speedy 0 #1 October 19, 2016 From a newspaper in 1912 : QuoteThe furnaces of the world are now burning about 2,000,000,000 tons of coal a year. When this is burned, uniting with oxygen, it adds about 7,000,000,000 tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere yearly. This tends to make the air a more effective blanket for the earth and to raise its temperature. The effect may be considerable in a few centuries. http://www.snopes.com/1912-article-global-warming/ Dave Fallschirmsport Marl Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The111 1 #2 October 19, 2016 Fundamental understanding of thermodynamics is not new, despite the fact that many people today still lack it.www.WingsuitPhotos.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,107 #3 October 19, 2016 Arrhenius, 1896 www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,077 #4 October 19, 2016 >We knew about the Global Warming Problem in 1912 A lot earlier than that, actually. Some, of course, still don't understand. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #5 October 19, 2016 QuoteA lot earlier than that, actually. Some, of course, still don't understand. I think you meant to say, "Some, of course, still pretend not to understand." - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stumpy 284 #6 October 19, 2016 DanGQuoteA lot earlier than that, actually. Some, of course, still don't understand. I think you meant to say, "Some, of course, still pretend not to understand." I think there may be at least one on this board that probably doesn't have the intellectual capacity to understand....Never try to eat more than you can lift Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #7 October 19, 2016 Svante Arrhenius was the first to figure out CO2's greenhouse warming effect, in 1896. Greenhouse effect His calculations were a bit off, but he had the concept. IIRC, water vapor's greenhouse effect is about 60 degF. Our species wouldn't be on this planet without greenhouse warming. For those interested in the topic The Warming Papers: The Scientific Foundation for the Climate Change Forecast I bought this a while back. It has Svante Arrhenius's original paper. It actually contains nothing but original papers, and it's a good reference. Really well done, IMO.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gowlerk 2,252 #8 October 19, 2016 QuoteOur species wouldn't be on this planet without greenhouse warming. No doubt. The Earth's temperature is the result of a balance between an unknown number of factors. The true effect of the current trends are also largely unknown. What is known is that it is unwise to fool with mother nature.Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #9 October 20, 2016 Quote No doubt. The Earth's temperature is the result of a balance between an unknown number of factors. The true effect of the current trends are also largely unknown. What is known is that it is unwise to fool with mother nature. The physics of CO2 warming are well established, and there is nothing to argue there. Right now, the weight fraction of CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.0004. Over the next 100 years, with our current CO2 (and equivalents) emissions of 40GT+/year, that number is expected to double to 0.0008, which will increase the Earth's temperature by about 1 degF (on the low side of IPCC estimates). Read that again - 1 degF. Nothing catastrophic will come out of that. The argument is all about feedbacks. Will more cloud coverage increase or decrease the Earth's temperature? And many other effects that are just now being understood. Will these feedbacks be positive or negative? Is the Earth's climate fragile or robust? The "alarmists" claim everything will be a positive feedback, and we'll end up with 5 degC of warming, the Earth is fragile, and that such change will be catastrophic to the planet. That's not looking likely if you read real climate scientists discussions (see Judith Curry at https://judithcurry.com/, who is a rational voice in this discussion). Pretty much every rational climate scientist says that nothing being proposed by governments is going to make any impact what so ever on this trend. The Paris Agreement is looking to extract $1 Trillion dollars per year out of the productive economy to chase this "boogie man", for no change what so ever. We can all agree that pumping 40GT+ of CO2 and equivalents per year into the atmosphere isn't a good idea. It is something we can do better. The question is how? Nuclear energy is the only option on the table that can meet our energy needs in the near term. We should be balls out developing that, and giving ourselves time to improve relevant technologies (e.g. fusion). The liberal ideologues are looking at this as an opportunity to increase government control over our lives (e.g., eliminate capitalism), and they are clearly communicating that now. Likewise, those ideologues are advocating the elimination of all cash in western democracies, as they need more power to "fix" the economic mess they've put us in. They are out of control, and posed to do serious damage to our way of life, possibly irreparable damage at that. Only fools will allow that to happen.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gowlerk 2,252 #10 October 20, 2016 QuoteThe liberal ideologues are looking at this as an opportunity to increase government control over our lives (e.g., eliminate capitalism), and they are clearly communicating that now. Likewise, those ideologues are advocating the elimination of all cash in western democracies, as they need more power to "fix" the economic mess they've put us in. They are out of control, and posed to do serious damage to our way of life, possibly irreparable damage at that. So, I start reading you and agree with pretty much all you are saying. Or at least a large part of it. Until I get to this paragraph. What level of paranoia do you need to have to believe this? What other conspiracy theories are you into? If all you can see in efforts to reduce CO2 emissions is an evil plan to steal your freedoms away from you I have nothing to say about that. I can not argue with this kind of thinking.Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #11 October 20, 2016 Quote What level of paranoia do you need to have to believe this? It's not paranoia. It's real, and it's happening now.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,077 #12 October 20, 2016 >It's not paranoia. It's real, and it's happening now. What rights have you lost to the evil alarmist liberal ideologues? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,077 #13 October 20, 2016 QuoteThe physics of CO2 warming are well established, and there is nothing to argue there. Right now, the weight fraction of CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.0004. Over the next 100 years, with our current CO2 (and equivalents) emissions of 40GT+/year, that number is expected to double to 0.0008, which will increase the Earth's temperature by about 1 degF (on the low side of IPCC estimates). Read that again - 1 degF. Nothing catastrophic will come out of that. Agreed; we could easily live with an increase of 1F. Unfortunately, the temperature is ALREADY 1.62F above the 20th century average. (2015 numbers) and 2016 is on track to beat even that record. So you start out seeing more warming than is possible from direct effects, and we are still getting warmer. Indeed, we are now on the high side of IPCC predictions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The111 1 #14 October 20, 2016 StreetScoobyOver the next 100 years, with our current CO2 (and equivalents) emissions of 40GT+/year, that number is expected to double to 0.0008, which will increase the Earth's temperature by about 1 degF (on the low side of IPCC estimates). Read that again - 1 degF. Nothing catastrophic will come out of that. Ok, and what about in 1000 years? How about 5000? Do we just say "fuck those future people, they don't exist yet?" (and at this rate, they might not ever)www.WingsuitPhotos.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TriGirl 333 #15 October 21, 2016 billvonQuoteThe physics of CO2 warming are well established, and there is nothing to argue there. Right now, the weight fraction of CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.0004. Over the next 100 years, with our current CO2 (and equivalents) emissions of 40GT+/year, that number is expected to double to 0.0008, which will increase the Earth's temperature by about 1 degF (on the low side of IPCC estimates). Read that again - 1 degF. Nothing catastrophic will come out of that. Agreed; we could easily live with an increase of 1F. Unfortunately, the temperature is ALREADY 1.62F above the 20th century average. (2015 numbers) and 2016 is on track to beat even that record. So you start out seeing more warming than is possible from direct effects, and we are still getting warmer. Indeed, we are now on the high side of IPCC predictions. Plus, you have to take into account the effects these even slightly warmer overall temps have on the ocean. When the water is warmer at greater depths (i.e., 20 feet down), the effect on the atmosphere is catastrophic. That 20' depth of water at the same temperature as the surface was the condition just prior to the deluge that fell onto SW Louisiana and eastern Texas recently. Those storms formed in about a day, and dumped 1-2 FEET of water on much of that region. The area is still recovering.See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
