• Geoengineers Will Release Tons of Sun-Reflecting Chemicals Into the Air Above New Mexico
    94 replies, posted
[QUOTE=DeanWinchester;36845539]I find it funny that everyone jumps on the bandwaggon without analysing everything first, I never said the CO2 concentration wasn't going above normal, but if you notice in that graph other than the temperature variation going up and down at regular intervals it's almost on the same level as it was on the last warm period the Earth had, oh and because I also like to provide sources for my claims: [url]http://inhabitat.com/dinosaur-farts-may-have-caused-the-last-global-warming/[/url] There are plenty others just search google, I'm not saying we shouldn't do something about it, decreasing carbon emissions would be a good thing not only for the environment but for the health of everyone, what I'm saying is that it isn't the major cause of global warming, we're on a warm cycle and methane released by animals helps too. I'm not so sure we should just turn on the "atmospheric air conditioner" without proper research first.[/QUOTE] CO2 levels is RED, not BLUE. RED. That's the firetruck colour.
[QUOTE=DeanWinchester;36845539]I find it funny that everyone jumps on the bandwaggon without analysing everything first, I never said the CO2 concentration wasn't going above normal, but if you notice in that graph other than the temperature variation going up and down at regular intervals it's almost on the same level as it was on the last warm period the Earth had, oh and because I also like to provide sources for my claims: [url]http://inhabitat.com/dinosaur-farts-may-have-caused-the-last-global-warming/[/url] There are plenty others just search google, I'm not saying we shouldn't do something about it, decreasing carbon emissions would be a good thing not only for the environment but for the health of everyone, what I'm saying is that it isn't the major cause of global warming, we're on a warm cycle and methane released by animals helps too. I'm not so sure we should just turn on the "atmospheric air conditioner" without proper research first.[/QUOTE] I actually went and found that [url=http://download.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/PIIS0960982212003296.pdf?intermediate=true]paper[/url] (funny how journalists never actually cite them) 1) The author is not a climate scientist. 2) The paper barely makes mention of modern methane emissions. That emphasis was added afterwards by journalists. 3) The journal it was published in was about biology, not climate science. 4) It was cited by only one later paper, which was not about climate science. It was about the digestive tract of ostriches. 5) The journalists that picked up on it also had no background in climate science. Also compounding this whole issue is that methane eventually (~12 years) oxidises in the atmosphere to make carbon dioxide and water anyway. [editline]20th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Squad;36845624]That graph that shows CO2 going up and then temperature going up is actually a bit weird... When scaled out on that huge scale it looks like CO2 goes up which causes a temperature increase... However, when put on a smaller scale you actually see that temperature goes up and then CO2 is increased. So CO2 increases because of temperature not the other way around.[/QUOTE] [citation needed]
[QUOTE=DeanWinchester;36845539]I find it funny that everyone jumps on the bandwaggon without analysing everything first, I never said the CO2 concentration wasn't going above normal, but if you notice in that graph other than the temperature variation going up and down at regular intervals it's almost on the same level as it was on the last warm period the Earth had, oh and because I also like to provide sources for my claims: [url]http://inhabitat.com/dinosaur-farts-may-have-caused-the-last-global-warming/[/url] There are plenty others just search google, I'm not saying we shouldn't do something about it, decreasing carbon emissions would be a good thing not only for the environment but for the health of everyone, what I'm saying is that it isn't the major cause of global warming, we're on a warm cycle and methane released by animals helps too. I'm not so sure we should just turn on the "atmospheric air conditioner" without proper research first.[/QUOTE] First the article claims it's MORE than current sources, later it shows numbers that it is LESS than todays combined.
[QUOTE=Killuah;36845320] and here is some from Mauna Loa [img]http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/SIOMLOINSITUTHRU2008.JPG[/img] So in about 50 years it raised around 100 ppmv. The last time(before human industry) this happened ( around 30k years ago) it took around 10k years. Now if you look at that, CO2 was at an all-time low at around 180 ppvm that time so we can savely assume that rising the levels of that was even EASIER back when we were still clubbing each other in caves, which makes the comparison even stronger.[/QUOTE] Speaking of: [img]http://i.imgur.com/TAcLe.png[/img]
Yes seawater has rising CO2 levels too so it's even worse than what we can gather just from air data since the water acts as a buffer. A very huge one. [editline]19th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;36845753]I actually went and found that [url=http://download.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/PIIS0960982212003296.pdf?intermediate=true]paper[/url] (funny how journalists never actually cite them) 1) The author is not a climate scientist. 2) The paper makes no mention of modern methane emissions. That was added afterwards by journalists. 3) The journal it was published in was about biology, not climate science. 4) It was cited by only one later paper, which was not about climate science. It was about the digestive tract of ostriches. 5) The journalists that picked up on it also had no background in climate science. [editline]20th July 2012[/editline] [citation needed][/QUOTE] It also makes no relation between Methane LEVELS and Temperature at all, for all I know the dinosaurs could have farted a million times more than estimated if the ecosphere was absorbing the CO2 fast enough.
People are going on about us interfering with the atmosphere as though it isn't something we've been doing since industrialization. Yes, there is a cycle, but there's also overwhelming evidence to suggest we've heated shit up - and any effort to fix that is a good thing.
[QUOTE=Killuah;36845885]Yes seawater has rising CO2 levels too so it's even worse than what we can gather just from air data since the water acts as a buffer. A very huge one. [editline]19th July 2012[/editline] It also makes no relation between Methane LEVELS and Temperature at all, for all I know the dinosaurs could have farted a million times more than estimated if the ecosphere was absorbing the CO2 fast enough.[/QUOTE] And, as the ocean absorbs more CO2 from the atmosphere, it causes the pH to acidify. Take this: (might take a bit to load) [url]ftp://public.sos.noaa.gov/oceans/ocean_acid/ph/media/pH_2views.mov[/url] [quote=NOAA]These datasets shows computer model simulations of surface ocean pH and aragonite saturation state [b]from 1895-2094[/b], with continents and coral reefs marked. (aragonite saturation state, sometimes called ?ar, is commonly used to track ocean acidification because it is a function of carbonate ion concentration.) These datasets show surface ocean pH and aragonite saturation state changes over time. Aragonite is one of the more soluble forms of calcium carbonate but it is widely used by marine calcifiers. Each successive frame shows, in 6-month increments beginning with January 1885 and ending with July 2094, the low-pass filtered monthly mean ?ar or pH of the surface ocean as modeled by the Community Climate System Model 3.1 (CCSM3.1 Doney SC et al. 2009. Skill metrics for confronting global upper ocean ecosystem-biogeochemistry models against field and remote sensing data. JOURNAL OF MARINE SYSTEMS 76(1-2): 95-112). [b]The model simulation is driven with atmospheric emissions based on records of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, for past dates, and the A2 IPCC SRES scenario for future dates (approx. 850 ppm atmospheric CO2 by 2100).[/b] Low-pass filtration removes seasonality and interannual variability with a period of less than 10 years. White indicates no data. A plain-language script for docents is included to help them introduce visitors to ocean acidification and to these particular data.[/quote] [url]http://sos.noaa.gov/Datasets/dataset.php?id=172[/url] You will notice it has a sudden spike around the 1970s, but starts to decline around the turn of the century (1900)
[QUOTE=Killuah;36845743]CO2 levels is RED, not BLUE. RED. That's the firetruck colour.[/QUOTE] And your point is? I'm pretty sure I can read a graph, I said in my post that the CO2 (RED) is going up but the temperate variation (BLUE) is about the same as the other cycles, so I can't comprehend what your point is about me not being able to read the graph.
[QUOTE=OvB;36845997]And, as the ocean absorbs more CO2 from the atmosphere, it causes the pH to acidify. Take this: (might take a bit to load) [url]ftp://public.sos.noaa.gov/oceans/ocean_acid/ph/media/pH_2views.mov[/url] [url]http://sos.noaa.gov/Datasets/dataset.php?id=172[/url] You will notice it has a sudden spike around the 1970s, but starts to decline around the turn of the century (1900)[/QUOTE] We can only hope that this causes some CO2 absorbing algae to grow better although I wouldn't mind living in Waterworld I sure as hell would use that oil tanker better than that one eyed bastard.
[QUOTE=DeanWinchester;36846051][B]And your point is? I'm pretty sure I can read a graph,[/B] I said in my post that the CO2 (RED) is going up but the temperate variation (BLUE) is about the same as the other cycles, so I can't comprehend what your point is about me not being able to read the graph.[/QUOTE] Can you? You sure as hell didn't read that source you posted so you'll understand if we're a bit skeptical.
The carbon cycle naturally occurs over long periods of time. And it always has, right now the atmospheric building of carbon is at its high and it will mostly stay that way on average for years to come. No matter what we do with society, we will always gradually become "cleaner" with our technology. If you don't believe me, then look at how we replaced coal/gas power plants with nuclear ones over the last few decades. And the total atmospheric levels of carbon in most areas have been on the decline for the last few years, if you haven't noticed. Unless we started pumping absolutely everything we had into furnaces all around the world, then China's the country in danger of atmospheric depression/condensing. Of course the carbonic gasses can spread, and that could definitely be an issue. But our temperature levels are fine and will recede come the next few centuries.
[QUOTE=DeanWinchester;36846051]And your point is? I'm pretty sure I can read a graph, I said in my post that the CO2 (RED) is going up but the temperate variation (BLUE) is about the same as the other cycles, so I can't comprehend what your point is about me not being able to read the graph.[/QUOTE] [quote] you notice in that graph [B][I]other than[/I][/B] the temperature variation going up and down at regular intervals it's almost on the same level as it was on the last warm period the Earth had[/quote] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/PZ1nH.gif[/IMG]
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;36845753]I actually went and found that [url=http://download.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/PIIS0960982212003296.pdf?intermediate=true]paper[/url] (funny how journalists never actually cite them) 1) The author is not a climate scientist. 2) The paper barely makes mention of modern methane emissions. That emphasis was added afterwards by journalists. 3) The journal it was published in was about biology, not climate science. 4) It was cited by only one later paper, which was not about climate science. It was about the digestive tract of ostriches. 5) The journalists that picked up on it also had no background in climate science. Also compounding this whole issue is that methane eventually (~12 years) oxidises in the atmosphere to make carbon dioxide and water anyway. [editline]20th July 2012[/editline] [citation needed][/QUOTE] [url]http://fgservices1947.wordpress.com/2008/06/29/co2-is-not-a-greenhouse-gas/[/url] Just one site claiming it. I am not an expert in this field, but I have seen the graphs and data (from other researchers and in person while speaking to them) they make good points and they also have data to back up their points. Are they right? I don't know. Are they wrong? I don't know. Did the graph I was presented make sense with corresponding data to support it? Yes. Conclusion. I don't know as much as experts on global warming or anything like that, but I am open to new ideas.
[QUOTE=Bob_Namg;36846092]The carbon cycle naturally occurs over long periods of time. And it always has, right now the atmospheric building of carbon is at its high and it will mostly stay that way on average for years to come. No matter what we do with society, we will always gradually become "cleaner" with our technology. If you don't believe me, then look at how we replaced coal/gas power plants with nuclear ones over the last few decades. And the total atmospheric levels of carbon in most areas have been on the decline for the last few years, if you haven't noticed. Unless we started pumping absolutely everything we had into furnaces all around the world, then China's the only place in danger of atmospheric depression/condensing.[/QUOTE] yes, no, no, no, especially no, no
You know what's funny about this? If a volcano erupted within this time period, then the atmospheric concentration of carbonic gasses would sharply rise in various areas for a time, showing a small increase on that chart. Think about the latest eruptions, and compare them to this chart around the times of the aftermath of their eruptions.
[QUOTE=Killuah;36846057]We can only hope that this causes some CO2 absorbing algae to grow better although I wouldn't mind living in Waterworld I sure as hell would use that oil tanker better than that one eyed bastard.[/QUOTE] Shame we would all starve to death then, eh. Acidification from CO2 uptake will kill the a major part of the ocean food chain.
Sky will be like in the Matrix Movie
[QUOTE=Squad;36846128][url]http://fgservices1947.wordpress.com/2008/06/29/co2-is-not-a-greenhouse-gas/[/url] Just one site claiming it. I am not an expert in this field, but I have seen the graphs and data (from other researchers and in person while speaking to them) they make good points and they also have data to back up their points. Are they right? I don't know. Are they wrong? I don't know. Did the graph I was presented make sense with corresponding data to support it? Yes. Conclusion. I don't know as much as experts on global warming or anything like that, but I am open to new ideas.[/QUOTE] that's a wordpress blog written by a guy with a political axe to grind. if you want confirmation that CO2 is a greenhouse gas you need look no further than our [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_venus]second-closest astronomical neighbour[/url] [B]the consensus of the scientific community[/B] is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that the current climate change is anthropogenic. of course they might be wrong, but that's a tiny probability, and it's shrinking every day.
I remember reading about this a while ago, it's a small scale version of an idea which would in theory work to "cool" the Earth but would in the process change the color of the sky.
[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;36846079]Can you? You sure as hell didn't read that source you posted so you'll understand if we're a bit skeptical.[/QUOTE] Again, I ask you to point at any time where I denied that the CO2 is rising above normal, I said so in my post, unless you're denying also the fact that the temperature variation (should I place an emphasis on BLUE since everybody here can only see RED apparently) is about the same as the correspondent other warm cycles the earth has had previously, so explain to me how this graph proves that human CO2 output has a direct relation to temperature increases (attention I'm not denying that it does but that it doesn't have as much of an impact as everyone here is claiming). Sure, they are both related, every time the CO2 goes up so does the temperature variation (either that or the other way around) but right now that graph isn't proof of anything other than the normal CO2 emissions + the human CO2 emissions have taken it to a whole new level, however nowhere in the graph does it show an influence on temperature variation even after the CO2 levels rose above their correspondent levels on other periods. I admit I might be wrong, but trying to counter an opinion with ridicule and misreading my posts on purpose won't take you anywhere.
[QUOTE=Bob_Namg;36846178]You know what's funny about this? If a volcano erupted within this time period, then the atmospheric concentration of carbonic gasses would sharply rise in various areas for a time, showing a small increase on that chart. Think about the latest eruptions, and compare them to this chart around the times of the aftermath of their eruptions.[/QUOTE] Congratulations, you don't have any idea about you're talking about.
With the polar caps melted, we'd still have a majority of landmass available. Florida could very well be half underwater in this case, though. [QUOTE=chunkymonkey;36846214]Congratulations, you don't have any idea about you're talking about.[/QUOTE] I may be an idiot, but none of you know any more than I do. THINK about the concept. [QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;36846231]now you're grasping at straws also volcanoes are well known for their cooling effects because of their sulphur output[/QUOTE] They still have a direct output of ash and carbon aswell as many other minerals and sulfur. I'm only talking about the difference of carbon concentration.
[QUOTE=Bob_Namg;36846178]You know what's funny about this? If a volcano erupted within this time period, then the atmospheric concentration of carbonic gasses would sharply rise in various areas for a time, showing a small increase on that chart. Think about the latest eruptions, and compare them to this chart around the times of the aftermath of their eruptions.[/QUOTE] now you're grasping at straws also volcanoes are well known for their cooling effects because of their sulphur output
[QUOTE=Squad;36846128][url]http://fgservices1947.wordpress.com/2008/06/29/co2-is-not-a-greenhouse-gas/[/url] Just one site claiming it. I am not an expert in this field, but I have seen the graphs and data (from other researchers and in person while speaking to them) they make good points and they also have data to back up their points. Are they right? I don't know. Are they wrong? I don't know. Did the graph I was presented make sense with corresponding data to support it? Yes. Conclusion. I don't know as much as experts on global warming or anything like that, but I am open to new ideas.[/QUOTE] Let me reinterpret the graphs a little(because this is heavily bullshitteted interpretation, CO2 is KNOW to shift light wavelenghts from shorter to longer when light transmits) [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/Zb7UB.png[/IMG]
[QUOTE=DeanWinchester;36844953]the methane released by dinosaur feces contributed more to global warming back in those days than the carbon emissions made by our cars, etc does today[/QUOTE] [img]http://localhostr.com/file/sCxsItd/Karl%20Pilkington%20-%20Bullshit%20Man.png[/img] [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Image macro" - Ninja101))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;36846197]that's a wordpress blog written by a guy with a political axe to grind. if you want confirmation that CO2 is a greenhouse gas you need look no further than our [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_venus]second-closest astronomical neighbour[/url] [B]the consensus of the scientific community[/B] is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that the current climate change is anthropogenic. of course they might be wrong, but that's a tiny probability, and it's shrinking every day.[/QUOTE] I work in the scientific community and I can tell you that the consensus of the scientific community on the matter is mixed... I have seen LEGITIMATE scientist RESPECTED in their field promote this kind of information. That was just the first google result I found on it so I didn't waste time making the graph myself.
[QUOTE=Kalibos;36846245][img]http://localhostr.com/file/sCxsItd/Karl%20Pilkington%20-%20Bullshit%20Man.png[/img][/QUOTE] you should probably snip that [editline]20th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Squad;36846255]I work in the scientific community and I can tell you that the consensus of the scientific community on the matter is mixed... I have seen LEGITIMATE scientist RESPECTED in their field promote this kind of information. [/QUOTE] no it isn't mixed at all, it's overwhelming [quote]A scientific consensus is reached when the vast majority of the scientists involved in a discipline broadly agree. When this occurs the case can be considered to have been demonstrated and the burden of proof then falls on those who would dispute the consensus. The following national and international organizations are part of the consensus: National Academy of Sciences (NAS) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) The Royal Society of the UK (RS) Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) And many more. Though some have taken non-committal stances, the vast majority of scientific bodies are convinced by the evidence.[15] In addition, the Pentagon now ranks global warming as a "destabilizing force"[/quote] also what field are you in (genuinely interested)
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;36846262]you should probably snip that [editline]20th July 2012[/editline] no it isn't mixed at all, it's overwhelming[/QUOTE] Ribblett and Ribarzyk ... aanndd you got me. I can only recall two names. Good job. Sorry I don't always remember peoples names at conferences, usually I meet a few hundred people at a time. Hard to keep everyone straight. Also, no need to attack me anymore. I was just offering another view point take it or leave it I don't care.
[QUOTE=Killuah;36846116][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/PZ1nH.gif[/IMG][/QUOTE] And here we go again, you can keep at it and I'm still gonna laugh it off because I never denied the CO2 levels are above normal, however there is no relation between the levels above normal and an influence on temperature variation, as we can see on the other cycles, maybe you should look at the other part of the graph and not only the part that interests you. I'll put it simple: There is relationship that goes one of two ways: - Temperature variation rises as a result of CO2 increase. - CO2 rises as a result of temperature variation. From looking at what has happened for 90% of the graph we can't be sure but then (wait for it we're getting to your favorite part of the graph): CO2 goes off the charts, which is to be expected as we're adding the human caused CO2 emissions. Temperature variation stays the same however. Conclusion? So far it seems that the temperature variation is not affected by the non-human CO2 emissions but the other way around, the CO2 is above normal because we have the human factor added into the equation but SO FAR there is no influence from the CO2 observed ON the temperature variation, not on that graph at least. May I also note that the temperature was already rising before we came into the equation.
-snip- Edit: Just realized the chart has human interaction added on. You do realize that that still makes no difference in temperature? Second Edit: And that the chart even shows the same?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.