Arctic ice cap 'could go within 60 years'

[raptor1992]

From memory the supply ships were blocked for a period of months last summer

that's bad

[Gun Grape]

But the consequences of failure to control CO2 emissions are dire. The evidence around global warming appears substantial enough that we should be thinking about how we can reduce our emissions, and also get China to reduce our emissions. It doesn't do us any good to just say its an impossible task, throw our hands up in the air and hope that the projections aren't true.

Well, the US could make a difference. I'm not saying we could just stop running on petroleum. But if we could get the hydrogen economy to work, and install more nuclear powerplants, we'd be most of the way there. And while hydrogen energy prices may be more expensive in the short run, the spending on the new technology would help boost the economy. And in the long run, cleaner air would help improve public health, and less CO2 would help us preseve our coastal regions.

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]

Where did they measure that? Are all of the measurements over the different time periods from the same place? Or did they get the measurements from several sources and find the mean? Was the means to measure it the same in all cases?

Perhaps you should answer these questions, before you assume that a graph you found on Wikipedia is accurate.

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.

Since when does physical violence "help boost the economy"? It does quite the contrary, it helps to destroy the very thing that makes the free market so productive and efficient: accurate prices. This is another issue, and if you whish to discuss it further we can bring it to another thread.

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

[barrowaj]

I'm all for building more nuke plants, absolutely, for whatever the reason.

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

How does less CO2 affect health and coastal regions?

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

[dalem]

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.

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]

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

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.

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.

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]

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.

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

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.

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.

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

I'll check that out.

-dale

[Bill]

"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.

[Bill]

"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.

[Bill]

"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]

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'.
.

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]

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

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.

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.

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]

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

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.

[Bill]

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

[Ironduke]

bump