First SC thread. Go easy. Carbon Footprint question

[billvon 3,114]

>But you really believe mankind can alter the climate?

1000 years ago the idea that we could ever dam the Colorado, or the Yangtze, would have been ludicrous. 110 years ago the idea that we'd be walking on the moon one day was silly; we couldn't even get off the ground in heavier-than-air vehicles.

The idea that we could cause entire species to go extinct? Kill off an entire _species_ so that no breeding population remains anywhere on the entire planet? Hard to believe, but we've done it dozens of times.

The idea that we could change an entire ecosystem? Look at Yellowstone, or Ireland. Ireland once used to be one giant forest. Heck, we _tried_ to preserve Yellowstone, but killed off almost all the buffalo, and that alone caused major changes in the life (and microclimate) there. We've created inland seas, leveled mountain ranges and changed desert valleys into hundreds of square miles of farms.

And now we're changing an important, active part of our atmosphere. We've already increased it by 50% everywhere on the planet and seen temperatures rise and the seas become more acidic. That's an issue, but it's nothing compared to what we will see if we increase it 100% or 200%. Which is the question - do we really want to do that? Double or triple the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and see what happens?

Maybe we do; maybe we don't really care since most of us will be dead, and we'll make more money now by burning coal and oil. Or maybe we think the adaptations we'll have to make to the changes will not be that tough, and that the other changes to the ecosystem don't matter to us. Or maybe we think that there will be some negative-feedback system that kicks in and prevents any more than a (say) 2C change. All are worth discussing.

But to answer your question - yes, we can change the climate. We _have_ changed the climate. Now we have to decide how much of that we want to do.

[RonD1120 62]

Quote

>But you really believe mankind can alter the climate?

But to answer your question - yes, we can change the climate. We _have_ changed the climate. Now we have to decide how much of that we want to do.

I have always believed that it is better to start small then build on success.

If we are capable of changing world climate let's start by controlling hurricanes and/or tornadoes. When we accomplish that feat we can move to world climate change.

Furthermore, we don't have to worry about the sea level rising from ice melting.

Experiment: Take a large glass and fill it with ice cubes. Next, fill the remaining space with water, all the way to the rim. Set the glass on the counter and let the ice melt completely.

How much does the water level rise in the glass? Does the water overflow the rim?

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Furthermore, we don't have to worry about the sea level rising from ice melting.

Experiment: Take a large glass and fill it with ice cubes. Next, fill the remaining space with water, all the way to the rim. Set the glass on the counter and let the ice melt completely.

How much does the water level rise in the glass? Does the water overflow the rim?

I think AGW is just a money grab - but Not all ice is floating. Glaciers are on land

so do your experiment provided you also take a couple ice cubes and set them on the table next to your glass - did the table get wet?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[timmyfitz 0]

Quote

Furthermore, we don't have to worry about the sea level rising from ice melting.

Experiment: Take a large glass and fill it with ice cubes. Next, fill the remaining space with water, all the way to the rim. Set the glass on the counter and let the ice melt completely.

How much does the water level rise in the glass? Does the water overflow the rim?

The sea level would not change if you are only referring to sea ice. If you include ice that originates on land then your experiment would fail, as in sea level would rise.

[billvon 3,114]

>Experiment: Take a large glass and fill it with ice cubes. Next, fill the
>remaining space with water, all the way to the rim. Set the glass on the
>counter and let the ice melt completely.

>How much does the water level rise in the glass? Does the water overflow
>the rim?

Not at all. If the ice is floating the level remains the same. If the ice is sitting on the bottom of the glass, the level actually _shrinks._

Now do another experiment. Get a saucepan. Make a mountain of ice in the middle, so that it's a few inches higher in the middle than the sides. Fill the extra space with water. Let it melt. See if it overflows. (Hint - it will.)

Your first example would be akin to the North Pole icecap melting. Net result - no change in sea level. My second example would be akin to Greenland melting. Result - change in sea level.

Now do yet a third experiment. Get a mercury thermometer. Note the quantity of mercury contained inside. Now warm it up, and check the amount again. Woah! There seems to be more mercury in the thermometer! How did that happen?

[RonD1120 62]

OK, I surrender on that one.

I'll retreat back to the original position. When science can control hurricanes/tornadoes, maybe then we can think about world climate control.

Right now I'm more worried about the social quality of life for my grandchildren. And, there is no controlling that either.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

OK, I surrender on that one.

I'll retreat back to the original position. When science can control hurricanes/tornadoes, maybe then we can think about world climate control.

Right now I'm more worried about the social quality of life for my grandchildren. And, there is no controlling that either.

We can't control the spectral response of CO2, the reflectivity of clouds, or the energy output of the Sun. We can't change the laws of thermodynamics or heat transfer.

We can change the amount of CO2 WE HUMANS pump into the atmosphere: over 30 BILLION TONS each year.

The CO2 content of the atmosphere is easy to measure, and its increase corresponds pretty accurately with the rate at which WE HUMANS have been adding it.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,114]

> When science can control hurricanes/tornadoes, maybe then we can think
> about world climate control.

Agreed. Until then, we should not be doing our level best to increase CO2 concentrations as fast as we can.

[brenthutch 444]

CO2 forcing is maxed out already. The greenhouse effect of co2 drops off logarithmically. (google it) Put more simply, put one blanket and you will feel less cold put on another blanket and you will feel comfortable, put on a third blanket and you will be a bit warm, but if you put 100 blankets on you will not burst into flames you will feel about as warm as you did after the forth or fifth blanket. None of the IPCC models depend on co2 as the primary force for climate change. They depend on co2 to rise water vapor levels to the point where it reaches a tipping point., while ignoring the cooling effect of clouds. I would call it junk science, but that would be dissing both science and garbage.

[billvon 3,114]

>The greenhouse effect of co2 drops off logarithmically.

Correct. We see about 230 watts per square meter of greenhouse effect. That's a good thing; without it the earth would be too cold to live on. (An average of about 60F colder.)

Of that, about 60% comes from water vapor and about 20% comes from CO2. The rest come from methane, ozone etc. That means about 45 watts of that forcing is from CO2.

If you went purely by that math, and assumed a linear effect, then we would now be seeing an additional 22 watts/sq m of heating, since we've increased the amount of CO2 by 50%. However, since the effect of increasing CO2 concentrations is dropping off logarithmically, we're only seeing about 2 watts per square meter of additional heating due to AGW.

This is a very good thing; it means we're seeing only minor warming despite a major increase in CO2.

>None of the IPCC models depend on co2 as the primary force for climate change.

Correct, because it's not the primary greenhouse gas. Water vapor is.

>while ignoring the cooling effect of clouds.

Do you think nighttime clouds make the ground cooler or warmer?

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

The greenhouse effect of co2 drops off logarithmically..

Did anyone claim it doesn't?

Unfortunately the logarithm function still increases monotonically (Google it)l.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[popsjumper 2]

Damn. I must need new glasses. Try as I might, I do not see any carbon in my footprints. Do I need new shoes?

To all you naysayers, tell me.
Right wrong or indifferent, what's the problem with reducing human contributions to ANY pollution problem?

Is it OK to say, "MY pollution contribution doesn't add up to much so it's OK to continue as I have been doing?"

Is there some magic number that says, YOU can add THIS much pollution and you're OK to continue but if you add more it's not OK?

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[brenthutch 444]

Clouds, particularly low level clouds do trap heat on the ground but the heat about the clouds is free to radiate back into space. The IPCC ignored clouds, said it to too difficult to factor in so they just called it a wash. Day time cooling vs night time heat retention....a tie. No data no studies. The impact of the sun on climate on earth was done by ONE person who peer reviewed her own work!??!
http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/06/judithgate-ipcc-relied-on-one-solar.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LuboMotlsReferenceFrame+%28Lubos+Motl%27s+reference+frame%29

[billvon 3,114]

>Clouds, particularly low level clouds do trap heat on the ground but the
>heat about the clouds is free to radiate back into space.

Not quite. It is not _as_ free to radiate back into space because some of the heat is reflected back to the ground. That's why frost doesn't form on cloudy nights; the earth doesn't cool off as much and thus water does not condense on the ground.

If cloud formation happened only at night the planet would be considerably warmer; if it happened only during the day, considerably cooler. (All other things being equal.)

>The IPCC ignored clouds . . .

No, they didn't. A snippet from the 2007 IPCC summary:

====================
The scientific community realised long ago that using adequate data to constrain models was the only way to solve this problem. Using climate changes in the distant past to constrain the amplitude of cloud feedback has definite limitations (Ramstein et al., 1998). The study of cloud changes at decadal, interannual or seasonal time scales therefore remains a necessary path to constrain models. A long history of cloud observations now runs parallel to that of model development. Operational ground-based measurements, carried out for the purpose of weather prediction, constitute a valuable source of information that has been gathered and analysed by Warren et al. (1986, 1988). The International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP; Rossow and Schiffer, 1991) has developed an analysis of cloud cover and cloud properties using the measurements of operational meteorological satellites over a period of more than two decades. These data have been complemented by other satellite remote sensing data sets, such as those associated with the Nimbus-7 Temperature Humidity Infrared Radiometer (THIR) instrument (Stowe et al., 1988), with high-resolution spectrometers such as the High Resolution Infrared Radiation Sounder (HIRS) (Susskind et al., 1987), and with microwave absorption, as used by the Special Sensor Microwave/Imager (SSM/I). Chapter 8 provides an update of this ongoing observational effort.
===================

>Day time cooling vs night time heat retention....a tie.

That sounds like an assumption. There have been various studies that claim that is _not_ the case. One claimed that AGW was 'bogus' because cosmic rays caused cloud formation at night and that was heating up the planet. Several, as you mentioned, have attempted to model the process and discovered primarily that it is a very, very complex problem.

As it stands now, cloud formation represents a small but positive feedback mechanism in AGW. Much of the uncertainty for a given scenario depends on cloud formation because they are dependent on so many things beside temperature (airborne nucleation particles, convective activity, recent rain on the ground, supercooling effects etc.)

[riddler 0]

Quote

If God didn't intend for us to eat animals, why'd He make them out of meat?

I guess you could make the same argument for drinking cows' milk. If God didn't want us to drink cows' milk, why did he make it come from boobies? But then, there's that whole social stigma of sucking on cow nipples.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

But to answer your question - yes, we can change the climate. We _have_ changed the climate. Now we have to decide how much of that we want to do.

Without a doubt, humans have had a negative impact on nature and it's creatures. We continue to expand into more and more space on this planet and drive the wild life out of their natural habitat and of course we have destroyed many eco-systems. But humans can not control Mother Nature. Mother Nature always has and always will be more powerful than humans. Instead of thinking "how can we make the planet colder or hotter" we should be focusing on cleaning up the cancer causing toxins we pump into our water and air supplies. For sure we in the western world have cause great damage to the planet, but it's sad to see China and India pumping cancer causing toxins into the environment at an even higher rate.

Come on Bill, I am 99.9999% certain you believe in evolution. You know the planet and it's habitat have adapted and will continue to adapt over time. The strong will morph into stronger life forms and the weak will die off. It has been going on like this for billions of years and it will continue. Life on this planet is not going anywhere, until of course that great big ball in the sky 93 million miles from us burns out in a few billion years.

Let's put more talk into controlling the cancer causing toxins in our water and air and worry less about CO2.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[billvon 3,114]

>Instead of thinking "how can we make the planet colder or hotter" we
>should be focusing on cleaning up the cancer causing toxins we pump
>into our water and air supplies.

Agreed. We should stop doing our best to change the climate, _and_ we should stop polluting so much.

>Without a doubt, humans have had a negative impact on nature and it's
>creatures. . . .But humans can not control Mother Nature.

So which is it? Can we influence nature or not? Looks like from your examples, we certainly can.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

But to answer your question - yes, we can change the climate. We _have_ changed the climate. Now we have to decide how much of that we want to do.

Without a doubt, humans have had a negative impact on nature and it's creatures. We continue to expand into more and more space on this planet and drive the wild life out of their natural habitat and of course we have destroyed many eco-systems. But humans can not control Mother Nature. Mother Nature always has and always will be more powerful than humans. Instead of thinking "how can we make the planet colder or hotter" we should be focusing on cleaning up the cancer causing toxins we pump into our water and air supplies. For sure we in the western world have cause great damage to the planet, but it's sad to see China and India pumping cancer causing toxins into the environment at an even higher rate.

Come on Bill, I am 99.9999% certain you believe in evolution. You know the planet and it's habitat have adapted and will continue to adapt over time. The strong will morph into stronger life forms and the weak will die off. It has been going on like this for billions of years and it will continue. Life on this planet is not going anywhere, until of course that great big ball in the sky 93 million miles from us burns out in a few billion years.

Let's put more talk into controlling the cancer causing toxins in our water and air and worry less about CO2.

You do realize that the corporatists who are fighting so vociferously against any debate on climate change... are also the ones who dont believe that pollution is a problem because its expensive to control all that effluent. I get the feeling that since many of them live in urban cesspools they believe everyone else should too.

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

You do realize that the corporatists who are fighting so vociferously against any debate on climate change... are also the ones who dont believe that pollution is a problem because its expensive to control all that effluent. I get the feeling that since many of them live in urban cesspools they believe everyone else should too.

The corporate response to pollution has always been the same - "it's not true, we didn't do it, it's good for us..."

Here's an article about the corporate response to lead pollution from leaded gasoline 90 years ago.

Shortly after the Ethyl factories sprang into action, the mind-dulling
effects of lead began to manifest in the workers. Disorientation, impaired
judgment, and a staggered gait plagued the lead-polluted employees, and the
larger facility in Deepwater came to be known as the "House of Butterflies"
owing to the insect hallucinations frequently experienced there. As Ethyl
handlers began to turn up at doctors' offices, hospitals, and morgues, the
Ethyl Corporation was quick to blame the victims. "We could not get this
across to the boys," Charles Kettering claimed, "We put watchmen in at the
plant, and they used to snap the stuff at each other, and throw it at each
other, and they were saying that they were sissies. They did not realize
what they were working with."

In 1923 the Bureau of Mines conducted tests for General Motors, under the
stipulation that GM management reserve the right of "comment, criticism, and
approval" for all findings prior to their publication. Various animals were
exposed to leaded gasoline exhaust from a small engine, and the results
stated that the animals were "without harm of any kind." Some scientists
decried the inadequate experiments, pointing out that the animals were only
exposed to a passing stream of lightly leaded exhaust, but not to lingering
accumulations.

Following the death of one worker and irreversible derangement among others
at an Ethyl factory in October 1924, the chief chemist there told reporters,
"These men probably went insane because they worked too hard." Within days,
four additional workers from the plant died, and thirty-six others were
crippled with incurable neurological damage. The plant, it seemed, had
employed many hard workers.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[DFWAJG 4]

Peter,
I vote for Riddler's solution. Start consuming more plants and fewer animals. It will lower your carbon footprint and lower your risk for cardiovascular disease. Also, do as the Japanese do, and have yourself a few minutes in the bathroom before you board. Less weight on board means better fuel efficiency. And, the guy is an ass. Living in the city is more efficient and has a lower impact on the environment than does living in the suburbs.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Quote

But to answer your question - yes, we can change the climate. We _have_ changed the climate. Now we have to decide how much of that we want to do.

Without a doubt, humans have had a negative impact on nature and it's creatures. We continue to expand into more and more space on this planet and drive the wild life out of their natural habitat and of course we have destroyed many eco-systems. But humans can not control Mother Nature. Mother Nature always has and always will be more powerful than humans. Instead of thinking "how can we make the planet colder or hotter" we should be focusing on cleaning up the cancer causing toxins we pump into our water and air supplies. For sure we in the western world have cause great damage to the planet, but it's sad to see China and India pumping cancer causing toxins into the environment at an even higher rate.

Come on Bill, I am 99.9999% certain you believe in evolution. You know the planet and it's habitat have adapted and will continue to adapt over time. The strong will morph into stronger life forms and the weak will die off. It has been going on like this for billions of years and it will continue. Life on this planet is not going anywhere, until of course that great big ball in the sky 93 million miles from us burns out in a few billion years.

Let's put more talk into controlling the cancer causing toxins in our water and air and worry less about CO2.

We have pretty much ended evolution as modern medicine keeps the "weak" alive and able to reproduce.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[timmyfitz 0]

Quote

We have pretty much ended evolution as modern medicine keeps the "weak" alive and able to reproduce.

I don't think you understand evolution very well if you believe this to be true.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Quote

We have pretty much ended evolution as modern medicine keeps the "weak" alive and able to reproduce.

I don't think you understand evolution very well if you believe this to be true.

Modern society and medicine has almost completely nullified natural selection and most mutations.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[timmyfitz 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

We have pretty much ended evolution as modern medicine keeps the "weak" alive and able to reproduce.

I don't think you understand evolution very well if you believe this to be true.

Modern society and medicine has almost completely nullified natural selection and most mutations.

Like I said.

[billvon 3,114]

>Modern society and medicine has almost completely nullified natural
>selection and most mutations.

I don't think that's true at all. Mutations are happening faster nowadays because there are more mutagens in our environment. Evolutionary pressures are still causing selection - the criteria are just different nowadays. (For example, an intelligence level low enough that the person cannot understand how birth control works is now a competitive advantage.)