nothing until it is forced on us by a calamity. It's just human nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have no other real alternatives that can meet the current needs we have demanded. Solar, wind and bio cannot meet them. Nuclear will never be accepted on the scale it would be needed. Carbon fuels are all we have and we will have to choose comfort, growth and overall lifestyle being seriously diminished or accepting the ravages that carbon causes. My guess is that we will do nothing until it is forced on us by a calamity. It's just human nature.

I don't remember anybody saying to stop dead on using fossil fuels, all Kyoto and similar initiatives demanded is to reduce where it is not necessary, like invest in insulation, not drive 400 yards with the car to get a pack of cigarettes and there were possible substitute for regenerative energies. Not to heat up the interior to 105 in winter and cool it down to 20 in summer. But even that seems to be too much for some.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeh, well, all knew it except big coal and big oil. They still claim that carbon has nothing to do with it and that humans are not responsible for the increase of carbon in the atmosphere...

I would agree with man-made global warming if the world hadn't gone through warming/cooling periods in the past...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would agree with man-made global warming if the world hadn't gone through warming/cooling periods in the past...

I have asked you this a dozen times and a dozen times you have avoided answering: Who is blowing all the carbon sequestered by nature in the carboniferous (very hot) era back into the atmosphere?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would agree with man-made global warming if the world hadn't gone through warming/cooling periods in the past...

I have adressed that to you as well.

Understanding the causes of past climate changes helps to understand the diffrence with today.

So I would like to ask you now: what would then be the major cause of global warming if it isn't us?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I have asked you this a dozen times and a dozen times you have avoided answering: Who is blowing all the carbon sequestered by nature in the carboniferous (very hot) era back into the atmosphere?

You have not asked me a "dozen" times; twice, maybe. I do believe I had gotten busy, and forgotten about the topic completely. Way to exaggerate.

Secondly, the earth cooled, and went into an ice age. After the ice age, it began warming again. According to Vostok data, our temperatures really haven't increased very substantially.

IceCores1.gif

CO2 emissions may have increased, but that doesn't indicate that it is the cause of our warming.

Edited by Alienated Being

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have not asked me a "dozen" times; twice, maybe. I do believe I had gotten busy, and forgotten about the topic completely. Way to exaggerate.

Secondly, the earth cooled, and went into an ice age. After the ice age, it began warming again. According to Vostok data, our temperatures really haven't increased very substantially.

IceCores1.gif

CO2 emissions may have increased, but that doesn't indicate that it is the cause of our warming.

So, let me ask you: Did you read that article above? And that still makes you claim that carbon has nothing to do with it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, let me ask you: Did you read that article above? And that still makes you claim that carbon has nothing to do with it?

Yes, absolutely; especially considering that they have not provided any data to further substantiate their claims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, absolutely; especially considering that they have not provided any data to further substantiate their claims.

Ah, of the "No worse deaf than those who refuse to hear" variety. Nice to know. Makes further discussions unnecessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, of the "No worse deaf than those who refuse to hear" variety. Nice to know. Makes further discussions unnecessary.

Sorry, but I prefer detailed models that represent datas, not reports on findings. They can report all they wish, but if they have no data to reinforce their findings, then it pretty much equates to nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but I prefer detailed models that represent datas, not reports on findings. They can report all they wish, but if they have no data to reinforce their findings, then it pretty much equates to nothing.

Where you would have to go and see the actual study, which you could have seen by picking up today's Nature, instead you start claiming something about no data. That leads only to one of two possibilities:

1. You have not read the above, if you would have you would know that it is a comment on the findings at Harvard published in today's Nature and far away from being a scientific paper wit "data".

2. That you really do not care and prefer to claim your prejudices as fact before finding the actual study.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, let me ask you: Did you read that article above? And that still makes you claim that carbon has nothing to do with it?

I think my reply to that question would be that there was an earlier study that indicated that warming occurs followed by a rise in c02, and now this new study claims the exact opposite. Should we believe whichever study comes last like a game of tag in the backyard between children, or just assume that there is no definitive proven answer, and trust that our climate has always been changing? Maybe we have a large effect, maybe a small. Regadless, we do have an effect and better more efficient "green" ways of producing and using energy are and will always be desirable.

To latch on to this or any study, given how this whole thing has gone over the years, and say "SEE THIS PROVES IT ONCE AND FOR ALL" is just...... :mellow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think my reply to that question would be that there was an earlier study that indicated that warming occurs followed by a rise in c02, and now this new study claims the exact opposite. Should we believe whichever study comes last like a game of tag in the backyard between children, or just assume that there is no definitive proven answer, and trust that our climate has always been changing? Maybe we have a large effect, maybe a small. Regadless, we do have an effect and better more efficient "green" ways of producing and using energy are and will always be desirable.

To latch on to this or any study, given how this whole thing has gone over the years, and say "SEE THIS PROVES IT ONCE AND FOR ALL" is just...... :mellow:

Taken in isolation that would be the correct argument, but that article is not unique. We know that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas (which means that it stops heat from radiating back into space), we know that in times when all the carbon that is (was) safely tucked somewhere under the earth was out in the air the temperatures on this planet were way higher and by paleontological record much more extreme. We know that since all that carbon was sequestered the temperatures on this planet have been more moderate (to sometimes right out freezing). The only real variable in all the cases was carbon. So why would anybody suppose that if you blow all that sequestered carbon back into the atmosphere nothing would happen to the climate?

That is the real question here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have no other real alternatives that can meet the current needs we have demanded. Solar, wind and bio cannot meet them. Nuclear will never be accepted on the scale it would be needed. Carbon fuels are all we have and we will have to choose comfort, growth and overall lifestyle being seriously diminished or accepting the ravages that carbon causes. My guess is that we will do nothing until it is forced on us by a calamity. It's just human nature.

Solar and wind can probably meet most of the need, but it will take a major conversion effort to get us there. Wind and solar cannot produce base load - the minimum power needed to keep the system running at night when the wind's not blowing. But nuclear can. Fast breeders can re-use waste from old thermal plants, producing products with much shorter half-lives (300 yrs. vs. 5000 yrs.); that will cut down on the storage problem. AND, Uncle Sam has enough to supply the US with power for the next thousand years. Not to mention the $50 billion that would go to the US treasury. New reactor designs eliminate many of the safety problems of the older designs. Could we have a Chernobyl-style release from one? The experts say no, but they also said a long list of other plants were safe, too. At any rate, I don't think there's a choice - we have to go nuclear, sit in the cold, or destroy our life-support system.

Bio-fuels? Right now, they're not efficient enough to be practical except in limited local situations - corn oil diesel in a corn-growing area, or crude from turkey processing waste. There may be hope for cellulose-based alcohol, but that needs more research. Grain is needed for food, so using good farmland to produce alcohol doesn't make much sense.

The problem with waiting for a disaster is that by then, we may not be able to fix the system.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taken in isolation that would be the correct argument, but that article is not unique. We know that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas (which means that it stops heat from radiating back into space), we know that in times when all the carbon that is (was) safely tucked somewhere under the earth was out in the air the temperatures on this planet were way higher and by paleontological record much more extreme. We know that since all that carbon was sequestered the temperatures on this planet have been more moderate (to sometimes right out freezing). The only real variable in all the cases was carbon. So why would anybody suppose that if you blow all that sequestered carbon back into the atmosphere nothing would happen to the climate?

That is the real question here.

As I understand it the real question was which came first the heat or the c02. There are studies with opposite findings. Nobody should be blamed for deciding that they believe that the answer is really unknown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't remember anybody saying to stop dead on using fossil fuels, all Kyoto and similar initiatives demanded is to reduce where it is not necessary, like invest in insulation, not drive 400 yards with the car to get a pack of cigarettes and there were possible substitute for regenerative energies. Not to heat up the interior to 105 in winter and cool it down to 20 in summer. But even that seems to be too much for some.

While conservation has a part to play, it is no substitute. Carbon has a tenure in the atmosphere of at least a century, some say two or even three centuries and there's one estimate of a thousand years - nobody is exactly sure. It makes little difference whether we burn it now, or burn it next year, in the end, it won't matter much. To avoid disaster, we have to leave a lot of coal, gas and tar sand and maybe some oil, too, in the ground.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To latch on to this or any study, given how this whole thing has gone over the years, and say "SEE THIS PROVES IT ONCE AND FOR ALL" is just...... :mellow:

I couldn't agree more. I really don't know, but I don't see man-made global warming as a logical suggestion as-to why our planet is increasing in temperature.

:tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I understand it the real question was which came first the heat or the c02. There are studies with opposite findings. Nobody should be blamed for deciding that they believe that the answer is really unknown.

Both are right. Operating without human interference, the climate system responds to warming, not the other way around. First the temperature goes up, then the oceans warm up. Because warm water can hold less dissolved CO2 than cold water, they release CO2 to the atmosphere. It takes several hundred years for this to happen.

But, enter people: we produce a major pulse of CO2 (21% of the CO2 now in the air has been put there since 1960.), that warms the atmosphere, which warms the oceans, which release more CO2, which warms the air... If it were only CO2, the effect would fizzle out after a few degrees, but warmer oceans melt and release methane hydrate which then adds to the greenhouse effect. We could well trigger a runaway greenhouse effect from which we couldn't recover.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I couldn't agree more. I really don't know, but I don't see man-made global warming as a logical suggestion as-to why our planet is increasing in temperature.

Read "Storms of My Grandchildren" by James Hansen, available on Amazon. He goes into the science and the politics.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Secondly, the earth cooled, and went into an ice age. After the ice age, it began warming again. According to Vostok data, our temperatures really haven't increased very substantially.

IceCores1.gif

That graphic is no where near an indicator that we are not responsible of current global warming. If you look at it, you can see that the CO2 concentration has increased as a result of temperature changes. Now if you look at the same kind of graphic but in reference to the current warming, you will see that this time, the CO2 concentration went up first and then, temperature raised as a result of it.

CO2 emissions may have increased, but that doesn't indicate that it is the cause of our warming.

Wrong. Here is a nice picture.

faq_2.1_fig_2_radiative_forcing_components.gif

So there you have it all. Now if you tell me that you still can't see how CO2 is the main cause of global warming, it would be implying that the shown data is wrong. If that is what you think, then tell me where and how it is wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

faq_2.1_fig_2_radiative_forcing_components.gif

So there you have it all. Now if you tell me that you still can't see how CO2 is the main cause of global warming, it would be implying that the shown data is wrong. If that is what you think, then tell me where and how it is wrong.

I don't see how CO2 is the "main cause" of our warming, honestly. All I see is how CO2 has increased as the result of human activity, which, of course, is common-sensical. I see no direct, irrefutable correlation between CO2 and our current temperature increase, especially, as I have said, considering it has increased/decreased so many times before.

Edited by Alienated Being

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While conservation has a part to play, it is no substitute. Carbon has a tenure in the atmosphere of at least a century, some say two or even three centuries and there's one estimate of a thousand years - nobody is exactly sure. It makes little difference whether we burn it now, or burn it next year, in the end, it won't matter much. To avoid disaster, we have to leave a lot of coal, gas and tar sand and maybe some oil, too, in the ground.

Doug

That is delusional, at least for the next 10 years down the road. Unless somebody invents a safe portable energy source conservation is the only thing we have. The other alternative is to tear down the big cities and go to live in the countryside... which would mean we have no place to grow our food. Which is also the problem if we try to grow our fuel. We will have to live with 4-5 degrees more whether we like it or not. And we don't only have to leave lots of carbon in the ground, most probably, if we want the same climate that made humanity possible in the first place we will have to put a lot of carbon back underground (which will most probably be done after the good old formula: Lets privatize the earnings and socialize the losses).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I don't see how CO2 is the "main cause" of our warming, honestly. All I see is how CO2 has increased as the result of human activity, which, of course, is common-sensical. I see no direct, irrefutable correlation between CO2 and our current temperature increase, especially, as I have said, considering it has increased/decreased so many times before.

Well that's exactly my point. If by this simple picture you can't see it, it suggests that you don't even understand the basic physics behind it (no harm intended).

The term "radiative forcing" is designated to represent the capacity of our atmosphere to trap energy/heat (in simple terms). The higher it is, the more heat it will trap. Period.

As you can see, of all the elements that have added forcing to the atmosphere, anthropogenic CO2 is by far the most important. It is more that the total forcing added by methane, nitrous oxide, halocarbons (CFC, HCFC etc) and even tropospheric ozone all resulting from our activity. Proof right there that anthropogenic CO2 is the main drive (but not the only one of course).

Our activity also resulted in some negative forcing (blue bands) but only by about 1.6 W/m2. So the total net added forcing (positive forcing minus negative forcing so about 3.2 W/m2 minus 1.6 W/m2) is still of about 1.6 W/m2 which inevitably means we are warming up.

An easier way is to look at it like so: red bands mean positive forcing, blue ones mean negative forcing. The largest red band is that of CO2. So it is the main drive and it's antropogenic. Easy enough?

So in conclusion:

- Global temperature is rising.

- The main cause of the radiative forcing increase is from anthropogenic CO2.

- We are the main cause of current global warming.

Now if you still don't want to understand, I feel that it is only going to be because you want to be right and refuse to see the facts.

Peace.

Edited by JayMark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.