Author Topic: Global Warming (Read 16697 times)

oboe · « **Reply #495 on:** March 06, 2007, 02:21:03 PM »

Mace,

In 650,000 yrs, CO2 has never risen above 300 ppm. We're now at 380 ppm and climbing exponentially, apparently. The concentration growth rate in the last 10 years (1.9 ppm/yr) far exceeds the average growth rate since the beginning of atmospheric measurements in 1960 (1.4 ppm/yr).

Also, whatever portion of the blame you want to put on cow flatulence actually belongs on man, since we are the ones raising the cattle for meat (but that is actually methane and not CO2 as far as cows go) Still a greenhouse gas, anyway.

Its hard to blame anything but man for the recent marked rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations, isn't it?

I'm not ready to conclude anything further from that yet, though. I did find this IPCC executive summary interesting:

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

john9001 · « **Reply #496 on:** March 06, 2007, 02:39:08 PM »

""In 650,000 yrs, CO2 has never risen above 300 ppm""

that statement means that the method of figuring out the CO2 of the last 650,000 yrs is not flawed. What if the test methods are wrong? What if the data is wrong?

oboe · « **Reply #497 on:** March 06, 2007, 02:46:04 PM »

Yep, it does. If the method of figuring out CO2 concentrations from ice cores is flawed, then alot of data and assumptions based on the data are going to be wrong.

I don't know how long they've been doing the procedure or how they benchmarked the data to make sure the methodology is sound.

I haven't heard anyone else challenge that particular aspect of global warming studies though.

FastFwd · « **Reply #498 on:** March 06, 2007, 05:31:16 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mace2004
It seems you're impressed by the word "BILLIONS". The total mass of the atmosphere is about 5,000 TRILLION TONS. Of this, CO2 makes up something like .03 percent. Also, of that .03 percent the vast majority comes from nature and man's contribution (even if it is "BILLIONS" of tons) is only a fraction of what nature produces so no, I'm not particularly impressed with "BILLIONS" even if you like to capitalize it. Cow flatulance introduces far more CO2 into the atmosphere than man does yet I don't see you running around plugging cow bung holes. BTW, I never said that pollution caused by man has no bearing at all, I'm just saying I don't buy into the dire and catastrophic predictions from people with both political and financial stakes in them.

OK, SmartBoy - let's do some analysis, using your own figures. You have conceded that global warming is happening, and have accepted that greenhouse gases like CO2 are a cause of it. You now say that the earth's atmosphere has a mass of 5,000 trillion tons (that's 5 quadrillion), of which CO2 represents 0.03%.

Let's see how much that is in tons. 1% of 5000 trillion is 50 trillion, or 50,000,000,000,000. CO2 is 0.03% of this, and 0.03% of 50,000,000,000,000 is 1.5 trillion = 1,500,000,000,000.

Now, at the current rate of consumption, Man's CO2 output (from the burning of fossil fuels etc) is 25 billion tons per year - that's 25,000,000,000.

Dividing the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by Man's annual CO2 output (1,500,000,000,000 divided by 25,000,000,000) gives us an answer of 60. In other words, in 60 years, man's CO2 output will be the equivalent of the TOTAL volume of CO2 currently in the atmosphere right now. And remember - CO2 output is set to increase markedly with the industrialization of China. So that 60 years is valid at 2007 levels of CO2 output, but the fact is that Mankind will have DOUBLED the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in around 40 years. Once again, SmartBoy, these calculations are based on your own figures. Oh, the annual 25bn tons of CO2 is a figure that can be found in a number of places - including the US Department of Energy website.

So Mankind is set to double the level of CO2 in the atmosphere in the next ~40 years, and CO2 is a greenhouse gas which traps heat and causes warming. So... do you still maintain that Man is not causing global warming?

Quote

You want us to invent is a program to "solve" global warming even if it's not caused by man. In other words, you want the world to stay static, exactly as it was when you were a little child. You'd go beyond "solving" a crisis to dictacting what the weather should be and that, my friend, is foolish.

Well, according to your own figures, man is set to double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in less than 60 years - probably around 40. And we know that CO2 causes global warming. Indeed, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen by 25% in the past 300 years, caused mainly by the burning of fossil fuels.

So you don't want to see the world remain static? You want to see all ports in the world submerged under 10ft of water, just as tedrbr said might happen in one of his earlier posts? What effect do you think that would have on US trade and the US economy as a whole?

I think it's time to start looking at what mankind is doing to this planet, and begin acting upon it - instead of taking the stance that there may be a natural warming trend of unspecified magnitude, therefore we need do nothing...

john9001 · « **Reply #499 on:** March 06, 2007, 08:05:28 PM »

<>>

i see a big upsurge in the US construction industry to build new ports.

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #500 on:** March 06, 2007, 08:06:27 PM »

That'll make me happy. I love making money.

500 posts in and I haven't read more then 1 of em.

Angus · « **Reply #501 on:** March 07, 2007, 05:16:54 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by john9001
""In 650,000 yrs, CO2 has never risen above 300 ppm""

that statement means that the method of figuring out the CO2 of the last 650,000 yrs is not flawed. What if the test methods are wrong? What if the data is wrong?

+

What "IF" the data is right?
A termometer has been a perfectly reliable tool for a long time. But as for 650.000 years, we have to rely on ice cores etc, - Greenland alone takes you 300.000 years back, Antarctica 650.000.
So, the ppm's are manifested, and anyway, we are heading fast at 800 ppm, and then going on to the double. Maybe, you want to wait for the data untill you have your backside on the toaster while the feet are in water ???

Dadano · « **Reply #502 on:** March 07, 2007, 05:46:54 AM »

Why not error on the side of conservation?

If we can save some species/crops/coastline/glaciers....along the way, GREAT!

I cannot understand why people are adverse to cleaning up our act.

Angus · « **Reply #503 on:** March 07, 2007, 06:01:06 AM »

True and indeed more true. We might be confronting the act of saving ourselves.

moot · « **Reply #504 on:** March 07, 2007, 06:14:48 AM »

You need global warming to do that?

Angus · « **Reply #505 on:** March 07, 2007, 08:29:56 AM »

You need a threat to be able to avoid threat, right?

lazs2 · « **Reply #506 on:** March 07, 2007, 08:44:03 AM »

oboe.. since you like to be fair...

Co2 has never before come before a period of global warming... it comes after the warming. The oceans release co2 as the planet warms.

The sun is warming the planet.. that is causing an increase of co2. When the sun stops warming the planet at an increased rate the co2 will be reabsorbed by the ocean... our contribution is miniscule and will easily be absorbed. I look for studies to see how much more the ocean is releasing but all I get is...

We are warming up the planet so the ocean is not absorbing as much. Well.. thats convienient.. our tiny little contribution.. literaly less than a cow fart... is doing more than the sun can do to affect the Co2 in the atmosphere?

What should we do? kill all the cows and become vegetarians? That would seem to be the best solution if we actually believed that the tiny bit of man and animal co2 production was causing this whole global warming effect.

And what if we all slit our throats today? I say the sun would still shine and the ocean would still release co2 in accordance with the suns activity. The planet would continue to warm and co2 increase until the sun shifted to a lower activity level.

The predictions of Co2 rise are based on what is happening at the peak of suns activity right now... if the warming trend/sun activity slows... all predictions are off.

Still... no scientist has ever been able to show that increased Co2 levels cause global warming.. only that they follow it.

The debate will get better once the scientists think they have enough frieghtened acolytes and pass out their real agenda... what they think we ought to do about the whole thing. When people hear the grief and hardship these high priests propose.... it will get interesting.

lazs

LEADPIG · « **Reply #507 on:** March 07, 2007, 09:03:39 AM »

Global warming is most likely happening. Do any of you honestly believe that man can pump out that many environmental toxins and greenhouse gasses, mind you, that weren't here before man got here and say that it couldn't be having an effect. The automobile has been here for about a hundred years now, my guess it's been doing something and the automobile ain't the only thing. I been living in Texas now all my life and can remember back up to 1995, there was at least several freezes a year. There would be ice cicles hanging on something by the end of winter. I haven't seen an icecicle since then and it gets warmer and warmer. What do you think thats about? My guess is that man is screwing things up somewhere and we better find another energy source before i'm surfing in Alaska in December. Sure the earths environment goes in cycles but it's my bet that man is doing something to it. How many of you can sit here and naysay people who do studies that at least submit to the fact that it may be happening and act like there stupid for saying it. I rather listen to it and prepare for the possibility so if they are wrong at least we have changed a bad situation anyway. You very people are the same ones who could be sunbathing in Siberia in January while the rest of us melt are buns off somewhere else. It's always scientist and creative thinkers who find stuff out while people sit back and criticize them for it. I rather say hey they could be right. If there wrong great, somethings changing the environment anyway, if their right don't be left looking stupid saying uhh those guys might have had a point there. Ignorance is bliss untill something you ignored comes back to bite you in the ass.

LEADPIG · « **Reply #508 on:** March 07, 2007, 09:06:16 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dadano

I cannot understand why people are adverse to cleaning up our act.

Convenience Dadano convenience.........

Bronk · « **Reply #509 on:** March 07, 2007, 09:09:43 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by LEADPIG
Global warming is most likely happening. Do any of you honestly believe that man can pump out that many environmental toxins and greenhouse gasses, mind you, that weren't here before man got here and say that it couldn't be having an effect. The automobile has been here for about a hundred years now, my guess it's been doing something and the automobile ain't the only thing. I been living in Texas now all my life and can remember back up to 1995, there was at least several freezes a year. There would be ice cicles hanging on something by the end of winter. I haven't seen an icecicle since then and it gets warmer and warmer. What do you think thats about? My guess is that man is screwing things up somewhere and we better find another energy source before i'm surfing in Alaska in December. Sure the earths environment goes in cycles but it's my bet that man is doing something to it. How many of you can sit here and naysay people who do studies that at least submit to the fact that it may be happening and act like there stupid for saying it. I rather listen to it and prepare for the possibility so if they are wrong at least we have changed a bad situation anyway. You very people are the same ones who could be sunbathing in Siberia in January while the rest of us melt are buns off somewhere else. It's always scientist and creative thinkers who find stuff out while people sit back and criticize them for it. I rather say hey they could be right. If there wrong great, somethings changing the environment anyway, if their right don't be left looking stupid saying uhh those guys might have had a point there. Ignorance is bliss untill something you ignored comes back to bite you in the ass.

Erm volcanoes have been spewing more crap into the air over a longer period of time.

Better get some big arsed cat converters and air scrubbers for them.

Bronk