Where is global warming when you need it?

#51
#51
g8terh8ter_eric said:
Sorry got ahead of myself alittle. I meant to say that 94-96% of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere comes from water vapor. CO2 is only about 2-4% and most of that is NATURALLY occurring. Long day sorry.
Click to expand...

OK..no problem.

But, that water vapor is keeping us warm..not preventing us from "sizzling". Without it, we would be much colder. Also, you're totally right about water vapor being the primary greenhouse gas and CO2 concentrations being much lower. But, again, that gets back to the points I made about imbalance. By adding CO2, we are tipping the balance....where will it land?....that's why the science is trying to answer. But...the amount of water vapor in the air isn't going to change much...the oceans will see to that...of course if the earth does heat up, more water vapor will be in the air leading to more heating..another positive feedback. But, ultimately, it's percentage probably won't change all that much. I haven't really looked at that.
 
#52
#52
g8terh8ter_eric said:
So you believe in the Global Cooling scare of the 70s right???
Click to expand...

I've commented on that earlier. I wasn't alive at the time so I will limit what I say on this because I am not as comfortable with the issue. But, from what I have read, those predictions were based on 1) bad models (relative to what we can do today...which still aren't as good as we want them) and 2)aerosol emissions, which have since decreased. It sounds like there was a decrease in the suns output at that time...and maybe we weren't using the sattelites we use today to measure incoming solar flux, so perhaps that was another source of error...the scientists who were working on the issue may have missed it...I don't know.

Who knows..maybe China's rampant aerosol emissions will help cool us a little...and cause all kinds of great acid rain (or are we not believing in that, either?)
 
#53
#53
TennTradition said:
I've commented on that earlier. I wasn't alive at the time so I will limit what I say on this because I am not as comfortable with the issue. But, from what I have read, those predictions were based on 1) bad models (relative to what we can do today...which still aren't as good as we want them) and 2)aerosol emissions, which have since decreased. It sounds like there was a decrease in the suns output at that time...and maybe we weren't using the sattelites we use today to measure incoming solar flux, so perhaps that was another source of error...the scientists who were working on the issue may have missed it...I don't know.

Who knows..maybe China's rampant aerosol emissions will help cool us a little...and cause all kinds of great acid rain (or are we not believing in that, either?)
Click to expand...

No, acid rain affects our great state of Tennessee unfortunately. If you do however BELIEVE in Global Warming then you should know that the temperature WAS cooler back then and the climate changes EVERYDAY so of course it is gonna be warmer. When Global Warming stops and we start cooling then the scientists will all say, "What about that hole in the O-Zone again??". When are we gonna stop trying to fix things we can't control, like the weather??
 
#56
#56
g8terh8ter_eric said:
No, acid rain affects our great state of Tennessee unfortunately. If you do however BELIEVE in Global Warming then you should know that the temperature WAS cooler back then and the climate changes EVERYDAY so of course it is gonna be warmer. When Global Warming stops and we start cooling then the scientists will all say, "What about that hole in the O-Zone again??". When are we gonna stop trying to fix things we can't control, like the weather??
Click to expand...

Would you have believed it if you hadn't seen it - and if the models weren't fully accurate in what areas were going to be affected or how much? Is global warming going to play out the same way...I don't know..do you?

As for climate..it doesn't change every day, year, or probably even decade. Climate defines averages over a longer time period ... but I get your point.

I don't think that the scientific inquiry into global warming is an issue trying to fix the weather. Sure, it the sun may force cooling and the sun may force warming...and we will live with that. The issue is, are we causing ourselves a lot of harm by emitting greenhouse gases that will exacerbate the sun's natural warming (when it happens) to a level that will initiate feedback mechanisms or exceed some threshold that will have consequences we do not want to live with. I think of it as less fixing the "weather" and more of not trying to do ourselves too much harm at some point down the road.
 
#57
#57
g8terh8ter_eric said:
Well for starters, up to 500 people saw Jesus AFTER he died. He cooked breakfast for his disciples AFTER he rose again. He gave the most important sermon EVER, The Sermon on the Mount AFTER HE ROSE. Science has no faith where as religion does. I have believe WHOLE-HEARTEDLY what happened and that Jesus died AND rose again and is my Lord and Savior. So if you actually look at it, do you believe everything you see on the news?? Or do you have faith that what they are saying is correct?? Thing is OWB, are you a man of faith or just a man of facts?? See the Bible is fact to me and I have Faith in what occurred. So are you sure that the Civil War actually happened or are the documents that demonstrate that it did fictional since you can't see it or touch it??
Click to expand...

In other words, you believe that a guy rose from the dead and cooked breakfast for his buddies (because that's what we all do directly after rising from the dead right?), but you find it really really hard to believe that global warming might be taking place.

Whatever...:wacko:
 
#58
#58
TennTradition said:
Would you have believed it if you hadn't seen it - and if the models weren't fully accurate in what areas were going to be affected or how much? Is global warming going to play out the same way...I don't know..do you?

As for climate..it doesn't change every day, year, or probably even decade. Climate defines averages over a longer time period ... but I get your point.

I don't think that the scientific inquiry into global warming is an issue trying to fix the weather. Sure, it the sun may force cooling and the sun may force warming...and we will live with that. The issue is, are we causing ourselves a lot of harm by emitting greenhouse gases that will exacerbate the sun's natural warming (when it happens) to a level that will initiate feedback mechanisms or exceed some threshold that will have consequences we do not want to live with. I think of it as less fixing the "weather" and more of not trying to do ourselves too much harm at some point down the road.
Click to expand...

Sure I do, we will warm and cool just like the Earth has over thousands and millions of years.
 
#60
#60
TennTradition said:
As for steady state...the planet can reach a steady state with regard to CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. General weather won't drive large fluctuations in CO2...really only large natural phenomenon (volcanoes) or solar activity (orbits = heat = oceans giving up CO2). But...when a large perturbation is presented .. you're right if you're saying it takes a long time to get to equilibrium...but there is one (or a perceived one...with only small oscillations...mainly seasonal - again small fluctuations around a general equilibrium)

We are no where near the saturation point for carbon dioxide. It will reach lethal limits before you see pools of CO2 lying around. If you want to see the math, I'll go do the calculation. But, if you want, take my word for it.

Forest fires don't really count for CO2 forcing because any CO2 they release, they will take right back up when they grow again. It is only a short-term affect. That is most of the impetus behind a biofuels market.

As for volcanos...I don't know how much CO2 they release, but I'm sure you're right. I bet it is a lot...and more than we release in any given year. But, volcanoes have probably caused a lot of havoc in the past....havoc that I would rather not bring upon myself.

As for oceans...you can't look at oceans as a large net source of CO2. Yes, when temperatures increase, they will release a lot...and they hold tons...literally. But, it is not like it is an emission. Same way with summer/winter seasons ... the ocean takes it up in the winter, gives it up in the summer...but it really isn't in the same class as volcanoes because there is then give and take.
Click to expand...

Lethal? That is a strong word.

I also think that we are closer to being at equilibium right now than we are to reaching a tipping point in the future.
 
#61
#61
Tenn_Vol_Authority said:
Lethal? That is a strong word.

I also think that we are closer to being at equilibium right now than we are to reaching a tipping point in the future.
Click to expand...

Lethal is an accurate word. Stick your head in a plastic bag and keep breathing. Let's see which happens first, you die or CO2 condenses.
 
#62
#62
TennTradition said:
Forest fires don't really count for CO2 forcing because any CO2 they release, they will take right back up when they grow again. It is only a short-term affect. That is most of the impetus behind a biofuels market.
Click to expand...
BTW, we have been lead to believe that petroleum products are fossil fuels.

Using your logic, can't you say that the CO2 released in the burning of fossil fuels will be removed by future living plants/animals? :ermm:
 
#63
#63
Tenn_Vol_Authority said:
BTW, we have been lead to believe that petroleum products are fossil fuels.

Using your logic, can't you say that the CO2 released in the burning of fossil fuels will be removed by future living plants/animals? :ermm:
Click to expand...

Although I haven't seen specific mention of this, I was actually thinking about that very point when I wrote what you quoted above. I see no reason why this is not true. I think that the problem lies in the transfer mechanisms. Transfer to deep ocean sediment as well as the death of organisms whose decay is actually trapped (and not released as methane..which usally gets oxidized to CO2) is a very slow process. Some of the CO2 released from burning fossil fuels will undoubtedly recycle back...but we are consuming much much faster than this rate. This is in contrast to a fast replacement mechanism like biomass regrowth.
 
#64
#64
TennTradition said:
Although I haven't seen specific mention of this, I was actually thinking about that very point when I wrote what you quoted above. I see no reason why this is not true. I think that the problem lies in the transfer mechanisms. Transfer to deep ocean sediment as well as the death of organisms whose decay is actually trapped (and not released as methane..which usally gets oxidized to CO2) is a very slow process. Some of the CO2 released from burning fossil fuels will undoubtedly recycle back...but we are consuming much much faster than this rate. This is in contrast to a fast replacement mechanism like biomass regrowth.
Click to expand...

EVERY LIVING THING produces CO2 as a byproduct or uses it to live. So cars or our breathing has more to do with CO2 rising?? Tell China to kill half of their population and problem solved...:good!:.
 
#65
#65
g8terh8ter_eric said:
EVERY LIVING THING produces CO2 as a byproduct or uses it to live. So cars or our breathing has more to do with CO2 rising?? Tell China to kill half of their population and problem solved...:good!:.
Click to expand...

With CO2 rising? Yes. The earth was uptaking CO2 at a rate equal to emissions at pre-industrial levels ... except when solar forcing or natural forcings introduced perturbations to the CO2 in the atmosphere (i.e., the sun caused temperatures to rise, so CO2 was released or volcanoes released a lot of CO2...what have you). Animals were releasing CO2...plants were taking it up...and so on. So...CO2 levels aren't rising at this point, they're in equilibrium over hundreds...maybe a thousand years (don't really know the exact timeline). Then, you introduce humans with a new lifestyle, complete with burning all kinds of fossil fuels...then CO2 levels rise. So while humans may account for a small amount of the total flux, they are generally, I think, responsible for most of the rise (this small amount away from equilibrium fluxes). Of course, the sun is a big player in rises as well...but only if solar radiative forcing increases (and we can measure that by sattelite and include that in our understanding).
 
#66
#66
Tell the cows to quit farting!

bgrn803l.jpg
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top