Naked Science Forum
Life Sciences => The Environment => Topic started by: Jonathan Madriaga on 13/12/2009 02:45:47
-
I tend to believe otherwise and say that climate change is natural due to the large percentage of energy from solar radiation that enters the atmosphere, compared to the energy produced by humans (only a fraction). Also, as well as outgassing from the earth's mantle, which contributes to the majority of CO2, methane gases, nitrogen gases, etc. What do you guys think? Compare all of these natural processes within Earth to our consumption and activities and you will see a difference!
-
I tend to trust large, professional science organizations like the AAAS. 100 000 professional scientists just waiting for someone to say something they can rip apart. And if they can't because the research is sound and the results can be recreated anytime - they accept it. AAAS says it is in part human caused. Now go convince them with all the data you have collected!
-
For what it's worth, we know how much CO2 we have put into the air; not least because most of it's from fuels and most of those get taxed. The government knows how much cash it has made form fuel duty so it can work out how much carbon has been burned.
Even if you chose to ignore that you still havethe issue of the radiocarbon dating of the CO2 in the air- it shows that the recent increase is due to the additon of "ancient" carbon (i.e. fossil fuels) to the atmosphere. Whatever the natural processes (like the mantlle's outgassing) are which might have done that, they have been constant so the change must be down to us.
The actual energy that we dissipate is, as you say, trivial- but it's not the issue. The change in CO2 is the biggest factor and the biggest factor in that change is us.
-
Most CO2 actually comes from cows... so they are to blame !!
Attack of the killer cows lol
-
Cows make a lot of methane ( or rather the bacteria in their guts do) but they don't make that much CO2.
It's generally fair to say that raising animals as food has a bigger carbon footprint than growing crops. On the other hand there are places where the only things that grow well are suitable as animal fodder but not as food for people.
-
Last time i checked, they made well over 50% of all methane that goes into the air. No?
-
Also, as well as outgassing from the earth's mantle, which contributes to the majority of CO2, methane gases, nitrogen gases, etc.
I believe you have been the victim of misinformation. Human activities emit more than 130 times the amount of CO2 than volcanoes. http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php
And as BC says, the actual heat energy produced by humans is not the issue.
-
ok, thanks :)
-
According to a report I read, cattle account for 18% of greenhouse gas when the weighting factor is applied to methane compared with CO2. However, the report did not say whether the weighting factor allowed for the breaking down of the methane. Wikipedia says...
"Methane is a relatively potent greenhouse gas with a high global warming potential of 72 (averaged over 20 years) or 25 (averaged over 100 years). Methane in the atmosphere is eventually oxidized, producing carbon dioxide and water. As a result, methane in the atmosphere has a half life of seven years.
The abundance of methane in the Earth's atmosphere in 1998 was 1745 parts per billion, up from 700 ppb in 1750. Methane can trap about 20 times the heat of CO2. In the same time period, CO2 increased from 278 to 365 parts per million. The radiative forcing effect due to this increase in methane abundance is about one-third of that of the CO2 increase."
Perhaps the fastest way to control global warming is to learn how to synthesize beef, milk and cheese and then have the world's grandest feast ever. In 7 years the greenhouse gasses will have decreased significantly and we will all be healthier without the high fat, high cholestrol dairy products. Unfortunately they taste nice :-(
-
madi - You wrote: "I believe you have been the victim of misinformation. Human activities emit more than 130 times the amount of CO2 than volcanoes."
Yet even relatively small volcanic activity can wreck havoc on the climate. From your own referenced URL: "... Mount Pinatubo ...expeled 3-5 km3 of dacite magma and injected about 17 million tonnes of SO2 into the stratosphere. The sulfur aerosols resulted in a 0.5-0.6°C cooling of the Earth's surface in the Northern Hemisphere."
So. My question is this. Was that SO2 cooling a good thing or a bad thing, seeing as how CO2 seems not to have been the issue?
PS: Given the indisputable fact that CO2 concentrations will continue, and probably increase for at least 50 years at least, I suggest those who believe GW is a bad thing [regardless of cause] make the logical progression to planet cooling technologies. These already exist, and are entirely independent of CO2 concentrations.
Why waste time on Copenhagen whores and circus gatherings when real cooling is available through existing technologies? If you are serious about this issue, there is no other option. One obvious area of research is to find some doping agent for all jet fuel. It would consist of inert reflective particles that would spew out to reflect light back into space. This would be very cost effective IMHO.
Alternatively, similar reflective particles could be dispensed continuously over the various desert areas for the same purpose. And as I noted in other threads, dope the Pacific Ocean with iron to produce plumes of CO2 sequestering algae. There must be dozens of ways to to cool the planet. Morally speaking, since CO2 emissions are unstoppable for generations to come, it seems a moral imperative to explore methods to counter this reality.
-
I would never say the Pinatubo eruption itself was a good thing considering the loss of life, but yeah if there's another way to cool the earth without encountering other negative consequences i'm all for it, however this won't solve the problem of ocean acidity, so we should still try to decrease emissions
-
Madidus_Scientia
First, I must apologize for my bad Latin. Clearly Madidus is not female gender. I was using madi for short which led me to the wrong evaluation. That said, I think there can be some common ground and approaches to climate that are agreable to both skeptics and advocates alike.
My proposition is this: Plan A [significantly reduce CO2 emissions] is unrealistic. First, it is too late, and two, it won't happen anyway. Exhibit A: "Barack Obama ... promises that U.S. emissions in 2050 will be 83 percent below 2005 levels. If so ... per capita emissions then will be about what they were in 1875."
Accordingly, anyone who believes human CO2 is causing GW needs to face the reality that CO2 reductions are not a reasonable short, or even medium term possibility. The recurring global meetings on the issue have already degenerating to comedy, and are well on their way to clinical insanity. Who really believes the US will reduce CO2 emisions per capita to levels of 1875. It won't happen, but even if it did, China and India are not about to do the same.
But there IS a Plan B. Human induced global cooling. It is the only area of research and development that makes any common sense given the actual realities. Further, the methods can be tested at small scale, and then scaled up. And, by definition THESE interventions are both adjustible and reversable. Accordingly, I propose the next climate meeting stop beating the poor dead horse and change course to consider global cooling technologies.
One or two more fiascoes like Copenhagen and the entire enterprise will have degenerated to nothing more then a traveling Circus. People notice these things. So. Get some of the Big Shots to introduce a small discussion of cooling technologies in Mexico. Off to the side. Quietly. I would support that.
But if the Maldivian Scuba Diver in a fish tank shows up at one or two more conferences, the entire subject area will become a Saturday Night Live Sketch.