What Do We Think About Climate Change

Sure, but science is all about percentages and probabilities.

The question is what is the effect of these "pollutants"? (if they even are pollutants, ie. it is a political statement)

And what is the effect of these "anthropomorphic environmental additives" in comparison to the non-human caused chemicals, physical effects and what not.

6 Billion people is a lot... But how big of an effect is the CO2 we are producing compared to the evaporation of water do to the variation in the brightness of the sun? or compared to the volcanic eruption of a St. Helens or Krakatoa, etc etc. What of the methane production of deadfall in the forests of the world compared to their combustion?

I think a more measured, skeptical, and reasoned approach of looking at the environmental/climate/whatever religion/political/scientific issue is probably a better way to approach things than not.

From my perspective it seems like the more pressing issues are things like using silica fluorides and cyanides for agricultural and industrial applications and dumping these things in the water. Or over fishing our oceans, massive deforestation, depletion of helium reserves, improper nuclear waste disposal/treatment, etc etc.

 

yes, all of those along with the climate

 

We are throwing a lot of pollutants into the air, certainly, but CO2 is not one of them. That's simply food.

If worried about anthropogenic gasses with a more relevant influence in the climate, we should rather be looking at CFC's, because of their significative signature in the stratosphere as we saw several pages back. See post 8325

 

just out of curiosity can we agree on the relative effects of CO2 as a greenhouse gas and its predominance as a greenhouse gas, That water vapor is being forced by temp which in turn is forced by CO2. Also would you agree or disagree on the irrelevance of valcanic activity in the present CO2 record ( there is no substantial shift in concentrations due to any of the recent major eruptions ).



If you were to go back ( not likely I know cause its a huge thread ) and read through you might find that we have already discussed each of these issues extensively

cheers
B

 

CO2 is insignificant and always will be.

 

not according to the vast majority of people who actually study climate

now how could that be

cheers
B

 

By far most of the atmospheric CO2 is a result of its (in)solubility in the ocean. CO2 seems to be a lagging indicator of oceanic temperature. As temperatures rise, more carbon dioxide is outgassed, and it cools more is absorbed. I did a study a few years ago relating to the calculation of dissolved gasses within tissues of scuba divers, on various gasses (varying partial pressures), different tissues, etc etc. Its not climate science by any stretch of the imagination, but the physics is the same.

As a gas.... it is debatable whether CO2 contributes more towards warming or cooling. Even if you ignore the more complicated models and you assume one paradigm over the other... comparatively CO2's contribution is 2nd if not 3rd or 4rth order magnitude compared to a range of other factors.

I agree.. volcanic CO2 is negligible, as is massive forrest fires, cow farts, people breathing, automobiles, airplanes, and factories etc etc. Not to say it is small... it just is irrelevant.

Other chemicals.... however may not be... just the albedo effect of small particulates from a major volcanic eruption can effect local climate conditions for years. Not to mention sulfur and other more complex volcanic emissions.

 

::thumbsup::

I agree, this should be the (a) focus. Not the CO2 nonsense.

Furthermore... preventing "climate change" as a endeavor should be just a tiny tiny part of the larger ecological stewardship that we should be spending our energies on.

Fresh water, fish hatcheries, electricity for developing countries, growing enough food for everyone, preventing pharmaceuticals and pesticides from getting into our food supply, etc etc etc etc. These are the subjects that matter.

 

Ok
And ocean temp is directly tied to atmospheric vapor content. But ocean co2 is dependent today on increases in atmospheric co2 which is driving atmospheric temp which is leading ocean temp. The oceans are the co2 sink that the atmosphere is feeding and if I am understanding you correctly cannot be the present cause in increased levels of atmospheric levels of co2.

In a nut shell I might suggest that co2 is a lagging indicator in ocean temp simply because the temp is rising faster than the rate of mixing

If co2 is a secondary influence on temp then what is it you might suggest is first

Cheers and welcome to the dog pile

 

"The highjacking of this thread with political diatribes is totally annoying for those of us not interested at all in such matters." - I'm sorry as well...that you are too dense to see that AGW is totally political and arrogant enuf to call me out for pointing it out while yourself posting redundant graphs ad nauseam. I suggest you, Guillermo, block my comments if they annoy you so rather than cry to the moderator when the thread does not stay on YOUR path.

Remember the thread title, Jeff. If you want the forum to be about boat design, which I have advocated all along, so be it, but the title of this thread is "What do We Think About Climate Change?" I find it abhorrent that a conservative's argument, that AGW is about leftist control, hence politics, wud be deleted, as establishing motive is instrumental in proving guilt.
Face it - If limited to science, there is so little of it that the thread wud be ten pages...not 599.

 

A completely unsubstantiated throwaway line....I don't know of a single scientist who says CO2 contributes to cooling the planet, rather than to warming it.

 

It seems a physical characteristic of co2 that makes it a greenhouse gas and not some theory. The size of it is what makes it apt to reflect certain wave forms. It's not really open to debate. The mas isotope analysis clearly places the additional 30 percent or so excess co2 in the atmosphere as being fossil fuel based. So given that vapor is dependent on temp and temp is based on a number of things including co2 that if there is no other parameter mirroring the rise in recent temp then logically one would link temp anomalies with the rise in anthropomorphic co2

 

Another completely unsubstantiated statement.

If you left water vapor plus the other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and removed CO2, it would reduce the infrared absorption (greenhouse affect) by 9 percent. If you left the CO2, and removed the water vapor plus the other greenhouse gases, it would only reduce the infrared absorption by 74 percent; the CO2 alone would absorb 26 percent.

Neither number (9 percent or 26 percent) is 'insignificant.'

Why the difference in the two numbers? Because there's overlap in the infrared bandwidths that CO2 and water vapor absorb most efficiently. So the two act as backstops for each other, to a point.

http://monthlyreview.org/080728farley.php

 

Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emission

Apparently you have never heard of the adiabatic theory of atmospheric cooling.

And here is at least 3 scientists.

More if you please.. there are quite a few other scientists, and they have been linked before in this thread.. if you care to read back a to earlier posts, but you probably won't ::snarky::


::see attached file::

Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emission

G. V. CHILINGAR, L. F. KHILYUK, , and O. G. SOROKHTIN


Rudolf W. Gunnerman Energy and Environment Laboratory, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA

Institute of Oceanology of Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia

Abstract The writers investigated the effect of CO2 emission on the temperature of atmosphere. Computations based on the adiabatic theory of greenhouse effect show that increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere results in cooling rather than warming of the Earth’s atmosphere.

Keywords adiabatic theory, CO2 emission, global cooling, global warming

 

Gotta love those Russian 'scientists'....

Adibiatic cooling is cooling due to decreased gaseous pressure. More CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't necessarily translate into less pressure. And according to even the Russian Three Stooges you named, a pure CO2 atmosphere would only be six and a half degrees cooler than it is now. And they don't explain why the 97% CO2 atmosphere of Venus doesn't seem to cool it at all....

I'm not sure what Rudolf W. Gunnerman has to do with climate change. But he seems to be an interesting character indeed:

The charmingly frizzy-haired Dr. Rudolf W. Gunnerman has spent a lifetime touting environmentally friendly-sounding ventures. His mark on the world is perhaps more discernible in courthouses, where indignant lenders and investors have pursued him for years.

In one current complaint in a Manhattan state court, a hedge fund that invested in a prior Gunnerman venture calls him a fraud who never even finished college and who has promoted "a series of failed businesses" based on "bogus technology." In the U.S. District Court of Nevada, another disgruntled investment fund complains that Gunnerman swiped SulphCo's patented technologies from the same prior venture.

Gunnerman has denied the suits' fraud allegations. He wouldn't talk to Barron's, but his son Peter shrugged off the allegations against SulphCo and his father. "Unfortunately, in America anyone can make a claim about anything," said Peter Gunnerman. "I think it's a bunch of baloney."


As for Rudolf Gunnerman's credentials, the son says that schools in Russia and Australia gave his dad honorary degrees. "He goes by 'Dr Gunnerman' only out of respect for the institutions that gave it to him."

What did Rudolf Gunnerman accomplish, to merit honorary degrees? He invented compressed wood briquettes that burn more cleanly than coal. He claimed that he could remove the alcohol from wine, without affecting the taste. In the 1990s, a Gunnerman venture lost $25 million trying to prove that diesel fuel could be improved by diluting it with water.

SULPHCO SECURITIES FILINGS disclose that the Salt Lake City office of the Securities and Exchange Commission spent several years seeking authorization from their Washington, D.C. superiors to bring a securities-fraud suit against Rudolf Gunnerman and SulphCo.

Now, would you happen to know any real scientists who believe CO2 is cooling the planet, instead of warming it?