billvon 3,119
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
Recommended Posts
speedy 0
No one's talking about not being able to breathe the air. No one has said, ever, that rising CO2 levels will make it hard to breathe. That's not the issue.
Ah. Semantic games! Everyone loves sematics games. I used the word "IS" not "WAS" so your question is meaningless!
It's too bad so many discussions about this end up as semantic games and pointless "You said" "No I didn't" "I said" "No you didn't" arguments. It's why most people ignore most such discussions, and why nothing much ever comes od them.
QuoteYou were the one that started talking about potassium in the human body, not me, which is also not the issue
Ah. Semantic games! Everyone loves sematics games. I used the word "IS" not "WAS" so your question is meaningless!
QuoteNo, not semantics. I never stated either way that there is or isn't global warming. All I stated was that I do not believe that CO2 can be held accountable for any significant change in the mean global temperature.
It's too bad so many discussions about this end up as semantic games and pointless "You said" "No I didn't" "I said" "No you didn't" arguments. It's why most people ignore most such discussions, and why nothing much ever comes od them.
QuoteMore of a problem is that people do bother to read what has been posted and instead make assumptions about the posters beliefs.
If you would just forget about the warming/not warming issue and show that CO2 can cause massive shifts in the global mean temperature without involving convoluted and non proven positive feed back mechanisms you might get somewhere. All this "we can see the world is warming so it must be CO2" is getting a bit old.
Dave
Fallschirmsport Marl
Fallschirmsport Marl
speedy 0
Quote>CO2 is not causing any percieved global warming.
I think you might want to revisit the science of greenhouse gases.
The attached radiation absorption window graphic gives an idea of which molecules absorb various wavelengths. Where the shaded portions completely span between 2 lines it indicates that particular wavelength is fully absorbed and the "window" is saturated (or said to be "closed"). Rather obviously, once a window is saturated adding more gases with the same properties will do nothing.
Dave
Fallschirmsport Marl
Fallschirmsport Marl
billvon 3,119
>If you would just forget about the warming/not warming issue and
>show that CO2 can cause massive shifts in the global mean
>temperature without involving convoluted and non proven positive
>feed back mechanisms . . .
OK, that's pretty straightforward. CO2 blocks re-radiation of heat from the earth's surface. Energy comes in from the sun and warms the earth. If there was no way for the earth to shed that heat, it would get warmer and warmer until the oceans boil.
What prevents that is re-radiation of heat. The earth emits longwave IR radiation, and as it does it cools. The increase in CO2 reduces the amount of IR radiation the earth emits, because it is opaque to it at some frequencies. The difference is small - less than 3 watts per square meter right now, with a total solar energy budget of about 1300 watts per square meter - but it accounts for the slowly rising temperatures. And as CO2 concentrations increase, the warming will increase.
Now, at some point another, as yet unknown, mechanism may kick in and cool everything down. But I won't get into that, as you seem to have disdain for convoluted, non-proven feedback mechanisms!
>Rather obviously, once a window is saturated adding more gases with
>the same properties will do nothing.
Correct. Now note the shape of the curve of the CO2 absorption bands. As concentrations increase, it will widen. That will block more IR and thus increase the amount of warming that we see. To put it another way - the peak absorption will not increase beyond 1, but there will be more wavelengths that are absorbed more strongly.
>show that CO2 can cause massive shifts in the global mean
>temperature without involving convoluted and non proven positive
>feed back mechanisms . . .
OK, that's pretty straightforward. CO2 blocks re-radiation of heat from the earth's surface. Energy comes in from the sun and warms the earth. If there was no way for the earth to shed that heat, it would get warmer and warmer until the oceans boil.
What prevents that is re-radiation of heat. The earth emits longwave IR radiation, and as it does it cools. The increase in CO2 reduces the amount of IR radiation the earth emits, because it is opaque to it at some frequencies. The difference is small - less than 3 watts per square meter right now, with a total solar energy budget of about 1300 watts per square meter - but it accounts for the slowly rising temperatures. And as CO2 concentrations increase, the warming will increase.
Now, at some point another, as yet unknown, mechanism may kick in and cool everything down. But I won't get into that, as you seem to have disdain for convoluted, non-proven feedback mechanisms!
>Rather obviously, once a window is saturated adding more gases with
>the same properties will do nothing.
Correct. Now note the shape of the curve of the CO2 absorption bands. As concentrations increase, it will widen. That will block more IR and thus increase the amount of warming that we see. To put it another way - the peak absorption will not increase beyond 1, but there will be more wavelengths that are absorbed more strongly.
speedy 0
QuoteNow note the shape of the curve of the CO2 absorption bands. As concentrations increase, it will widen.
I was under the impression that it would not widen. I thought that the peaks could get higher, but once the wave length is blocked that is irrelevant. Are you saying that with more CO2 in the atmosphere it will start absorbing at the 1 micrometer wavelength?
QuoteNow, at some point another, as yet unknown, mechanism may kick in and cool everything down. But I won't get into that, as you seem to have disdain for convoluted, non-proven feedback mechanisms!
Thanks for sticking to my point.
Dave
Fallschirmsport Marl
Fallschirmsport Marl
billvon 3,119
>I was under the impression that it would not widen.
Take a look at the two attached graphs of total emissivity.
The first is assuming a concentration of 330ppm CO2 (about what we have now.) The second is assuming a concentration of 1000ppm. Note the widening of the absorption bands.
Also note that since much of absorption spectra is saturated this will _not_ be a linear process i.e. doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere will not double absorption; rather it will increase it only about 20%. That helps reduce peak heating a bit; it's also why we're seeing only a few watts increase in climactic forcing instead of the dozens you'd expect if the absorption bands were not yet saturated.
Take a look at the two attached graphs of total emissivity.
The first is assuming a concentration of 330ppm CO2 (about what we have now.) The second is assuming a concentration of 1000ppm. Note the widening of the absorption bands.
Also note that since much of absorption spectra is saturated this will _not_ be a linear process i.e. doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere will not double absorption; rather it will increase it only about 20%. That helps reduce peak heating a bit; it's also why we're seeing only a few watts increase in climactic forcing instead of the dozens you'd expect if the absorption bands were not yet saturated.
speedy 0
Sorry, but the only difference I can see between the two graphs is that one has 330 ppm CO2 and the other has 1000 ppm CO2 written on it. To me the curves are virtualy identical.
OK - I studied them a little longer and now I see the difference. Obviously you believe this difference is crucial to balance of global temperature. Even though such a small change in absorbtion of infrared radiation would not warm the planet to any significant degree, the balance would be disturbed which could have disasterous concequences. Correct?
OK - I studied them a little longer and now I see the difference. Obviously you believe this difference is crucial to balance of global temperature. Even though such a small change in absorbtion of infrared radiation would not warm the planet to any significant degree, the balance would be disturbed which could have disasterous concequences. Correct?
Dave
Fallschirmsport Marl
Fallschirmsport Marl
billvon 3,119
>To me the curves are virtualy identical.
They are indeed similar. The 1000ppm curve is wider than the 300ppm curve; hence the increased retention of heat when CO2 levels increase. It's a small difference. Like I said before, we're talking about 3 watts out of 1300.
They are indeed similar. The 1000ppm curve is wider than the 300ppm curve; hence the increased retention of heat when CO2 levels increase. It's a small difference. Like I said before, we're talking about 3 watts out of 1300.
speedy 0
It appears to me that the sun has also a variabilty in the radiation it emits. Why should the 3 watts from CO2 be so much more problematic than the suns variability?
Source for the graphic http://www.ips.gov.au/Educational/1/3/3
Source for the graphic http://www.ips.gov.au/Educational/1/3/3
Dave
Fallschirmsport Marl
Fallschirmsport Marl
billvon 3,119
>Why should the 3 watts from CO2 be so much more problematic than
>the suns variability?
Because the sun has been doing its variability thing for billions of years. The _average_ insolation remains about the same, even though several cycles (most notably the 11 year cycle) result in cyclic changes.
CO2 forcing, though, is _always_ there. There won't be six years next decade to let the planet cool for a while.
>the suns variability?
Because the sun has been doing its variability thing for billions of years. The _average_ insolation remains about the same, even though several cycles (most notably the 11 year cycle) result in cyclic changes.
CO2 forcing, though, is _always_ there. There won't be six years next decade to let the planet cool for a while.
speedy 0
See, you can have a discussion in speakers corner without it remaining a pissing contest.
OK, I understand your point of view on CO2 which does not mean I agree on the outcome. I think I will have to do some more research.
OK, I understand your point of view on CO2 which does not mean I agree on the outcome. I think I will have to do some more research.
Dave
Fallschirmsport Marl
Fallschirmsport Marl
Michele 1
Sorry I'm late returning to the thread...
Tell ya what. Why don't you debate it with one of my science professors, who does research at Cedar's and teaches my class because she loves teaching, and is not a creationist, or a republican (that I can tell; no, I gave no litmus test to her...I just like her class) that termites are not major contributors to the C02 issue. And for that matter, make her take that question off the test; considering I got the answer "correct", having her remove it will lessen my point total in the class. That's all right...I can spare the points.
What happened, bill, is you missed the sarcasm in my original post. And instead, decided to lump in lots of other things - ie republicanism, creationism, and whatnot - instead of debating the topic I raised. Now, I realize your point was in turn sarcastic, as well. However, I'd've rather seen you refute, if possible, the termite issue rather than jump around and distract from the issue. Or is it because you don't want to concede that there are many different angles to the C02 problem, and many different causes to global warming?
Ciels-
Michele
~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~
QuoteWell, I think it's the termites' fault.
A recent anti-global-warming editorial concluded by saying ". . . but blaming Homo Erectus for global warming is going too far."
I say - why not? Blame those slopey-headed idiots for causing global warming! Their million-year-old corpses are probably releasing all sorts of nasty greenhouse gases even as we speak.
It's not industry, or the republicans, or fossil fuels that's causing the problem - it's our less-than-brilliant ancestors* causing all this trouble. Vote the bums out of office, and the problem will be solved.
(* required disclaimer for creationists - supposed ancestors.)
Tell ya what. Why don't you debate it with one of my science professors, who does research at Cedar's and teaches my class because she loves teaching, and is not a creationist, or a republican (that I can tell; no, I gave no litmus test to her...I just like her class) that termites are not major contributors to the C02 issue. And for that matter, make her take that question off the test; considering I got the answer "correct", having her remove it will lessen my point total in the class. That's all right...I can spare the points.
What happened, bill, is you missed the sarcasm in my original post. And instead, decided to lump in lots of other things - ie republicanism, creationism, and whatnot - instead of debating the topic I raised. Now, I realize your point was in turn sarcastic, as well. However, I'd've rather seen you refute, if possible, the termite issue rather than jump around and distract from the issue. Or is it because you don't want to concede that there are many different angles to the C02 problem, and many different causes to global warming?
Ciels-
Michele
~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~
billvon 3,119
>Now, I realize your point was in turn sarcastic, as well. However,
>I'd've rather seen you refute, if possible, the termite issue rather than
>jump around and distract from the issue.
You were serious? Sorry, I figured you were joking.
Termites can indeed contribute methane and CO2 to the biosphere. So can cows, and horses, and frozen peat bogs when you thaw them. When you warm local climates up and cut down rainforests, termites become more abundant while the loss of forest reduces the ability to reabsorb that CO2. That's one of those positive-feedback mechanisms that speedy referred to as "convoluted and unproven."
To help combat that you can stop cutting down rainforests. This would have the dual effect of reducing food for termites and increasing absorption of CO2.
Compared to the increase in anthropogenic CO2 emissions, though, increases in termite emissions are a drop in the bucket. (Note that TOTAL termite emissions are quite significant, but the biosphere has had several billion years to adapt to them; it's only the additional load caused by deforestation and warming temperatures that could potentially be a problem.)
Termites can be a big threat in the coming years, though. As the climate warms, more and more forests die off, providing ideal conditions for termites (and other methane and CO2 producing life) to explode. This in turn will increase greenhouse gas emissions, which will warm the climate further, which will improve their living conditions etc etc. Again, Speedy doesn't like these sorts of effects, and hopefully we will _not_ see them in action.
>I'd've rather seen you refute, if possible, the termite issue rather than
>jump around and distract from the issue.
You were serious? Sorry, I figured you were joking.
Termites can indeed contribute methane and CO2 to the biosphere. So can cows, and horses, and frozen peat bogs when you thaw them. When you warm local climates up and cut down rainforests, termites become more abundant while the loss of forest reduces the ability to reabsorb that CO2. That's one of those positive-feedback mechanisms that speedy referred to as "convoluted and unproven."
To help combat that you can stop cutting down rainforests. This would have the dual effect of reducing food for termites and increasing absorption of CO2.
Compared to the increase in anthropogenic CO2 emissions, though, increases in termite emissions are a drop in the bucket. (Note that TOTAL termite emissions are quite significant, but the biosphere has had several billion years to adapt to them; it's only the additional load caused by deforestation and warming temperatures that could potentially be a problem.)
Termites can be a big threat in the coming years, though. As the climate warms, more and more forests die off, providing ideal conditions for termites (and other methane and CO2 producing life) to explode. This in turn will increase greenhouse gas emissions, which will warm the climate further, which will improve their living conditions etc etc. Again, Speedy doesn't like these sorts of effects, and hopefully we will _not_ see them in action.
kallend 2,150
QuoteSee, you can have a discussion in speakers corner without it remaining a pissing contest.
OK, I understand your point of view on CO2 which does not mean I agree on the outcome. I think I will have to do some more research.
You might start with National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, whose 2006 report on climate change included:
"Presently available proxy evidence indicates that temperatures at many, but not all, individual locations were higher during the past 25 years than during any period of comparable length since A.D. 900." The NRC went on to say "the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium." The NRC noted significant uncertainties that remain for global temperatures before 1600, but emphasized "surface temperature reconstructions for periods prior to the industrial era are only one of multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion that climatic warming is occurring in response to human activities, and they are not the primary evidence."
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
speedy 0
A yet again Kallend misses the point.
Whether the planet is warming or not was not what I was debating. I was only debating if it is possible for the current rises in CO2 concentration to cause a measurable impact on global temperature.
Whether the planet is warming or not was not what I was debating. I was only debating if it is possible for the current rises in CO2 concentration to cause a measurable impact on global temperature.
Dave
Fallschirmsport Marl
Fallschirmsport Marl
kallend 2,150
QuoteA yet again Kallend misses the point.
Whether the planet is warming or not was not what I was debating. I was only debating if it is possible for the current rises in CO2 concentration to cause a measurable impact on global temperature.
Why don't you read the NRC report, then, instead of setting yourself up as the expert on CO2 and its effects on the climate.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
speedy 0
Quoteinstead of setting yourself up as the expert on CO2
I am no expert on CO2. I just question the statements you clever types put out.
I do know that pumping CO2 into my aquarium seems to do it a world of good though.
P.S who sponsors the NRC?
Dave
Fallschirmsport Marl
Fallschirmsport Marl
speedy 0
OK, maybe if you could provide a link to what I should read it would be helpful. I tried to search the NRC's web site but could only find one report from 2006 to do with climate change.
That report seemed to be more concerned with looking at tree rings and making wild guesses about what the climate looked like over the last 2000 years.
As I said, I don't wish to debate whether climate change is occuring. I just want to understand the mechanism in which CO2 can cause the global temperature to rise significantly.
Billvon has got me thinking. You are just blurring the debate.
That report seemed to be more concerned with looking at tree rings and making wild guesses about what the climate looked like over the last 2000 years.
As I said, I don't wish to debate whether climate change is occuring. I just want to understand the mechanism in which CO2 can cause the global temperature to rise significantly.
Billvon has got me thinking. You are just blurring the debate.
Dave
Fallschirmsport Marl
Fallschirmsport Marl
kallend 2,150
Quote***
P.S who sponsors the NRC?
The NRC is the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
speedy 0
From the NRC web page...
"....But it is not known how much of the temperature rise to date is the result of human activities, the report says. Climate models do not adequately represent all the processes that contribute to variability of the climate system."
Interesting.
"....But it is not known how much of the temperature rise to date is the result of human activities, the report says. Climate models do not adequately represent all the processes that contribute to variability of the climate system."
Interesting.
Dave
Fallschirmsport Marl
Fallschirmsport Marl
kallend 2,150
QuoteFrom the NRC web page...
"....But it is not known how much of the temperature rise to date is the result of human activities, the report says. Climate models do not adequately represent all the processes that contribute to variability of the climate system."
Interesting.
And not the same as saying NONE of the change comes from human activities.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
>not seem to have any problem breathing the air at all.
No one's talking about not being able to breathe the air. No one has said, ever, that rising CO2 levels will make it hard to breathe. That's not the issue.
>Where did I say there was significant warming? Where did I deny there was warming?
Ah. Semantic games! Everyone loves sematics games. I used the word "IS" not "WAS" so your question is meaningless!
It's too bad so many discussions about this end up as semantic games and pointless "You said" "No I didn't" "I said" "No you didn't" arguments. It's why most people ignore most such discussions, and why nothing much ever comes od them.
I'm not too worried that people are going to be misled by the oil and coal industry's propoganda. The evidence is all around them now. Heck, even the Bush Adminstration has realized they at least have to pay lip service to the issue. The science is finally getting out there, despite the way these arguments tend to devolve.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites