Global warming - stupid question?

[Skippy]

The current theory is that the eruption 200, 000,000 years ago did release a great deal of CO2. This caused the average global temp to rise between 4 and 5 degrees C. That rise in temp did not cause the mass extinction but did cause all the methane on the ocean floor to boil off raising the temp another 5 degrees. thats what killed off 97% of all life on this planet. Humans burning fossil fuels is just like that eruption.

 

Obviously volcanos are contributing and I don't know what VOC's are and no the efforts aren't doing any good.

 

BTW, there is twice as much carbon locked up as methane on the ocean's floors as all the oil, gas, and coal reserves put together in the world.

--Thanks for the data in paragraph 1. Usually people who say that humans are causing global warming will not answer that question, so I wasn't sure.

--VOCs = volatile organic compounds, like methane. As tree sap dries, the VOCs are released (kerosene is a derivative of tree sap)

--If our efforts are doing no good, two questions arise - 1) Are we actually causing the warming and 2) Why are we wasting the effort - it costs many billions of dollars annually.

--How is the methane locked up int the ocean floors and is it harvestable?

[Southtown]

How is the methane locked up int the ocean floors and is it harvestable?

It's frozen into chunks of ice called methane hydrates. That's why an increase of 4-5 °C will cause it to release a bunch of CO2.

“Estimates vary widely, but most experts agree that marine gas hydrates collectively harbor twice as much carbon as do all known natural gas, crude oil and coal deposits on earth.”

— Erwin Suess et al., “Flammable Ice,” Scientific American, Vol. 281, November 1999, p. 78.

As to how we came to have so much of it, there is one theory...

“Sediments, mixed with organic matter and their bacteria, were swept with draining flood waters (think Noah) onto the new ocean floors. These bacteria then fed on the organic matter and produced methane. Since then, much of this methane combined with cold, deep ocean waters to become vast amounts of methane hydrates along coastlines.”

— Dr. Walt Brown, "

Phases of the Hydroplate Theory: Rupture, Flood, Drift, and Recovery

," In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood (7th Edition,) 2001, pp. 32

[Little Bang]

South , you are pretty close to the truth except the methane boils off as CH4 not CO2.

[goku]

if global warming is true consider this:

miles and miles of roads, acres of parking lots, and the heat they give off.

all the air that is trapped in the tires of all the vehicules of the world.

 

air purifying:

i believe the faster the plant grows the more air it purifies, like corn.

the more co2 in the air, the better plants grow.

[Buffy]

miles and miles of roads, acres of parking lots, and the heat they give off.

all the air that is trapped in the tires of all the vehicules of the world.

Light colors reflect heat, dark colors absorb it. Those millions of square miles of asphalt that did not exist a century ago cause more of the sun's energy to be absorbed into the Earth's atmosphere instead of being reflected back out into space. In addition, asphalt stores and re-radiates the heat extremely efficiently, instead of animals and plants that can use it in other ways that do not heat the atmosphere, and the seas that absorb but rapidly dissipate the heat (although increases in sea temps that we see happening now do over the long run increase atmospheric temps).

air purifying: i believe the faster the plant grows the more air it purifies, like corn. the more co2 in the air, the better plants grow.

It does, but only up to a point, above a certain level, plants can't absorb any more CO2 and actually start dying from an overdose. This makes for a very interesting high school science fair experiment. Try growing that plant in a pure CO2 environment and see how "happy" it is!

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[goku]

come on, what about the air in the tires? that's alot of air, did you know that an 18 wheeler has 80psi, or more, of presure in every tire.

[justforfun]

my limited understanding of the earth's climate is that it follows a cycle of warming and cooling. your question; however, raises one of my own:

with all the emphasis being placed on cleaner burning fuels and alternative methods of meeting our economy's energy needs, is there any way to actively reduce the pollution already in our atmosphere? perhaps something like a large, solar powered Ionic Breeze (http://www.sharperimage.com), or are we stuck with planting as many trees as possible?

 

Okay, in the first place the way I understand it trees do not eliminate carbon dioxide; when they die they release it back into the air. I read the book by Whitley Streiber and Art Bell in which they described an increasing cycle of storms culminating ina global superstorm. Whether or not they were correct remains to be seen, but they raised some interesting points. For instance, they said that not only does carbon dioxide heat up our atmosphere, it cools the outer atmosphere so the contrast between the two is increased which increases wind speeds etc.

[Turtle]

For whatever reason the Earth alternates between a warm and wet Eden (e.g., the Carboniferous period) and frozen solid (ice ages). We are ramping up through an interglacial period. It will be warm and wet. Nothing is out of the ordinary. The Atlantic Ocean averages two miles deep, the Pacific Ocean three. What is a foot or two, give or take, compared with 11,000 feet average depth?

 

___Well, someone says this is rhetoric, but I mistook it for partly erroneous sciecne.

 

Bold: The entire Earth was not frozen; the ice sheets didn't even make it as far South as the 45th parallel during the last ice age. Average temperatures in temperate zones dropped only a few degrees.

 

Itallics: In the big scheme of things, this is the case.

 

Underlined: The seas actually were some 200 to 300 feet lower during the height of the last ice age, not just a couple. That's a lot of acreage exposed taking up a lot of heat & growing a lot of biota. If ice continues to melt & seas rise even the 1 or 2 feet mentioned, many coastal communities will flood.

 

___As to Art & Whitley, I have to say they play fast & loose with the facts. If they aren't scaring people, they aren't doing their jobs. While they do interview some top scientists - Michio Kaku eor example - they aren't themselves scientists, but entertainers. :rolleyes:

[goku]

if you filled a canister with CO2 and O2, which would be on the bottom?

[HydrogenBond]

A canister of O2 and CO2 would be uniform due to entropy.

 

The heating and cooling of the surface of the earth is a natural cyclic event of the earth which is well documented. It would appear to me that we should be looking for something within the earth that changes in cycles thereby causing cyclic heating and cooling on the surface. This approach would create a theory which is good for other geological times, rahter than just for a contemporary one shot deal.

 

We know the the surface goes through cyclic changes of temperature. We know the CO2 levels change in cycles. We know the earth's magnetic field reverses periodically. We know the magnetic poles line up with the coldest zones of the earth. We know the core rotates faster than the mantle. We know the solid core appears denser north and south than east to west due to sesimic data. We know the earth is wider at the equator. We know ocean levels have changed. We know the amount of dissolved CO2 in the oceans is pH sensitive. We know critical water can dissolve any minerial allowing water to be continuous from the surface to the mantle. We know that the continental plates are in motion. We know the boundries between the continental plates are distributed at many locations on the surface of the earth including the oceans. We know the spreading of the plates involves hot material coming up from beneath the surface.We know subversion causes cool material to sink beneath surface. We know mountains store potential energy.

[Turtle]

The heating and cooling of the surface of the earth is a natural cyclic event of the earth which is well documented. It would appear to me that we should be looking for something within the earth that changes in cycles thereby causing cyclic heating and cooling on the surface. This approach would create a theory which is good for other geological times, rahter than just for a contemporary one shot deal.

 

___Ask & you shall receive; by this man's work - Robert Felix -, it is underwater volcanism heating the oceans.

http://www.iceagenow.com/

 

___Here is some new evidence of that in Tormod's back yard:

 

http://science.monstersandcritics.com/news/article_1040716.php/Hot_springs_found_in_Norwegian_Sea

____Elsewhere:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Tsunami-risk-from-volcano-belt-experts/2005/07/28/1122143947105.html?oneclick=true

:)

[Turtle]

___New data shows arctic sea ice is steadily decreasing & scientists say if the rate of decline continues all arctic ice may disapear by 2060. Human contribution is at the top of the list as a contributing factor & the system is near a tipping point according to the report. Read the entire article here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4290340.stm

:doh:

[Southtown]

New evidence pointing at an increase in sun intensity over the last few centuries is considered a feasible cause for GW.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/ixnewstop.html

[Turtle]

___Nice link South; while I like the data in my article, I think the conclusion humans have the blame is not supported. I rather go with the idea supported in your link, that this is part of a natural cycle. Either we learn to live with it, or we accept dying with it. It's not like the Sun hasn't brought down civilisations before, e.g. the Anastasi (sp) of the American SW. While some may have survived by exodous, the best current understanding indicates the climate conditions forced it. :doh:

[infamous]

__Either we learn to live with it, or we accept dying with it. :doh:

I love that quote Turtle....................very good, excellent.

[CraigD]

if you filled a canister with CO2 and O2, which would be on the bottom?

At standard “room” temperature and pressure, CO2 has a density of about 1.96 kg/m^3. O2’s is about 1.42. So the CO2 would be at the bottom. (provided you didn’t shake the canister, or other trickery)

 

The STP density of air (which is mostly nitrogen and oxygen) is about 1.2 kg/m^3, so CO2 sinks in air, too, which is why unlike smoke detectors, home CO2 detectors should be placed near the floor, not the ceiling.

[CraigD]

___New data shows arctic sea ice is steadily decreasing & scientists say if the rate of decline continues all arctic ice may disapear by 2060. Human contribution is at the top of the list as a contributing factor & the system is near a tipping point according to the report….

New evidence pointing at an increase in sun intensity over the last few centuries is considered a feasible cause for GW….

… so, human production of greenhouse gasses (CO2, mostly) AND increased solar output are BOTH major causes of increased average surface air temperature.

 

Or, as the article Southtown links to puts it,

Dr Solanki said that the brighter Sun and higher levels of "greenhouse gases", such as carbon dioxide, both contributed to the change in the Earth's temperature but it was impossible to say which had the greater impact.

The article looses me, though, when it goes on to say

The research adds weight to the views of David Bellamy, the conservationist. "Global warming - at least the modern nightmare version - is a myth," he said. "I am sure of it and so are a growing number of scientists. But what is really worrying is that the world's politicians and policy-makers are not.

 

"Instead, they have an unshakeable faith in what has, unfortunately, become one of the central credos of the environmental movement: humans burn fossil fuels, which release increased levels of carbon dioxide - the principal so-called greenhouse gas - into the atmosphere, causing the atmosphere to heat up. They say this is global warming: I say this is poppycock."

Other than this article, I’m unacquainted with the Bellamy’s work, but what I’ve seen of it here leads me to conclude it’s unreasoning and ad hominem. I’m far from convinced that the connection between humans burning fossil fuels and global warming is “poppycock”.