The Day After Tomorrow

billvon · June 15, 2004

>My question, maybe poorly asked, is what guarantees that the rise from
>historic levels to the current 350ppm began only after we began our
>industrial activity?

Because they did not begin to seriously rise until the 1800's, when we began to burn massive amounts of coal to fuel the industrial revolution. Before then, the very slow changes in CO2 concentration might well have been caused by, say, changes in tree growth or vulcanism. Since then CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere have increased exponentially, at the same rate as our increase in CO2 emissions. Here is a good summary.

You could theorize that a mysterious force has begun to eat up all our CO2 emissions at exactly the same time as another mysterious force (say, an undersea undetected volcano) started emitting lots of CO2, and these both showed exponential growth that somehow matched our rising rates of CO2 emissions. But that's tinfoil-hat territory. We emitted all that CO2; it had to go somewhere. The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 rose at the same rate. Figuring out how many PPM the atmospheric concentration of CO2 will go up if we add a million tons of CO2 to the atmosphere is simple math, and the predicted numbers come pretty close to what we measure.

>And in the first, say, 50-100 years of industrialization, were we really
>putting out such pollution? The earth's population was drastically lower
>than it's become in the last few decades.

Agreed. Again, look at the graphs. The increases start out slow then rise exponentially as we hit the 1950's.

billvon · June 15, 2004

>You're being earnest when you say "we would if gas wasn't so
>expensive..."?? As though anyone would really leave their cars running full
>time?

Ever been in a house where people leave the A/C running all the time? Even when they are not home? Heck, ever been in a truck stop at night?

Yes, if gas was cheap and cars did not wear out through constant idling, then people would run them all the time. Why wouldn't they? If your car could be kept warm in winter and cool in the summer, and it would cost you nothing or pennies, and wouldn't wear out your car, you wouldn't do it? Fortunately gas is somewhat expensive right now, and cars _do_ wear out when they idle.

>In any case, the fact that we DON'T proves rather pointedly and effectively
> that we are NOT "doing everything we possibly can" to hasten climate
> change, as you claimed.

We buy fast food in plastic and paper containers, then burn them (or toss them in landfills where they break down and release CO2 and methane.) We buy water 12 ounces at a time in small plastic bottles then toss the bottles. We buy 6000 lb cars to drive 5 miles to work in heavy traffic. We run our A/C's 24 hours a day. We leave lights on all night. Our cities are so bright at night they can be easily seen from the moon. In many places we use incandescent light bulbs, the most inefficient light sources known. We have pools that we heat for many months out of the year. We have hot tubs that we keep warm all year so we can use them a total of 20 hours. We have bonfires for fun. We barbeque for fun. We drive boats in circles for fun, fly airplanes for fun, skydive for fun. We buy the cheapest appliances they make regardless of energy or water usage or efficiency. We buy homes far away from where we work. We cover millions of acres with asphalt, and cut down many more millions of acres of trees. We cover the planet with lawns. We squauk loudly when people propose any energy saving legislation. We laugh at people who propose we reduce our CO2 emissions.

So yes, we are doing an absolutely brilliant job of generating as much CO2 as we can. An SUV towing a 26' boat to a lake for a day? You couldn't burn enough leaves in a week to match the amount of CO2 that generates! And when someone suggests they rent a sailboat, they get the "this is America" speech.

tandembrent · June 15, 2004

Jeff, brent here!
i would recomend that you do a little research about polar shifts and read the work done by a man named Charels Hapgood. when mr. Hapgood presented his findings and therories to mr. Albert Einstine , Einstine exclaimed " that explains all the annomallies about glaciation and climate change" as well as presenting a viable source of caos that continental drift and plate tectonics can't account for!

there are 200 known locations fo the magnetic north pole occuring in the last 6 million years. the poles don't change their location in relation to the earths orbit or it's location according to the sun, the earths outer mantle ( lithosphere) moves at a very rapid rate like clock work about every 10,000 to 15,000 years because of a systematic build up of ice on one or both of the polar regions. this build-up cuases an imbalance that will eventually need to shift and find a new equallibrium.

all i would ask, before anyone lables me a fruitcake is, do your own research and come to your own conclusions.

a quick selling point, try this; find a globe, place your finger on the southwest lower corner of Hudson bay Canada and transfer an imaginary arctic circle around your finger. where are all of the lakes located after doing this? answer; inside the last known arctic circle!!

don't beleive me? check it out yourself and do the research.

brent

***

~~~~Green grass and high clouds forever~~~~
no matter where you go, there you are!

peacefuljeffrey · June 15, 2004

Quote
We have bonfires for fun. We barbeque for fun. We drive boats in circles for fun, fly airplanes for fun, skydive for fun.

I guess I don't understand your argument. Essentially it seems you're saying that we use fuel to power our lives. Are you saying that we should stop cooking our food, stop doing things that are fun, like skydiving, flying, boating, et cetera, just because they cannot be done without polluting to some degree, or using fuels? I guess we should just stop living? That'd save the earth a lot of trouble, after all.

Or do you advocate all the people who aren't you stopping using all this fuel? Because unless you're willing to give up this frivolous thing called skydiving -- or have the number of times you do it limited by the government, perhaps? -- you'd be a hypocrite to criticize anyone else's consumption. Is that what's coming to light here?

-