If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Thinner is better to curb global warming, study says
On Apr 23, 8:19 pm, (Don Klipstein) wrote:
In , Doug Freyburger wrote: Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B wrote: Don Klipstein wrote: Hachiroku quoted: http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.c...res/CO2-01.jpg The time scale of that graph is very long. It does not show if historical changes in climate happened before or after the CO2 levels changed. That detail is important when considering the nature part of the cause and effect - If the historical CO2 levels trailed the climate change then the CO2 level is the effect not the cause. It weakens the human causation argument - Of course anyone who thinks the percentage of human effect is either 100% or 0% does not understand the issues. They have determined roughly that atmospheric CO2 content, from a hew hundred thousand years ago to the begining of the Industrial Revolution, has on average lagged global temperature by 800 years. Warmer oceans hold it less easily, so warming the oceans transfers CO2 from the oceans to the atmosphere. During that time, atmospheric CO2 content was a major positive feedback contributing to great global temperature change resulting from the "eccentricity" one of the Milankovitch cycles (one less restricted to a specific latitude zone). Since the Undustrial Revolution, global temperature has largely lagged atmospheric CO2 content by a few years. And warming is not transferring CO2 from the oceans to the atmosphere - the oceans are actually removing CO2 from the atmosphere. The atmosphere is gaining CO2 at a slower rate than fossil fuel combustion is producing it. You cited a chart showing how in the past few hundred thousand years CO2 has varied from about 185 to about 290 PPMV in response to the Milankovitch Cycles, as one of the positive feedback mechanisms thereto. Throughout that stretch, carbon content in the sum of the biosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere has been fairly constant. Changes in solar output and in orbital/rotational inclination may have been the cause of prior cycles, but what of volcanic CO2 release? If CO2 is the cause not the effect then tracking volcanic history is important. Meanwhile, since the Industrial Revolution we have achieved 387 PPMV CO2 and going up by transferring carbon from the lithosphere to the biosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere. And the volcanic input to atmospheric CO2 is also important. In the case of human generated freon and volcanic released chlorine even though the freon lasts far longer in the atmosphere the volume of volcanic chlorine is so vast it still dominates by orders of magnitude. Volcanic chlorine is inorganic, largely chlorides, which end up dissolved in cloud droplets and precipitation very quickly. But how large is the volcanic release of CO2 compared to humans burning fossil fuels and forrests? On average, about 1/100 or 1/200 as much or so. Given the CO2 effect of forrsts I tend to think burning the forrests has a larger effect than either fossil fuels or volcanic release. There are some figures in: http://lgmacweb.env.uea.ac.uk/lequer...bon_budget.htm Figures here are PgC, petagrams (metric gigatons) of carbon. 1 PgC in the form of carbon dioxide is 3.667 petagrams of carbon dioxide. SNIP from here - Don Klipstein ) We should do our part to containing global warming by using Renewable Energy Solutions. Checkout this website http://www.make-my-home-green.com for some solutions |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Thinner is better to curb global warming, study says
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:41:20 -0700, ashsmh wrote:
On Apr 23, 8:19 pm, (Don Klipstein) wrote: In , Doug Freyburger wrote: Hachiroku ハチ*ク wrote: Don Klipstein wrote: Hachiroku quoted: http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.c...res/CO2-01.jpg The time scale of that graph is very long. It does not show if historical changes in climate happened before or after the CO2 levels changed. That detail is important when considering the nature part of the cause and effect - If the historical CO2 levels trailed the climate change then the CO2 level is the effect not the cause. It weakens the human causation argument - Of course anyone who thinks the percentage of human effect is either 100% or 0% does not understand the issues. They have determined roughly that atmospheric CO2 content, from a hew hundred thousand years ago to the begining of the Industrial Revolution, has on average lagged global temperature by 800 years. Warmer oceans hold it less easily, so warming the oceans transfers CO2 from the oceans to the atmosphere. During that time, atmospheric CO2 content was a major positive feedback contributing to great global temperature change resulting from the "eccentricity" one of the Milankovitch cycles (one less restricted to a specific latitude zone). Since the Undustrial Revolution, global temperature has largely lagged atmospheric CO2 content by a few years. And warming is not transferring CO2 from the oceans to the atmosphere - the oceans are actually removing CO2 from the atmosphere. The atmosphere is gaining CO2 at a slower rate than fossil fuel combustion is producing it. You cited a chart showing how in the past few hundred thousand years CO2 has varied from about 185 to about 290 PPMV in response to the Milankovitch Cycles, as one of the positive feedback mechanisms thereto. Throughout that stretch, carbon content in the sum of the biosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere has been fairly constant. Changes in solar output and in orbital/rotational inclination may have been the cause of prior cycles, but what of volcanic CO2 release? If CO2 is the cause not the effect then tracking volcanic history is important. Meanwhile, since the Industrial Revolution we have achieved 387 PPMV CO2 and going up by transferring carbon from the lithosphere to the biosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere. And the volcanic input to atmospheric CO2 is also important. In the case of human generated freon and volcanic released chlorine even though the freon lasts far longer in the atmosphere the volume of volcanic chlorine is so vast it still dominates by orders of magnitude. Volcanic chlorine is inorganic, largely chlorides, which end up dissolved in cloud droplets and precipitation very quickly. But how large is the volcanic release of CO2 compared to humans burning fossil fuels and forrests? On average, about 1/100 or 1/200 as much or so. Given the CO2 effect of forrsts I tend to think burning the forrests has a larger effect than either fossil fuels or volcanic release. There are some figures in: http://lgmacweb.env.uea.ac.uk/lequer...bon_budget.htm Figures here are PgC, petagrams (metric gigatons) of carbon. 1 PgC in the form of carbon dioxide is 3.667 petagrams of carbon dioxide. SNIP from here - Don Klipstein ) We should do our part to containing global warming by using Renewable Energy Solutions. Checkout this website http://www.make-my-home-green.com for some solutions I obviously don't agree that Global Warming is man made, since these cycles have been happening since 'man' was slime in the ocean... However, that does not mean we can ignore the ecology. Such strange happenings as thinning, brittle coral, depletion of fish in the oceans, mecury content in fish, etc mean that we have to do SOMETHING. The probablity of Global Warming not being caused by man does not mean we can keep wrecking the planet Just Because... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Thinner is better to curb global warming, study says | No Name | General Discussion | 3 | April 27th, 2009 04:28 AM |
Global warming AKA the McDonalds conspiracy | Brindal | General Discussion | 0 | June 11th, 2007 06:18 PM |
Global warming AKA the McDonalds conspiracy | Brindal | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 0 | June 11th, 2007 06:18 PM |