Global Warming

[john9001]

so we hafta blow up some volcanos to cool down the earth? How many?

[oboe]

lazs,

The link I provided did say that solar radiation caused by variations in the Earth's orbit caused warming, which caused CO2 release.   The extra CO2  caused additional warming.

Good question about population control.   I don't have any suggestions.   I do note that the wealthier a country seems to be, the slower its population growth.

Traditions and religions aside, I think its more related to economics than we give credit for.

[Bronk]

Originally posted by Angus
Learn todays lesson.
Volcanoes actually add to what is called "GLOBAL DIMMING". That means COOLING. And anyway, unlike human-related release of CO2, Volcanoes cannot be controlled.

Happy schooldays.

The particulates may partially block solar radiation. But the noxious gases spewed don't. Those are what contribute to the warming.
Along with Angus flatulence.

Bronk

[lukster]

It's been said before but bears repeating. If you're convinced that human produced co2 is bringing about our doom and preaching that tune then you should stop contributing immediately or you are a hypocrite. Everytime you drive a car you are part of your problem.

[lazs2]

oboe.. the earth has had hotter summers and cooler ones from the beggining.. it changes from year to year and every once in a while... it has prolonged periods of warming or cooling.. the "scientists" don't really know why this is... but best guess is....

ITS THE SUN STUPID

As for population...  great you feel that we need less and that the poor and religious countries are the problem...   so what?   we all agree...  Now tell me how you ban their beliefs or make em better off by destroying the economies of the wealthy countries who contribute the most... well... scientists... the most advancement in tech?

It is fine to state a problem and get all weepy about it but quite another to come up with a solution that is not worse than the problem.   It is also easy to pick apart the solutions of those who come up with them.

As it stands now.. the evidence is so thin that I am not willing to spend one extra penny on any solution that does not simply allow the free market to work it out on it's own.

I have a feeling that as this shakes out.. as these lab rats and nutjobs start to lay out their plans... that more and more people will feel the same as I do.

lazs

[lazs2]

Then again.. it could just be the sun.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4321

lazs

[Dadano]

Originally posted by lazs2

As it stands now.. the evidence is so thin that I am not willing to spend one extra penny on any solution that does not simply allow the free market to work it out on it's own.

lazs [/B]

[oboe]

Again lazs, that's pretty much what the link I provided states - the theory that periods of global warming are initiated by increased solar radiation.    Yes the earth has gone through periods of warming and cooling and will continue to do so - we're not covering any new ground here.

The issue to me seems to be how much worse will the warming be made by the increased greenhouse gas concentrations.   If you look at the growth in concentrations in these gases since industrialization, or even the rapid growth in just CO2 in the last 40 years, I think its difficult not to conclude man is a significant contributor.   Can you suggest a natural mechanism that could be responsible for the historically recent, rapid rise in the concentrations of these gases?

I think its going to be very difficult to assign a $$ amount to the possible problems caused by the man's involvement in global warming, so its problematic to figure out how much we should spend fighting it, or whether we are getting a good deal on our investment.    My best thought on the matter is to take slow, deliberate steps and monitor the situation activelty to see if we can make a difference, and also make sure whatever we do will have a positive impact on other problems not just global warming.    For example, encouraging alternative, renewable energy creates new jobs and industries, keeps money here rather than funding terrorists, and reduces air pollution.   Maybe one day, it'll be safe to eat fish regularly in Minnesota again.    

I'm not weepy about the problem of overpopulation.   I just state matter of factly that I think overpopulation is ultimately responsible for many of our problems.     I can't tell you how to fix it, any more than you can tell me how to fix the sun from varying its solar output.

[Xargos]

We must do something about Manbearpig before it's too late!.

I'm cereal.

[Bronk]

Originally posted by Xargos
We must do something about Manbearpig before it's too late!.

I'm cereal.

But are you super cereal?

Bronk

[EagleDNY]

Originally posted by FastFwd
No, I haven't failed to take that into account. Plants were absorbing CO2 and thriving quite nicely 400 years ago - long before Man started burning fossil fuels at a rate anywhere close to the rate that exists today. And guess what? Plants were not dying because of a "CO2 shortage". Therefore, I submit to you that the man made CO2 that will be released into the atmosphere over the next ~60 years is in excess of what plants will need to survive.

"in excess of what plants will need to survive" isn't a static, just as how much food you need to survive isn't fixed either.  For example, although you can survive for a day on a couple of slices of pizza, that doesn't mean that you couldn't eat the entire pizza after a hard days work.

Photosynthesis is not a static.  A plant with plenty of sunlight and more CO2 will grow more, consuming more CO2 and releasing more oxygen.  Try the experiment - put two identical plants under a lamp, and introduce additional CO2 to one of them.  After a month, I guarantee you that one plant will be much larger than the other.  

Multiply this phenomenon by every photosynthetic lifeform on the plant, and I think we have a pretty large correction factor towards removing any "excess" CO2 from the atmosphere.

[oboe]

I think your reasoning is sound EagleDNY, but how do you explain the recent, dramatic rise in CO2 levels, which are now significantly above historical (the past 650,000 yrs) maximums?

It seems like the correction factor, if there is one,  is not functioning properly.

[EagleDNY]

That "dramatic" rise they are all talking about in CO2 levels is from 0.036% to 0.040% of the atmosphere, an increase to be sure, but is it out of the realm of normal variation?  

First off, there is evidence to support the theory that an increase in CO2 is the RESULT and not the CAUSE of a warming trend.  If this is the case, then our rise in CO2 might be the natural variation caused by increased solar heating of the planet.  

Earths primordial atmosphere probably contained much more CO2 than the 400 ppm (thats parts per MILLION) we have now - Venus has 97% CO2 in its atmosphere, and Mars has 95% CO2 in its atmosphere - the difference being that most of the earth is covered by water, which is an absolutely wonderful absorber of CO2 (just ask any soda maker), and the development of photosynthetic life forms.

Earths atmosphere now contains nearly 21% free oxygen - a vast difference from the 0% (yes, thats ZERO percent) oxygen that came out of the earth in the volcanic gasses that formed the early atmosphere.  Geologists have determined (and tracked) the increase in oxygen levels over the last 4 billion-odd years by studying various iron compounds in the earths crust, and have a pretty decent idea of what percentage of oxygen was available in each era because many compounds only form under very specific conditions.  

It is quite probable that what is now 21% oxygen, was once mostly CO2 - this VAST amount of CO2 was consumed by plants, bacteria, chemical processes, etc. to give us the atmospheric composition we have today.  Consider this - that even at vastly higher CO2 levels, life formed and thrived on this planet, and has evolved to deal with all the nasty oxygen floating around in the atmosphere.  

I have a feeling that the biosphere of this planet will be able to deal just fine with a little more CO2.  I'm a lot more worried about the monkey-boys on this planet dumping all sorts of nasty chemicals into the rivers and oceans than I am about a 40ppm increase in global CO2 over 30 years.  Bacterial and chemical contaminants pose a much greater environmental threat over the long term (IMHO).

EagleDNY

[Booz]

Eh screw it, it's our kids that'll suffer anyway, who cares.

[LEADPIG]

Allright i admit it, it's me..... I gotta stop eating all those chilli bean burritoes....