Are we experiencing global warming and a rise in "greenhouse"-gasses?
Yes, we are.
Are the causes of this global warming man-made?
No, they are not!
While most environmental organizations are shouting about global warming, and
how they want us to help stem it, few of the ordinary public know what is really
causing it.
It is simple really. Our planet is heating up again. As it has done several times before,
across the milennia. Our planet has gone from warm climates to ice-ages and back to warmth
time and time again. All scientific records and observations show this. Before, that is, the
environmental agencies have censored and rewritten the materials.
Take CarbonDiOxide for instance. Is our man-made contribution to the world levels of green-house
gasses really so massive, that we are forcing the planet to heat itself up? The answer is a simple
No! Man-made emissions of CarbonDiOxide worldwide amounts to a maximum of 7 percent of the
total amount of greenhouse-gasses, being released into our atmosphere each year.
The other 93 percent? Most of that comes from the sea. And not by mans hand, but through
constant circulation of atmospheric gasses.
Fact 1
In biologically active surface waters carbon dioxide is consumed by primary production of
phytoplankton (algae).
Fact 2
Decomposition and dissolution of particulate matter that has originated from biological
processes in surface waters enriches deepwater in carbon dioxide.
Fact 3
Sinking of water in near polar regions takes carbon dioxide with it followed by a flow
towards the equator.
Fact 4
Upwelling of equatorial waters releases carbon dioxide and the surface water then flows
towards the poles.
Fact 5
In rough waters ocean overturning causes carbon-rich water from intermediate depths to
be mixed with water of less carbon content than surface waters.
Fact 6
In areas of low productivity (i.e. few algae or low photosynthetic activity), the partial
pressure of carbon dioxide is greater than that in the atmosphere and carbon dioxide is
released from the surface.
Fact 7
The role of the oceans in the carbon cycle is much dependent on the rate of overturning
and mixing. This overturning and mixing takes a long time. For example, it takes a few
hundred years in the Atlantic Ocean and around 1500 years in the Pacific Ocean.
Fact 8
Water temperature changes geographically from:1.9 degrees c in the polar seas to 30
deegrees c in the equatorial oceans and also seasonally by as much as 15 degrees
celsius at a given place.
Fact 9
The effect of warming seawater (pCO2) overwhelms the lowering (absorbtion) effect
of CO2 caused by photosynthesis.
Fact 10
In contrast to most high-latitutde areas, those of the northeast Pacific are, on a
yearly average, a strong carbon dioxide source.
Fact 11
The upwelling of deep waters brings up nutrient salts which support photosynthesis.
Fact 12
During the summer, the surface water pCO2 in the north Pacific is reduced because of
the intense photosynthetic activity. This lowering effect on the pCO2 far surpasses
the increasing effect of the summer warming. However, on an annual basis the winter
source condition wins out over the summer sink condition.
This is commonly known as the Carbon Cycle.
As for CO2 being the cause of global warming, it's been proven by scientists, trough
Earth layer research and ice core surveys from Antarctica, that trough the ages, CO2
levels has in fact trailed the temperature levels. When the Earths temperature has been
on the increase, it has taken a few years, and then the CO2 levels have risen "in pursuit"
of the temperature. Likewise with Global cooling. After the temperature has fallen, it's been
a few years, and then the CO2 levels have dropped accordingly.
CO2 does not cause Global Warming, but it is ,in fact ,caused by Global Warming.
The main reason for global warming (and cooling, for that matter), is staring us in the
face every single day of our lives. It is the main cause of all temperature regulation on
this planet. The Sun. Solar activity drives the Earths climate, be that towards warmth or
cold. On periods of high solar activity, our planet heats up. When the solar activity
decreases, so does the Earths temperature.
As far back as the human race has kept records of solar activity, these have been proven
to correspond with the temperature swings on the Earth. And as the temperature has changed,
so have the CO2 levels. But, again, CO2 has been trailing the temperature. Not preceeding it,
as most environmental organizations would have us believe.
As the solar activity makes the ocean temperature increase, so do the CO2 levels that the
oceans emmit into our atmosphere.
When the Vikings founded their first colony in Vinland (current New Foundland), the Earth
was experiencing a relative warm period. Higher than todays temperatures. This had the effect
that the land they found was lush and fertile. It is believed today that the Vikings may indeed
have found actual grapes, normally only found in temperate zones, in a region that is now
more polar than temperate. The Dark Ages where, in fact, a lot warmer, than todays climate.
And did the world come to a terrible and ferocius end? No!
Will this warm period kill us all? Most likely not!
The Polar icecaps are also used as a "Dooms-day" forecast. Big blocks of ice break of the polar
icecaps, and slowly melt, as they float away. This is sometimes shown on the TV News, as the
speaker tells us that we're doomed.
Are the polar icecaps melting at an accellerated rate. Depends when you're looking at it, and
what period you are comparing it to. The polar ice melts every spring and summer. Large blocks
of ice break of in the warm period of every year. Just like everywhere else, the temperature here
increases (if not much, there are a few degrees difference). This causes the outer rim of the
caps to melt and deteriorate. Just like glaciers. All glaciers melt, all of the time. They have
been melting since the last real ice-age. Man has not caused this natural effect to speed up.
Our planet has. This is a cycle of our planet, that is as normal as our axis around the Sun.
If you need evidence of this, then open not only your eyes, but more importantly your heart,
and start looking at the various scientific reports. Not just the ones that get the most publicity,
but perhaps more at the ones that are not allowed any real publicity. The ones that state my
above mentioned facts. Just try to google some of it.
I think you'll be surprised.
No decision is so fine as to not bind us to its consequences.
No consequence is so unexpected as to absolve us of our decisions.
Not even death.
-R. Scott Bakker. 'The Prince of Nothing'
Don't know where to begin really...being a scientist who has studied global warming.
But here I go, feeding the beast of non-denial denials.
Global warming! Myth or reality?
Are we experiencing global warming and a rise in "greenhouse"-gasses?
Yes, we are.
Are the causes of this global warming man-made?
No, they are not!
Don't know what pseudo-scientists your source has talked too. Most extensive studies (see http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf) done show that the reasons for the warming of the planet are increases in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations - i.e. man-made.
While most environmental organizations are shouting about global warming, and how they want us to help stem it, few of the ordinary public know what is really causing it.
The cause is an increase in greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, which retain energy (heat) that would have otherwise radiated out into space. It's a simple lab test that I and thousands of other students have preformed. More CO2 in the air - the higher the temperature given the same power input.
Take CarbonDiOxide for instance. Is our man-made contribution to the world levels of green-house gasses really so massive, that we are forcing the planet to heat itself up? The answer is a simple No! Man-made emissions of CarbonDiOxide worldwide amounts to a maximum of 7 percent of the total amount of greenhouse-gasses, being released into our atmosphere each year.
What your source is failing to grasp is the concept of marginal increments. There is a carbon cycle yes, but our 7% (I'm was going to contest that number but what the hell) amount is an increase over "the natural flow" 7% per year makes it an increase of aproximatly 300% over 20 years, which makes this graph:
As for the whole Algae thing...ask me in a year and I'll probably be the world's leading authority on that subject.
The conventional view serves to protect us from the painful job of thinking.
- John Kenneth Galbraith
The cause is an increase in greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, which retain energy (heat) that would have otherwise radiated out into space. It's a simple lab test that I and thousands of other students have preformed. More CO2 in the air - the higher the temperature given the same power input.
If this was the case, then the temperature in the higher levels of the atmosphere would be increasing at a higher pace than at surface levels.
Studies show the opposite effect. Surface temperatures are rising faster than at higher altitudes.
What your source is failing to grasp is the concept of marginal increments. There is a carbon cycle yes, but our 7% (I'm was going to contest that number but what the hell) amount is an increase over "the natural flow" 7% per year makes it an increase of aproximatly 300% over 20 years
The 7% are the "total output". If you walk, from my place, down to say FK and back, then your bodily functions produce more Carbon dioxide, than if you drove a late model (reasonably eco-friendly) sedan the same route. We don't produce 7% "more" CO2 now than before. We produce 7% of the total "new" CO2 emitted into the atmosphere.
My point is, that the increase in CO2 and rise in temperature are not man induced, but part of a natural cycle. Even if we cut all carbon emissions down to zero and all sit on our behinds all day, holding our breath, the world is still going to get warmer. We're heading towards a warm period, as opposed to an ice-age. Me, personnaly, I like the idea.
No decision is so fine as to not bind us to its consequences.
No consequence is so unexpected as to absolve us of our decisions.
Not even death.
-R. Scott Bakker. 'The Prince of Nothing'
jogvanth wrote:
Man-made emissions of CarbonDiOxide worldwide amounts to a maximum of 7 percent of the
total amount of greenhouse-gasses, being released into our atmosphere each year.
The other 93 percent? Most of that comes from the sea. And not by mans hand, but through
constant circulation of atmospheric gasses.
[Fact 1-12]
This is commonly known as the Carbon Cycle.
Well, that was a basic explanation of the so-called carbon cycle. Which is fine, but the devil is in the details. Here is another (better) explanation of the carbon cycle from NASA.
I'll give you the condensed version:
GtC = gigatons of carbon. Stored carbon is shown in black, and annual carbon fluxes in purple. (Illustration courtesy NASA Earth Science Enterprise)
A closer inspection of this diagram shows that the human contribution to the CO2 in the atmosphere is 5.5 GtC/yr from burning fossil fuels and 1.6 GtC/yr from deforestation = 7.1 GtC/yr. This is not very much compared to the 210 GtC/yr released by nature. However, nature absorbs 213.8 GtC/yr, which effectively negates everything it releases (and even some of our contribution). In fact only about 3.2 GtC remain in the atmosphere as a result of human activities each year.
We see that jogvanth's source (not given, for some reason) is right about the relatively small amount, but hasn't comprehended that nature has a well-balanced cycle and the contributions made by us humans is derailing the cycle.
jogvanth wrote:
As for CO2 being the cause of global warming, it's been proven by scientists, trough
Earth layer research and ice core surveys from Antarctica, that trough the ages, CO2
levels has in fact trailed the temperature levels.
Again, close, but not really. Temperature increases do increase atmospheric carbon dioxide, but atmospheric carbon dioxide increases increase temperature. See how that works? It's a relationship, and increasing the carbon dioxide will increase temperature which increases carbon dioxide which increases... well, you get the point. It's a positive feedback cycle, and just like with HIV, that's not one of the "good" positives.
The image below shows how CO2 and temperature correlate. These are measurements from 400,000 years ago to 1950. Notice that the CO2 levels for 2002 have been inserted though?
Source: GRID (Global Resource Information Database of the United Nations Environment Program in Arendal, Norway)
Notice how the CO2 levels ran between 180 ppmv (in ice ages) and 300 ppmv (parts per million by volume)? Notice how it never went above 300? Notice how it took thousands of years to go from a low-point to a high?
That brings me to my next slide, erm, image:
Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere has been steadily rising since regular measurements began in 1958. The graph above shows both the long-term trend and the seasonal variation. (Graph by Robert A. Rohde, based on data from the NOAA Climate Monitoring & Diagnostics Laboratory)
Do notice that in 1958 when these measurements began we were already at an unnaturally high level (315 ppmv). Also notice the small variations that happen each year, this is nature minding its own business. Now, it's pretty obvious that we're approaching 380 ppmv. It should be clear to you that this is an unprecedentedly high level. It should also be clear that we have an increase of about 100 ppmv CO2 in about as many years. Finally it should be clear to you that variations of 100 ppmv CO2 have occurred in the past, but never to such a high level, and never in less than thousands of years.
There really should be little to no doubt at this point.
jogvanth wrote:
The main reason for global warming (and cooling, for that matter), is staring us in the
face every single day of our lives. It is the main cause of all temperature regulation on
this planet. The Sun. Solar activity drives the Earths climate, be that towards warmth or
cold. On periods of high solar activity, our planet heats up. When the solar activity
decreases, so does the Earths temperature.
So... "Sun make hot!" Again, correct, but not quite. The sun does have an impact on the global temperature, as we all know from our experiences with the seasons, but does it have an impact on the global warming (i.e. not just heating us in the summer, but making it warmer, in average, all the time)?
Turns out, it does. But the effect is much smaller than that of greenhouse gases (around 8 times less). Here's a diagram showing the changes in radiative forcing since 1750 (the industrial revolution). Positive radiative forcing causes warming and negative causes cooling. The effect of the sun is the second-most bar on the right, while the right-most bar is the result of combining all the anthropogenic components (i.e. the effect of human activity).
Source: IPCC Working Group I Fourth Assessment Report Summary for Policymakers, page 16
On May 6, 2000, however, New Scientist magazine reported that Lassen and astrophysicist Peter Thejll had updated Lassen's 1991 research and found that while the solar cycle still accounts for about half the temperature rise since 1900, it fails to explain a rise of 0.4 °C since 1980. "The curves diverge after 1980," Thejll said, "and it's a startlingly large deviation. Something else is acting on the climate.... It has the fingerprints of the greenhouse effect."[33]
My emphasis.
jogvanth wrote:
When the Vikings founded their first colony in Vinland (current New Foundland), the Earth
was experiencing a relative warm period. Higher than todays temperatures.
Well, this is a reconstruction of the temperature in the Northern Hemisphere for the past 2000 years:
Source: Robert A. Rohde / The Global Warming Art project
To begin with, the temperature in the Medieval Warm Period are not higher than today, but the real kicker is that this warm period has only been observed in the North Atlantic, and was not global:
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has conducted research claiming that there is a lack of data supporting that the Medieval Warming Period ever took place. Instead, they state that there were no multi-century periods when global or hemispheric temperatures were the same or warmer than in the 20th century. Summarily, it "appears that the 20th century, and in particular the late 20th century, is likely the warmest the Earth has seen in at least 1200 years."[18] This might indicate that claims from global warming critics that regions of the North Atlantic (such as Greenland) were once capable of sustaining temperate wildlife and plantlife is unfounded.[19]
My emphasis.
jogvanth wrote:
If you need evidence of this, then open not only your eyes, but more importantly your heart,
Look into my heart? Sounds like you got yourself a real, live scientific person there, jogvanth.
EDIT: Saved the images locally.
When I kill her, I'll have her
Die white girls, die white girls
We produce 7% of the total "new" CO2 emitted into the atmosphere.
That is quite simply wrong.
Any CO2 emitted from the oceans isn't "new". It is absorbed by the oceans during seasons of windy weather and released during seasons of calm weather (this because air has a much higher CO2 equilibrium then water).
The only permanent removal of carbon is via the fossilization of organic material. Now we humans have taken to digging that up again...to the tune of 8 billion metric tones carbon equivalents in 2004, and a total of 310 billlion tonnes since the industrial revolution started in 1750.
These 310 billion tonnes are "new" carbon. They have not been a part of the carbon cycle for 6 to 600 million years. Now that we're digging it up again we're recycling it into the carbon cycle, therefore increasing the total amount of carbon avalible in the troposphere by said 310 billion tonnes.
As stated earlier...it is a very simple experiment to show what effect this has on warming. More CO2 the warmer it is with the same energy.
If this was the case, then the temperature in the higher levels of the atmosphere would be increasing at a higher pace than at surface levels.
Studies show the opposite effect. Surface temperatures are rising faster than at higher altitudes.
Next time you just blab "studies have shown" I'll ignore whatever point you try and make. Give a link. But this time I'll answer you as you where not warned.
The experiment which I urge you to make is to take a plexiglas container, put a thermometer inside, attach a tube connected to a flask of CO2 and tape a lamp ontop. Let the lamp shine for 24 hours and measure the temperature. Add CO2 from the flask, let the lamp shine for another 24 hours an measure the new temperature...you will find, as I did when I made that same experiment, that there is a significant increase in temperature with the same energy input, in the same circumstances, with the only change being amount of CO2 present.
2nd: The point about altitude and surface temperatures is quite stupid and I'm sure you know it. It's the same reason that it's cold in space, even if the molecules travel at a high speed. Molecules are further apart the higher you go. The further they are from eachother the less "heat" there is (as there is diminished ability to transfer heat energy from one substance to another. This is why it's -40 degrees at 15000 meters above ground, even if it's "closer to the sun".
We're heading towards a warm period, as opposed to an ice-age. Me, personnaly, I like the idea.
I think this is your point, and I agree with you, difference is that I don't wrap my opinion in bullshit pseudo-science
Yes it's getting warmer, yes we are to blame. Has it ever been as warm as this? Yes, all fossilized carbon has at one point been in the atmosphere. In geological terms it's a recent event that the poles have contained ice...but now we are talking between 6 and 25 million years back. Before that time there wher several periods quite a lot warmer then today. All we are doing is tilling the atmosphere, returning things which were otherwise lost forever.
Is this going to change our world? Yes.
Would the planet have changed regardless? Yes in some respects. The Earth is a dynamic, not a static system.
Is global warming going to doom mankind? No. But it will pose significant problems to coastal areas and we might have to relocate 2 billion people.
Or to put it another way. Is sinking Miami, Sao Paulo, Calcutta, Bangkok etc. to give warm weather to Greenland a reasonable price to pay? No, but I'd rather it get warmer then colder.
The conventional view serves to protect us from the painful job of thinking.
- John Kenneth Galbraith
Why would you want it to get warmer and then colder? Doesn't make sense... Anyway,
"I like global warming... because then it gets warmer!"
As far as jokes go, that was only mildly funny ten years ago. If you're being serious, you don't come across as being especially smart.
Warmer doesn't mean better. In fact, as far as I can tell, it has mostly brought us storms, hurricanes, floods, and crappy summers.
The times when it was much warmer than it is now (tens of millions of years ago) the world looked quite different than it does now. For the few millions of years where mammals have dominated the earth (latter part of the Cenozoic era) there have been no high temperatures as we have seen it in previous periods. To translate this into plain English: Not only are the low-lying areas at risk; the entire global ecosystem could be screwed.
Let me put this in perspective; before the last major temperature change, the dinosaurs ruled the earth. But hey, no big deal, as long as it gets warmer...
When I kill her, I'll have her
Die white girls, die white girls
My sources are not from internet articles, and prove difficult to google.
I'll see what I can dig up, and show you.
2nd: The point about altitude and surface temperatures is quite stupid and I'm sure you know it. It's the same reason that it's cold in space, even if the molecules travel at a high speed. Molecules are further apart the higher you go. The further they are from eachother the less "heat" there is (as there is diminished ability to transfer heat energy from one substance to another. This is why it's -40 degrees at 15000 meters above ground, even if it's "closer to the sun".
Now you just plain insult me. Please tell me that you can read, without having everything spelled out in detail.
Of course I know that it is colder the longer away from the surface you get.
My point is, that if you take the temperature change of the upper atmosphere now ,as opposed to some time back, and compare it to the change in surface temperature now, as opposed to some time back, then the increase in surface temperature is relatively (comparatively) higher, than the increase in upper atmosphere temperature (again comparatively).
This is not to mean a degree-to-degree increase between the two, as you might want to read my previous piece.
No decision is so fine as to not bind us to its consequences.
No consequence is so unexpected as to absolve us of our decisions.
Not even death.
-R. Scott Bakker. 'The Prince of Nothing'
Now you just plain insult me. Please tell me that you can read, without having everything spelled out in detail.
Actually I think it's you who are insulting, coming with a whole array of pseudo-science points and unrelated counterpoints when you have been given a factual and sourced rebuttal...this particular point started with me telling you about how CO2 in any enclosed atmosphere increased the temperature and you not believing the experiment which I myself have done.
You have an opinion and are unable to back it up because nobody wants to publish what you have said? Almost all peer-reviewed scientific papers are avalible via scholar.google.com, please make an effort? You're just contradicting all non-oil payed scientific research with your opinion. Surely if it's correct somebody would have published their study.
As for the question at hand. Upper atmosphere cooling. Now depends upon what you call the upper atmosphere. Up to 10000 meters there is significant warming.
Between 10000 and 20000 there is warming in certain parts of the world and colder in others, this because of the difference size of the troposphere.
If you mean 20000-100000, then yes, it's not warming like the inner parts, there isn't much CO2 and other heat trapping gasses (like O2) present...longer between atoms, meaning the energy from the solar rays arn't transfered until further down, then because of the CO2 below a lot of heat gets trapped below.
The one gas which used to do that job for us in the upper reaches of the atmosphere was Ozone (O3) which we activly depleted.
No decision is so fine as to not bind us to its consequences.
No consequence is so unexpected as to absolve us of our decisions.
Not even death.
-R. Scott Bakker. 'The Prince of Nothing'
Actually I think it's you who are insulting, coming with a whole array of pseudo-science points and unrelated counterpoints when you have been given a factual and sourced rebuttal...this particular point started with me telling you about how CO2 in any enclosed atmosphere increased the temperature and you not believing the experiment which I myself have done.
I'm not questioning the CO2 heating effect. I'm questioning the effect of human-activity-released CO2 in comparison with "natural" or non-human-activity-released CO2, and their influence on planetary temperature and weather. To further explain my point. I do not believe that the relatively miniscule amounts of CO2 that "new" or "industrialized" human activity is releasing into the atmosphere, have the tremendous effect on global weather, that the ecological "mafia" wants us all to believe.
Question: What was the output of man-made CO2 in the years 1880 to 1910, 1910 to 1945, 1945 to 1975 and 1975 to 2005 in comparison with the temperature fluctuations of the same years?
Against the "Temperature Anomaly Average" of the IPCC, the planet was, to the same degree, as colder around the 1910's , as it was warmer in the 1990's. We experienced a 0,6C increase in world temperature since the 1940's. We also experienced an almost 0,4C drop below average in the same period.
Why, if we're definetely heading for a "water-world" scenario, was the entire scientific community in agreement in the 1970's that the earth was definetely heading towards a new ice-age, and urged the public to burn more fossil fuels?
They where wrong then. Is it impossible that they're wrong again?
No decision is so fine as to not bind us to its consequences.
No consequence is so unexpected as to absolve us of our decisions.
Not even death.
-R. Scott Bakker. 'The Prince of Nothing'
Bjørn Lomborg is pretty smart and has some convincing arguments. Too bad then, that his argumentation relies solely on stats he has found in assorted places, and aren't always reliable. Too bad also, that the world isn't as simple as he seems to think it is, and that everything will be solved if we apply free market economy principles to nature.
First of all, "relatively miniscule" is a curious choice of words.
Jogvanth lists a few different year groupings. Sure, humans have burned a lot of coal, wood and oil in the past century or two. Climate change wouldn't set in instantly. Like someone pointed out above - the issue is that mankind is releasing more CO2 than the earth is naturally able to absorb over a sustained period of time. Same way that eating 50g of hydrogenated fat in one day might not make you ill, but if you do it every day for two months, things might be different.
Another thing that no-one has mentioned sofar is the issue of "global dimming". That would also explain why we haven't seen the effects of the increase in CO2 emissions until recently. When we burn dirty fuels like coal, we not only emit CO2, but a lot of other particles into the air (e.g. soot). Some scientists believe that this has offset the effects of global warming, since the particles in the atmosphere have reflected part of the sun's energy. Someone else might be able to find links to this theory (I'm to tired).
"The oldest and strongest emotion of mankind is fear, and the oldest and strongest kind of fear is fear of the unknown."
- H.P. Lovecraft
