RobBob Posted October 10, 2003 Share Posted October 10, 2003 read this abstract and comment Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted October 10, 2003 Share Posted October 10, 2003 First of all, DFA is not at this moment interested in digesting an eight-page treatise on C02, but right off the bat this scientist guy is pushing one of the lamest myths out there regarding energy use/production, i.e. that pursuing clean energy is somehow going to wreck the economy of any country foolish enough to dabble in it. For some reason, we celebrate entrepreneurs, new ideas, new developments, etc. (computer industry, anyone? The shit changes every five minutes, and hey, it's making dough like mad), yet any talk of changing our means of energy production and use brings up this backward notion that developing new technologies is going to stifle growth. How re-engineering and re-tooling an entire country's (or planet's) energy production infrastructure, automobile technology, etc. would result in adverse economic effects is baffling. You're talking about a lot of work and a lot of new shit being manufactured. Someone's gotta do it, someone's gotta pay for it, someone's gotta make money on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobBob Posted October 10, 2003 Author Share Posted October 10, 2003 I am interested in the question of whether, politics or personal motivations aside, the scientists most qualified to determine a clear link between CO2 buildup and atmospheric warming really believe that such a link exists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted October 10, 2003 Share Posted October 10, 2003 http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/global_warming/page.cfm?pageID=499 Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine The Marshall Institute co-sponsored with the OISM a deceptive campaign -- known as the Petition Project -- to undermine and discredit the scientific authority of the IPCC and to oppose the Kyoto Protocol. Early in the spring of 1998, thousands of scientists around the country received a mass mailing urging them to sign a petition calling on the government to reject the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was accompanied by other pieces including an article formatted to mimic the journal of the National Academy of Sciences. Subsequent research revealed that the article had not been peer-reviewed, nor published, nor even accepted for publication in that journal and the Academy released a strong statement disclaiming any connection to this effort and reaffirming the reality of climate change. The Petition resurfaced in 2001. Spin: There is no scientific basis for claims about global warming. IPCC is a hoax. Kyoto is flawed. Funding: Petition was funded by private sources. Affiliated Individuals: Arthur B. Robinson, Sallie L. Baliunas, Frederick Seitz George Marshall Institute [ http://www.marshall.org ] This conservative think tank shifted its focus from Star Wars to climate change in the late 1980s. In 1989, the Marshall Institute released a report claiming that "cyclical variations in the intensity of the sun would offset any climate change associated with elevated greenhouse gases." Though refuted by the IPCC, the report was very influential in influencing the Bush Sr. Administration s climate change policy. The Marshall Institute has since published numerous reports downplaying the severity of global climate change. Spin: Blame the Sun. The Kyoto Protocol is fatally flawed. Affiliated Individuals: Sallie Baliunas, an astrophysicist from Harvard; and Frederick Seitz. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted October 10, 2003 Share Posted October 10, 2003 I woke up and it was cold this morning. Almost frost on the pumpkin. So much for global warming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-rock Posted October 10, 2003 Share Posted October 10, 2003 I wonder how many of those Ph.D's who have signed the petition have degrees in economics or foreign affairs. Furthermore, upon skimming the names on the petition for washington state, I could find no Earth and Space Scientists, or Atmospheric Scientist here at UW (leaders in the field of climate change) who signed it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted October 10, 2003 Share Posted October 10, 2003 all I gotta say is, "horseshit Dorothy" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Formaldehead Posted October 10, 2003 Share Posted October 10, 2003 Ready? In early earth history, there was extreme vulcanism, which helped to create atomspheric conditions that included high levels of CO2. It is known that CO2 is an atmospheric gas that can contribute to global warming. Early flora and mega-flora fixed the CO2 into cellulose. This reduced the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. It also increased the concentration of O2 (Lucky you. The atmosphere went from anaerobic to aerobic.). The cellulose from the mega-flora eventually made it's way to becoming part of sedimentary rocks. Heat and pressure has turned the cellulose into crude oil , coal, and natural gas. These "fossil fuels" (which are mostly dead plants, not dead dinosaurs) are extracted from the sedimentary rocks and combusted, releasing CO2. So, by continuing to burn fossil fuels, we are, in effect, re-establishing the atmospheric conditions that existed during the earlier period of high vulcanism. The earth was once a much warmer place, but the plants took the CO2 out of the air, and it cooled off. Now, we are putting the CO2 back into the atmosphere, and it's warming up again. Questions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted October 10, 2003 Share Posted October 10, 2003 that why we don't get much snow at sea level anymore? my grandpa told me they used to get 15' in Oso back in the 20's Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Formaldehead Posted October 10, 2003 Share Posted October 10, 2003 trask said: I woke up and it was cold this morning. Almost frost on the pumpkin. So much for global warming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted October 10, 2003 Share Posted October 10, 2003 Formaldehead said: trask said: I woke up and it was cold this morning. Almost frost on the pumpkin. So much for global warming. "would I do that?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted October 10, 2003 Share Posted October 10, 2003 E-rock said: I wonder how many of those Ph.D's who have signed the petition have degrees in economics or foreign affairs. good question. i just entered ~15 randomly chosen names in google and could not find a single earth/climate scientist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scrambler Posted October 10, 2003 Share Posted October 10, 2003 Formaldehead said: Ready? In early earth history, there was extreme vulcanism, which helped to create atomspheric conditions that included high levels of CO2. It is known that CO2 is an atmospheric gas that can contribute to global warming. Early flora and mega-flora fixed the CO2 into cellulose. This reduced the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. It also increased the concentration of O2 (Lucky you. The atmosphere went from anaerobic to aerobic.). The cellulose from the mega-flora eventually made it's way to becoming part of sedimentary rocks. Heat and pressure has turned the cellulose into crude oil , coal, and natural gas. These "fossil fuels" (which are mostly dead plants, not dead dinosaurs) are extracted from the sedimentary rocks and combusted, releasing CO2. So, by continuing to burn fossil fuels, we are, in effect, re-establishing the atmospheric conditions that existed during the earlier period of high vulcanism. The earth was once a much warmer place, but the plants took the CO2 out of the air, and it cooled off. Now, we are putting the CO2 back into the atmosphere, and it's warming up again. Questions? There are cyclic variations and an overall secular trend in atmospheric composition throughout earth history. You're talking about the secular trend or the overall decrease in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere with preferential enrichment of oxygen. This is accomplished by two feedback loops. One loop or mechanism is driven by inorganic processes involving the weathering of continental rock. The other loop is based on organic life and is subject to change through evolution. With regard to the latter loop, plants have become more efficient at carbon burial. The first land plants to appear were C3 plants or conifers (gymnosperms). C4 plants or flowering plants (angiosperms) appeared later. Most organically driven carbon burial, however, occurs in the ocean at upwelling areas. Plankton (sea plants) are the most efficient biological agents of carbon burial. Limestone is largely formed of the accumulated detritus of plankton skeletons. Some scientists have suggested 'seeding' the ocean with nutrients such as iron to enhance the growth and productivity of plankton production. Conceivably, we could enhance Nature's own process. Alternatively, scientists could develop a more efficient 'bug', one that allows an even greater rate of carbon burial. With regard to cyclical changes in climate, it is well known the earth's climate undergoes variation at many different temporal scales. The most recognized variation is termed Greenhouse-Icehouse. The alternation between a warm greenhouse climate and a cool icehouse climate occurs on a geological scale, or on the order of millions of years. Other temporal variations occur at shorter periodicities. One of these is due to the Milkanovitch Orbital Parameters. There are three components to the Milkanovitch Orbital Parameters: orbital eccentricity or shape of the earth's orbit precession of the equinoxes tilt of the earth's axis The climate variation resulting from the orbital parameters occurs on the order of approximately 20,000 to 100,000 years. Essentially, the bottom line is that there are natural variations in earth processes. Change in itself is not bad or unnatural. The problem is the rate of change. With earth processes, the rate of change is slow enough that earth systems such as the biota can respond. For instance, if global warming occurs due to natural change, then the soil responds first by developing in areas that are covered by rock. Then plants migrate in response to the temperature change. If the climate change occurs too rapidly, then the soil may not be developed or it may have formed but does not have the suitable microbes to facilitate plant life. That's bad. It's all about earth systems. If we can slow down the rate of climate change or increase the rate of response by biological agents, then it may be manageable. One can see a secular trend since the late 1800's (beginning of the Industrial Revolution) to the present day, as global warming in the average temperature. This is believed due to increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide in constrast to the large scale secular trend of carbon drawdown. There have been minor blips such as in the late 1940's when the trend appeared to have momentarily reversed and may be explained as a result of increased smoke or debris in the atmosphere which effectively shielded the heat (long wavelength) from emitting away into space. So, it's not only the presence of atmospheric carbon dioxide that influences the global temperature. Essentially, if it's an atmospheric agent, then it either blocks sunlight through the albedo effect (reflects sunlight) or tends to keep heat from escaping the atmosphere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EWolfe Posted October 10, 2003 Share Posted October 10, 2003 See! O2! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-rock Posted October 10, 2003 Share Posted October 10, 2003 Formaldehead said: Ready? In early earth history, there was extreme vulcanism, which helped to create atomspheric conditions that included high levels of CO2. It is known that CO2 is an atmospheric gas that can contribute to global warming. Early flora and mega-flora fixed the CO2 into cellulose. This reduced the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. It also increased the concentration of O2 (Lucky you. The atmosphere went from anaerobic to aerobic.). The cellulose from the mega-flora eventually made it's way to becoming part of sedimentary rocks. Heat and pressure has turned the cellulose into crude oil , coal, and natural gas. These "fossil fuels" (which are mostly dead plants, not dead dinosaurs) are extracted from the sedimentary rocks and combusted, releasing CO2. So, by continuing to burn fossil fuels, we are, in effect, re-establishing the atmospheric conditions that existed during the earlier period of high vulcanism. The earth was once a much warmer place, but the plants took the CO2 out of the air, and it cooled off. Now, we are putting the CO2 back into the atmosphere, and it's warming up again. Questions? Hey Necro! Read a fucking book on the Carbon Cycle, instead of some pamphlets that the hippies in bellingham keep handing you on the street corner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.