Global Warming is so 90's

[SkyWriting]

SkyWriting, here's what you do:
1) Go to a local grocery store and buy some dry ice
2) Put two good, identical thermometers inside each two identical glass jars
3) Fill one of the jars with dry ice until it fogs over and seal both jars tight with ducts tape/saran wrap
4) Put the two jars outside in the afternoon sun and overnight
5) Read the temperatures of the thermometers in the morning
Let me know which one is warmer.
Premise 1: More CO2 in a closed system = Higher temperature in that closed system
Premise 2: Since 1850, humans have unloaded trillions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere that would have otherwise remained trapped in the form of fossil fuels beneath the ground
Premise 3: The atmosphere is a closed system
Therefore: Humans are responsible, in part, for the observed rise in global temperatures in the last 150 years.
Do you actually think that the economic recession of 2008 and all the housing crises are due to CO2 sanctions?

Only premise #2 may be correct. The earth may be a closed system with respect to carbon, but the atmosphere is not.

"Any process that absorbs carbon from the atmosphere is known as a carbon sink. There are large carbon sinks both in the oceans and on land, such as the absorption of carbon dioxide by plants and plankton during photosynthesis."
Carbon cycle: Carbon sinks - Home - Science Museum

 

[SkyWriting]

Yes, it does. It represents a closed system like the Earth. More CO2 means more heat trapped.

Don't forget cloud cover.

Clouds in the Greenhouse - NASA Science

 

[CabVet]

Only premise #2 may be correct. The earth may be a closed system with respect to carbon, but the atmosphere is not.

"Any process that absorbs carbon from the atmosphere is known as a carbon sink. There are large carbon sinks both in the oceans and on land, such as the absorption of carbon dioxide by plants and plankton during photosynthesis."
Carbon cycle: Carbon sinks - Home - Science Museum

You can simulate that easily, just put carbon sinks (things that absorb carbon) inside your jar that are proportional to those in the atmosphere. Absorbing carbon does not come without cost though, the more carbon the ocean (the largest carbon sink) absorbs, the lower it's pH gets, and this is bad for all life in the ocean. So, even if our carbon emissions don't influence the climate as badly as scientific simulations are making it sound like, they will decrease the pH of the ocean. Ever heard of ocean acidification? But I guess you don't care, you stated earlier that all life on earth is just disposable "food"...

 

[Loudmouth]

Don't forget cloud cover.

Clouds in the Greenhouse - NASA Science

I didn't. The residence time for water vapor in the atmosphere is only 1 to 2 weeks, and the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is a function of temperature, not the other way around. Residence time for CO2 is much longer, anywhere from 5 to 30 years. Water vapor can not drive long term heat absorption. CO2 can.

Going back to the jar experiment, we can put a few inches of water in two jars. One jar we can fill with CO2 and the other jar we will fill with normal air. Water vapor in both containers will reach saturation. Guess what will happen? The jar with CO2 will be warmer than the one without.

 

[Loudmouth]

Only premise #2 may be correct. The earth may be a closed system with respect to carbon, but the atmosphere is not.

"Any process that absorbs carbon from the atmosphere is known as a carbon sink. There are large carbon sinks both in the oceans and on land, such as the absorption of carbon dioxide by plants and plankton during photosynthesis."
Carbon cycle: Carbon sinks - Home - Science Museum

It is quite obvious that we are putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere at a higher rate than carbon sinks can absorb it. This is why we are currently at ~400 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere while CO2 never went much above 300 ppm anywhere in the 450,000 year old ice cores. We also observe that the current increase in CO2 is rich in 13C, the same isotope that is abundant in fossil fuels. Doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that we are causing a drastic increase in CO2 due to burning fossil fuels.

 

[Michael]

Only premise #2 may be correct. The earth may be a closed system with respect to carbon, but the atmosphere is not.

"Any process that absorbs carbon from the atmosphere is known as a carbon sink. There are large carbon sinks both in the oceans and on land, such as the absorption of carbon dioxide by plants and plankton during photosynthesis."
Carbon cycle: Carbon sinks - Home - Science Museum

FYI, it's evidently not quite as simple as we first thought however. It turns out that carbon sequestration is considerably more complex of an issue than we first imagined.

Rising carbon dioxide in atmosphere also speeds carbon loss from forest soils

Elevated levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide accelerate carbon cycling and soil carbon loss in forests, new research led by an Indiana University biologist has found.

 

[SkyWriting]

You can simulate that easily, just put carbon sinks (things that absorb carbon) inside your jar that are proportional to those in the atmosphere. Absorbing carbon does not come without cost though, the more carbon the ocean (the largest carbon sink) absorbs, the lower it's pH gets, and this is bad for all life in the ocean. So, even if our carbon emissions don't influence the climate as badly as scientific simulations are making it sound like, they will decrease the pH of the ocean. Ever heard of ocean acidification? But I guess you don't care, you stated earlier that all life on earth is just disposable "food"...

The past does give a glimpse of our possible future:

"and greenhouse gas concentrations were several times higher than today."

I guess the problem was there were not enough religious-fanatic-scientist-superhumans around who thought they could influence global climate.

 

[CabVet]

The past does give a glimpse of our possible future:

"and greenhouse gas concentrations were several times higher than today."

I guess the problem was there were not enough religious-fanatic-scientist-superhumans around who thought they could influence global climate.

Yepp, a lot of "food" will die, but who cares?

 

[SkyWriting]

Yepp, a lot of "food" will die, but who cares?

I can't control what other people do. Some people learn the easy way, you'll learn...the hard way I guess.

 

[SkyWriting]

FYI, it's evidently not quite as simple as we first thought however. It turns out that carbon sequestration is considerably more complex of an issue than we first imagined. url=http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120710115849.htm]Rising carbon dioxide in atmosphere also speeds carbon loss from forest soils[/url]

I know we don't have a handle on it.

Lot's of people assume things.

 

[CabVet]

I can't control what other people do. Some people learn the easy way, you'll learn...the hard way I guess.

I will learn what? Your truth?

 

[SkyWriting]

I will learn what? Your truth?

What I said.

 

[abysmul]

Interesting article:

Tree-ring study proves that climate was WARMER in Roman and Medieval times than it is in the modern industrial age | Mail Online

Rings in fossilised pine trees have proven that the world was much warmer than previously thought - and the earth has been slowly COOLING for 2,000 years.
Measurements stretching back to 138BC prove that the Earth is slowly cooling due to changes in the distance between the Earth and the sun.
The finding may force scientists to rethink current theories of the impact of global warming.

It is the first time that researchers have been able to accurately measure trends in global temperature over the last two millennia.
Over that time, the world has been getting cooler - and previous estimates, used as the basis for current climate science, are wrong.

 

[Greatcloud]

Interesting article:

Tree-ring study proves that climate was WARMER in Roman and Medieval times than it is in the modern industrial age | Mail Online

Exactly and we did not have an industry to produce CO2 back then so it was natural in that mother nature did it not man.

The MWP was warmer then today or just as warm. I trust the tree ring proxy data to reveal as well as the above poster.

 

[CabVet]

Exactly and we did not have an industry to produce CO2 back then so it was natural in that mother nature did it not man.

The MWP was warmer then today or just as warm. I trust the tree ring proxy data to reveal as well as the above poster.

Yes, by all means, pick and chose the data that agrees with your conclusions. That is how it is done.

 

[Michael]

Yes, by all means, pick and chose the data that agrees with your conclusions. That is how it is done.

Rising carbon dioxide in atmosphere also speeds carbon loss from forest soils

The thing I haven't really seen Greatcloud explain (perhaps I missed it somewhere) is the rising CO2 issue yet. Even if we ignore global warming, the implications of tinkering with our air supply may have some serious repercussions on human evolution, plant life, farm output, etc over the long haul, and may not favor humans at all, particularly at the rate we're literately 'poisoning' our own environment. A sufficient amount of C02 will kill humans.

Buckminster Fuller understood a long time ago that we live on "spaceship Earth", with a common atmosphere, one we are all currently poisoning to unprecedented levels. No ice core sample ever recorded shows these kinds of C02 numbers. What does Greatcloud suggest we do about it?

 

[CabVet]

Rising carbon dioxide in atmosphere also speeds carbon loss from forest soils

The thing I haven't really seen Greatcloud explain (perhaps I missed it somewhere) is the rising CO2 issue yet. Even if we ignore global warming, the implications of tinkering with our air supply may have some serious repercussions on human evolution, plant life, farm output, etc over the long haul, and may not favor humans at all, particularly at the rate we're literately 'poisoning' our own environment. A sufficient amount of C02 will kill humans.

Buckminster Fuller understood a long time ago that we live on "spaceship Earth", with a common atmosphere, one we are all currently poisoning to unprecedented level. No ice core same ever recorded shows these kinds of numbers. What does Greatcloud suggest we do about it?

Exactly, even if the entire climate change thing is a giant liberal conspiracy as he claims it is, dumping CO2 in the atmosphere as we are has many other bad consequences.

Frankly, I don't understand why Christians are not the greenest and most fierce conservationists out there. I mean, if I thought Leonardo da Vinci was God and worshiped him every waking minute of my life I would not like to see anybody burning this:

 

[Michael]

Exactly, even if the entire climate change thing is a giant liberal conspiracy as he claims it is, dumping CO2 in the atmosphere as we are has many other bad consequences.

Frankly, I don't understand why Christians are not the greenest and most fierce conservationists out there. I mean, if I thought Leonardo da Vinci was God and worshiped him every waking minute of my life I would not like to see anybody burning this:

I await Greatcloud's advice.

 

[abysmul]

Yes, by all means, pick and chose the data that agrees with your conclusions. That is how it is done.

This is the exact behavior of the cult of man made global warming: pick and choose, and CREATE the data that agrees with their conclusion. It's been shown time and time again. Oh, and if someone disagrees, trials for high crimes against humanity, strangled in their beds, or even execution!

 

[Michael]

This is the exact behavior of the cult of man made global warming: pick and choose, and CREATE the data that agrees with their conclusion. It's been shown time and time again. Oh, and if someone disagrees, trials for high crimes against humanity, strangled in their beds, or even execution!

I'll grant you that these issues have been oversimplified for a long time and the sun's variable output has also been ignored for a long time. The fact remains that we are poisoning our air supply, and literally putting all life forms at risk due to our own arrogance. Is it really worth it? The sun provides us with all the wind, sun and rain (hydro) power that humans will ever need. It's an electrical generator in fact.

The fact of the matter is that nobody is really talking about or addressing the fact that we can't keep dumping unprecedented amounts of poisons (plural and there are many of them) into our air and water supply. Our reliance upon fossil fuels needs to come to an end sooner rather than later.