Re: We Can't Wish Away Climate Change

You can't wish climate change away, but, as the oil companies found out, you can pay to have it minimalized.

http://cleantechnica.com/2010/02/27/climate-skeptics-leading-scientist-funded-by-dirty-energy/

---

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan

So are humans also causing the polar ice caps to melt on mars? I agree the climate is changing but I don't think mankind is influencing the change.

Quote
DennisW
So are humans also causing the polar ice caps to melt on mars? I agree the climate is changing but I don't think mankind is influencing the change.

Give thinking a shot sometime.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-rutten12-2009dec12,0,2096153.column


Note: Especially insightful is the observation “… that we Americans are, by and large, technologically advanced but scientifically illiterate.” Hence the credence given by many to the mad, nonsensical ravings of people like Limbaugh and the like.

Quote
DennisW
So are humans also causing the polar ice caps to melt on mars?

Gee, could you find a big non sequitur?

Quote

I agree the climate is changing but I don't think mankind is influencing the change.

And you decided this based on your years of study and scientific training?

Quote
DennisW
So are humans also causing the polar ice caps to melt on mars? I agree the climate is changing but I don't think mankind is influencing the change.

No problem with maintaining some good scientific skepticism on any theory. Which of the basic science CO2 studies do you think are flawed?

---

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan

Anyone interested might like to review the >100 yr history of CO2 science. The PDF has the original study from 1896 that postulated and explained a connection between absorption of infrared radiation, predicted terrestrial temperature change, and predicted what effect might happen.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/bib.htm#824

http://wiki.nsdl.org/index.php/PALE:ClassicArticles/GlobalWarming/Article4

http://onramp.nsdl.org/eserv/onramp:17357/n4.Arrhenius1896.pdf

---

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan

In addition, here is a link to a rather decent source of information and commentary provided on an informal basis by workers in the field:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/about/

Quote
DennisW
So are humans also causing the polar ice caps to melt on mars? I agree the climate is changing but I don't think mankind is influencing the change.

Dennis,

It is routine for the polar ice caps on Mars to melt during the course of the Martian year. The Martian south pole generally has more ice than its north pole. At different times of year, depending upon the planet's tilt toward or away from the Sun, one pole will melt while the opposite pole accrets and then this evolution reverses half a Martian year later. The visible Martian ice is mostly frozen carbon dioxide, not water as we know it. While there is water ice on Mars it apparently is located just a few inches beneath the surface in the northern and southern zones. What percentage of this is H2O or CO2 is not certain. Anyway, when the poles melt, not all of it rushes to the opposite pole. Some of it remains suspended in the very thin Martian atmosphere which again is mostly carbon dioxide.

Any attempt to equate climate on Mars with climate on Earth is futile. Other than the fact these two rocky planets rotate on their axis and have north and south poles, they have little else in common as far as present day climate is concerned.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/28/2010 08:17AM by tomdisco.

Quote
DennisW
So are humans also causing the polar ice caps to melt on mars? I agree the climate is changing but I don't think mankind is influencing the change.

Of course not. We don't live on Mars. We are only effecting the climate here on Earth.

Do the math:

Each gallon of gasoline burned in an internal combustion engine produces 19 pounds of CO2.

Now take the global consumption of about 3,000,000,000 gallons of gas per day and multiply.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/28/2010 10:13AM by Dave.

How can, what, probably a billion people effectively having their own little fire
continuously, have any effect on something as big as the planet?

(read this as sarastically as you possibly can)

(btw good stuff tom) (ditto with the gun thread)

---

The science has shown that the earth has been warmer in the past than it is now, Long before cars, burning of fossil fuels, and the industrial revolution. What caused that? The earth changes on it's own without our influence. The warming they are claiming is only percents of a degree. Even the guy that got busted in climate gate admitted that there has been no increase in the last 10-15 years. They have even documented recently that a majority of the weather stations around the US are not up to govt standards. Stations surrounded by asphalt, too close to buildings, near AC exhausts. I don't think they can say man made global warming is settled science yet, there have been too many mistakes made.

Quote
DennisW
The science has shown that the earth has been warmer in the past than it is now, Long before cars, burning of fossil fuels, and the industrial revolution. What caused that? The earth changes on it's own without our influence. The warming they are claiming is only percents of a degree. Even the guy that got busted in climate gate admitted that there has been no increase in the last 10-15 years. They have even documented recently that a majority of the weather stations around the US are not up to govt standards. Stations surrounded by asphalt, too close to buildings, near AC exhausts. I don't think they can say man made global warming is settled science yet, there have been too many mistakes made.

The issue is whether the rate of climate change in the context of the current conditions of the world has occurred before. Do you have some scientific evidence to support your position that the earth's average temperature has changed in the distant past as fast as it appears to have done in the last 200 yrs? It appears that the climate change has occurred much more rapidly than anytime in the past under the current geologic conditions.

---

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan

Plus I think that, without being an alarmist, when there is trend that seems to heading toward a particularly bad scenario it's a good idea to take a proactive stance.

---

Old Dude

Quote
DennisW
The science has shown that the earth has been warmer in the past than it is now,

No one has ever denied that.... well... except for a few religious extremists.

Quote

Long before cars, burning of fossil fuels, and the industrial revolution. What caused that? The earth changes on it's own without our influence.....

This time is different. It's faster than the others. The rest of the excuses you gave were just standard denier boilerplate that has been refuted long ago.

Took awhile to track down an electronic reference.
Note the penultimate paragraph in this 2005 article:
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=19&tstamp=200506



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/28/2010 04:23PM by szalkowski.

According to that article the CO2 in our atmosphere is increasing at the rate of 1.5ppm/year.

The atmospheric concentration is around 350ppm.

CO2 concentrations start having effects around 600ppm.

In a few hundred years our atmosphere will be toxic.

Quote
Dave
According to that article the CO2 in our atmosphere is increasing at the rate of 1.5ppm/year.

The atmospheric concentration is around 350ppm.

CO2 concentrations start having effects around 600ppm.

In a few hundred years our atmosphere will be toxic.

What was the CO2 in ppm was the atmosphere during the Cretaceous?

Quote
Vince
What was the CO2 in ppm was the atmosphere during the Cretaceous?

It was: irrelevant!

There is a huge difference between a CO2 level relative to the greenhouse effect and a level that is toxic to breathe. Don't confuse the two.

---

Old Dude

Quote
mrcondron
There is a huge difference between a CO2 level relative to the greenhouse effect and a level that is toxic to breathe. Don't confuse the two.

I had the numbers wrong. The toxic effects start at concentrations of 10,000 ppm. That's what makes you feel sleepy in a crowded auditorium (the speaker usually doesn't help). That would be a concentration of 1%. 8% would be deadly in a few minutes.

Quote
Dave

Quote
mrcondron
There is a huge difference between a CO2 level relative to the greenhouse effect and a level that is toxic to breathe. Don't confuse the two.

I had the numbers wrong. The toxic effects start at concentrations of 10,000 ppm. That's what makes you feel sleepy in a crowded auditorium (the speaker usually doesn't help). That would be a concentration of 1%. 8% would be deadly in a few minutes.

Not really at 8%. Many people with lung disease walk around with that level of CO2 in their blood (equivalent to about 80mm Hg partial pressure), Not desireable, but not really toxic, as carbon monoxide would be. The main effect of CO2 in the body, from a danger point of view is the acidosis and the reduction of oxygen in the alveoli lungs. It is about as toxic as nitrogen in that regard. Good stuff to think about though.

---

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan

Quote
Vince

Quote
Dave
According to that article the CO2 in our atmosphere is increasing at the rate of 1.5ppm/year.

The atmospheric concentration is around 350ppm.

CO2 concentrations start having effects around 600ppm.

In a few hundred years our atmosphere will be toxic.

What was the CO2 in ppm was the atmosphere during the Cretaceous?

http://www.igsb.uiowa.edu/inforsch/greenhse/grnhouse.htm

The "Cretaceous Greenhouse World" refers to an episode of earth history that lasted from about 110 to 90 million years ago. During this time, submarine volcanic CO2 emissions were released into the atmosphere at rates high enough to cause atmospheric CO2 concentrations in excess of 1,000 ppm. This CO2 buildup resulted from rapid sea-floor spreading related to the breakup and drifting apart of the Earth’s continents2. The buildup lasted for about 10 million years, and the ensuing period of peak warming coincided with an explosive growth in the genetic diversity of flowering plants, social insects, birds, and mammals--organisms that dominate modern terrestrial ecosystems. The consequences of a similar greenhouse buildup occurring over the course of only a few hundred years, however, are likely to be highly disruptive to natural ecosystems. Plants and animals live in zones of predictable temperature and precipitation. If this climate is altered too quickly, the species may not have sufficient time to migrate and adapt.

---

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan

Quote
Vince
What was the CO2 in ppm was the atmosphere during the Cretaceous?

That should be easy to look up. Go ahead and do that and tell us what it was. It's irrelevant though.

Quote
Dave
According to that article the CO2 in our atmosphere is increasing at the rate of 1.5ppm/year.

The atmospheric concentration is around 350ppm.

CO2 concentrations start having effects around 600ppm.

In a few hundred years our atmosphere will be toxic.

Probably not directly toxic to humans. We exhale about 4% CO2 with each breath (40,000 parts per million).

---

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan

Quote
Frank Furter
Probably not directly toxic to humans. We exhale about 4% CO2 with each breath (40,000 parts per million).

From Wikipedia:

CO2 is toxic in higher concentrations: 1% (10,000 ppm) will make some people feel drowsy. Concentrations of 7% to 10% cause dizziness, headache, visual and hearing dysfunction, and unconsciousness within a few minutes to an hour.

It's not that one is inhaling it as opposed to not being able to expire (or whatever the word is for getting rid of unwanted gas through breathing) it due to the relative CO2 "saturation" in the inhaled gases.

---

Old Dude

Quote
eeek

Quote
Frank Furter
Probably not directly toxic to humans. We exhale about 4% CO2 with each breath (40,000 parts per million).

From Wikipedia:

CO2 is toxic in higher concentrations: 1% (10,000 ppm) will make some people feel drowsy. Concentrations of 7% to 10% cause dizziness, headache, visual and hearing dysfunction, and unconsciousness within a few minutes to an hour.

Toxicity usually refers to a damaging or harmful effect. The CO2 CNS effects refers to a narcosis associated with high concentrations in the blood stream. Some guy actually advocated using high CO2 for an anesthetic about 100 years ago. It needs to be about 3 X the normal concentration in the blood to cause surgical anesthesia and there is associated acidosis to deal with when that happens.
As soon as those levels drop the individual will awaken without injury. I don't see how even 1000 parts per million would have any direct effect on human physiology. If CO2 were "toxic" in the usual sense of causing damage, our respiratory tracts would have been injured long ago. The earth will have far more problems from CO2 than direct physiologic injury to mammals.

---

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan

Quote
Frank Furter
there is associated acidosis to deal with when that happens.

But at least you are safe from the Andromeda Strain?

Yet we're talking an increase from .00038 to .00043 as ending the world? Now, c'mon, do you see anything at all approaching the drowsy 1 percent? Anywhere?

Vince,
If things were only that simple. We live in an extraordinarily narrow window that supports our form of life. We need protection from the elements outside of a temperature band of only a few degrees. Our bodies are very intolerant to even minor variations in our environment. Parts per million can kill us while parts per billion degrade us.

---

Old Dude

Quote
mrcondron
If things were only that simple.

But they are. Sarah told us so!

Quote
mrcondron
Vince,
If things were only that simple. We live in an extraordinarily narrow window that supports our form of life. We need protection from the elements outside of a temperature band of only a few degrees. Our bodies are very intolerant to even minor variations in our environment. Parts per million can kill us while parts per billion degrade us.

You have no evidence of this in the current (or even future) climate. None.

Vince,
I don't understand you answer. Could you elaborate a bit for me? Thanks.

---

Old Dude

I swears eye didn't inhale!

---