My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[REASON]

Thanks for asking nicely. :)

 

You're welcome.

 

Even though I don't always manage it, I do believe civil discussion is more productive.

 

 

What I see as unreasonable is an alarmist call to political & social action with the aim of purposefully altering the entire globe's dynamic system and justified primarily on the veracity of computer models of limited scope, resolution and computational capacity.

 

That's interesting you see it that way.

 

What I see is an alarming condition created by our purposeful, albeit initially naive, altering of the entire globe's dynamic system, justified by our wanton energy consumption without regard for the environmental impacts, which upon recognition of those impacts, have pursued an unreasonable rejection of the science and the need for political & social action in order to stave off government intrusion and costs necessary to try and restore the system to its natural state.

 

If I'm wrong, altering our energy consumption in ways that are environmentally conscious will only serve to be beneficial to our existence.

 

If you're wrong, continuing to not act and change the way we consume energy may prove to be detrimental to our existence.

 

In an earlier post, I stated that, "My concern is that it will be too late by the time we are able to agree on who done it." What I'm referring to is a runaway greenhouse effect occurring due to inaction on our part, and producing an environment I don't want for my descendants.

 

 

My axe is the same one I use in all topics that catch my interest, the generalist's axe with its sharp attention to details. A lack of supporting evidence does not mean no supporting evidence. :D ;)

 

I don't want you to give up your axe. I just hope you will use it to chop up bad ideas, not good ones. :)

[Turtle]

You're welcome.

 

Even though I don't always manage it, I do believe civil discussion is more productive.

 

That's interesting you see it that way.

 

What I see is an alarming condition created by our purposeful, albeit initially naive, altering of the entire globe's dynamic system, justified by our wanton energy consumption without regard for the environmental impacts, which upon recognition of those impacts, have pursued an unreasonable rejection of the science and the need for political & social action in order to stave off government intrusion and costs necessary to try and restore the system to its natural state.

 

If I'm wrong, altering our energy consumption in ways that are environmentally conscious will only serve to be beneficial to our existence.

 

If your wrong, continuing to not act and change the way we consume energy may prove to be detrimental to our existence.

 

In an earlier post, I stated that, "My concern is that it will be too late by the time we are able to agree on who done it." What I'm referring to is a runaway greenhouse effect occurring due to inaction on our part, and producing an environment I don't want for my descendants.

 

 

I don't want you to give up your axe. I just hope you will use it to chop up bad ideas, not good ones. :Bump2:

 

I superglued the SOB to my hand like 40 years ago. :D All the same, I wouldn't stand behind me if I were you. :)

 

I don't think my being right about particulars of models requires inaction that you accredit. I'm all for the stopping waste & cleaning up stuff and the main action I actually questioned was the sequestering of carbon on a grand scale. We also have already good reasons to change our energy use patterns, for example a finite supply of oil & coal. If we can't get off it faster than we can clean it up in the meantime, I'm all for cleaning up what we have to.

 

If the general consensus of the powers that be, is that the latest & greatest model is good for the next 10 or 20 years, then how about taking the resources that would go to make the next year's model version 2.3154 and put them instead into either the actions projected to help, or perhaps gathering some high-res data from a few underwater volcanoes and using the computer time to model them for later inclusion in global models. If you know for sure you got the cat in the sack, stop opening it to check.

 

I don't think even the most ardent believers in the models are saying the runaway affect can or will happen on Earth as on Venus. Rising seas & a consequent loss of land, & localized climate changes which affect agriculture are the main costly things of concern. Craig layed them out earlier here I think. I grant you the graphs give the impression of a no-end rise, but there's probably a good reason for that.

 

I don't know what the answer is in regard to peoples' wasteful habits, but that's another whole sack of bait tied up with other threads. :) ;)

[InfiniteNow]

A lack of supporting evidence does not mean no supporting evidence.

Actually, that's precisely what it means. If you lack evidence, it means you have none.

 

To be fair, though, I presume you meant:

 

Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. ;)

[modest]

I've just been watching the conversation but I'd like to compliment Reaper on two excillent points. Namely that: the ocean at depth is under-saturated in [imath]CO_2[/imath] and that we know by 1-examining how much [imath]CO_2[/imath] we produce and by 2-monitering levels, we know what is natural and what isn't.

 

I'll step back out. Bravo Reaper.

 

-modest

[Essay]

I've read back a couple of pages....

Reason certainly is as reason has well done (or words to that effect).

 

;)

Underwater volcanoes?

 

Do you suspect that these just recently popped up (that there were none, or far fewer, long ago)?

Have you seen pictures of these "volcanoes?" There often no bigger than the sub filming them, and some are the size of small buildings (5-10 stories, if memory serves me).

Even thousands of these wouldn't equal one land-based major volcano.

Think of the volume (and heat capacity) of the ocean vs. the atmosphere. Isn't this like several orders of magnitude greater for the ocean (at least one, I'd think)?

Think relative scale....

To quote from your link:

NSF - OLPA - PR 01-93: HEALY RESEARCHERS MAKE A SERIES OF STRIKING DISCOVERIES ABOUT ARCTIC OCEAN

"While the heated water from the hydrothermal vents does not significantly affect ocean temperatures, the vents have attracted the attention of both biologists and geologists."

I'd be more worried about the increased absorption of solar insolation by the crushed and broken ice, and ice-free paths created by those research expeditions in the polar areas.

 

It's a fascinating "new" discovery, but I just think that the scale is relatively small compared to many other factors (forcers) already included in the models.

 

It amazes me how well the models can "backcast," reproducing observations of past climate.

The big drawback of models is that they don't forecast the inevitable, chaotic switch to some alternate mode.

Sure, the model shows runaway warming; but it can't see the switch to glaciation mode.

 

 

So what do you think of Reason's excellent point:

"Why does it seem so unfathomable to you that human beings, who for decades have been continually converting stored carbon to CO2 while simultaneously destroying a primary natural CO2 sink with deforestation, could be capable of being a primary factor in observed global warming?" [...deforestation, as well as overharvesting, agriculture, pollution, and desertification]

 

Turtle says:

"I'm all for the stopping waste & cleaning up stuff and the main action I actually questioned was the sequestering of carbon on a grand scale."

Why do you question this? It can be done quite cheaply and it seems to be such a major factor in climate change.

Do you not think CO2 is a major factor?

 

If we did succeed at the "sequestering of carbon on a grand scale," we could continue burning fossil fuels at a pace to enable strong development. Would that be such a bad thing?

 

We could restore the atmospheric balance and absorb all future emissions, if we would restore most of that "primary natural CO2 sink," the biosphere.

:D

[Turtle]

I've read back a couple of pages....

Reason certainly is as reason has well done (or words to that effect).

 

Underwater volcanoes?

 

Do you suspect that these just recently popped up (that there were none, or far fewer, long ago)?

Have you seen pictures of these "volcanoes?" There often no bigger than the sub filming them, and some are the size of small buildings (5-10 stories, if memory serves me).

Even thousands of these wouldn't equal one land-based major volcano.

Think of the volume (and heat capacity) of the ocean vs. the atmosphere. Isn't this like several orders of magnitude greater for the ocean (at least one, I'd think)?

Think relative scale....

 

I'll re-post this over at the Underwater Volcanism thread, but it's worth responding to these specifics here. Your description is simply not the case, and I think knowing some of the facts we do know about underwater volcanoes would go a long way to understanding why they have my fascinated attention.

 

So, I have seen pictures of the black smokers you appear to describe, and yes they are delicate, relatively small structures. These are not however technically volcanoes, but rather termed thermal vents. I haven't discussed them yet in any depth.

 

The biggest volcano in the world today, and mountain at all in fact, is the Hawaiian volcano Mauna Loa, which began as an underwater volcano and now rises 4km above the sea. >> Mauna Loa Volcano, Hawai`i

 

Less well known is Lo 'ihi Seamount, the newest Hawaiian volcano now up from the seafloor to within 969 m. When it emerges, it will be the newest Hawaiian island, and obviously no longer an underwater volcano. >> Lo`ihi Seamount, Hawai`i

 

I'll transfer this over to the other thread.

Talk among yourselves. :doh: :(

[InfiniteNow]

Talk among yourselves.

Shall we use sign language, because you're still engaging in nothing more than hand-waving. :(

[Essay]

...like Surtsey.

 

...but that Gakkel Ridge stuff is cool. I spent some time on many links. i.e.:

"The Gakkel Ridge occupies a unique and important place within the global system of ocean ridges for several reasons. It is the deepest and slowest spreading ridge. It also is the only spot on the globe from which the polar mantle, under the ocean, can be sampled directly."

 

 

...other than volcano questions from previous post

The big drawback of models is that they don't forecast the inevitable, chaotic switch to alternate modes.

Sure, the model shows runaway warming; but it can't see the switch to glaciation mode.

 

...So what do you think of Reason's excellent point:

"Why does it seem so unfathomable to you that human beings, who for decades have been continually converting stored carbon to CO2 while simultaneously destroying a primary natural CO2 sink with deforestation, could be capable of being a primary factor in observed global warming?" [deforestation, as well as overharvesting, agriculture, pollution, and desertification

 

...Turtle says:

"I'm all for the stopping waste & cleaning up stuff and the main action I actually questioned was the sequestering of carbon on a grand scale."

 

Why do you question this? It can be done quite cheaply and it seems to be such a major factor in climate change.

Do you not think CO2 is a major factor?

 

If we did succeed at "sequestering of carbon on a grand scale," we could continue burning fossil fuels at a pace to enable strong development. Would that be such a bad thing?

 

We could restore the atmospheric balance and absorb all future emissions, if we would restore most of that "primary natural CO2 sink," the biosphere.

 

CO2 :(

[Turtle]

...like Surtsey.

 

...but that Gakkel Ridge stuff is cool. I spent some time on many links. i.e.:

"The Gakkel Ridge occupies a unique and important place within the global system of ocean ridges for several reasons. It is the deepest and slowest spreading ridge. It also is the only spot on the globe from which the polar mantle, under the ocean, can be sampled directly."

By all means post anything you find in the other thread. It's fun to say Gakkel too.

 

 

 

 

Turtle says:

"I'm all for the stopping waste & cleaning up stuff and the main action I actually questioned was the sequestering of carbon on a grand scale."

 

Why do you question this? It can be done quite cheaply and it seems to be such a major factor in climate change.

Do you not think CO2 is a major factor?

 

If we did succeed at "sequestering of carbon on a grand scale," we could continue burning fossil fuels at a pace to enable strong development. Would that be such a bad thing?

 

We could restore the atmospheric balance and absorb all future emissions, if we would restore most of that "primary natural CO2 sink," the biosphere.

CO2 :(

 

I remember sitting in the gas lines in the 70's, listening to radio and waiting my turn to push the ol' Merc another 16 feet closer to the pump 3 blocks away. Killing time and pondering the new ice age the climatologists said was coming soon to a city near us. Twenty years before that it was plenty of 25 cent gas, weather's great, but the nukes were goin' to kill us all if we didn't dig in & fight. If some part of my questioning this is cynicism after a god-awful parade of chicken little alarms the authorities rammed down our throats like it was an elixar, well, I wouldn't deny it.

 

CO2...oh yeah. We got a bunch in the air, some of it's ours cause our mark is on it, and if it's just a snap to get it back, go for it. Shouldn't be much harder than making that biodome work. Watch out for Murphy's Law and the Law of Unintended Consequences, and try not to make it so we can't get it back if and when we need it again.

[Essay]

I remember sitting in the gas lines in the 70's, listening to radio and waiting my turn to push the ol' Merc another 16 feet closer to the pump 3 blocks away. Killing time and pondering the new ice age the climatologists said was coming soon to a city near us. Twenty years before that it was plenty of 25 cent gas, weather's great, but the nukes were goin' to kill us all if we didn't dig in & fight. If some part of my questioning this is cynicism after a god-awful parade of chicken little alarms the authorities rammed down our throats like it was an elixar, well, I wouldn't deny it.

 

CO2...oh yeah. We got a bunch in the air, some of it's ours cause our mark is on it, and if it's just a snap to get it back, go for it. Shouldn't be much harder than making that biodome work. Watch out for Murphy's Law and the Law of Unintended Consequences, and try not to make it so we can't get it back if and when we need it again. :(

 

Unintended Consequences?!

That is what we're living with now; a huge legacy of Unintended Consequences from generations of unsustainable agricultural, forestry, fisheries and land management.

 

I think it's time we did something intentional, for a change.

 

Y'know what the problem was with the Biodome? CO2! Something about the concrete floor....

 

I remember sitting in the gas lines in the 70's, listening to radio and waiting my turn to push the ol' yellow '64 VW beetle another 16 feet closer to the pump 3 blocks away. Killing time and pondering the new ice age the climatologists said was coming soon to a city near us. We were outraged that gas, just 25 cents a week before, was now heading up to 35 cents.

 

Actually, I was pondering how we could continue polluting the planet without it reacting in some unforeseen way (I'd just read Silent Spring, and joined Students for Environmental Action at my highschool). I was expecting something like a massive die-off of bees. Silly me.

 

"...the new ice age the climatologists said...." Did they really have climatologists back then? I remember one article in a Newsweek ( and maybe a Nat.Geo.) about a few scientists who thought that if the current brief decline in average temperatures continued, we might head into an ice age. I think they advocated studying things to see if the trend continued, as well as looking into past climate to see if we could learn anything. There was no big "ice age" hype, by thousands of scientist, worldwide, sustained for decades.

...unlike "the nukes [that] were goin' to kill us all;" yes, we don't have that "chicken little alarm" anymore either, do we (he asked rhetorically).

 

First it was an ice age, then it was global warming; and after they learned enough to call it climate change, they learned that there were various natural and anthropogenic components to the phenomenon.

 

Just what is it that you're cynical about? I'm cynical about government's ability to help fix the problem. Disaster Capitalism is too entrenched. It's up to people to save the Creation.

[goku]

if you're really worried about global warming then plant kudzoo on the sides of all the buildings in the cities. plants naturally clean the air.

 

all the oil in the ground was once carbon in the air, no?

[InfiniteNow]

if you're really worried about global warming then plant kudzoo on the sides of all the buildings in the cities. plants naturally clean the air.

 

And precisely how much kudzoo must be planted to keep up with rate of human contributions of CO₂ to the atmosphere? Let's see some numbers and some sources to validate your claims.

 

Your post blatently ignores the scope of the issue. Plants do have an impact on CO₂, but they cannot intake it at the rate we're adding it. Also, studies have shown that plants, due to stomal closure, actually absorb less CO₂ as atmospheric concentrations rise.

 

A further point which counters your suggestion is the fact that human poplulation growth is removing total mean surface area available for the plants... There's just not enough room to plant enough plants to fix the problems we're causing.

 

 

All of that aside, though... how about some numbers and some sources? I'd like to see if you have even the faintest ability to support your claim that "planting kudzoo on the sides of all the buildings in the cities" will be enough to mitigate the risk.

[freeztar]

If you're going to suggest using plants to clean up CO2, Goku, then why choose kudzu? You're from Georgia, right? Surely you've seen the wrath it has caused around here. It's not called the "plant that ate the South" for nothing!

 

But like IN stated, planting more terrestrial plants is not likely to help, given massive deforestation (particularly in the tropics) and conventional agricultural land use.

 

Algae, on the other hand, seems promising for lots of reasons.

[goku]

kudzu, just a thought.

my point is, real things that could be done that are not being done. the people that are screaming it the laudest don't even believe it, al gore.

[Turtle]

Did they really have climatologists back then?

...

Just what is it that you're cynical about? I'm cynical about government's ability to help fix the problem. Disaster Capitalism is too entrenched. :xmas_sheep: It's up to people to save the Creation.

 

Yes of course they had climatologists.

...Perhaps the earliest person to hypothesize the concept of climate change was the medieval Chinese scientist Shen Kuo (1031-1095 AD). Shen Kuo theorized that climates naturally shifted over an enormous span of time, after observing petrified bamboos found underground near Yanzhou (modern day Yan'an, Shaanxi province), a dry climate area unsuitable for the growth of bamboos.

 

Early climate researchers include Edmund Halley, who published a map of the trade winds in 1686, after a voyage to the southern hemisphere. Benjamin Franklin, a renaissance man in the 18th century, was the first to map the course of the Gulf Stream for use in sending mail overseas from the United States to Europe. Francis Galton invented the term anticyclone.[2] Helmut Landsberg led to statistical analysis being used in climatology, which led to its evolution into a physical science. ...

 

I note they left out Ben Franklin, who was the first to identify & map the Gulf Stream. >> Benjamin Franklin - Map of Gulf Stream

 

I won't endeavor to wholly justify my cynicism, but I do agree some of it applies to having confidence in the governments of the world abilities to get things done. Ground up is the better bet I also agree, and to borrow a corporate phrase, just do it. :

 

If you Google terra preta, Hypography is on the first page of results. Check out those threads and all the ones on charcoal here to see what peeps are just doing. :eek:

 

http://hypography.com/forums/terra-preta.html

[CraigD]

if you're really worried about global warming then plant kudzoo on the sides of all the buildings in the cities. plants naturally clean the air.

Having plants store carbon from the atmosphere in their tissue is only part of an effective plant-based means of removing carbon from the air. Unless the plants die and are somehow removed from contact with air, such as being buried in layers of sediment, they simply decay, releasing the carbon back into the air (though you can do useful things with this process, such as burning plant-decay produced methane as a fuel).

 

There are other problems with the specific approach goku proposes

 

Despite some folk tales, kudzu needs somewhat fertile soil. Like any vine-y plant, it’s unwise to plant it near pavement, as it tends to crack it and send vines into drains and conduits. Its vines, while long, are limited in length (about 30 m max according to the linked wikipedia article). It’s messy to clean up after, attracts bugs that aren’t good to have around buildings (personal experience), and would likely get into lots of mechanical and electrical system it shouldn’t.

 

It doesn’t grow well in the cold weather the majority of big US cities get.

 

Compared to forests, cities simply aren’t very big, so while growing a lot of plants in them can improve the local air quality, it doesn’t have much of an impact of the global carbon cycle.

all the oil in the ground was once carbon in the air, no?

Now that’s a thought-provoking question, to which, as best I know, the answer is yes.

 

The most widely accepted (but not the only) theory for where oil comes from is that it comes primarily from sedimented plant, and to a lesser degree, animal tissue. Though they may get some from sources such as the deep earth via carbolic acid in water, I think plants get nearly all of the carbon in their tissues from atmospheric [ce]CO2[/ce].

 

However, it’s important to note that while nearly all the carbon in oil (and the greater amounts in coal) was once in the air, it wasn’t all in the air at the same time. There’s estimated to be about 5,000 billion tons of carbon (GtC) in all the fossil fuels (anywhere from about 30% to 85% of it practically usable), while there’s about 750 GtC in the atmosphere.

 

All of these amounts are miniscule compared to the 40,000 GtC in the deep oceans, and the 170,000,000 GtC estimated to be locked in its crust.

 

With all this data, you can get some fanciful numbers relative to human health and safety:

0.00035 = Current atmospheric [ce]CO2[/ce] concentration

0.00300 = Atmospheric [ce]CO2[/ce] concentration if all fossil and plant fuel suddenly burned

0.00500 = OSHA maximum for prolonged exposure

0.01000 = OSHA maximum for 60 minutes exposure

0.02150 = Atmospheric [ce]CO2[/ce] concentration if oceans vaporized

0.10000 = level causing rapid loss of consciousness (per OSHA)

 

(Sources: Fossil fuel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, Carbon cycle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, Carbon - Encyclopedia of Earth, Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, MSDS for a Argon/CO2 gas)

[Turtle]

....Actually, I was pondering how we could continue polluting the planet without it reacting in some unforeseen way (I'd just read Silent Spring, and joined Students for Environmental Action at my highschool). I was expecting something like a massive die-off of bees. Silly me.

 

"...the new ice age the climatologists said...." Did they really have climatologists back then? [the 70's] I remember one article in a Newsweek ( and maybe a Nat.Geo.) about a few scientists who thought that if the current brief decline in average temperatures continued, we might head into an ice age. I think they advocated studying things to see if the trend continued, as well as looking into past climate to see if we could learn anything. There was no big "ice age" hype, by thousands of scientist, worldwide, sustained for decades. ...

 

Here is a well writ piece that covers the history of climate models in computers, as well explaining what & how they do what they do. ;)

...

Jean-Marc Jancovici : climate change - how can we know what will happen later on ?

...Modelling is a discipline that did not start yesterday : it took its rise in the 60's (the first atmospheric model was implemented on the first computer, the ENIAC). What enabled a soaring of the discipline is more the tremendous increase of the available processing power (and the availability of stallite data to confront model runs to observations) than breakthroughs in physics, what was pretty well known already a couple of decades ago. ...