Global Warming, is it simply CO2 at fault?

[Gato_Solo]

Hmmm...Mt Pinatubo put out more greenhouse gasses in one eruption than humans put out in the first 50 years of the industrial age. Why not charge the volcano? Hey...here's another one...Most modern vehicle produce less than half of the greenhouse gases than the ones built 30 years ago, but a properly tuned 30 year old vehicle produces less greenhouse gases than an improperly tuned new vehicle.

 

[kuulani]

Whatever the argument, people do have to realize that we have to protect our forests and oceans.

Yes but I would never put human life before any tree. People have been killed when loggers hit spikes that activists put into tree's.

Protecting trees doesn't mean stabbing them with spikes

 

[kuulani]

[attachment]113704[/attachment]

I'll bet you had that thing saved on your desktop for weeks just waiting for the opportunity to use it, am I right?

i love it

 

[ol' man]

umm, u seem very misled my friend check out some of the real science involved before making such widespread conclusions. most of the infomation you have given seems very shaky to seem the least. gloabl warming is a funtion of many variables in which factors such as sunspot activity and co2 are only really part of a much bigger picture etc etc.......the issue is not 'whether global warming exists, we know it exisits, it is universally scientifically accepted that it exisits, else the landscape and probably life
itself would'nt have evolved into what it is today! the point is this,
is
global warming occuring at accelerated
rates than in previous periods of global warming and cooling, and if so, why? and is that a function of anthropogenic enhancement? to tell the truth it does'nt really makes any difference as geologically were all fucked anyhow!

Why are we screwed. It is no doubt the earth is warming. It has done so and cooled itself many many times in the past.

I don't know this semester I am taking quartenary biology, geochemistry and environmental geology. I know it is a very multi dimensional situation. Every class I am taking right now goes on and on about it. I have been researching this for 3 years now. I just learned this year how much CO2 is actually stored in the ocean depths with more chemistry than you could shake a stick at. The amount is phenominal. Lateley though with the extreme amounts of el nino, la nina affects it is causing the biggest sink for CO2 in the world to upwell. This is possibly responsible for the large amount of coral bleaching off the coast of austrailia.

I am in absolute agreement that CO2 levels are rising. I am in absolute agreement the earths surface is warming. Yes indeed man is contributing to the amount of CO2 produced and released into the atmosphere but it is small compared to the amount contributed by oceans and other geologic settings. If suddenly we stopped using as many cars though I have my doubts it would hardly dent the CO2 levels in the atmosphere any.

There are 3 main cycles that affect the earths temps. 100,000 year cycles, 41,000 year cycles, and 23,000 year cycles based on earths rotation and orbit around the sun. Then from there are some more cycles leading to 1000,100, 44,22,11 and 6 year cycles of which the last are attributed to solar activity and it is documented.

Check here for more of it. You will notice we had a great deal of minimums in a row and it was then that the thames froze over which I gather has not happend for quite some time.

http://www.sweb.cz/vladimir_ladma/english/cycles/sync/overlap.htm

As for reading books. Why don't you read this one. It is brand new by AGU.

Methane Hydrates in Quaternary Climate Change: The Clathrate Gun Hypothesis James
P. Kennett

Here is a abstract.
http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/02/MethaneHydrate/Kennett_Abstract.pdf

and first chapter.

http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/JournalClub/kennett.2002.ch1_climate.pdf

Methane hydrates and CO2 hydrates were never really considered until the last few years as having an affect on climate.

 

[ol' man]

Hmmm...Mt Pinatubo put out more greenhouse gasses in one eruption than humans put out in the first 50 years of the industrial age. Why not charge the volcano? Hey...here's another one...Most modern vehicle produce less than half of the greenhouse gases than the ones built 30 years ago, but a properly tuned 30 year old vehicle produces less greenhouse gases than an improperly tuned new vehicle.

Ya don't say? Surely GW Bush was behind its eruption though and specially formulated the ash and sulphur dioxide fumes to wipe out kulani's trees. See the cycle is never ending.

 

[Squiggy]

[attachment]113704[/attachment]


Stop...Please...It hurts....

 

[kuulani]

Ya don't say? Surely GW Bush was behind its eruption though and specially formulated the ash and sulphur dioxide fumes to wipe out kulani's trees. See the cycle is never ending.

damn the activists, i told them that they should stab the man responsible with their spikes

 

[Squiggy]

Good call, ku'u

 

[ol' man]

Stop...Please...It hurts....

You trying to fit baseball bats up yer ass again? Physically it should hurt but I never know about you liberals.

 

[Squiggy]

[attachment]113704[/attachment]

Someone get him a TV show....

 

[Luis G]

[attachment]113704[/attachment]

:roflmaolol: maybe?

 

[Luis G]

FACT:
If one burned all of the hydrocarbons and coal reserves at once that would equal the same amount of energy the earth recieves from the sun in just ten days. The sun never stops!

woah, wanna make a doctorate thesis with that?, let's pollute everything, burn plastic, kill the trees, drop oil into the ocean, it's all the SUN's fault

FACT:

The ocean stores much more carbon in the form of methane and dissolved CO2 than all of the worlds oil reserves and by far the atmosphere.

The perfect excuse to pollute even more, hell, there's enough shit already there, how much more harm can all the CO2 we produce do to the planet?

FACT:

From around 1200 to 1850 the world was in a stage known as the little ice age. It consisted of three episodes of low solar activity with the most recent the called the maunder minimum. These cooling periods allowed the oceans to trap more CO2 and CH4 from the environment in form of clathrate hydrates lining ocean floors. Anyone know what the gas in pop is? CO2! The ocean below say 1 km is around 0~7.5 deg. C which is quite sufficient to hold vast amounts of CO2. Warm this region up and you will have CO2 release. El nino events cause great upwellings of CO2 supersaturated water from the pacific. Naturally it would "burp" CO2 up.

Damn oceans, let's pollute them even more, maybe we could destroy all the CO2 in them.

What does anyone suppose would happen if the sun suddenly quite shining?

We all die, isn't that clearly obvious?

It is a fact that oneday the sun will explode and form a red giant in which the earth will actually be in the exterior of it and the surface of the earth will reach 2000~5000 deg. C.

Woah, talk about global warming, sure we should be worried, damn sun let's destroy it before he destroy us.

 

[ol' man]

FACT:
If one burned all of the hydrocarbons and coal reserves at once that would equal the same amount of energy the earth recieves from the sun in just ten days. The sun never stops!

woah, wanna make a doctorate thesis with that?, let's pollute everything, burn plastic, kill the trees, drop oil into the ocean, it's all the SUN's fault

FACT:

The ocean stores much more carbon in the form of methane and dissolved CO2 than all of the worlds oil reserves and by far the atmosphere.

The perfect excuse to pollute even more, hell, there's enough shit already there, how much more harm can all the CO2 we produce do to the planet?

FACT:

From around 1200 to 1850 the world was in a stage known as the little ice age. It consisted of three episodes of low solar activity with the most recent the called the maunder minimum. These cooling periods allowed the oceans to trap more CO2 and CH4 from the environment in form of clathrate hydrates lining ocean floors. Anyone know what the gas in pop is? CO2! The ocean below say 1 km is around 0~7.5 deg. C which is quite sufficient to hold vast amounts of CO2. Warm this region up and you will have CO2 release. El nino events cause great upwellings of CO2 supersaturated water from the pacific. Naturally it would "burp" CO2 up.

Damn oceans, let's pollute them even more, maybe we could destroy all the CO2 in them.

What does anyone suppose would happen if the sun suddenly quite shining?

We all die, isn't that clearly obvious?

It is a fact that oneday the sun will explode and form a red giant in which the earth will actually be in the exterior of it and the surface of the earth will reach 2000~5000 deg. C.

Woah, talk about global warming, sure we should be worried, damn sun let's destroy it before he destroy us.

So you are suggestion the CO2 that terrestrial plants and oceanic algae use to survive is pollution?

Yeah the world should take a lesson from mexico on how to keep cities clean Mexico city appears to be the most polluted.

Anyone ever see any figures on how much CO2 comes out of Mexico City area alone?

 

[HeXp£Øi±]

(exerpts from an artical i had lying around)

Quotes from the article: “Global Warming? Hot Air!” by John Loeffler

In 1992, over 400 scientists from around the world signed the Heidelberg Appeal prior
to the UNCED conference in Rio [the “Earth Summit”]. They expressed their doubts about
global warming and asked the delegates not to bind the world to any radical treaties based on
global warming. Today scientists agreeing with the Heidelberg Appeal number over 4,000!
The UN’s IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report on climate
change put together by atmospheric scientists meeting in Bonn, Germany [in 1996] had
significant sections by atmospheric scientists who said there is not enough data to suggest
that man is radically altering the temperature on the planet.
When the report was published, however, the United Nations had systematically
removed that information in over a dozen pages to eliminate the appearance of disagreement.

[some scientific perspective from same article]
From about 800 AD to 1200 AD, the earth’s average climate was warmer than it is
today — at least 1ºC warmer — the same amount everyone is panicked about. It was the
period when Vikings crossed the oceans in open boats without cabins and were able to settle
and raise crops in Greenland, because it wasn’t covered with a sheet of ice. Note that the
oceans didn’t flood the continents. Scientists refer to this period of time as the “climactic
optimum” — an optimum and not a disaster! [warmer than it is now]
From 1200 AD onward, the earth began to cool. The period between 1450 and 1850 is
the period scientists refer to as the “little ice age.” The Vikings had to abandon Greenland
since it became covered with perpetual ice.
By 1850, the cooling cycle reversed and the earth began warming to the temperature
norms we see today. It is clear the earth passes through normal long-term cycles, attributed to
sunspot cycles and other factors. Our current fluctuations are normal variations not caused by
human activity.
Not all scientists agree on global warming
1. Predictions of global warming are based on computer climate modeling, a branch of
science still in its infancy. The empirical evidence of actual measurements of Earth's
temperature shows no man-made warming trend. In fact, over the past two decades,
when CO2 levels have been at their highest, global average temperatures have actually
cooled slightly.
2. A chart from book, The True State of the Planet, published 1995. Available at
Chesterfield Central Library. Book is full of very interesting scientific data that refutes
many of the popular claims. Chart: Satellite-Based Monthly Global Temperatures,
January 1979 to April 1994
a. solid line shows temperature increase predicted by those claiming global
warming
b. dashed line shows actual trend -- decrease in average global temperature, 1979
to 1994, based on satellite measurements; same period during which CO2
emissions increased significantly. according to people’s claims, increased CO2
supposedly will increase the earth’s temperature; in reality the opposite has
happened
3. Petition signed by over 18,000 American scientists:
a. We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement
that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar
proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the
environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the
health and welfare of mankind.
b. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide,
methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable
future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of
the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that
increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon
the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
. [Note: this petition signed by over 18,000 American scientists, many with
advanced degrees in their fields; these people know what they’re talking about]
4. I saw a program on Discovery Channel a few months ago that briefly showed a chart of
data collected at weather station in Ireland, beginning over 200 years ago, I think.
Chart plotted average annual temperature in Ireland and plotted sunspot activity levels.
Direct correlation. Sunspot cycle is 11 years long; every peak in sunspot activity
coincided with peak in average temperature. Gradual increase in sunspot activity over
duration of the records was reflected by corresponding increase in average temperature.
I’ve searched Internet and library shelves: widespread agreement that sunspot activity
directly affects earth’s temperature, but cannot find that data or chart.
5. Another program on Discovery Channel about global warming declared the 1990s the
hottest decade on record in over 900 years. Sounds alarming until you think what that
means: 900 years ago there was at least one decade that was hotter than 1990s! You
have to listen to what people say, in some cases read between the lines.
6. You’re familiar with theories about ice ages based on geological evidence. In the most
recent major ice age, polar ice cap extended into America’s central plains, as far as
Virginia on east coast; northern half of Europe was under ice. Obviously, the earth
warmed and ice cap retreated; not a result of man’s actions. It’s a natural cycle for
earth’s temperature to swing up or down.
7. Another claim relates to the disastrous effects of increased CO2 levels on plants and
animals. Plants consume CO2 and produce oxygen as they grow. Several years ago,
studying hydroponics and greenhouses: in Israel, test performed in a sealed
greenhouse: doubled amount of CO2 in the greenhouse and the plants grew at record
rates and produced record amounts of fruit, as you would expect. Conclusion:
increased CO2 levels would not be harmful to plants as claimed; actually beneficial,
makes plants healthier and more productive.

--Basically i believe that we do have some negative affect on the atmosphere but the evidence as to how great this is is inconclusive.

 

[Squiggy]

Anyone ever see any figures on how much CO2 comes out of Mexico City area alone?

Um...no. I tried to look it up but Mexico City wasn't in my phonebook....

 

[ol' man]

--Basically i believe that we do have some negative affect on the atmosphere but the evidence as to how great this is is inconclusive.

Exactely, the small graph above shows indeed we do have a negative impact in crowded cities such as Mexico City.

I also believe there is a volcano Popocatepetl near mexico city that creates enourmous amounts of CO2 and SO2 plus all the others so I may have been unfair to mexico But the amount of lead is horrible in that city. That does not come from a Volcano.

 

[Luis G]

So you are suggestion the CO2 that terrestrial plants and oceanic algae use to survive is pollution?

Yeah the world should take a lesson from mexico on how to keep cities clean Mexico city appears to be the most polluted.

Anyone ever see any figures on how much CO2 comes out Mexico City area alone?

CO2 is a type of pollution, no matter who use it to survive, do you know that flies likes shit?, i'm sure that makes it tasty.

I'm sure the pollution emissions (not pollution levels) of Mexico City are below many other cities in your country , you might ask why is so polluted then, the answer is simple, Mexico City is located in a Valley, mountains sourrounding the city makes the air to "stay there", there was a proposal to make some big pipes crossing some mountains to help reduce the pollution levels. And certainly, LA, New York and other cities don't have that problem 'cause the sea is right there, plenty of air flow.

btw, what did Mexico City had to do with the subject?, does that makes CO2 a lesser problem? or you might think that because it is polluted i won't care about it?

 

[Squiggy]

He just wants us to know he hates everyone equally, Luis.

 

[HeXp£Øi±]

Well from a secular humanistic point of view i'd say at least he doesn't discriminate.

 

[ol' man]

CO2 is a type of pollution, no matter who use it to survive, do you know that flies likes shit?, i'm sure that makes it tasty.

Yeah to flies and bacteria. Who are you to deny them their tasty shit Farmers seem to like it too to spread in their fields. Dogs even eat it at times. I am sure squiggy can tell you what it tastes like. Word is when he is done he licks his midden infested baseball bat clean with a boisterous yeAH that HURTs a little and I only stuck the head of it in.

I'm sure the pollution emissions (not pollution levels) of Mexico City are below many other cities in your country

Check here, nope Mexico City leads the pack.
http://www.sbg.ac.at/ipk/avstudio/pierofun/mexico/cities.htm

you might ask why is so polluted then, the answer is simple, Mexico City is located in a Valley, mountains sourrounding the city makes the air to "stay there", there was a proposal to make some big pipes crossing some mountains to help reduce the pollution levels. And certainly, LA, New York and other cities don't have that problem 'cause the sea is right there, plenty of air flow.

Pipes, maybe crack pipes Those would need to be some big dang PIPES THis must be your master thesis material eh?

btw, what did Mexico City had to do with the subject?, does that makes CO2 a lesser problem? or you might think that because it is polluted i won't care about it?

Actually no I don't think CO2 is as big of a problem as you try to make it out to be. It is a problem when you enter a room with a tank of CO2 and flush all the O2 out and replace it with CO2. Yes indeed masters thesis materials says it would be a problem for oxygen breathers