Global Warming : Natural : Man~Made : or Both ??

245

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 95
    aquafireaquafire Posts: 2,758member
    Originally posted by Mike Peel



    " Oceans belch, end of mankind as we know it...



    Re oceans evaporating and causing cloud cover: I'm not sure, but I vaguely remember water vapour being mentioned as a greenhouse gas




    Yes : Water vapour is often left-out of the equations.. as it apparently complicates atmospheric modeling....



    But back to the Methane issue.



    There is evidence to suggest that the worlds' most massive volcanic eruptions emmenating from the area of modern day Siberia, may have been the "smoking gun" behind the permian methane upwellings.



    Geologists have long known about the " Siberia traps ", what they didn't know was the extent...(now measured in terms of 200,000+ square kilometres ) of basaltic lava covering the earth to a depth of several miles...and all in a very short space of time.



    This massive volcanic activity is reputed to have increased world Co2 levels by 5 % which in turn warmed the earth enough to displace the very cold bottom dwelling waters with warmer oceanic surface water....( In effect causing the oceans of the world to undergo a thermodynamic inversion ).



    And here is where it gets interesting...



    This much warmer water ( now at the bottom of the oceans ) made contact with the till then frozen methane which in turn melted; thus releasing enormous amounts of methane gas into the worlds oceans & atmosphere.



    According to this hypothesis, the methane in turn poisoned almost all sea life first and then terrestial animal life died out. So much so that approx 95% of all life was driven to extinction.



    The link is very interesting.



    http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon...arthdied.shtml
  • Reply 22 of 95
    smirclesmircle Posts: 1,035member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Aquafire

    I appreciate the explanation Mike, but realistically, any increase in surface temperature means that there is a subsequent increase in evaporation leading to more cloud cover, which in turn "shields" the earth from extra insolaration..all of which in turn cools the earth...



    Not really.

    Think of Venus, a planet completely covered in clouds all the time. Nevertheless hot like hell due to a runaway greenhouse effect (yes, Venus is nearer to the sun, but even hotter than that).



    Clouds do raise the albedo (the observed brightness, related to the amount of energy reflected), but not nearly enough to counter the greenhouse effect.



    The global warming works like this: light comes in in the visible and near-UV spectrum, hits the earth and is reflected back into space in the near-IR band. Some part of the IR-emission (infrared is heat) is reflected back to earth by the greenhouse gases like CO2. The balance is what makes the earth inhabitable.

    Man made fluorocarbohydrates and CO2 increase the amount of IR getting trapped in the atmosphere and projected back to earth.

    Clouds project back incoming light into space, but they also project back emitted IR back to earth, so they work both ways.



    Since the earth's weather is a nonlinear feedback system, the developing greenhouse effect can alter wind patterns in such a way that it gets warmer in summer and snowier in winter, there is nothing contradictory in that. However, this seems to be a concept noone who has not studied some kind of natural science is able to grasp, so I have mostly given up trying to explain.

    Just pretend it doesn't exist, the global heating is slow enough that we (the currently living) can simply ignore it.
  • Reply 23 of 95
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Mike Peel

    Basically, a volcano doing off would give off more stuff to cause the greenhouse effect than humans have since the industrial revolution... So while we've changed things slightly, nature regularily beats us. Or so my Physics lecturers have told me...



    And my Physics lecture told me that we don't have to worry about energy consumption in the U.S.A. because we don't actually use up any energy, it just changes form.



    Some people don't want to feel guilty so they lie instead of changing their behavior.
  • Reply 24 of 95
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Animaniac

    Nature created humans. I'd say it's natural. Nature is always able to adapt and correct itself. If that means we are exterminated, so be it.



    This is a dumb argument. You have to be smarter than this.



    If we use this argument, then you know by law you can't exterminate me. Exterminate yourself, but any actions you take that eliminate me or others is not allowed. Your rights end where mine begin. So there go your rights to warm the globe. Time to clean up your act.
  • Reply 25 of 95
    Bunge, Nature doesn't care about rights...



    Energy is just changing from one form to another. The problem is the type of energy it changes into... Plus, it's more difficult to change it back to the original electricity, hence making energy consumption a valid concern...



    *agrees with Smircle* Should have thought about venus... :S I blame being overworked...



    Aquafire: interesting. Will leave that until I'm more awake, and explore the theory...
  • Reply 26 of 95
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bunge

    This is a dumb argument. You have to be smarter than this.



    If we use this argument, then you know by law you can't exterminate me. Exterminate yourself, but any actions you take that eliminate me or others is not allowed. Your rights end where mine begin. So there go your rights to warm the globe. Time to clean up your act.




    What I meant was if we've become a proverbial fly on Nature's back, it will eventually smack us. If we stress the system to breaking point it will snap back.
  • Reply 27 of 95
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Animaniac

    If we stress the system to breaking point it will snap back.



    Of course, and that's what people are fighting against. In the grand scheme of things it looks like our sun will expand to the point that it engulfs our entire Solar System making our existence a complete waste. Does that me we shouldn't give a crap along the way? No.



    Although I do agree that some greenies don't want to admit that there is a natural cycle at work as well, it's almost irrelevant to their argument. With or without the greenhouse effect, there is plenty of proof that the pollution they're fighting against kills us in many other ways. That means regardless of the greenhouse effect's validity, the argument to fight it is solid.



    The contrary is true of the conservative voice. They seem to believe that the greenhouse effect is an imposibility and thus nothing should be done to prevent it. But, since the pollution is doing more than just this one possibile type of damage, any argument against cleaning up is fundamentally flawed.



    So while the question of rising temperatures being man-made or not might be an interesting one, it isn't really relevant.



    One last thought: to the poster who mentioned the volcano, obviously the planet is designed to handle a certain amount of a lot of things. The real worry is that there are tolerances on both ends. So if we are contributing to a heat cycle, even a temporary blip on the upward trend, we could push the planet past its normal tolerance into a heat zone that certain life including our own (at least indirectly) isn't able to handle. It might take that volcano to combined with our own 0.001% increase to create havoc while neither in and of themselves would do major damage. The key is that we can't control volcanos but we can control our own hazardous output.
  • Reply 28 of 95
    aquafireaquafire Posts: 2,758member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bunge





    " In the grand scheme of things it looks like our sun will expand to the point that it engulfs our entire Solar System making our existence a complete waste.



    Bunge...I think you mean out to Earth or possibly Mars..





    Quote:

    ...there is plenty of proof that the pollution they're fighting against kills us in many other ways.



    I have no argument against pollution per se..only against those who define everything we ( as humans ) produce such as..Co2, etc, PCB's are killers as are man made oestrogens that interfere with male reproductive organs..etc..yes these are a real cause for concern.







    Quote:

    So while the question of rising temperatures being man-made or not might be an interesting one, it isn't really relevant.



    Oh dear..this is the most central issue of all...without it, the whole "runaway greenhouse" scenario would cease to exist.



    Quote:

    It might take that volcano to combined with our own 0.001% increase to create havoc while neither in and of themselves would do major damage. The key is that we can't control volcanos but we can control our own hazardous output.



    This is akin to the "straw that breaks the camels' back" idea..trouble is, most enviromentalists use it to urge over-reactions where modest adjustments would be more prudent.
  • Reply 29 of 95
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Aquafire, I'll distill my post to the most minor of points so you can respond to just one, the important one:



    The pollution environmentalists fight in their effort to fight global warming are deadly regardless. We as a society should be fighting them even if scientists prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that human-influenced global warmning does not exist.
  • Reply 30 of 95
    alcimedesalcimedes Posts: 5,486member
    CO2 is deadly? sorry, it's necessary for plant life to survive. most of the deadly gasses that are given off are only problems in excess. it's the question as to how much is excess.
  • Reply 31 of 95
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    bunge: I agree, *BUT*... many of those pollutants are the result of beneficial acts, such as power production. There has to be a balance reached between the beneficial effects and the deleterious ones. Stating that 0% emissions is the only way to go is just militaristic, and in my mind unthinking. If we can reach that, while maintaining a proper and reasonable amount of beneficial results along the way, then *GREAT*! I'm all for it.



    But to say that it's 0% or bust is just asinine.



    As usual, reality lies somewhere between the greenies and the SUV owners.
  • Reply 32 of 95
    aquafireaquafire Posts: 2,758member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by alcimedes

    CO2 is deadly? sorry, it's necessary for plant life to survive. most of the deadly gasses that are given off are only problems in excess. it's the question as to how much is excess.



    Well I wouldn't want to be in a tent breathing only Co2..



    But your correct about plants. It turns out that the Jurassic & Cambrian periods had much much higher levels of Co2 in the atmosphere. Temperatures were on average higher than today, but in both periods there was a corresponding explosion in plant life.



    No doubt, there is an upper limit to the amount of Co2 that the eco-system can absorb, but that threshhold is magnitudes greater than it is today.
  • Reply 33 of 95
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Kickaha

    But to say that it's 0% or bust is just asinine.



    Good thing that's not what I'm saying. I think it's the conservatives that are using that mentality. Prove 100% that X is happening and meets threshold Y or it doesn't exist at all. That seems to be the premise of this thread. That's not intelligent in my opinion.



    Alclimedes, of course we need CO2 [how did you make that so small?] and it's a matter of balance. I think I eluded to that in a previous post when I said "The real worry is that there are tolerances on both ends." I'm not advocating a zero-sum game, quite the opposite. Because the obvious and apparent choice in that game has been to allow limitless pollution.



    Aquafire, how can you be at all sure of the upper limit that the earth can absorb? You admit that there was an explosion of plant life that correlated with previous periods of high Co2 levels. Now look at the planet. There's no equivalent plant bloom and instead we're losing plants. That combined with an increase in Co2 means that the planet can no longer handle the levels that it did during the peaks in history. So what is that level? You don't know because no one knows.
  • Reply 34 of 95
    CO2



    CO[ SIZE=1]2[ /SIZE]



    (take the spaces out of course)



    there's a lot of science showing global warming is crap science. lots of conjecture based on evidence that's based on historically low temps.



    i think we overestimate our importance and effect on the earth, as well as underestimate the ability of the planet to compensate.
  • Reply 35 of 95
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by alcimedes

    i think we overestimate our importance and effect on the earth, as well as underestimate the ability of the planet to compensate.



    Probably. But that's why the focus of the argument really should be the effect we have on ourselves as a species and as individuals. When we shift the focus the argument gets a bit clearer. If X kills Y number of people and can be fixed by Z, then we must do Z.
  • Reply 36 of 95
    aquafireaquafire Posts: 2,758member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Aquafire





    No doubt, there is an upper limit to the amount of Co2 that the eco-system can absorb, but that threshhold is magnitudes greater than it is today.




    Bunge,



    No disrespect intended...but did actually read what I wrote...?
  • Reply 37 of 95
    I'll throw in another thing for debate. We are actually reducing the planet's capabilities to cope with high C02 levels. Think of the amount of forest we've cut down, the amount of fields we've laid tarmac and buildings on.



    So even if we do get pollution down to 0%, we'll still have had a big effect on the ability of the planet to control greenhouse effects.



    alcimedes - the problem is, what if we're underetimating our effect, and overestimating the planet's ability to compensate? Then we're basically screwed... (I'm not saying that is the case, just throwing it into the fray...)
  • Reply 38 of 95
    aquafireaquafire Posts: 2,758member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Mike Peel

    I'll throw in another thing for debate. We are actually reducing the planet's capabilities to cope with high C02 levels. Think of the amount of forest we've cut down, the amount of fields we've laid tarmac and buildings on.



    So even if we do get pollution down to 0%, we'll still have had a big effect on the ability of the planet to control greenhouse effects.



    alcimedes - the problem is, what if we're underetimating our effect, and overestimating the planet's ability to compensate? Then we're basically screwed... (I'm not saying that is the case, just throwing it into the fray...)




    If I may Mike,



    This is the sort of paranoia that some greenies want. If they had their way, we'd all be living in grass huts..smoking pipes..hmmm not a bad idea..



    But seriously, with regards to your point about deforestation..yes this is an issue, but not as bad as some would like to claim it is*.. Because we're terrestial animals, we forget that 2/3rds of the earths surface is covered by water.



    By a huge margin the amount of Co2 absorbed by the oceans is phenomenal in comparison. ( limestone is the visible product of such oceanic absorption of Co2.)



    On top of this it should be noted that oceans are the worlds' greatest thermostat. drawing heat away from the tropical zone and replacing it with colder upwelling currents borne from the arctic zones...



    Think of the ocean as one massive heat exchanger.



    * it doesn't mean I support deforestation one little bit.

    The destruction of {i]Olde Growth Forests[/i} is IMO an international crime that should be punished...
  • Reply 39 of 95
    smirclesmircle Posts: 1,035member
    Two images:





    Until the 1980s, temperatures never rose much above the longtime mean, in fact they were lower most of the times. Since then, they are rising sharply.



    Of course this can still be a blip on a longer time scale, but I believe you have to be in denial to discuss there is something developing here.







    Shows a somewhat tight correlation between CO2 concentration and temperature. Since 10.000 years, both are rising. But the interesting part is the right vertical axis. Right at this axis, there is a sudden jump in the CO2 concentration (see "present day") which rises much higher than at any time depicted in the graph. This is precisely the industrial revolution and later.



    So, if higher CO2 leads to higher temperatures, there is rather compelling evidence that it is going to get hotter in the next 50 years. And that it is man-made to a large extend.
  • Reply 40 of 95
    aquafireaquafire Posts: 2,758member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Smircle

    Two images:





    Until the 1980s, temperatures never rose much above the longtime mean, in fact they were lower most of the times. Since then, they are rising sharply.



    Of course this can still be a blip on a longer time scale, but I believe you have to be in denial to discuss there is something developing here.







    Shows a somewhat tight correlation between CO2 concentration and temperature. Since 10.000 years, both are rising. But the interesting part is the right vertical axis. Right at this axis, there is a sudden jump in the CO2 concentration (see "present day") which rises much higher than at any time depicted in the graph. This is precisely the industrial revolution and later.



    So, if higher CO2 leads to higher temperatures, there is rather compelling evidence that it is going to get hotter in the next 50 years. And that it is man-made to a large extend.




    Smircle, the "evidence'" you present is not as compelling as you'd make it out to be.



    Nor have you bothered to explain the massive Co2 jump that occured between about 132,000 years ago to 122,000 years ago ?



    And the graph is far to coarse to make the sweeping claim that it "fits with the industrial revolution".. this is wishful thinking.



    Furthermore the 1880 "start" ( when modern temperature recording began ) is far too short a period within which to make any serious analysis of Co2 trends...



    But of course that doesn't stop many "ecologists" poining to such contemporary Co2 figures with alarm, implying that the past had always been Co2 "stable".



    Paleoclimatologists, would tell you what an absurd notion this is.



    Smircle, It's too late into the night for me to argue your graphs shortfalls piece by piece...but if you have the time or inclination..take a look at this review...It raises some interesting questions & doubts.



    http://www.co2science.org/book/v5_book/mathiesen.htm
Sign In or Register to comment.