Global Warming Truth

[Cloxxki]

I have an idea.. reduce the co2 levels and see what happens.. if the earth starts to cool.. then co2 is the cause.. if it continues to warm.. then it is not.

4Tesla

So the place in time we happen to be on, somewhere on the wavy line that is "climate", will decide whether our CO2 reduction was real or misguided? You tell me first what place in time we are.

Something else, what about we WAIT what climate actually does, and keep doing CO2 reading. Problem: data presented until now has been cherry picked and then manipulated.

Who to trust?

[ATT]

I have an idea.. reduce the co2 levels and see what happens.. if the earth starts to cool.. then co2 is the cause.. if it continues to warm.. then it is not.

Sounds like a reasonable idea, but there's a 'gotcha': co2 accumulations are a little like radioactivity, they have a sort of 'half-life' in that they don't diminish right away with the cessation of co2 production.

co2 in atmospheric suspension takes about 100 years to go away, once co2 production has stopped altogether. 

ESRL 5-year data spread:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/index.html#global

co2 currently at 387ppm - 10ppm change in 5-years.

CDAIC comparison 1750-present:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html

co2@280ppm-1750, 384ppm at time of publication. ~100ppm rise in 200 yrs.

Browse the first two paragraphs after the table for a run-down.

So that's a quick peek at co2.

So what's all the fuss about, should be good for the plants, right?

It sure is, in fact some plants can take advantage of increased levels right away because the oceans are the worlds biggest co2 'sink', so certain ocean 'plants' will get a real boost from the dissolved co2 in jake-time.

Well, that's a good thing then, more oxy from plant respiration, good for the fish and all...but there's one more thing, in order for any concentrations of oxy to propagate, the oceans have to 'mix', the currents have to 'move' and that depends on temperature differences causing convection flow.

In fact, that's what makes 'weather', the ocean currents moderate the temperatures of the water, air and, indirectly, the land masses, as well as providing the means for precipitation and snowfall to occur. Without the snow-pack, our rivers wouldn't flow, we wouldn't fill our reservoirs or recharge our aquifers and our hydro-electric plants wouldn't operate.

OK, all OU guys know all about Rankine cycles, Carnot cycles and heat engines, right? Well it's the same thing here, it works the same way, it's not the temperature so much as it is the -differences-.

So if the delta-Ts around the globe go down, then the currents get weaker, less convection flow, less differential, less movement of hot to cold.

More plants thriving means more o2, more atmospheric density and faster normalization/equalization of disparate temps...cold places warm up, warm places cool down, differentials decline.

Actually, with diminished differentials, our society would break down well before we hit critical-mass with the temperature itself, water would be the reason (loss of snow-pack). Food would be the next casualty, depopulation would follow, you get the drift.

Now, take a look at this link and 'connect the dots':
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=paleontologist-peter-wards-medea-hy-2010-01-13

It'll take a long time for anything drastic to happen temperature-wise, but the fallout along the way could get us before that happens.

Of course, maybe co2 doesn't have any effect at all on climate or temps, in which case we should go ahead and ramp-up on fossil-fuel use, which we'll have to do anyway to keep up with population increases, we can always fix it later I guess.

[sparks]

I have an A.. reduce the co2 levels and see what happens.. if the A starts to cool.. then co2 is the cause.. if it continues to warm.. then it is not.

4Tesla

  I dont believe it is the co2 we have to worry about in the first place.  It is the rest of the shit coming out of a stack.  Carbon monoxide nitrous oxide sulpher dioxiode and all the rest of the poisons.  We just need carbon and hydrogen bonds and break the bonds properly instead of the present method of using untreated air as an oxidizing agent.  If you want to point fingers look at the infernal combustion engine promoters.  The steam plant operators.  The jet engine developers. They are the ones producing poisons.  We can handle the co2 but the nitric acid compounds will leave you sick for months.  The carbon monoxide will kill you in minutes.  Why isnt there an oxygen seperator mandated before you start up the thermal energy process.  Why do  we have to use unburnt fuel to cool the chamber down.  Why isnt the carbon supplied as methane gas instead of glorified sludge.  BECAUSE OF MONEY.  Money does not make the world go run it turns it into a fucking mess.  And who controls money this illusion of wealth.  The greedy.  And who controls greed pride envy and all the rest of the evil  stuff.  A sadly confused legion of beings that look upon themselves as seperated from the scource of life.  Unwilling to admit we are all made from the same cloth.

[4Tesla]

Now, take a look at this link and 'connect the dots':
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=paleontologist-peter-wards-medea-hy-2010-01-13

Great article.  On this topic it seems the truth is what you believe.  I just hope we can find alternative energies as it will be good for all.

Not sure what ATT stands for, but I like Verizon

4Tesla

[silverfish]

A like a reasonable idea, but there's a 'gotcha': co2 accumulations are a little like radioactivity, they have a sort of 'half-life' in that they don't diminish right away with the cessation of co2 production.

co2 in atmospheric suspension takes about 100 years to go away, once co2 production has stopped altogether. 

ESRL 5-year data spread:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/index.html#global

co2 currently at 387ppm - 10ppm change in 5-years.

CDAIC comparison 1750-present:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html

co2@280ppm-1750, 384ppm at time of publication. ~100ppm rise in 200 yrs.

Browse the first two paragraphs after the table for a run-down.

So that's a quick peek at co2.

So what's all the fuss about, should be good for the plants, right?

It sure is, in fact some plants can take advantage of increased levels right away because the oceans are the worlds biggest co2 'sink', so certain ocean 'plants' will get a real boost from the dissolved co2 in jake-time.

Well, that's a good thing then, more oxy from plant respiration, good for the fish and all...but there's one more thing, in order for any concentrations of oxy to propagate, the oceans have to 'mix', the currents have to 'move' and that depends on temperature differences causing convection flow.

In fact, that's what makes 'weather', the ocean currents moderate the temperatures of the water, air and, indirectly, the land masses, as well as providing the means for precipitation and snowfall to occur. Without the snow-pack, our rivers wouldn't flow, we wouldn't fill our reservoirs or recharge our aquifers and our hydro-electric plants wouldn't operate.

OK, all OU guys know all about Rankine cycles, Carnot cycles and heat engines, right? Well it's the same thing here, it works the same way, it's not the temperature so much as it is the -differences-.

So if the delta-Ts around the globe go down, then the currents get weaker, less convection flow, less differential, less movement of hot to cold.

More plants thriving means more o2, more atmospheric density and faster normalization/equalization of disparate temps...cold places warm up, warm places cool down, differentials decline.

Actually, with diminished differentials, our society would break down well before we hit critical-mass with the temperature itself, water would be the reason (loss of snow-pack). Food would be the next casualty, depopulation would follow, you get the drift.

Now, take a look at this link and 'connect the dots':
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=paleontologist-peter-wards-medea-hy-2010-01-13

It'll take a long time for anything drastic to happen temperature-wise, but the fallout along the way could get us before that happens.

Of course, maybe co2 doesn't have any effect at all on climate or temps, in which case we should go ahead and ramp-up on fossil-fuel use, which we'll have to do anyway to keep up with population increases, we can always fix it later I guess.

The question is whether CO2 levels will rise from the current level of 390 parts per million (a tiny proportion) to 1000 parts per million. If this happens - a big 'if', we are told to expect a catastrophic change. According to Ward, microorganisms, not asteroid or comet impacts, were responsible for most of the mass extinctions in history - but there are also indications that magnetic pole shifts and ice ages are also associated with mass extinctions (and also the unexplained rapid emergence of new species, possibly due to genetic mutation from radiation getting through Earth's compromised magnetic field) So there is more than one explanation for mass extinctions, the asteroid/dinosaur hypothesis has been questioned.
        There are geological layers of minute diamonds and carbon bucky-balls accompanying these pole shifts which may indicate powerful electrical, plasmic discharge activity in the atmosphere.
         If the C02 warming component has been exaggerated, and there is plenty of evidence to show that this has been done on purpose, we do not need to fear fluctuations in temperature and natural climate cycles which have been going on for millennia. However, we should not be surprised if the magnetic north pole is travelling 35 miles per year towards Siberia, in what may be the beginning of a shift.
         Ward's idea that life is ultimately self-destructive like a virulent virus programmed to wipe out the biosphere - I don't buy that. I don't buy the runaway escalation of C02 hyped by people like Al Gore, or the current status of CO2 as a toxic gas.
         It is a natural part of the life cycle. We need it. Plants need it. More C02, more plants, plants grow faster, more oxygen. Another point recently demonstrated - climate warming comes first, C02 increase follows after, not the other way round.