Global Warming Debate

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

The CO2 balance is delicate. The greenhouse gases we emit might disrupt it and start a downward spiral of climate change. The straw that broke the camel´s back is not an insignificant one.

It's a vicious circle that humans probably helped get started. Global warming induced by us would itself induce even more global warming. Scientists have been saying this for years already.

To sum up - it's fallacy to state that because something is small (human emissions) compared to something else (nature's emissions), the small thing must therefore be insignificant
And it's a fallacy to think that because one thing (heat) can cause a certain event, a second thing (humans) is therefore unable to contribute as well

I dare you to look up how much we contribute then. I want to see the actual numbers from your post. And compare it to natural co2 emissions.

Maybe we DO contribute, but if it was a natural cycle anyways, HOW MUCH do we contribute? Is the contribution dangerous?

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

I dare you to look up how much we contribute then. I want to see the actual numbers from your post. And compare it to natural co2 emissions.

Maybe we DO contribute, but if it was a natural cycle anyways, HOW MUCH do we contribute? Is the contribution dangerous?

You dare me? I thought I made it pretty obvious that your conclusion isn't logical. That is your conclusion that human emissions must be insignificant since they're so small compared to nature's own greenhouse emissions. But oh, if you dare me and all...

These numbers of athmospheric carbon come from the UN report I posted a link to earlier, Livestock's Long Shadow page 85 (which is really page 109), table 3.2

Units are in billion tonnes carbon into the athmosphere per year -

Fossil fuel burning: 4-5

Soil organic matter
oxidation/erosion: 61-62

Respiration from organisms
in the biosphere: 50

Deforestation: 2

Net influx: 117-119


Billion tonnes carbon out of the athmosphere per year -

Incorporation into biosphere
through photosyntesis: 110

Diffusion into oceans: 2.5

Net efflux: 112.5

Given that the net efflux of carbon from the atmosphere is 112.5, we get a net increase of 4.5-6.5 units a year, which equals about fossil fuel usage and deforestation together.
If nature had it's way, there wouldn't be a net increase in atmospheric carbon according to these numbers. However because of humans there is a comparatively small yearly influx of carbon that will eventually lead to a warmer climate.

[hectorberlioz]

There was no 3.5 on page 85...can't seem to find that table. Sure you didn't get the page number wrong?

[Jonathan]

Oh, it seems page number 109 has the number "85" at the bottom right. So page 109 it is.

[hectorberlioz]

What about those numbers underneath "Out of Atmosphere"? Does that refer to the annual dropping of co2/whatever levels in the atmosphere?

[Jonathan]

Yes, and I included the total "Out of Atmosphere" number in my post. As I already said:
Given that the net eflux of carbon from the atmosphere is 112.5, we get a net increase of 4.5-6.5 units a year, which equals about fossil fuel usage and deforestation together.

[hectorberlioz]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0310075412.htm

This article says there is a study that says that the Ice Age was responsible for the low level of CO2 in the atmosphere during that time.
Wouldn't this indicate that when it is warmer, more co2s are naturally sucked up into the atmosphere? My precipitation theory? You know, the water cycle...?

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

One more thing: I have recently heard that co2s rise into the atmosphere BECAUSE of the heat, not the other way around.

This would make sense on some level, wouldn't it? I mean, heat does after all, smoke the water out of your cup. Precipitation anyone?

You're looking at only half the process picture here, hector. (Told you this is a tricky, complex matter. )

A rise in CO2 means a rise in contained heat in the atmosphere, ergo: a rise in temperature. A rise in temperature then triggers a release of more CO2, adding to the effect. The oceans, for example (IIRC), give up CO2 as they warm. (So naturally they'd store more CO2 as they cool, maybe the answer to your remark about the Ice Ages? Haven't checked.) Human CO2 emissions can therefore quite plausibly be 'the straw that broke the camel's back' and send the system off balance and towards global warming.

[hectorberlioz]

But: even so, you can debate to what extent our co2s are working this compared to naturally emitted co2s.

This shows that global warming in previous times was just as bad/not bad as it is today.

[Earniel]

I don't quite see the connection you're making there.

Could be because it's past midnight here and tomorrow's a working day.

I'll be back tomorrow and maybe the brain's more cooperating then.

[hectorberlioz]

You're just trying to get out of your responsibility!!!
Get your behind to the PMing machine this instant young lady...

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0310075412.htm

This article says there is a study that says that the Ice Age was responsible for the low level of CO2 in the atmosphere during that time.
Wouldn't this indicate that when it is warmer, more co2s are naturally sucked up into the atmosphere? My precipitation theory? You know, the water cycle...?

The article doesn't say the Ice Age caused a lowering of CO2 levels. It explains what an impact ice can have on CO2.
CO2 and global temperature seem to rise and fall together. More ice would lower CO2 levels. CO2 would increase ice. There's interdependence and it's not that easy to say which is the cause and which is the result. Ice and CO2 could start a similar spiral like the one I already explained to you about heat and CO2.

Besides, the article doesn't mention any time scale whatsoever. The global warming humans are causing is said to increase temperatures much faster than would be natural, say after an ice age.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

But: even so, you can debate to what extent our co2s are working this compared to naturally emitted co2s.

This shows that global warming in previous times was just as bad/not bad as it is today.

I'll say it again: The CO2 released into and absorbed from the atmosphere would be in balance if nature was the only emittor of greenhouse gases. What matters is the "straw that broke the camel's back", that is human emissions which send it all off-balance.

About global warming previous times, I'll quote what BJ said a few posts back:

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

It should be noted that even if we produced no greenhouse gases, the earth will eventually warm again in the future, just as we will have future ice ages. So, in the long run, the changes are inevitable. But, with greenhouse gas emissions, we are speeding things up dramatically.

[brownjenkins]

Just think about it like smoking cigarettes. We are all going to die one day! (muhahaha ) But, if you smoke, you are very likely to make that day come a whole lot sooner.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

That link is fraudulent.

Sorry, here is the response to El Tel's post:

http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/show...190#post582190

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Isn't water vapor considered a greenhouse gas?

You should remember from our discussion of this a couple of weeks ago that water vapour isn't affected by human activity, but as temperatures rise, so will the amount of water vaour, which in turn will reinforce the temperature rise. It's interesting that what stuck in your mind was "something to undermine the arguments about CO2 and climate change" though....

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

This may just be natural cycle afterall...

As jonathan has shown, there IS a natural cycle, one which we're upsetting by pumping loads of carbon out of the ground and into the atmosphere as CO2.

However, the climate change deniers just take the influx side of the equation and neatly forget about the efflux. Clearly the concept of equilibrium is either beyond their comprehension, or doesn't serve the argument they have pre-selected as the correct one.

[Lief Erikson]

Hector, just to let you know, though I disagree with you about Global Warming, I find it very cool that you've got the guts to take on everybody in this debate .

[Butterbeer]

... kinda like you huh?

(i'm sure there is a mirror gag in there somewhere! ..but i won't say put it down Lief! )

J/k

best, BB


... you know one day Duke S or Sister etc will look in the mirror and work out 'i' comes before 'e' except after 'c' ... with of course probably some exceptions ... eh what Lief?

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

... you know one day Duke S or Sister etc will look in the mirror and work out 'i' comes before 'e' except after 'c' ... with of course probably some exceptions ... eh what Lief?

My spelling is even worse than you fear. I've grown almost accustomed to it.

Someday I'll sit you down and spin some long lies about why.

[Butterbeer]

... homeschooling?

[hectorberlioz]

That i before e stuff should be outlawed. Who came up with that crap?

1) None of the examples of where I should go before E are really that crucial.
Chief and Cheif are pretty darn similar, IMO

2) The I before E thing isn't consistently true enough to make a law of it.

3) Sometimes 'E can look better before I

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

... homeschooling?

Naw. My mother was valedictorian at 16 and a spelling champion.

Actually...maybe that's why.

But I was expensively educated by professionals,mostly. Who couldn't believe that it seemed impossible for me to notice that most people did not spell "necessary" with 4 s'es.

Part of my general indifference to convention... you must surely be able to appreciate that.