Climate Change? Of course. Which way?

Heisenberg said:
In short, the sun was cooler and less intense in the past and demand for co2 was higher, however c02 is not the only driver of climate change. If you wish to read an in depth explanation, go here.

I don't think anyone is taking the position that human are 100% responsible for climate change. In addition, I don't think anyone serious is saying that human contribution is 0%. Nature does a good job of cycling the co2 it makes, unfortunately humans do not. The co2 produced by volcano's and forest fires ect. is easily absorbed back into nature. A good deal of human co2 emissions are also absorbed by nature, maybe as much as half. Unless humans do something to offset the rest, a rise in level seems likely. A rise in co2 level has a direct effect on climate. Again, a more in depth explanation can be found here.

I'll agree with those who say carbon credits are a sham solution. I am not a fan of 'green guilt'. Many people care about the environment and any time there is a subject people feel passionate about, there are scam artists waiting to take advantage. I don't however equate those situations to the whole concept being a fraud. As I said, I think these are fine questions to ask, however when I look at the answers evidence based data gives us, they make sense. When I look at the words of those claiming to be opposition, they don't make sense, they make mistakes.
Click to expand...

...I wish I could find the article - a writer was saying something to the effect of "one year's worth of volcanic output in co2 was equivalent to what we've done as a race." I wonder if that could be substantiated in any way. It could be a stretch, but it sits well in the belly... so-to-speak :)
 
eye exaggerate said:
...I wish I could find the article - a writer was saying something to the effect of "one year's worth of volcanic output in co2 was equivalent to what we've done as a race." I wonder if that could be substantiated in any way. It could be a stretch, but it sits well in the belly... so-to-speak :)
Click to expand...

I would be interested in reading the article, but that doesn't reflect numbers according to the reports by official sources. The USGS site says "Volcanoes release more than 130 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year." The highest number any study has given us for emissions is 319 million tonnes per year. Meanwhile the estimate for human Co2 emissions from fossil fuels per year is 30 billion tonnes. So volcano's produce about 1% of what we do, according to science.
 
What I find fascinating is that while the anthropogenic portion of atmospheric CO2 is only one per cent of the annually exchanged (emitted, resorbed) amount, the quantity of "excess" CO2 staying in despite the release/resorption cycle tracks the amount produced by human use of fossil fuel. This might suggest that the natural cycle was operating at saturation, or it could mean something else.
I've also been fascinated by the clear, close correlation in the ice core data between atmospheric CO2 concentration and global temperature as measured by ice isotope ratios. I DID read somewhere that analysis of those data revealed that CO2 conc. lagged temp. by an average of 800 years. Were it the other way around, I would have no trouble buying the idea that CO2 conc. is a causative factor in global temp. However the data suggest that it is a delayed effect, and that means that I cannot either assign or falsify a causal link between our artificial CO2 spike and global temps.

We could be starting a runaway global warming event that'll raise aggregate surface temps by as much as ten degrees, and that would be a real hardship.
We could be delaying or aborting the onset of a new glacial period ... who's to know?
So i am officially on the fence in this debate.
I will of course welcome links to good, first-run (no cherrypickin blogs, please!) information that would educate me. cn
 
cannabineer said:
What I find fascinating is that while the anthropogenic portion of atmospheric CO2 is only one per cent of the annually exchanged (emitted, resorbed) amount, the quantity of "excess" CO2 staying in despite the release/resorption cycle tracks the amount produced by human use of fossil fuel. This might suggest that the natural cycle was operating at saturation, or it could mean something else.
I've also been fascinated by the clear, close correlation in the ice core data between atmospheric CO2 concentration and global temperature as measured by ice isotope ratios. I DID read somewhere that analysis of those data revealed that CO2 conc. lagged temp. by an average of 800 years. Were it the other way around, I would have no trouble buying the idea that CO2 conc. is a causative factor in global temp. However the data suggest that it is a delayed effect, and that means that I cannot either assign or falsify a causal link between our artificial CO2 spike and global temps.

We could be starting a runaway global warming event that'll raise aggregate surface temps by as much as ten degrees, and that would be a real hardship.
We could be delaying or aborting the onset of a new glacial period ... who's to know?
So i am officially on the fence in this debate.
I will of course welcome links to good, first-run (no cherrypickin blogs, please!) information that would educate me. cn
Click to expand...

...what do people do for their plants, hmmm? :lol: Yikes, that sounds a little 'anunnaki' :shock:
 
Heisenberg said:
I would be interested in reading the article, but that doesn't reflect numbers according to the reports by official sources. The USGS site says "Volcanoes release more than 130 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year." The highest number any study has given us for emissions is 319 million tonnes per year. Meanwhile the estimate for human Co2 emissions from fossil fuels per year is 30 billion tonnes. So volcano's produce about 1% of what we do, according to science.
Click to expand...


...thanks for the info. And, I will see if I can find the article. I'm going to check out more at usgs, they have a pretty cool site to get lost in for a while :)
 
PDO-circulation-patterns.jpg

PDO-index-since-1900.jpg
 
cannabineer said:
What I find fascinating is that while the anthropogenic portion of atmospheric CO2 is only one per cent of the annually exchanged (emitted, resorbed) amount, the quantity of "excess" CO2 staying in despite the release/resorption cycle tracks the amount produced by human use of fossil fuel. This might suggest that the natural cycle was operating at saturation, or it could mean something else.
I've also been fascinated by the clear, close correlation in the ice core data between atmospheric CO2 concentration and global temperature as measured by ice isotope ratios. I DID read somewhere that analysis of those data revealed that CO2 conc. lagged temp. by an average of 800 years. Were it the other way around, I would have no trouble buying the idea that CO2 conc. is a causative factor in global temp. However the data suggest that it is a delayed effect, and that means that I cannot either assign or falsify a causal link between our artificial CO2 spike and global temps.

We could be starting a runaway global warming event that'll raise aggregate surface temps by as much as ten degrees, and that would be a real hardship.
We could be delaying or aborting the onset of a new glacial period ... who's to know?
So i am officially on the fence in this debate.
I will of course welcome links to good, first-run (no cherrypickin blogs, please!) information that would educate me. cn
Click to expand...

I agree that the answers to how much humans contribute and what we can do about it still need a lot of research and sorting through. The bit about past co2 levels lagging behind tempeture rise is accepted science. Here is a bit of explanation of what climatologists make of that.
 
Allow a Forbes article? It's not a blog.

Did CLOUD Just Rain on the Global Warming Parade?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2011/08/25/did-cloud-just-rain-on-the-global-warming-parade/

I'm just a citizen, but....what's being omtted for the popular view by the screamers? I'll proposed this. I know I'm not an ivory tower intellecutal. But, just back of the napkin logic. No agenda.

Greenhouse gases raise air temp
Heat of evaopration builds cloud
Heat doesn't enter the oceans
Clouds increase reflection of solar energy
Closed loop feedback
 
As far as voting among the scientists (all of them?,) a poll, a survey, really. Just remember the ways of power.

According to Dictatorship, by Jennifer Fandel

Saddam Hussein won his last election by 99.96%
 
Doer said:
Allow a Forbes article? It's not a blog.

Did CLOUD Just Rain on the Global Warming Parade?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2011/08/25/did-cloud-just-rain-on-the-global-warming-parade/

I'm just a citizen, but....what's being omtted for the popular view by the screamers? I'll proposed this. I know I'm not an ivory tower intellecutal. But, just back of the napkin logic. No agenda.

Greenhouse gases raise air temp
Heat of evaopration builds cloud
Heat doesn't enter the oceans
Clouds increase reflection of solar energy
Closed loop feedback
Click to expand...

A Forbes article still came from a journalist ... a professional interpreter and repackager. By "first run" I mean that a peer-review process is still inside the horizon. I realize you don't like peer review since it's a package deal with scientific grantsmanship. cn
 
gnostics also say that this is a breath in, and a breath out

Gotta love the gnostics!

But, that's for another discussion. Cheers.
 
cannabineer said:
A Forbes article still came from a journalist ... a professional interpreter and repackager. By "first run" I mean that a peer-review process is still inside the horizon. I realize you don't like peer review since it's a package deal with scientific grantsmanship. cn
Click to expand...

OK, don't mind that at all. Raw feed. I'll see if I can find CLOUD.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top