NationStates Jolt Archive

For those of you who know me, you know I hesitate to make serious threads. You all seem to handle that fine without my help. I doubly hesitate to make a thread like this that touches on a topic that has been hashed and rehashed to death and back again. I triply hesitate when this thread is probably going to end up diverted away from it's original intention within three pages. That gives me three pages or so to try to get what I'm after.

I'm a global warming skeptic, but not your garden variety type. I don't doubt the hypothesis, I doubt the solution. I don't usually worry about my skepticism because everything reasonable proposed to deal with global climate change is something I agree with anyway for environmental reasons. I'm making an exception because there's some info I'm after. I would never call myself a scientist, but I do have a science background and I've taken it upon myself to do some research and sort through scientific studies and journals in an effort to translate climatology into English. What I'm finding is an informational gap I can't seem to plug.

The gap revolves around this question: What studies have been done to compare the long term impact on climate change by regulating carbon dioxide emissions?

I've seen study after study showing projections of future climate trends if nothing changes, noting to myself that something always changes. What I haven't seen is a projection of climate impact if we do something about global climate change. Now I'm not talking about geoengineering which scares me silly, I'm talking about relatively sane proposals like the European Union's energy policy goal to limit global mean temperature increase to 2ºC. The Earth has natural negative feedback systems for dealing with excessive levels of carbon dioxide. They've worked pretty well so far. What I find myself wondering is if it's in our best interest to have a slow increase in carbon dioxide or a fast increase. I've seen no long-term comparisons of the two as far as triggering Earth's negative feedback trends.

Is it possible that we could make things worse? Considering the history of environmental science, I'd say 'Yep'. So what's being done to make sure we aren't?

I thought the emergency it failed plan was to start polluting again. Its not exactly hard.

Also Carbon Capture and Storage. Let all that CO2 back out again.

I thought the emergency it failed plan was to start polluting again. Its not exactly hard.

Also Carbon Capture and Storage. Let all that CO2 back out again.

Give a Hoot. Pollute!

http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/pubs/misc/tree_care/woodsy.gif

Unless I'm reading this wrong-- so long as we reduce the amount of CO2 we're producing, the Earth's natural CO2 capturing mechanisms (read: trees/plants) will be able to lock the stuff away.

The reason it's currently a problem is because Earth's natural mechanisms can only handle, say, half of the total carbon we put out.

But I've always favored a more pro-active approach to reducing CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

I've just had one of the coldest weeks of my life. There is no global warming. Global atmospheric temperatures had reached their peak in 1998, and it is now cooling down. It is just a term used by politicians to attack big business.

It was getting warmer since 1850, now it is getting colder. It's a cycle, and that is climate change.

Unless I'm reading this wrong-- so long as we reduce the amount of CO2 we're producing, the Earth's natural CO2 capturing mechanisms (read: trees/plants) will be able to lock the stuff away.

The reason it's currently a problem is because Earth's natural mechanisms can only handle, say, half of the total carbon we put out.

But I've always favored a more pro-active approach to reducing CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

Actually, Earth has shown an ability to increase it's ability to absorb more carbon dioxide at faster rates under conditions of excessively high CO2. A good example of these are Oceanic Anoxic Events: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceanic_anoxic_event. They sound ghastly and probably best avoided, but there are a few other less horrible negative feedbacks that kick in. The ocean currently absorbs about 1/3rd of human derived CO2 emissions, but the ocean can absorb a lot more when there's a lot more to absorb.

Augmark, I used to be rather skeptical of Global Warming, but the evidence is somewhat overwhelming these days. We were wrong; legions of scientists and forward-thinking people were right.

LG probably raises a better question: Are we going to bork this further? As an aside, the amount of greenwashing these days is obscene.

i totally agree with the author......at last a person with an analitical mind.....i just wish more people could throw away their blinkers, and see the bigger picture in everything. not everything is doom and gloom......nor is it paradise.

i totally agree with the author......at last a person with an analitical mind.....i just wish more people could throw away their blinkers, and see the bigger picture in everything. not everything is doom and gloom......nor is it paradise.

While I appreciate it, It wasn't meant so much to express my opinion as it was a search for more info. I'm a fairly smart guy in my own unique and disturbing way, but I'm certainly not the smartest or most qualified person to have these thoughts or try to ask and answer these questions. I'm just looking for their work.

While the public does have a tendency to get hooked on these trends, I don't honestly think that we're being blinded to the truth. Climatologists, for all of their hyperbole, seem to gradually be gaining a better handle on the situation and it does appear that we've made quite a mess of things. "What we should do about it" is probably the better question these days, though I doubt that "nothing" is a good answer.

For those of you who know me, you know I hesitate to make serious threads. You all seem to handle that fine without my help. I doubly hesitate to make a thread like this that touches on a topic that has been hashed and rehashed to death and back again. I triply hesitate when this thread is probably going to end up diverted away from it's original intention within three pages. That gives me three pages or so to try to get what I'm after.

I'm a global warming skeptic, but not your garden variety type. I don't doubt the hypothesis, I doubt the solution. I don't usually worry about my skepticism because everything reasonable proposed to deal with global climate change is something I agree with anyway for environmental reasons. I'm making an exception because there's some info I'm after. I would never call myself a scientist, but I do have a science background and I've taken it upon myself to do some research and sort through scientific studies and journals in an effort to translate climatology into English. What I'm finding is an informational gap I can't seem to plug.

The gap revolves around this question: What studies have been done to compare the long term impact on climate change by regulating carbon dioxide emissions?

I've seen study after study showing projections of future climate trends if nothing changes, noting to myself that something always changes. What I haven't seen is a projection of climate impact if we do something about global climate change. Now I'm not talking about geoengineering which scares me silly, I'm talking about relatively sane proposals like the European Union's energy policy goal to limit global mean temperature increase to 2ºC. The Earth has natural negative feedback systems for dealing with excessive levels of carbon dioxide. They've worked pretty well so far. What I find myself wondering is if it's in our best interest to have a slow increase in carbon dioxide or a fast increase. I've seen no long-term comparisons of the two as far as triggering Earth's negative feedback trends.

Is it possible that we could make things worse? Considering the history of environmental science, I'd say 'Yep'. So what's being done to make sure we aren't?

I have absolutely no source, but I particularly remember something along the lines that carbon dioxide has little climate change effect compared to other gasses, I think it was methane which had a huge efffect.

I have absolutely no source, but I particularly remember something along the lines that carbon dioxide has little climate change effect compared to other gasses, I think it was methane which had a huge efffect.

It's a factor of time. Compared to methane and water vapor, CO2 has a relatively small effect, but it remains in the atmosphere for considerably longer having a large effect over time.

I think, and bear in mind that doesn't mean much, that what we're experiencing is an unprecedented rise in Carbon Dioxide.

That's fine where it's a one-off event, the earth can cope with that even if it takes a couple of years - Krakatoa* was still producing sunsets that made John Constable a noted painter a couple of years after eruption, and those sunsets were in the UK - it's that this rise is both sustained as well as increasing. We are also taking away the first front in the battle against CO2 in terms of forest and vegetation.

Point being, I'm not sure there's any comparison to be made since we've never had the sustained release in such quantities over such a period in time, especially in tandem with general environmental destruction.

So a study into the effects of lowering the release of CO2 is like asking what's the difference between beating your testicles with a baseball bat every minute or just once a day, is there the possibility of some unforeseen other damage to your testicles given the reduced battering?

No, not really :)

*May not be Krakatoa, maybe Vesuvius, there's a table somewhere of volcano eruptions during the lifetime of John Constable.

I'm also something of a skeptic on this. Is there a warming trend? Yes. That's confirmed science. Is CO2 the cause? Well...that just isn't as clear.

I have two main questions:

1) Why does CO2 increase seem to follow, not lead, temperature increase?

2) If the CO2/Temperature interaction is as "obvious" as some of the greens have stated, why have we been unable to come up with a model that approximates what we're seeing in the real world?

I think, and bear in mind that doesn't mean much, that what we're experiencing is an unprecedented rise in Carbon Dioxide.

That's fine where it's a one-off event, the earth can cope with that even if it takes a couple of years - Krakatoa was still producing sunsets that made John Constable a noted painter a couple of years after eruption, and those sunsets were in the UK - it's that this rise is both sustained as well as increasing. We are also taking away the first front in the battle against CO2 in terms of forest and vegetation.

Point being, I'm not sure there's any comparison to be made since we've never had the sustained release in such quantities over such a period in time, especially in tandem with general environmental destruction.

So a study into the effects of lowering the release of CO2 is like asking what's the difference between beating your testicles with a baseball bat every minute or just once a day, is there the possibility of some unforeseen other damage to your testicles given the reduced battering?

No, not really :)

On the other hand, of you beat your testicles every minute with a baseball bat, someone will probably do an intervention. If you beat your testicles every day with a baseball bat, someone will probably post it on Youtube. :p

On the other hand, of you beat your testicles every minute with a baseball bat, someone will probably do an intervention. If you beat your testicles every day with a baseball bat, someone will probably post it on Youtube. :p

Indeed, the argument against intervention though is that I'm making money from charging people to watch you have your testicles beaten once a minute.

Why do you hate business?

It's a factor of time. Compared to methane and water vapor, CO2 has a relatively small effect, but it remains in the atmosphere for considerably longer having a large effect over time.

I thought water vapour reflected sunlight instead of letting in through pass the atmosphere?

Don't listen to him, it's all a trap! Once you engage in his 'scientific' discourse, the next thing you know he'll have you observing one of his specimens, a flower, one where its alleged peculiar rate of photosynthesis has significant implications on the theory of climate change. Except he's going to ask you to really examine this specimen -"it's important you see right into the stigma, it reveals important scientific evidence", he says, and then SPLASH, and water is squirted all over your face. He laughs evilly, as you stand there dripping wet, looking like a fool. Don't let him trick you! :p

Indeed, the argument against intervention though is that I'm making money from charging people to watch you have your testicles beaten once a minute.

Why do you hate business?

I like business. I just like my testicles more. :p

Of course, the manufacture of protective cups is big business too. Perhaps they have a vested interest in preventing an intervention also.

You're playing Rugby naked. How much can you possibly love your berries?

I thought water vapour reflected sunlight instead of letting in through pass the atmosphere?

water vapor is a greenhouse gas.

Water vapor accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect, between 36% and 66% for water vapor alone, and between 66% and 85% when factoring in clouds.[6] Water vapor concentrations fluctuate regionally, but human activity does not directly affect water vapor concentrations except at local scales, such as near irrigated fields.

The Clausius-Clapeyron relation establishes that air can hold more water vapor per unit volume when it warms. This and other basic principles indicate that any warming associated with the increased concentration of the other greenhouse gases also increases the concentration of water vapor as well.

In climate matters, when a warming trend results in effects that induce further warming, the process is referred to as a "positive feedback"; when the effects induce cooling, the process is referred to as a "negative feedback". Because water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas and because warm air can hold more water vapor than cooler air, the primary positive feedback involves water vapor.

This positive feedback does not result in runaway global warming because it is offset by negative feedback, which stabilizes average global temperatures. One primary negative feedback is the effect of temperature on emission of infrared radiation: as the temperature of a body increases, the emitted radiation increases with the fourth power of its absolute temperature.[25]

Other important considerations involve water vapor being the only greenhouse gas whose concentration is highly variable in space and time in the atmosphere and the only one that also exists in both liquid and solid phases, frequently changing to and from each of the three phases. Such issues include air and water vapor density interactions when they are the same or different temperatures, the absorption and release of kinetic energy as water evaporates and condenses to and from vapor, and behaviors related to vapor partial pressure. For example, the release of latent heat by rain in the ITCZ drives atmospheric circulation, and the oceans provide evaporative cooling that modulates the greenhouse effect down from estimated 67 °C surface temperature.[26]

The short version of the reason is that the kind of infrared radiation that passes through the water vapor in air on it's way in is different than the kind radiated by the Earth which is reflected back toward the Earth again.

You're playing Rugby naked. How much can you possibly love your berries?

It's tough love. *nod*

water vapor is a greenhouse gas.



The short version of the reason is that the kind of infrared radiation that passes through the water vapor in air on it's way in is different than the kind radiated by the Earth which is reflected back toward the Earth again.

Ah, then the aim is clear, we must rid the world of this water menace! I for one, hope the glorious leader Obama will lead the crusade in destroying this foe!:tongue:

It's tough love. *nod*Neither Jerry Collins nor Tana Umaga would discriminate between your balls and the ball.

Disclaimer: I am an American. I played Rugby while living in Beijing. Those are the only two professional players that I know of (along with a few Cook Islanders -_-). Yes, I realize that they no longer play for the All Blacks. I apologize immensely for displaying my ignorance so openly. You're all wonderful people. Please don't hurt me.

Neither Jerry Collins nor Tana Umaga would discriminate between your balls and the ball.

Disclaimer: I am an American. I played Rugby while living in Beijing. Those are the only two professional players that I know of (along with a few Cook Islanders -_-). Yes, I realize that they no longer play for the All Blacks. I apologize immensely for displaying my ignorance so openly. You're all wonderful people. Please don't hurt me.

You didn't mention Speights. Post fail.

I
2) If the CO2/Temperature interaction is as "obvious" as some of the greens have stated, why have we been unable to come up with a model that approximates what we're seeing in the real world?

Basically, the world is just that damn big, and climate that damn complicated that we can't really model it properly. We're sort of fumbling at it at best.

You didn't mention Speights. Post fail.

See? This is why I fail.

Does it help if I can name every team in J-League football and Celtic FC's current squad?

Basically, the world is just that damn big, and climate that damn complicated that we can't really model it properly. We're sort of fumbling at it at best.

If we can model the El Nino and La Nina effects, raw scale is not the problem. I think there's a lot more to it than just human activity - and unless we try and understand that, we can't be sure we aren't doing more harm than good.

See? This is why I fail.

Does it help if I can name every team in J-League football and Celtic FC's current squad?

To be fair, you can name as many rugby players as I can, and I'm a New Zealander.

Rugby tends to be a sport for overgrown sweaty boys grabbing at each other. Not my thing, really.

To be fair, you can name as many rugby players as I can, and I'm a New Zealander.

Rugby tends to be a sport for overgrown sweaty boys grabbing at each other. Not my thing, really.I'm an American Football fan at heart, though living abroad has shown me that Football (soccer) is a truly beautiful game.

Just not when the LA Galaxy play it. ;)

EDIT: We're also making a mess of LG's thread. Sorry!

To be fair, you can name as many rugby players as I can, and I'm a New Zealander.

Rugby tends to be a sport for overgrown sweaty boys grabbing at each other. Not my thing, really.

Are you sure a New Zealander?

*puts on Wales rugby shirt*

I like business. I just like my testicles more. :p

Of course, the manufacture of protective cups is big business too. Perhaps they have a vested interest in preventing an intervention also.

In order to, possibly tediously, extend the analogy.

See but having to put government legislated - add obligatory big government whine - protective cups in place is an investment that we don't want to make, it'll hurt my next quarter figures, shares fall, rich people become negligibly poorer....

...and how come China, where there's people who'll happily be baseballed in the testicles for free - obligatory protectionist calls despite big government whine contradiction - don't have to follow these rules, just because they're a so-called developing testicles nation...

Ad nauseam...

The threat isn't visible enough for people to want to believe in the facts, some quote about how hard it is to convince someone of being wrong when their pay depends on being wrong.

*accepts another $2 entry fee, signals batsman to continue*

IIRC, any sort of gas can be a 'greenhouse' gas, so long as it's not transparent to IR radiation.

Unless I'm reading this wrong-- so long as we reduce the amount of CO2 we're producing, the Earth's natural CO2 capturing mechanisms (read: trees/plants) will be able to lock the stuff away.


Well, no. The total carbon balance of living being is 0: plants grow (that is, capture carbon), then die and decompose (that is, release carbon), or are eaten and decompose (that is, release carbon).

The problem is that we pumped OUT of the soil a lot of carbon that was stocked underground (coal, petroleum and methane mostly). To reduce CO2 quantity in atmosphere, we should take some rapid-growth plants, cut them before they die and decompose, and stock them in sealed underground compartments... but that is not very feasible.

Well, no. The total carbon balance of living being is 0: plants grow (that is, capture carbon), then die and decompose (that is, release carbon), or are eaten and decompose (that is, release carbon).

The problem is that we pumped OUT of the soil a lot of carbon that was stocked underground (coal, petroleum and methane mostly). To reduce CO2 quantity in atmosphere, we should take some rapid-growth plants, cut them before they die and decompose, and stock them in sealed underground compartments... but that is not very feasible.

And people will only dig it up and burn it in a few millenia anyway.

The Earth has natural negative feedback systems for dealing with excessive levels of carbon dioxide. They've worked pretty well so far. What I find myself wondering is if it's in our best interest to have a slow increase in carbon dioxide or a fast increase. I've seen no long-term comparisons of the two as far as triggering Earth's negative feedback trends.
The question is not whether Earth can recover. It can.

The question is if we'll be able to survive until it recovers. Because that takes a long time, and shakes everyone a lot. Mass extinctions will also involve a large decrease in the human population. Well, on the other hand, it's negative feedback too, right?

So it's better for us not to trigger the negative feedback.

The question is not whether Earth can recover. It can.

The question is if we'll be able to survive until it recovers. Because that takes a long time, and shakes everyone a lot. Mass extinctions will also involve a large decrease in the human population. Well, on the other hand, it's negative feedback too, right?

So it's better for us not to trigger the negative feedback.

Is it? Perhaps the sooner we trigger it, the better. Perhaps slowing the increase in CO2 levels in our atmosphere will actually make Earth's corrective measures more catastrophic. I'm not saying it will, I'm just looking for where scientists have considered the ramifications of maintaining such a proposed high and still gradually increasing production of CO2 instead of a higher increase that would have occurred without intervention.

We're almost past three pages. Then we can go off topic. LG said so.

We're almost past three pages. Then we can go off topic. LG said so.

I'm amazed it held on this long. ;)