Sharp Rise In Co2 Levels

[SnowBear]

We just aint been around long enough in my view to know much at all really about this wonderful planet we live on, just when we think we know, or understand something, nature puts a spanner in the works and shows who is boss lol

Just do ya bit, recycle what ya can, be aware of the footprint you leave regarding waste etc, respect the planet as we all have to live here, we all know our future is here on the Earth in our children, the Earth will be what it will be regardless I think of human's trifle attempts to alter or understand it.

I personally am listening less and less to the GW stuff, I dont think its all its cracked up to be, is more to all this than we know or understand.

[Devonian]

FUN FACTS about CARBON DIOXIDE

Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.

...

Incidentally, earth's temperature and CO2 levels today have reached levels similar to a previous interglacial cycle of 120,000 - 140,000 years ago. From beginning to end this cycle lasted about 20,000 years. This is known as the Eemian Interglacial Period and the earth returned to a full-fledged ice age immediately afterward.

regards

BFTP B)

Source please. I have to say it looks like pretty duff stuff to me.

Re the first point. Suppose you have a bath. Every hour you have 90 litres running in and 90 litres being pumped out. OK, the level stays the same. What happens if you add in an extra 6 litres per hour every hour? yes, it fills up.

The point is both natural emission AND sinks of CO2 are vast but effectively (until we peturbed the CO2 cycle) IN BALANCE. But we are adding extra CO2, so that now the atmosphere concentration of CO2 is a third more than it was. Try http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/03/...arf-humans.html

...

And then we have the government. Gordon Brown "We are going to tax 4x4 and suvs because they are the biggest polluters." Can this guy give me a break. Firstly I mike take him seriously if he drove in a fuel efficient car. Has someone told him his big Jag pollutes alot more than quite a few 4x4 and suvs at the moment.

Global Warming. Not a day goes by without someone mentioning it. But what most people dont realise is how easily they percieve Global Warming. Take the heavy snows this month. Already I hear people going on about how can Global warming be happening. But if theres a heat wave its all across the news. GW, GW and more GW!!!

Theres one final thing I would like to add. Nobody these days are taking the number of humans into the equation of Global warming. Day in and day out 6 billion humans are pumping out CO2 and the number of humans is increasing. Wasnt there also a population boom around the 1800-1900 when the amount of CO2 started to increase.

Overall Global Warming is it a myth. Who knows, but there is little disscusion about other greenhouse gases such as methane which are alot more powerful than CO2 but then again everyone has become obessed with CO2.

There is a lot less methane - think about it!

Oh, and I'd find out the difference between weather and climate if I were you. I suggest you work your way through the answers here - http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/

Edited March 23, 2006 by Devonian

[Optimus Prime]

I'm not a fan of the idea that CO2 increasing warmth in the earth (but it does help) I'm more of a fan of the idea that when you clear rainforests you're releasing ancient Carbon Dioxide that is stored and by building huge cities your releasing warmth and pollution into the atmosphere.

[Devonian]

I'm not a fan of the idea that CO2 increasing warmth in the earth (but it does help) I'm more of a fan of the idea that when you clear rainforests you're releasing ancient Carbon Dioxide that is stored and by building huge cities your releasing warmth and pollution into the atmosphere.

The CO2 in trees came from the atmosphere, the CO2 in fossil fuels has been locked away, not involved in the carbon cycle for million of years. So, while chopping trees does add some CO2 (or recycles it quicker), the far greater problem is fossil fuel burning which adds CO2. It the fossil fuel CO2 that's ancient.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Source please. I have to say it looks like pretty duff stuff to me.

That site of yours seems a bit duff. That graph of CO2 seems to be continuing the climb already started prior to 'human' emissions, looks a natural progression to me which fits in with natural cycles. Your analogy of the bath doesn't hold up either does it as CO2 gets recycled and every time it has reached similar levels to today an ice age starts...oh and don't forget the holoceme maximum...what did that have to do with human emissions. Re trees well CO2 has been slowly rising for 18000 years, back then we were a planet of deserts and glaciers with little forestry. Now we have tons more forests /millions of square miles more), yet co2 naturally is still rising? CO2 I believe is of consequence NOT cause of warming. Why has Mars got dry ice (frozen CO2) poles in a CO2 atmosphere.....mmmm something to do with its distance from the sun?

BFTP

Edited March 23, 2006 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[Devonian]

"CO2 I believe is of consequence NOT cause of warming.". Well, if you wont accept one of the most well established facts of this subject, that the rise of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is due to our activities, there isn't much that I can say to convince you.

[osmposm]

Um, Devonian - I may well agree with you more than I do with Blast & Frozen, but you don't have to quote their long posts in full to make your points, really you don't. In fact, by not selecting the particular points you're dealing with, you run the risk of looking like someone who's just blabbering back without really listening in detail. I know that you're not, but there's a danger you could look like that.

It also makes for unnecessarily long and complicated threads !

[Devonian]

Um, Devonian - I may well agree with you more than I do with Blast & Frozen, but you don't have to quote their long posts in full to make your points, really you don't. In fact, by not selecting the particular points you're dealing with, you run the risk of looking like someone who's just blabbering back without really listening in detail. I know that you're not, but there's a danger you could look like that.

It also makes for unnecessarily long and complicated threads !

Yeah, sorry, not quite got the hang of how this board works. I don't, for instance, see why two replys I made got combined into one long post? Seems a bit odd to me, and does make for long posts.

Edit, I've cut the post down a bit B)

Edited March 23, 2006 by Devonian

[Methuselah]

IMO, the analogy of the 'bath' put-forward by Devonian, hits the nail squarely on the head: it takes only a little understanding of inputs, outputs, residence-times and (perhaps) very basic differential calculus, to see exactly where he is coming from???

Sometimes, a very simple mental image can say more than a thousand words!

[trevw]

Theres one final thing I would like to add. Nobody these days are taking the number of humans into the equation of Global warming. Day in and day out 6 billion humans are pumping out CO2 and the number of humans is increasing. Wasnt there also a population boom around the 1800-1900 when the amount of CO2 started to increase.

Not sure that the breathing out of CO2 by humans will have any net effect as it's from respiration and the carbon comes from foodstuff which is ultimately fixed from the atmosphere whether you are talking meat or plants?

The deforestation and changes to planetary albedo caused by a large population probably have more effect.

as for CO2 increases being due to the rise in temps rather than the other way round, this link explains the current situation pretty well I think:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=160#more-160

[Scribbler]

The root cause of global warming was when man lit the first fire.

Ever since then we’ve been adding to the CO2 content of the atmosphere......but.......lots of things go hand-in-hand.

Is the earth warming on a natural cycle?

Are all our emanations of CO2 the cause – or the effect?

Has scrubbing of SO2 helped or hindered?

Are 6 billion humans too many for this world to support?

Is the sun to blame?

Etc, etc.

Isn’t it a bit of a chicken and egg situation now?

Surely, no single cause can be blamed.

C02 may be the cause that everyone talks about but it’s always been there – so why does it seem to get all the blame?

[Methuselah]

I agree that we do not know all the answers, and that natural cycles have had, and will continue to have, a huge impact on Earth's global temperatures, that CO2 is an everpresent atmospheric component...

Having agreed with all that, it's all pretty indisputable really, it's equally indisputable that we are adding additional greenhouse gases to the atmosphere over and above what would otherwise be there. So, in respect to our bit, there can be no chicken and egg situation IMO?

[Scribbler]

Hello Pete – and others

Alright – forget the chicken!

What I’ve been trying to put over is that CO2 seems to be the ONLY atmospheric problem that we have, according to many people.

My thought is that CO2 usually gets ALL the blame and because it’s always been there everyone seems to assume that it is the culprit.

Although we are definitely adding to the CO2 we’re also producing plenty of other pollutants.

What about such things as -

Water vapour.

SO2.

Methane.

Soot (from man-made forest fires as well as natural events such as volcanic eruptions).

CFCs and Freon gas - which we’re still using.

To mention but a few pollutants that have serious effects on our atmosphere.

And my question was – which is cause and which is effect?

In some ways it's pretty obvious as to which is which but sometimes it isn't so clear.

Natural warming? Changes in sunshine levels? 6 billion people? Higher CO2 levels? Clearer or cleaner air? Etc.

[Methuselah]

Hi Scribbler...Thanks for your reply

Don't worry about the chicken-and-egg thing, that is merely a red herring posited by the anti-GW lobbyists, which is designed to muddy the waters and lead to greater confusion...

You are quite correct about all the other pollutants - they are all there and are all important too. But, unless you factor-in increased usage of air-conditioning due to warming, I think it is very hard to dispute that anthropogenic CO2-production per se has an 'adverse' effect on the planet...

One thing that you can trust me on, is that the quantum-mechanical characteristics of CO2 make it a greenhouse gas, not as effective as methane, but a greenhouse gas nevertheless...

Google for CO2, CH4 and infrared radiation. You'll see what I mean...

[SNOW-MAN2006]

And my question was – which is cause and which is effect?

there is no possible definate answer to global ewarming if you all it yet. scientists have one theory, you may have another whilst i might have only a slight differ aswell. we have only got a small time frame in the world existance of weather patterns. #

it is true that c02 is a green house gas but im sure that if c02 is the cause then mother nature would resolve it.

there was a topic about an ice age wether it starts next year or in 10 million years but knowbody knows.

the best thing anyone can do is recyle before we run out of coal and oil which all add to the problem and we can also walk instead of cars etc.

the effect of climate change can be hot summers (2003) or colder winters than 10year trends suggest (2006)

the planet has delicate balances and it will eventually restore itself but we kreeep adding to the problem by cutting down trees that take in the big polluter c02 so we could begin an ice age or we might notice subtle changes in the weather but im afraid very soon, if we continue the way we are going and ice age may become inevitable and global warming may be proven true...

hope that has been a help to you and others on this topic

SNOW-MAN2006

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

"CO2 I believe is of consequence NOT cause of warming.". Well, if you wont accept one of the most well established facts of this subject, that the rise of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is due to our activities, there isn't much that I can say to convince you.

Devonian, please read it again whether we increase or not is not what I raised, where is the established fact that CO2 warms the planet. All that can be stated as fact is that as the planet warms so does CO2, that is the link....causation or consequence?

BFTP

IMO, the analogy of the 'bath' put-forward by Devonian, hits the nail squarely on the head: it takes only a little understanding of inputs, outputs, residence-times and (perhaps) very basic differential calculus, to see exactly where he is coming from???

Sometimes, a very simple mental image can say more than a thousand words!

Peter

It is NOT a good analogy. Baths do not leak so water keeps filling until overflows. The planet absorbs and recycles CO2. Now if you have a colonder and you place it under a fast enough flow then it will fill if the imput is higher than the leakage...that I'd accept. However, it is unlikely that the Earth would overfill as the imput would never be high enough. It has been here before and it has reversed before...I'll stick with that thankyou

But I will accept your opinions, its not mine. My concern is that we are on a tipping point and we must be ready for that. The planet will not keep warming, it never has it went into reversal every single time it got to this point...WITHOUT FAIL

BFTP

Edited March 24, 2006 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[Methuselah]

Hi BFTP mate...

I think that you and I will have to agree to disagree??

[Guest Mike W]

Difference being the planet has never emmited fossil fuels before, but we are. Unless it has and the public has been lied to on that point. basically according to the mass media and goverment scientists, green groups/pro AGW people nature is and was carbon neuteal, but with our fossil fuels, which nature appartly doesn't emmit or ever emmit, we are not carbon neutral in this respect, except of course biologically. [exuse bad spelling.] basically what I'm saying is that the only reason that nature went cold after previous burn out's is becasue it was carbon neutral warm up, so it went down again easily enough, not this time though, unless we use the solutions that are layed on a plate for us, no I don't mean SO2, but some mad money men might.

Edited March 24, 2006 by Mike W

[Guest Mike W]

Oh just to prove I didn't mean SO2 as the solution, I meant the following, the new next-gen Nuclear Power stations that use up alot more of the waste matter and idspose of it alot better and in danger it can cave itself in I believe on one design something like that anyway, Wind Power, Solar Power, Geo-Thermal, producing energy as well as Hydrogen fuel, Bio-fuel mixed with Petrol or Diesel at 50%, Iron Fertilization producing Plankton which sucks up alot of CO2, CO2 trapping, better contraception, but not forced, encouraged, tax incentives etc.

Edited March 24, 2006 by Mike W

[Thundery wintry showers]

The trouble with debating causes of GW is that nothing is absolutely certain. It is possible that the atmosphere may well "leak" CO2.

But if humans are pumping masses of CO2 into the atmosphere, and rises in CO2 have "coincided" with this, then it makes sense to conclude that, at the very least, there is a high probability that the two variables are connected.

It is quite right to say that there are other sources of pollution around, indeed it could be that CO2's input into temperature changes is overstated and some other anthropogenic pollutant contributes the majority of human input. But even if this is the case, it still means that human input is contributing to at least some of the climate changes.

[Devonian]

Peter

It is NOT a good analogy. Baths do not leak so water keeps filling until overflows. The planet absorbs and recycles CO2. Now if you have a colonder and you place it under a fast enough flow then it will fill if the imput is higher than the leakage...that I'd accept. However, it is unlikely that the Earth would overfill as the imput would never be high enough. It has been here before and it has reversed before...I'll stick with that thankyou

But I will accept your opinions, its not mine. My concern is that we are on a tipping point and we must be ready for that. The planet will not keep warming, it never has it went into reversal every single time it got to this point...WITHOUT FAIL

BFTP

You miss the point. The Earth 'IS' overflowing. CO2 conc HAS risen by a third. THis isn't something that can be waved away. Indeed, were it not for thr fact the that sinks (the 'leaks') have managed to remove a good deal of our emissions CO2 would be far higher in Conc thasn it is.

Claiming the Earth 'will not keep warming' might be right, but IT IS NOT where the best science points.

[Methuselah]

Claiming the Earth 'will not keep warming' might be right, but IT IS NOT where the best science points.

In a way that's the rub, D...It takes a long time to gain any real understanding of the scientific principles involved - let alone the myriad points of detail?

IMO, much of the anti-GW lobby's claims come more from a desire to put words onto an emotional state of denial, than from any appreciation of science and how science works? I'm all in favour of people's individual freedom to hold opinions; I'm a tad wary though, when those opinions' inertia effectively blinkers one's desire to find out...

As the old saying goes: the truth will set you free!

[Scribbler]

I'm a tad wary though, when those opinions' inertia effectively blinkers one's desire to find out...

As the old saying goes: the truth will set you free!

Presumably you're saying that people get fixated about their views to the exclusion of other ideas?

An open mind is an enquiring mind.

And it's more fun that way too!

[Methuselah]

Presumably you're saying that people get fixated about their views to the exclusion of other ideas?

An open mind is an enquiring mind.

And it's more fun that way too! :lol:

Yes. That is just what I am saying...

IMO, all of us have preconceived opinions and emotions that hinder our search for knowledge and understanding. My other point is that, IMO, the anti-GW lobby is playing on these, entirely natural feelings, in order to maximize their own short-term profitability?

That said: I guess that my own preconceived (?) cynicism regarding the major polluters is also one of these emotions?

[Scribbler]

It takes a long time to gain any real understanding of the scientific principles involved - let alone the myriad points of detail? :lol:

Interesting point there Pete.

Global warming/change, etc, is something that has happened over such a short period of time that we've no real history to compare it with.

It's almost a case of anyone's guess as to what the future will really hold!