30 Jun 13
2 edits
Originally posted by lemon lime
Remember the ice core samples that showed a rise in CO2 preceding a period of global warming? Other ice core samples tested after that showed the opposite. CO2 levels rose after periods of global warming, not before. And apparently there were other mistakes made with data concerning factors pointing toward global warming. In fact there were than follows a rise in CO2 then we should be fearing global cooling, not global warming.
Remember the ice core samples that showed a rise in CO2 preceding a period of global warming?
Yes, that is correct. That just meant that CO2 was not the trigger of each start of natural global warming period. When the computer models and scientists analyzed what was going on, what was discovered that, although CO2 was not the trigger, CO2 was released from the oceans from each warming and amplified the warming each time thus making that warming greater than what would have been predicted from the models if CO2 did no warming. Clearly then, the interaction between CO2, the oceans and other causes of warming is complex and subtle. But there is absolutely no scientific doubt whatsoever that atmospheric CO2 levels are one of the main factors that increases global warming.
30 Jun 13
Originally posted by Metal BrainLook up hypercapnia in Wikipedia, concentrations above 7% can be fatal. Concentrations near 1% are tolerable but you'd imagine there would be health effects if we were stuck with it. Since current CO2 levels are 0.039% you'd need the concentrations to increase by a factor of 25 to get anywhere near this. Regional fluctuations could cause this to be a danger, but I don't think that's a realistic concern provided they don't burn more than a factor of 25 times all the fossil fuels that have already been burnt.
Unsuitable for humans???? You must be joking.
CO2 is not a poison. You exhale it every time you breath. How would the atmosphere become unsuitable?
30 Jun 13
Originally posted by DeepThoughtOxygen is also toxic if the percentage is high enough. Almost anything is toxic if you have too much of it.
Look up hypercapnia in Wikipedia, concentrations above 7% can be fatal. Concentrations near 1% are tolerable but you'd imagine there would be health effects if we were stuck with it. Since current CO2 levels are 0.039% you'd need the concentrations to increase by a factor of 25 to get anywhere near this. Regional fluctuations could cause this to be a ...[text shortened]... on't burn more than a factor of 25 times all the fossil fuels that have already been burnt.
01 Jul 13
Originally posted by googlefudgeReally? Then what are reputable sources?
Routers and PBS are not reputable sources.
EDIT:
They may or may not cite reputable sources at any given time but they are media/news
organisations not scientific organisations.
They are only every going to be as good as the sources THEY cite.
So you might just as well go to the scientists and ask them.
And the scientists are pretty damn c ...[text shortened]... w.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/05/24/global_warming_news_items_about_climate_change.html
It is spelled Reuters you idiot! Why is PBS and Reuters not a reputable source? Explain that to us all. I'm sure your answer will be amusing to us all.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
02 Jul 13
Originally posted by Metal BrainScientific Journals and Scientists. (of the relevant field)
Really? Then what are reputable sources?
It is spelled Reuters you idiot! Why is PBS and Reuters not a reputable source? Explain that to us all. I'm sure your answer will be amusing to us all.
Media outlets like Reuters (I'm sorry my dyslexia offends you but your
stupidity, ignorance and arrogance, is far more troubling) will sometimes
feature stories written by scientists or people who understand the science
and accurately report on what the scientists have found.
But they also feature stories written by people who have either no clue
what they are talking about or are actively lying about it.
They are not a source of information, merely a conduit.
And as they don't reliably sort fact from fiction, truth from lies, they cannot be
trusted in and of themselves.
The sites I linked to cited the actual research papers and/or are written by
scientists in the field.
I could cite the actual peer reviewed articles but you wouldn't understand them and
most of them are behind pay-walls. Journals not being free.
So I am citing the next best thing.
You are citing the media equivalent of a bloke you met down the pub.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
02 Jul 13
1 edit
Originally posted by lemon limeSigh.
It's true, water vapor is a greenhouse gas, and it accounts for about 97% of all green house gases. I'm not sure of the exact percentage, but 97% is close enough for this discussion. CO2 gas is a little over 2 percent if memory serves, but I can't be exactly sure of that number either.
There has been an increase in CO2, but the difference is so ...[text shortened]... than to run all over town yelling The ice caps are melting, the ice caps are melting!
http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas-intermediate.htm
Water vapour is the most dominant greenhouse gas. The greenhouse effect or radiative flux for water is around 75 W/m2 while carbon dioxide contributes 32 W/m2 (Kiehl 1997). These proportions are confirmed by measurements of infrared radiation returning to the Earth's surface (Evans 2006). Water vapour is also the dominant positive feedback in our climate system and a major reason why temperature is so sensitive to changes in CO2.
Unlike external forcings such as CO2 which can be added to the atmosphere, the level of water vapour in the atmosphere is a function of temperature. Water vapour is brought into the atmosphere via evaporation - the rate depends on the temperature of the ocean and air, being governed by the Clausius-Clapeyron relation. If extra water is added to the atmosphere, it condenses and falls as rain or snow within a week or two. Similarly, if somehow moisture was sucked out of the atmosphere, evaporation would restore water vapour levels to 'normal levels' in short time.
Water Vapour as a positive feedback
As water vapour is directly related to temperature, it's also a positive feedback - in fact, the largest positive feedback in the climate system (Soden 2005). As temperature rises, evaporation increases and more water vapour accumulates in the atmosphere. As a greenhouse gas, the water absorbs more heat, further warming the air and causing more evaporation. When CO2 is added to the atmosphere, as a greenhouse gas it has a warming effect. This causes more water to evaporate and warm the air to a higher, stabilized level. So the warming from CO2 has an amplified effect.
How much does water vapour amplify CO2 warming? Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would warm the globe around 1°C. Taken on its own, water vapour feedback roughly doubles the amount of CO2 warming. When other feedbacks are included (eg - loss of albedo due to melting ice), the total warming from a doubling of CO2 is around 3°C (Held 2000).
The relevant numbers in bold.
The amount of warming produced by any given greenhouse gas is a function of both its concentration and it's relative effectiveness as an insulating gas.
As you can see about 30% of the combined greenhouse effect of water vapour and CO2 is produced by CO2.
When you consider that even a small increase would add a couple of W/m2 and you work out how many m2 there are on the planet you realise that actually the idea of more than DOUBLING the amount of CO2 (we're well on our way to doing that having passed 400ppm) and NOT expecting the planet to warm up significantly is really pretty stupid.
EDIT: And the ice caps... Totally melting
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/05/28/arctic_sea_ice_global_warming_is_melting_more_ice_every_year.html
Originally posted by googlefudgeSigh. Yes, I know... I don't suffer fools gladly either.
Sigh.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas-intermediate.htm
[quote]Water vapour is the most dominant greenhouse gas. The greenhouse effect or radiative flux for water is around [b]75 W/m2 while carbon dioxide contributes 32 W/m2 (Kiehl 1997). These proportions are confirmed by measurements of infrared radiation returning t bad_astronomy/2013/05/28/arctic_sea_ice_global_warming_is_melting_more_ice_every_year.html[/b]
"Unlike external [forces] such as CO2 which can be added to the atmosphere, the level of water vapour in the atmosphere is a function of temperature."
Water vapor is also added to the atmosphere, but neither one is an external force. CO2 simply enters the atmosphere by a different mechanism.
Expecting the planet to warm up because of a mistake made when evaluating ice core samples is also stupid. I'll grant you that evidence showing an increase of CO2 following periods of global warming is only an indicater, and that CO2 may very well be a factor in causing warming, but as it has already been pointed out in previous messages there are more than a few causes of warming and cooling trends.
When polar ice melts, which it has been doing for thousands of years anyway, it mixes with brine and becomes heavier than the surrounding sea water. This briney mixture sinks to the bottom of the ocean and acts like a coolant. Slow moving rivers of this stuff take about a thousand years to make one complete underwater circuit, and it acts much like a refrigerant to help distribute temperature across the oceans.
We are dealing with a very complex system that is self regulating, and without any help from us has been able to neutralize the effect of massive natural disasters. Such as the asteroid which is believed to have wiped out the dinosaurs, or massive volcanic eruptions spewing many tons of toxic crap into the atmosphere.
"And the ice caps... Totally melting"
I live about 100 miles inland and above sea level, so I totally don't give a rats derriere if it melts or not. And if I lived near the coastline I would have plenty of time to get out and move inland.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
02 Jul 13
Originally posted by lemon limeNo I expect the planet to warm up, and observe it doing so, because the
[b]Sigh. Yes, I know... I don't suffer fools gladly either.
"Unlike external [forces] such as CO2 which can be added to the atmosphere, the level of water vapour in the atmosphere is a function of temperature."
Water vapor is also added to the atmosphere, but neither one is an external force. CO2 simply enters the atmosphere by a different mecha ...[text shortened]... And if I lived near the coastline I would have plenty of time to get out and move inland.[/b]
physics tells us that that is what increasing CO2 levels will do.
It's really not that hard to understand.
CO2 is an insulator, it traps heat. You add more, it traps more heat.
It's really that simple.
03 Jul 13
Originally posted by lemon limeSo despite the mass extinctions, they were nothing really? Your OK with a mass extinction this time round, so long as earth keeps going? I don't think anyone is disputing the fact that earth will make it through, but the claim that the environment is 'self regulating' within safe ranges is obviously false.
We are dealing with a very complex system that is self regulating, and without any help from us has been able to neutralize the effect of massive natural disasters. Such as the asteroid which is believed to have wiped out the dinosaurs, or massive volcanic eruptions spewing many tons of toxic crap into the atmosphere.
I live about 100 miles inland and above sea level, so I totally don't give a rats derriere if it melts or not. And if I lived near the coastline I would have plenty of time to get out and move inland.
I too have no doubt that if sea levels rise we wont get any cases of drowning due to sudden sea level rise. We will however lose lots of real estate. Many of the worlds major cities. So don't be surprised if you get a lot of new neighbours.
03 Jul 13
Originally posted by googlefudgePBS? You have a problem with PBS??????
Scientific Journals and Scientists. (of the relevant field)
Media outlets like Reuters (I'm sorry my dyslexia offends you but your
stupidity, ignorance and arrogance, is far more troubling) will sometimes
feature stories written by scientists or people who understand the science
and accurately report on what the scientists have found.
...[text shortened]... the next best thing.
You are citing the media equivalent of a bloke you met down the pub.
03 Jul 13
Originally posted by lemon limeYou might give a rats ass if you had to start paying 10 dollars for an ear of corn. We would lose valuable crop lands because of the coming heat, forget losing Florida to water.
[b]Sigh. Yes, I know... I don't suffer fools gladly either.
"Unlike external [forces] such as CO2 which can be added to the atmosphere, the level of water vapour in the atmosphere is a function of temperature."
Water vapor is also added to the atmosphere, but neither one is an external force. CO2 simply enters the atmosphere by a different mecha ...[text shortened]... And if I lived near the coastline I would have plenty of time to get out and move inland.[/b]
Originally posted by sonhouseWell there's the hook, isn't it. If there is no need to behave ourselves because a god is watching over all of this, then we obviously need an elite group of self described superior intellects to fill that gap. So which is better, being ruled over by these superior intellects or being the rulers? I think the answer is obvious, so where do I sign up?
You might give a rats ass if you had to start paying 10 dollars for an ear of corn. We would lose valuable crop lands because of the coming heat, forget losing Florida to water.
I'm a lot smarter than your average boy genius, so I'll join your superior race of narcissists and enjoy taxing the dumb ass masses until their noses bleed. It's unquestionably better to be on the receiving end of the survival of the fittest spectrum.
Am I being too subtle?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
03 Jul 13
Originally posted by lemon limeNo, you're being incoherent with sarcasm and frankly really quite stupid.
Well there's the hook, isn't it. If there is no need to behave ourselves because a god is watching over all of this, then we obviously need an elite group of self described superior intellects to fill that gap. So which is better, being ruled over by these superior intellects or being the rulers? I think the answer is obvious, so where do I sign up?
I' ...[text shortened]... recieving end of the survival of the fittest spectrum.
Am I being too subtle?
Try joining the rest of us in reality, rather than wherever it is you're inhabiting.