My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[freeztar]

You forgot one thing... this is about 5% of the CO2 only. Since CO2 makes up only about .0360(source taken from searching "element percentages in atmostphere" on google, clicking first link, then clicking the link on that page).

 

You forgot the percentage sign. It is 0.0365% of the atmosphere calculated by the PPM of CO2 in 1998 shown here.

 

When you find out what percent of CO2 we cause out of all the atmosphere, you find that it we account for 0.000018% of the CO2 in the air.

Your math checks out here. I got 1.825 x 10^-5.

 

So I'm guessing you could change 0.000018% of the air in my room to toxic nerve gas, and I would be okay. If .000018% of my room was filled with ebola... it might be different :phones:

 

I think you are missing the point that InfiniteNow was trying to make.

Just because something is a small percentage of the total does not logically imply that it has no significant effect.

 

Analogies such as nerve gas and ebola are not useful when considering CO2 in the atmosphere. I suggest studying the IPCC data some more. Why do you think they make a connection between a potential 200ppm CO2 increase and the related environmental effects?

[moyself]

We account for 5% of CO2. And also, I'm not an expert as you said in your last line. The warming cycle(yes I am saying it even though you didn't want me to) started in about 1850, which is too early for us to blame the burning of fossil fuels. Also, there has been data recorded that shows that average temperatures were higher than it is now, hundreds of years ago. As for the rapid glacial melting, there are also some glaciers that are actually expanding. There are many websites that explain this... Once I find a good one I will post it.

 

Ok here is one. This site clearly believes in global warming, and they explain that glaciers are affected more by other things that global warming.

 

Global Warming May Trigger Ice Sheet Growth

 

Also, do you have a good website with the IPCC data? If you do it would be helpful

[InfiniteNow]

Also, do you have a good website with the IPCC data? If you do it would be helpful

 

You might check the IPCC website itself.

 

 

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

 

 

 

The reports are split thusly:

 

 

Assessment Report 4 (AR4) - Synthesis Report:

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Working Group I Report "The Physical Science Basis"

 

Working Group I - The Physical Science Basis:

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Working Group I Report "The Physical Science Basis"

 

Working Group II - Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability:

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Working Group II Report "Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability"

 

Working Group III - Mitigation of Climate Change:

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Working Group III Report "Mitigation of Climate Change"

 

 

 

 

Each report is available in Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Spanish, and Russian, and hard copies of the report are available from the Cambridge University Press.

 

Cambridge University Press - IPCC - Climate Change 2007

 

 

 

Click the following link to see a webcast of the press conference with United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon (which took place on November 17, 2007):

 

http://www.ipcc.ch/audio-video/webcast-171107/ipccvideo.wmv

[HydrogenBond]

If you react CO2 with H2O we get H2CO3 or carbonic acid. Here is the scenario. The CO2 gets in the atmosphere and stores energy within its rotational, vibrational and translation degrees of freedom. It is bending, vibrating, rotating and translating as it move in the air. When it hits a H2O molecule, if there is a sticky collision, even if H2CO3 does not form, the linear CO2 molecule changes shape to become closer to triangular H2CO3. The result is the energy in the CO2 is blend off by the water. The reaction is exothermic while just restricting CO2 for a short time saps its energy.

 

As the CO2 collects in the atmosphere, the temperature rises and the amount of water that evaporates also increases. The number of sticky collisions increases, causing the CO2 thermal affect to become nonlinear.

[REASON]

I'm not an expert as you said in your last line.

 

I know you're not. Neither am I. :doh: The difference between us appears to be that I choose to align my beliefs with the opinions of the vast majority of those that are.

 

The warming cycle (yes I am saying it even though you didn't want me to) started in about 1850, which is too early for us to blame the burning of fossil fuels.

 

Also, there has been data recorded that shows that average temperatures were higher than it is now, hundreds of years ago.

 

The issue to me is the rate of increase in the mean global temperature and it's correlation with the increase in the burning of fossil fuels, and the cumulative impact. These rates of increase are accelerating along with the rate of deforestation. Not a good combination. The loss of ice sheets in the polar regions, particularly the Arctic, is simultaneously reducing the amount of solar radiation that is reflected back into space, which is becoming another accelerant to the warming process. It's like a domino effect.

 

As for the rapid glacial melting, there are also some glaciers that are actually expanding. There are many websites that explain this... Once I find a good one I will post it.

 

Ok here is one. This site clearly believes in global warming, and they explain that glaciers are affected more by other things that global warming.

 

Global Warming May Trigger Ice Sheet Growth

 

This is not really a good source for your claim that "some glaciers are actually expanding." The title of the article says, "Global Warming May Trigger Ice Sheet Growth." Observable evidence confirms that there is actually a significant decline in the size of glaciers and Arctic ice sheets that has occurred over a relatively short amount of time. These rapid reductions also correlate with the increase in the average global temperature.

 

 

Arctic Shrinkage - Wikipedia

 

Arctic shrinkage refers to the marked decrease in Arctic sea ice and the observed melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet in recent years. Scientists expect that the Arctic Ocean may become ice-free before 2015, for the first time in more than 700,000 years. Scientists from around the world are studying possible cause and effect factors such as unusual wind patterns, rising Arctic temperatures, or shifting water circulation.

 

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "warming in the Arctic, as indicated by daily maximum and minimum temperatures, has been as great as in any other part of the world." Reduction of the area of Arctic sea ice means less solar energy is reflected back into space, thus accelerating the reduction.

 

 

Retreat of Glaciers Since 1850 - Wikipedia

 

The Little Ice Age was a period from about 1550 to 1850 when the world experienced relatively cooler temperatures compared to the present. Subsequently, until about 1940, glaciers around the world retreated as the climate warmed. Glacial retreat slowed and even reversed, in many cases, between 1950 and 1980 as a slight global cooling occurred. However, since 1980 a significant global warming has led to glacier retreat becoming increasingly rapid and ubiquitous, so much so that some glaciers have disappeared altogether, and the existence of a great number of the remaining glaciers of the world is threatened.

[freeztar]

This is not really a good source for your claim that "some glaciers are actually expanding." The title of the article says, "Global Warming May Trigger Ice Sheet Growth." Observable evidence confirms that there is actually a significant decline in the size of glaciers and Arctic ice sheets that has occurred over a relatively short amount of time. These rapid reductions also correlate with the increase in the average global temperature.

 

Well, in fairness, some glaciers are growing rather than shrinking.

 

FS-001-03--Hubbard Glacier, Alaska: Growing and Advancing in Spite of Global Climate Change and the 1986 and 2002 Russell Lake Outburst Floods

Metro/Regional News - A growing glacier - sacbee.com

 

Warming trends apparently can increase a glacier! This quote from the second source given above explains why.

 

Mount Shasta's Whitney Glacier, the only glacier in the world that's now larger than it was in 1890, according to the California Academy of Sciences. Global warming may explain why, say some scientists, because warmer winter air can carry more moisture, increasing snowfall at higher elevations.

 

An important thing to note though is that these are *local* trends, not *global* trends. While there are isolated cases of glacier growth, there's far more evidence of glacial ablation.

[REASON]

Well, in fairness, some glaciers are growing rather than shrinking.

 

Warming trends apparently can increase a glacier! This quote from the second source given above explains why.

 

An important thing to note though is that these are *local* trends, not *global* trends. While there are isolated cases of glacier growth, there's far more evidence of glacial ablation.

 

What's important to me with this issue is your last statement. Finding examples of glacial expansion should not qualify as a reason, in-and-of itself, to make a claim that global warming is therefore not occurring.

 

To do so, in my estimation, would be like saying global warming can't be occurring because it's really friggin' cold outside today. :phones:

[goku]

al gore, the global warming crusader:lol:

how much does he conserve while flying in his private jet:doh:

 

one must look at what a person says, then look at what that person gets for saying it.

 

i think that a planet's surface temp depends on it's distance from a large ball of fire:evil:

[InfiniteNow]

i think that a planet's surface temp depends on it's distance from a large ball of fire:evil:

 

That statement leaves out several important intermediate details. It's akin to saying that getting laid depends on being born. Well, yeah... sort of, but there's much more to it than that.

[REASON]

al gore, the global warming crusader:lol:

how much does he conserve while flying in his private jet:doh:

 

Well, that explains one reason why they don't believe in global warming.....they don't want to be held to a standard.

 

Thanks, goku, for clearing that one up.

 

one must look at what a person says, then look at what that person gets for saying it.

 

All the more reason not to listen to the pseudoscientists that are on the big oil payroll.

 

i think that a planet's surface temp depends on it's distance from a large ball of fire:evil:

 

There it is! Pack up all your science kits folks, the answer has finally been revealed. :phones:

 

Thanks for this contribution, goku. You've obviously done some impressive research on the matter. This statement must have emanated from the genius half of your split personality.

 

Keep up the good work. :naughty:

[CraigD]

You forgot one thing... this is about 5% of the CO2 only. Since CO2 makes up only about .0360…

It’s important not to confuse carbon with [ce]CO2[/ce], or fraction of gasses by volume with fractions by mass.

 

A single atom of carbon masses about 12 AMU, while a single molecule of [ce]CO2[/ce] masses about 12 +16*2 = 44. So a release of [math]5.5 \times 10^{12} \,\mbox{kg}/\mbox{year}[/math] of Carbon (the 1994 value for fossil fuel and cement) equates to about [math]2 \times 10^{13} \,\mbox{kg}/\mbox{year}[/math] of [ce]CO2[/ce].

 

The total mass of the Earth’s atmosphere is about [math]5 \times 10^{18} \,\mbox{kg}[/math]. About .00015 of it, [math]7.5 \times 10^{14} \,\mbox{kg}[/math] is carbon. About .00055 of it, then, [math]2.8 \times 10^{15} \,\mbox{kg}[/math], is [ce]CO2[/ce].

 

Regardless of whether carbon or [ce]CO2[/ce] is measured, the amount added to the atmosphere every year is about 0.29 of the amount in the atmosphere, which is to say that an “average” molecule of [ce]CO2[ce] remains in the atmosphere for about 3.5 years.

 

The [math]5.5 \times 10^{12} \,\mbox{kg}/\mbox{year}[/math] (1994) to [math]8 \times 10^{12} \,\mbox{kg}/\mbox{year}[/math] (present day) of carbon from fossil fuel and cement is roughtly .025 and .036 of the total carbon added to the atmosphere every year.

 

Sources: wikipedia articles “Earth’s atmosphere”, “carbon cycle”, and links from those articles.

 

The basic problem, I think, with concluding that human-generated carbon emissions are insignificant, is that the other major carbon emitters – vegetation, at about [math]1.216 \times 10^{14} \,\mbox{kg}/\mbox{year}[/math], and the ocean, at about [math]9 \times 10^{13} \,\mbox{kg}/\mbox{year}[/math], are also significant absorbers – about [math]1.213 \times 10^{14} \,\mbox{kg}/\mbox{year}[/math] for vegetation and [math]9.2 \times 10^{13} \,\mbox{kg}/\mbox{year}[/math] for the ocean. If land vegetation or marine biological and chemical sources increase, not only their emissions, but their absorption, increase. This is not true of the usual human sources.

 

Looking at their net emission and absorption, vegetation is about [math]+3 \times 10^{11} \,\mbox{kg}/\mbox{year}[/math], the oceans about [math]-2 \times 10^{12} \,\mbox{kg}/\mbox{year}[/math], and human sources about [math]+8 \times 10^{12} \,\mbox{kg}/\mbox{year}[/math].

 

A serious scientific question about atmospheric carbon quantity is whether natural sources – most promisingly, the ocean – can adapt to absorb the increased emissions from human sources. The scientific consensus is that, without artificial encouragement, it cannot.

 

So the major scientifically credible approaches to controlling atmospheric carbon consists of:

• reducing carbon emissions – the Kyoto accords, etc.
  
• increasing carbon absorption by natural sources – Iron fertilization, etc.
  
• artificially creating new carbon absorbers – commonly called carbon sequestration
  

Some have suggested that if the amount of carbon in the atmosphere is simply allowed to increase with no artificial effort to reduce it, natural sinks such as vegetation and the oceans will increase their rate of absorption to keep the amount at or near the present amount. However, these suggestions have not been supported by experimental evidence, and are contradicted by biological data and experiments that indicate that these sinks require more than just additional [ce]CO2[/ce] to increase their rate of absorption – basically, they would require more nutrients, which can only be supplied artificially.

[freeztar]

Some have suggested that if the amount of carbon in the atmosphere is simply allowed to increase with no artificial effort to reduce it, natural sinks such as vegetation and the oceans will increase their rate of absorption to keep the amount at or near the present amount.

 

I've never heard that argument before. Who has suggested that?

[Turtle]

...Some have suggested that if the amount of carbon in the atmosphere is simply allowed to increase with no artificial effort to reduce it, natural sinks such as vegetation and the oceans will increase their rate of absorption to keep the amount at or near the present amount. However, these suggestions have not been supported by experimental evidence, and are contradicted by biological data and experiments that indicate that these sinks require more than just additional [ce]CO2[/ce] to increase their rate of absorption – basically, they would require more nutrients, which can only be supplied artificially.

 

I've never heard that argument before. Who has suggested that?

 

I have heard this before, and I find experiments contrary to Craig's indication.

 

CO2 Science

...Last of all, working with six 1.5-m-diameter flexible plastic cylinders placed in the littoral zone of the same Lake Hampen (three of which were maintained at ambient CO2 and three of which were enriched to ten times the ambient CO2 concentration), Anderson and Anderson (2006) measured the CO2-induced in situ growth response of a mixture of several species of filamentous freshwater algae (dominated by Zygnema species, but containing some Mougeotia and Spirogyra), as well as an isoetid community of macrophytes (dominated by Littorella uniflora, but containing some Myriophyllum alterniflorum and a few other species). After one full growing season (May to November), they determined that the ten-fold increase in aquatic CO2 enhanced the biomass production of Littorella uniflora by approximately 78%. Simultaneously, the biomass of filamentous algae was also enhanced by the elevated CO2: by 220% in early July, by 90% in mid-August, and by a whopping 3,750% in mid-November. ...

 

I see no indication here of added nutrients.

[freeztar]

I have heard this before, and I find experiments contrary to Craig's indication.

 

CO2 Science

 

Great link! Thanks! :)

The reoccurring theme in this link is that increasing levels of CO2 result in the increased growth of algae and other hydrophytes. This is not surprising at all.

 

The problem is that huge algal blooms are not really desirable (I'm going to pick on algae here). For example, algal blooms can cause hypoxia in lentic systems which can lead to massive ecosystem-scale disruptions.

 

I see no indication here of added nutrients. :hihi:

 

Indeed, nutrient loading can cause algal blooms. Deforestation in the riparian zone can as well. All these things have something in common. ;)

 

The link you provided, Turtle, does seem to tentatively support the idea of "natural sinks such as vegetation and the oceans will increase their rate of absorption to keep the amount at or near the present amount".

 

I'm concerned about the consequences...

[REASON]

The link you provided, Turtle, does seem to tentatively support the idea of "natural sinks such as vegetation and the oceans will increase their rate of absorption to keep the amount at or near the present amount".

 

I must be missing something because if this were true, why wouldn't this adjustment have already taken place to keep the amount of CO2 at the levels they were, say, in the 1970's? What's so special about maintaining the present amount? :hihi:

[Turtle]

I must be missing something because if this were true, why wouldn't this adjustment have already taken place to keep the amount of CO2 at the levels they were, say, in the 1970's? What's so special about maintaining the present amount? :)

 

Now that's a 64 thousand dollar question right there $$$, and one we may want to answer before we decide we know enough to deliberately fiddle with things. Specially given we are casting the blame on ourselves already for what we did by accident. Shame on us dirty human bags of water; evolving and living and all that jazz. :hihi:

 

To offer one possiblity for your question, perhaps deforestation plays a role in the lack of up-keep (keep-up?;) )

 

PS I saw a program on TV last week on outdoor experiments where they pump in extra CO2 to plants. I haven't found that TV program yet, but here is the outfit page that I think is running it. >> FACE Program, Brookhaven National Laboratory, BNL

[freeztar]

I must be missing something because if this were true, why wouldn't this adjustment have already taken place to keep the amount of CO2 at the levels they were, say, in the 1970's? What's so special about maintaining the present amount? :)

 

Good questions.

 

Consider what happens when these massive algal blooms start to die and decay. ;)