The Coming Climate Change

[tdnp]

Most of us have traveled from the intercity to the rural country side, or have spent the day under the shade of a great tree and noticed how much cooler it is. And most of us realize that if we add even a little warm water to an ice cube the ice cube will melt. So why is the concept of temperature change any different?

I do not know about the effects of co2 but I know without a doubt that we continue to expand and create concrete highways and that the urban sprawl is at its highest point ever, sooooo we remove the trees--which add a cooling effect--and build buildings and highways which will scold you when touched or walked on.(The reflective quality alone, not to mention the ability to retain heat has to do something to the surrounding air). You know that if you come next to a building that is in the direct sunlight that the surrounding air is hotter, Why is this hard to imagine on a global scale??

How far fetched is the global warming due to co2, that is debatable, but as for adding to the global temperature by deforestation and urban sprawl, I don't think that any of us have much of a debate.

As a side note--What if we live our entire lives thinking that co2 emissions is not contributing to global warming and we are WRONG?? What is wrong with trying to limit what we know is bad, Yah I know that cows and a thousand other thing emit tons of co2 daily but that should only be more of a reason to control what we can. Kind of like life itself--control what you can control and deal with the rest.

Just a though.

[jhowelb]

Wonderful.......on YOUR money!

[Geof]

Originally Posted by WYLD ..... We also know that burning hydrocarbons releases CO2 into the atmosphere. We have not established that the rising amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is a recent phenomenon or a reoccuring condition.....

I understand that ice cores taken in both Greenland and Antartica show that CO2 levels have varied cyclically in the past so it is possible to make the claim that the current increase is not out of the ordinary. However, the isotopic make up of the current atmospheric content has changed in a manner that suggests most of the increase is due to fossil sources of carbon that have been sequestered away for millions of years so it is also valid to make the claim that the current increase is caused by humans.

But it really does not matter whether it is a natural change or a man made change it is pretty well impossible to do anything about it. Even the IPCC gurus say that no matter what is done the current CO2 levels will continue to cause increases in temperature for about the next hundred years. The increase at the end of the hundred years will be less if CO2 emissions are cut in half but for the next fifty years the temperature increase will be more or less the same whether anything is done or not. At the same time these gurus predict that catastrophic irreversible changes will occur within twenty years if we do not do something. It does not compute...if we cannot have any influence ess than fifty years how can we have an influence in less than twenty years?

And all this overlooks that it is impossible to reduce CO2 emissions by 50% without causing a mind boggling disruption in the world economy and everybody's way of life. Energy consumption is embedded in everything we do and the only way to reduce CO2 emission is to reduce energy consumption. Look at post 14 in this thread; Kyoto versus basic human rights
It is a semi-flippant discussion but I have yet to find anyone who can find a flaw in the underlying premise.

[jhowelb]

Geof,

You are SPOT ON!

But, you see, these guys want our tax money and much increased taxes in addition to our heads under their collective foot!

As I said earlier, fanatics just a Kamikazes!

[dynosor]

Originally Posted by tdnp What if we live our entire lives thinking that co2 emissions is not contributing to global warming and we are WRONG?? What is wrong with trying to limit what we know is bad...

What's wrong with burning fossil fuel and emitting CO2? Fossil fuels come from dead plants. These plants grew off CO2 in the air. When we burn fossil fuels, we put that CO2 back where it came from. If you want to "do something", plant some trees.

[jhowelb]

MORE trees in North America than there were in 1492!!

[the4thseal]

are you saying there are more trees now than there were 1492???:-(

[alexccmeister]

Originally Posted by dynosor What's wrong with burning fossil fuel and emitting CO2? Fossil fuels come from dead plants. These plants grew off CO2 in the air. When we burn fossil fuels, we put that CO2 back where it came from. If you want to "do something", plant some trees.

That has to be most childish remark I have ever seen. Its not wrong if its limited. The earth can only take care of so much CO2 emitted in the air. In nature, co2 in the air is recycled by the plant and trees but add human factor, and the balance is tipped. Its common sense.

BTW, plant and trees only produced oxygen when there is sunlight. I think we tend to forget this very important point. At night or when there is limited sun light, trees produce CO2 just like we do.

[alexccmeister]

Originally Posted by jhowelb MORE trees in North America than there were in 1492!!

I can assure without a doubt there is less tree in Borneo now then there were in a 100 years ago. The same with the Amazon and other tropical countries. Why I l know? Just look at the amount of concrete that has replaced the acres of forested land. So I don't think there is more trees in North America now than there were in 1492. Where do you get this figure from?

[dynosor]

Originally Posted by alexccmeister That has to be most childish remark I have ever seen. Its not wrong if its limited. The earth can only take care of so much CO2 emitted in the air. In nature, co2 in the air is recycled by the plant and trees but add human factor, and the balance is tipped. Its common sense. BTW, plant and trees only produced oxygen when there is sunlight. I think we tend to forget this very important point. At night or when there is limited sun light, trees produce CO2 just like we do.

I agree that my response was flippant - I was trying to make several points without restating
them for the Nth time.

CO2 is not pollution, but part of the natural cycle of energy exchange that happens
between plants and animals. Yes, plant metabolism includes the oxidation of carbohydrates in
the absence of light - how is that a problem? The fact that a tree becomes taller and heavier
year after year is direct evidence that it has absorbed more CO2 than it has released,
despite the lack of sunlight every night.

CO2 is not toxic at low concentrations - heck, even oxygen is toxic at high concentrations:
http://www.inspect-ny.com/hazmat/CO2gashaz.htm Yes, there is more CO2, but even a 100% increase
would go unnoticed, and no GW fanatic is claiming that is going to happen.

If the proportion of free oxygen in the air starts to drop significantly I would be concerned
because this could indicate an imbalance; that too much oxygen is attached to other
elements. Why don't they try and scare us with "plummeting oxygen levels"? Could it be
because the CO2 increase is due not to new combustion, but rather to a release from the
oceans that resulted from the slight temperature increase we are arguing about?

When you burn hydrocarbons you create CO2 and water vapor. Water vapor is a much more
potent greenhouse gas than CO2 and you can see its effect immediately - no waiting 100 years
for a 1 degree change: Cloudy days are cooler, cloudy nights are warmer, yet nobody is
complaining about the contribution of water to global warming. Why is that? To see
the effect of water on GW models see: http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFo...ouse_data.html

I believe CO2 is no more a problem that water vapor and that even if we are contributing to
a very small temperature increase, this is a good thing, rather than bad.

Just how much CO2 can the earth take care of before the balance is tipped? The tipping point
that we have been warned about can only be avoided by "immediate and drastic action", but
cutting our CO2 emissions 50% won't have any measureable effect on GW until all witnesses
present today are dead and gone. I smell a rat.

I maintain that GW is a politically motivated issue used by the left to achieve their goals,
much like the war on terror is used by the right to achieve their goals.

******************************************************************

More info on CO2 toxicity at: http://wasg.iinet.net.au/Co2paper.html

CO2 Concentration:

Comments

0.03%

Nothing happens as this is the normal carbon dioxide concentration in air.

0.5%

Lung ventilation increases by 5 percent. This is the maximum safe working level recommended for an 8 hour working day in industry (Australian Standard).

1.0%

Symptoms may begin to occur, such as feeling hot and clammy, lack of attention to details, fatigue, anxiety, clumsiness and loss of energy, which is commonly first noticed as a weakness in the knees (jelly legs).

2.0%
Lung ventilation increases by 50 percent, headache after several hours exposure.
Accumulation of carbon dioxide in the body after prolonged breathing of air containing around 2% or greater will disturb body function by causing the tissue fluids to become too acidic. This will result in loss of energy and feeling run-down even after leaving the cave. It may take the person up to several days in a good environment for the body metabolism to return to normal.
3.0%
Lung ventilation increases by 100 percent, panting after exertion, Symptoms may include:- headaches, dizziness and possible vision disturbance such as speckled stars.
5 - 10%
Violent panting and fatigue to the point of exhaustion merely from respiration & severe headache. Prolonged exposure at 5% could result in irreversible effects to health. Prolonged exposure at > 6% could result in unconsciousness and death.
10 - 15%
Intolerable panting, severe headaches and rapid exhaustion. Exposure for a few minutes will result in unconsciousness and suffocation without warning.
25% to 30%
Extremely high concentrations will cause coma and convulsions within one minute of exposure. Certain Death.

[xyzdonna]

Originally Posted by WYLD Thank you Donna I agree with you. Using what scientific data we have...both corrupted and uncorrupted...establishes that we DO NOT know for fact that humans have caused global warming. That is a hypothesis, not even a theory. What we do know for FACT is that the planet has undergone periods of heating and cooling prior to mankinds arrival, let alone as a dominant species. We also know that burning hydrocarbons releases CO2 into the atmosphere. We have not established that the rising amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is a recent phenomenon or a reoccuring condition. We haven't tried to establish if it is caused by a single event or a series of events that have been in motion prior to the industrial age. What egotistical creatures we are to believe that trees only make sound when we are there to hear them fall, and that the Earth gets warmer because we burn gasoline. Cause and effect...there are so many variables that it will be damn near impossible to accurately determine if we are THE problem, ONE of the problems, a contributing factor, or simply a new phenomenon to a cyclical event.

True enough, as I've said before the answer is indeterminate. That said, as the data comes in and the analysis is done, the picture should begin to take shape. Truthfully, in the end it really doesn't matter. It will be the perception that will prevail. People will think it is happening , if things begin to worsen and the climate does make mayhem, then they will assume that it's man made and look for answers. Right now we just have to rely on the scientists who are the experts and they seem to be in agreement. The folks who don't agree seem to be from the right wing and need to be taken with a grain of salt. With some exceptions, you seem amenable to reasonable discourse and I think there are many like you who take a wait and see attitude, let more evidence come in. I used to listen to Rush Limbaugh all the time before I began to lose my hearing. One comment that he made was that Rupert Murdoch wouldn't allow anything on Fox News that alluded to global warming. I find this unbelievable. That a major news organization should try and suppress dialog like this. But then again to use the word Fox and news in the same sentence is an oxymoron. There is an agenda by the right wing to suppress the global warming thing. This fact doesn't prove the theory or hypothesis if you will, but it does point out that a lot of vested interests are mudding up the waters of the debate. The decision to take action will be made by our political leaders based on the best science available and the prevailing public mood. Something is going to happen and action will be taken, we'll just have to wait and see. Hopefully the actions taken will be based more on science and less on public mood, but I doubt it. That's not the way politics usually works and that's why we're having this discussion.To influence our fellow man into thinking our way.
Donna

[dynosor]

Originally Posted by alexccmeister In nature, co2 in the air is recycled by the plant and trees but add human factor, and the balance is tipped. Its common sense.

Pray tell what happens to the balance when a lightening strike starts a forest fire and millions of tons of CO2 are released into the air. Seems like nature can take care of some pretty large and sudden releases of CO2 just fine without any noticible effect except the loss of the trees.

How much fuel do humans burn compared to all the wild fires going on around the globe?

We lament the loss of Amazon forest and would like to stop harvesting of "old growth", but if we leave large areas covered in closely spaced trees they will catch fire sooner or later due to man or nature and more will be lost than if we thin them out.

Some tree seeds can only germinate after being exposed to fire. For instance:
http://www.csu.edu.au/special/bushfire99/papers/kenny/

This suggest that fire and combustion are natural, and that humans burning fuels is not un-natural.

If you must "do something", plant some more trees.