PDA

View Full Version : CO2, The whole picture please.



peteshimmon
2006-Oct-20, 07:12 PM
I recently found an article by Fred Hoyle I
knew I had read sometime ago but forgot where.
It is On the Causes of Plate Tectonics, and is
the first article in Fundamental Studies and
the Future of Science, ed Wickramasinghe, 1984,
University College Cardiff Press. It is written
in enjoyably stringent tones which the Climate
Change skeptics around here might like. I
appreciate it as it describes all the various
sources and sinks of CO2 on Earth and the need
to have this perspective while considering
possible global warming. So this is an appeal
if you like for glossy posters showing the
whole picture with the best current
calibrations of each component cycle. And an
important personage here is talking about it
today making it more pertinent. Also look up
Seawater: Its composition, properties and
behaviour. Open University & Pergamon Press.

sarongsong
2006-Oct-20, 10:44 PM
????
...a listing of the key components of the lower atmosphere...
Nitrogen - 78.084%
Oxygen - 20.95%
Argon - 0.934%
Carbon Dioxide - 0.036%
Neon - 0.0018%
Helium - 0.0005%
Methane - 0.00017%
Hydrogen - 0.00005%
Nitrous Oxide - 0.00003%
Ozone - 0.000004%
In addition, water vapor is variable but typically makes up about 1-4% of the atmosphere. Ask.com (http://geography.about.com/od/physicalgeography/qt/atmcomposition.htm)

Forskern
2006-Oct-21, 07:18 PM
????

? :eh:

Ronald Brak
2006-Oct-21, 07:25 PM
It is written in enjoyably stringent tones which the Climate Change skeptics around here might like.

What exactly is a climate change skeptic? Would it be someone who is skeptical that climate change occurs, or is it someone who is skeptical that levels of CO2 can affect the climate, or is it someone who is skeptical that CO2 levels have changed? Or are they something entirely different?

peteshimmon
2006-Oct-22, 09:44 AM
Perhaps I should have made clear that I mean
printed posters that can be displayed in
schools and colleges. The various routes that
take CO2 in and out of the atmosphere. It has
got to the stage where television science
journalists are strutting on their stage in the
news studios in their natty suits talking
authoritivly about too much carbon dioxide
and I know the subject is more complicated
than they say. So more informed people would
help get some balance. Do some folks here not
like being pigeon holed as skeptics?:) Do you
think it reduces your moral high ground to be
labled as the awkward squad? I am half on your
side here wanting better information out there!

sarongsong
2006-Oct-22, 05:11 PM
... I mean printed posters that can be displayed in schools and colleges. The various routes that take CO2 in and out of the atmosphere...Maybe the information is not there:
November 4, 1992
...the global carbon budget really hasn't balanced for years. Scientists can measure the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere accurately to better than one part per million (which, a technically inclined bartender once noted, is like detecting a drop of vermouth in 16 gallons of gin). And they can estimate fairly accurately how many tons of carbon are emitted every year through industrial processes, fossil fuel burning, and deforestation. With that much knowledge in hand, scientists should be able to calculate how much carbon dioxide will enter the air and how much will be there in a year or two. But nature and calculations don't agree...Somewhere, somehow, the world is sopping up extra carbon dioxide. In effect, it's coming closer to balancing the carbon budget by making deposits in a hidden account... University of Alaska (http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF11/1108.html)

Duane
2006-Oct-22, 06:24 PM
Perhaps I should have made clear that I mean
printed posters that can be displayed in
schools and colleges. The various routes that
take CO2 in and out of the atmosphere.

Do you mean natural or manmade, or both?

aurora
2006-Oct-22, 06:32 PM
Do you
think it reduces your moral high ground to be
labled as the awkward squad? I am half on your
side here wanting better information out there!

This is a very strange statement.

br4815
2006-Oct-22, 07:45 PM
No certainty I understand what you mean, but


Perhaps I should have made clear that I mean
printed posters that can be displayed in
schools and colleges. The various routes that
take CO2 in and out of the atmosphere.

Something like this?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/55/Carbon_cycle-cute_diagram.jpeg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_cycle-cute_diagram.jpeg

peteshimmon
2006-Oct-22, 09:57 PM
Excellent image thanks though I would like the
arrows to indicate by width the best quantative
estimate they represent. A separate more
abstract diagram might be better. The manmade
contribution must be clear as against the
natural sources. I am now thinking it was
another item by Hoyle I remember where he
complained we were unsure by a factor of ten
the natural emmisions of CO2. But he was
strongly dismissive of the debate just the
same. (there is a website, Rising Tide. that
lists him in a roll of shame...sheesh!). The
rise of a third in the atmospheric concentration
of CO2 is however a stark fact and is causing
much discussion. (I know...tell us about it:)).
I am starting to wonder if the tragic waste
in the 1991 Kuwait oil fires was a gigantic
calibration. But that takes me into conspiracy
land. Yet it must have provided some data.

Tunga
2006-Oct-23, 05:47 PM
Ronald Brak asked:

"What exactly is a climate change skeptic? Would it be someone who is skeptical that climate change occurs, or is it someone who is skeptical that levels of CO2 can affect the climate, or is it someone who is skeptical that CO2 levels have changed? Or are they something entirely different?"

Earth's climate changes over days/months/years/centuries due to natural force drivers. A climate change skeptic is skeptical that a minutely small contribution of CO2 caused by man generates a tangible contribution to changing climate trends. CO2 levels have been rising but it may be too simplistic to attribute the rising levels on man. For example, most of the CO2 on the planet is locked away in the oceans. As the oceans warm, they release large volumes of CO2. As a result rising temperatures might be driving rising CO2 concentrations rather than the other way around. Currently, the Earth is warming up after the Little Ice Age. Earth's climate may be strongely linked to flux rate of Galactic Cosmic Rays that interact within the Earth's atmosphere to produce greater cloud cover and reduce Earth's albedo.

Specifically to your questions -
Would it be someone who is skeptical that climate change occurs? (No, the climate changes naturally, has for hundred of millions of years. But a skeptic disagrees with anthropological global warming theory.)
Is it someone who is skeptical that levels of CO2 can affect the climate (Yes, water vapor is the primary global warming gas not CO2. Changing CO2 levels in the ppm levels produce only minor effects on earth's climate.)
Is it someone who is skeptical that CO2 levels have changed? (No, CO2 levels have been changing, skeptics can agree on this point.)

Swift
2006-Oct-23, 06:22 PM
<snip>
Earth's climate changes over days/months/years/centuries due to natural force drivers.
Is it proper to say that climate changes over days or even months? I recall an expression that "weather" is day-to-day and "climate" is year-to-year.

Tunga
2006-Oct-23, 08:19 PM
Swift writes:
"Is it proper to say that climate changes over days or even months? I recall an expression that "weather" is day-to-day and "climate" is year-to-year."

Generally I would say that is true, but sometimes climate can change quickly. For example a major volcanic eruption can alter climate within a matter of days and the affects can last for several years.

Vermonter
2006-Oct-24, 02:20 AM
I'm going with Penn & Teller on this one. "We don't have enough data yet to make assumptions. We're...not...sure...yet!"

peteshimmon
2006-Oct-25, 05:52 PM
That is an interesting item from the Univ of
Alasks that northern hemisphere trees may be
sequestering more CO2 than thought. It ties
in with something published a few months ago
I thought was far fetched. It was said the
Black Death in Europe several hundred years
ago denuded the human population so much that
land reverted to forests taking up so much
CO2 there was a mini ice age! So if governments
really want to do something positive, a massive
tree planting effort over a short period may
be a way of measuring any effect as well as
stopping the CO2 rise hopefully. It would be
a little better than bright vacuous young
presenters yapping on about saving the
planet with energy saving lightbulbs.

aurora
2006-Oct-25, 06:40 PM
Energy conservation is a good thing.

br4815
2006-Oct-25, 08:27 PM
Earth's climate changes over days/months/years/centuries due to natural force drivers. A climate change skeptic is skeptical that a minutely small contribution of CO2 caused by man generates a tangible contribution to changing climate trends. CO2 levels have been rising but it may be too simplistic to attribute the rising levels on man.

If we weren't emitting 27 billion tons of co2 a year, atmospheric co2 levels could not be rising by about 12-15 billion tons per year. So human emissions can more than explain the recent co2 rise.


For example, most of the CO2 on the planet is locked away in the oceans. As the oceans warm, they release large volumes of CO2. As a result rising temperatures might be driving rising CO2 concentrations rather than the other way around.

In the past that is almost certainly true, but the recent rise can be virtually fully attributed to humans. Nature must be a net sink at the moment mopping up half our emissions because half our emissions are simply not accumulating in the atmosphere and are getting absorbed somewhere else. I believe rising acidity of the oceans indicates that the oceans are a net sink currently rather than a net emitter for example.


Currently, the Earth is warming up after the Little Ice Age. Earth's climate may be strongely linked to flux rate of Galactic Cosmic Rays that interact within the Earth's atmosphere to produce greater cloud cover and reduce Earth's albedo.

The Galactic Cosmic Ray-temperature link over the past century is far more tenous than the greenhouse effect link. For one thing the overall forcing of clouds is not even known. They may cause an overall cooling effect, or a warming effect. Plus Galactic Cosmic Rays have shown no upward or downward trend over the last 30 years in a time when temperatures have risen about half the total they have risen over the past 100 years.


Would it be someone who is skeptical that climate change occurs? (No, the climate changes naturally, has for hundred of millions of years. But a skeptic disagrees with anthropological global warming theory.)

Advocates of anthropological global warming theory also accept the climate changes naturally and has done for hundred of millions of years - due to all kinds of factors such as orbital, solar, continental changes, and even changes in concentration of greenhouse gases. They are simply applying the recent rise in greenhouse gases as a factor in recent warming.


Is it someone who is skeptical that levels of CO2 can affect the climate (Yes, water vapor is the primary global warming gas not CO2. Changing CO2 levels in the ppm levels produce only minor effects on earth's climate.)

An advocate of anthropogenic global warming would agree that water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas. But that fact does not lead to the second sentence.

Tunga
2006-Oct-26, 02:50 PM
br4815 I was responding to a question by Ronald Brak

"What exactly is a climate change skeptic? Would it be someone who is skeptical that climate change occurs, or is it someone who is skeptical that levels of CO2 can affect the climate, or is it someone who is skeptical that CO2 levels have changed? Or are they something entirely different?"

How would you answer his questions?

br4815
2006-Oct-26, 07:21 PM
The only thing climate change skeptics have in common is that they are skeptical that human activity has any significant contribution to recent warming. On any other topic (including whether there has actually been any recent warming) there is not necessarily any agreement

Blob
2006-Oct-30, 09:35 PM
The world cannot afford to wait before tackling climate change, the UK prime minister has warned.
A report by economist Sir Nicholas Stern suggests that global warming could shrink the global economy by 20%.
But taking action now would cost just 1% of global gross domestic product, the 700-page study says.
Tony Blair said the Stern Review showed that scientific evidence of global warming was "overwhelming" and its consequences "disastrous".

Read more (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/business/6096084.stm)

pghnative
2006-Oct-30, 09:58 PM
But taking action now would cost just 1% of global gross domestic product, the 700-page study says.Read more (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/business/6096084.stm)I note that the linked summary does not mention what benefit that 1% has. All it says is that the 1% will stabilize emissions. What benefit to (reducing) global warming does a stabilization of emissions have?

Blob
2006-Oct-30, 10:26 PM
Hum,
I'm not sure, but it seems that it would mean no increase in current carbon emissions

Read more (http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/sternreview_index.cfm)

br4815
2006-Oct-30, 11:57 PM
So governments, who are notorious for failing at targets, especially long-term ones, claim they can not only slow down a rapid rising global co2 emission trend, but they can also reverse it dramatically too. Yeah right. They just don't have that kind of power over the chaotic systems they rule. Completely waste of time and a foregone conclusion that it will fail. Despite all the talking global co2 emissions will no doubt be higher in 20 years time than they are today. Im not being pessimistic, im being realistic.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/graphics/global.total.jpg
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/em_cont.htm

My prediction based on the above trend is that 9,000 billion tons of co2 will be emitted per year globally by 2025. That is I don't believe the governments of the world will even change co2 emission rates let alone reverse them. Come back to this thread in 20 years time to find out if I am right or the government is :)

peteshimmon
2006-Oct-31, 12:53 AM
Ooooohh...don't be too cynical! But I like
the description "chaotic". I have been trying
to think of a word for out of control
historical course like energy use and that
seems the best one. Its going to be the
energy crunch that finally solves the
matter but will it be too late? And that is
another cause for dread anyway. But there is
hope! My favourite idea is solar cells.
And...there was a show last week featuring
the one satellite launched by the UK. I was
gobsmacked when they rigged up an aerial and
picked up its beacon signal. Its been going
35 years! I got a brochure down and noted
there was conditioning electronics also
as well as the transmitter. All still
working. How many times have the cells
returned energy of manufacture? Its the way
to go!

Blob
2006-Oct-31, 01:16 AM
one satellite launched by the UK

"Prospero"

Geoff394
2006-Nov-03, 04:30 PM
I'm going with Penn & Teller on this one. "We don't have enough data yet to make assumptions. We're...not...sure...yet!"

Creationists say the same thing about evolution and use the same rhetorical trick as stating that science makes 'assumptions.'

I'm going to go with the climate scientists working on the cutting edge of their field and the robust scientific consensus regarding AGW.

I'm going with the flood of science and data that comes in weekly.

I have no doubt Penn & Teller aren't sure yet. As are a considerable amount of journalists, engineers, chemists, economists and petroleum engineers who chalk it up to a natural cause that has yet to pass peer review in a climate journal. Or are not on the cutting edge of climate science. Who aren't working in the field (yeah there are exceptions -- there always are but very small). Individuals are quirky that's why a concensus is so important.

I'm going to go wth the science and data from multiple lines of evidence that comes in every single day.

http://members.autobahn.mb.ca/~het/enviro/gwnews.html

I'm going with the IPCC and all these groups:

* Academia Brasiliera de CiÍncias (Bazil)
* Royal Society of Canada
* Chinese Academy of Sciences
* Academiť des Sciences (France)
* Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
* Indian National Science Academy
* Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
* Science Council of Japan
* Russian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Society (United Kingdom)
* National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
* Australian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
* Caribbean Academy of Sciences
* Indonesian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Irish Academy
* Academy of Sciences Malaysia
* Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
* Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

and these...

* NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
* National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
* State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
* Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
* Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
* American Geophysical Union (AGU)
* National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
* American Meteorological Society (AMS)
* Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)

Penn & Teller are stage magicians/comedians. I quite like them. Go with them all you want.
<wink>