raptor1992

that's bad

Gun Grape

Well we could cut CO2 emmissions by 10% if we would just Plug up all the Volcanos.


Do I contribute every time I open a soda?

And to think, Not too long ago we were worried about a coming Ice Age. I see we fixed that problem

barrowaj

I thought you were smarter than that Praxus. But you would make a good lawyer. Questioning the credibility of a source if you have no way to counter it is an effective tactic. I didn't think I had to defend a source that was easy to look up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:C...ide_400kyr.png
FYI. The blue data comes from Science. Its taken from ice cores in Vostok, Antarctica.

I'm not sure what you are talking about with the violence thing.

barrowaj

Good. John McCain is trying to lead a new initiative to do this.

Well air quality affects health, and CO2 affects costal regions because they are dependent on the water level and are vulnerable to storms.

dalem

And the correlation between storms and CO2 is...?

I think you're reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaally reaching with this one, sir.

Praxus-

The actual measurements of C02 concentrations are pretty good - you can take ice cores at several depths in several regions and you look, quite simply, at the air bubbles trapped within the ice. That tells a lot about the air composition at the time of the bubble at that locale, and if a bunch of contemporaneuous bubbles from different geographic locations all indicate the same composition, it's a pretty safe bet to extrapolate the broad ratios of certain compounds and isotopes in the planetary atmosphere at that time.

Temperature is much more difficult, but still doable, again relating to isotope levels (usually Oxygen-16 to -18 ratios).

So the methodology is quite sound.

It is worthwhile to note that throughout geologic time, the highest average planetary temperatures are not always (I'd have to re-read the article to know if it's "not usually") directly matching the highest concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere, from the data we have so far. Nor do they appear to be in a chasing or triggering mode - the curves are simply different.

That is not to say that C02 and other "greenhouse gasses" are completely decoupled from the Greenhouse Effect which traps heat in our atmosphere, but it does contradict one of the lazier assumptions of the current human-drive global warming hypothesis; that elevated C02 automatically means high temperatures. The data so far clearly indicate that that is not true.

-dale

barrowaj

Well, all I know is that increased temperatures cause more storms by interacting with sea currents. I don't do computer modeling of this stuff or anything but I've read about it.

All the research that I have seen has shown that there is a coupling between CO2 and warming, although CO2 increases don't completely anticipate the warming. There are some natural forcings that probably initiated the warming, but high CO2 levels acted as a multiplier for increasing temperatures. We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and DOES trap heat. We just can't PROVE that the same thing happens on a global scale with many other variables, the same thing happens. But it is reasonable to make that assumption, especially when there is data to back it up.

Here is a paper in Science that discusses the delay coupling between temperature and CO2 concentrations:
http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/CaillonTermIII.pdf

dalem

And your key here is that you are assuming that increased C02 automatically yields higher temps.

On the contrary, given the patterns of heating and cooling we already know exist absent any C02 changes, it is not reasonable at all to make that kind of assumption.

I'll check that out.

-dale

Anon

"The big counter-argument, mostly propagated from the States, is that these are naturally occuring events, and nothing to do with CO2 emissions."

The evidence CLEARLY indicates that these are natural warming/cooling cycles.

Anon

"Actually these points are not true. We have a pretty good idea that CO2 is the cause of global warming"

BS, plain and simple.

Atmospheric CO levels are actually at an alltime low...as i posted(with links) the last time this stupid topic came up.

Anon

"The difference is that previous trends were gradual and much less severe than the current trend, which correlates with human CO2 production."

More blatant nonsense.

In the 1870s....well into the industrial revolution, there was a period of inexplained global cooling, so much so that 1877 was known as 'the year without a summer'.

Global cooling and warming is NORMAL, and there's nothing....absolutely nothing....we can do to realistacilly affect it, and further, there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever that we should even TRY.

Parihaka

Actually 1816 was the 'year without summer', widely believed to have been caused by the eruption on April 5 - 15, 1815 of Mount Tambora on the island of Sumbawa in the Dutch East Indies.
link

barrowaj

I'm not sure what you mean by automatically, but the assumption is that CO2 is the main force of many factors that will lead to higher temperatures.

Well there's got to be more research on this topic. I haven't come across anything that says that they aren't coupled at all, but I will keep looking.

barrowaj

Well, we're talking about CO2 though. I don't know about how big of a factor carbon monoxide is. If you mean CO2 levels, they are not at all at an all time low. I don't know where you heard that.

Anon

I meant CO2, and i posted a link to back the claim the last time we had this debate.

Ironduke

bump