Sharp Rise In Co2 Levels

[crimsone]

Just to add a simplistic view to it...

the Earth had VAST quantities of fossil fuel reserves once. Now we're running out. Fossil fuels are hydrocarbons. Burning them creates both heat and carbon dioxide.

Think of Coal and Crude Oil. What colour are they? Their black because of the very very high amounts of carbon they contain. If we're running out of fossil fuels, how much of the stuff must we have burned already, where did the carbon go, and is it pure coincidence that the current and significant spike in CO2 levels starts at around and about the point that we first started burning fossil fuels?

Regardless of anything though, given the risks of pumping into the atmosphere at the rate we do (because nobody can prove the casue of the increase onve and for all apparently), should we be doing it? Personally, I feel that when your placing your bets on the survival of the human race, vs any given economy, the survival of the human race (and everything else) kinda wins out. Pardon the pun, but if you play with fire, chances are you'll get burned sometime.

[Methuselah]

I'd echo that, though I find such a prognosis (which might well happen) pretty darn depressing. I guess it just goes to show, we are just animals and we can collectively behave with as little forsight as they do. Otoh, we could address these problems - but not by doing nowt, or by urging doing nowt on those who can do things, or by shrugging shoulders.

How right you are...At some point in the not-to-distant future, I can imagine a right-wing politician standing-up in Parliament/Congress to announce the sudden and unforseen demise of all the Arctic Ice. On the bright side though, all that extra air-water interface will increase absorption of CO2???

So let's just all do/say nothing to rock-the-boat. Let's all wait for hindsight. After all, it is 20-20!

[Guest Mike W]

Looks like the media want us to emmit the amount of SO2 and soot we emmited back in the 'old days' like 60's or 70's, not the healthiest option really.

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,15410-13379448,00.html

Edited April 9, 2006 by Mike W

[Methuselah]

Looks like the media want us to emmit the amount of SO2 and soot we emmited back in the 'old days' like 60's or 70's, not the healthiest option really.

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,15410-13379448,00.html

We'll be seeing some New Dirtier Diesel in the pumps soon then. More expensive? You bet!

Anyone for a Time to Put the Lead Back in Petrol campaign? That could be a money-spinner for the energy producers?

[crimsone]

Anyone for a Time to Put the Lead Back in Petrol campaign?

I'm more in favour of a Lets take petrol out of cars campaign.

(no! you know darned well what I mean! lol)

[Devonian]

Looks like the media want us to emmit the amount of SO2 and soot we emmited back in the 'old days' like 60's or 70's, not the healthiest option really.

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,15410-13379448,00.html

Nowhere there does a scientist say 'Don't reduce pollution'. Nowhere is it implied that is what we should do. The headline just reinforces my low opinion of Sky News tbh.

[BrickFielder]

The main argument that CO2 causes global warming is that it acts as a greenhouse gas. The truth is that greenhouse gases in the earths atmosphere do not always produce warming. Types and amounts of cloud have different affects on the planetary albedo (warming and cooling).

Cloud and greenhouse affects by NASA

Clouds and Planetary albedo explained

The source Data

This does not mean global warming is a myth just that the interactions are far more complex than a simple statement that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and causes warming. Look at the following link which details a link between ice CO2 and nitrous oxide in the sea, this could give a potential for much faster global warming to take place.

CO2 ice Phytoplankton and Nitrous Oxide

Dying fish in Oman

[Devonian]

The main argument that CO2 causes global warming is that it acts as a greenhouse gas. The truth is that greenhouse gases in the earths atmosphere do not always produce warming. Types and amounts of cloud have different affects on the planetary albedo (warming and cooling).

Cloud and greenhouse affects by NASA

Clouds and Planetary albedo explained

The source Data

This does not mean global warming is a myth just that the interactions are far more complex than a simple statement that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and causes warming. Look at the following link which details a link between ice CO2 and nitrous oxide in the sea, this could give a potential for much faster global warming to take place.

CO2 ice Phytoplankton and Nitrous Oxide

Dying fish in Oman

I basically agree, of course other factors effect climate, though I'd like to see evidence of where/when CO2 didn't act as a ghg (even if masked by other forcings).

[BrickFielder]

I basically agree, of course other factors effect climate, though I'd like to see evidence of where/when CO2 didn't act as a ghg (even if masked by other forcings).

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but the concept of what that means to the atmosphere is different to how it applies to a greenhouse. The basic concept of a greenhouse is that the glass reflects outgoing light back to warm up the air. Once you start looking at a larger scale you have to take into account moisture. Here the warming causes more cloud to form which reflects more incomming light. In effect you have two balancing feedback mechanisms one which warms and the other which cools. The end result is that you probably get far less warming from CO2 than some might suggest and there probably is not a linear relationship between CO2 and surface temperatures. I think ozone transport changes(not necessarily anthropological) have a much greater affect on global warming as its the high level filtering(reflection) of light which I think really determines global temperatures.

[Devonian]

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but the concept of what that means to the atmosphere is different to how it applies to a greenhouse. The basic concept of a greenhouse is that the glass reflects outgoing light back to warm up the air. Once you start looking at a larger scale you have to take into account moisture. Here the warming causes more cloud to form which reflects more incomming light. In effect you have two balancing feedback mechanisms one which warms and the other which cools. The end result is that you probably get far less warming from CO2 than some might suggest and there probably is not a linear relationship between CO2 and surface temperatures. I think ozone transport changes(not necessarily anthropological) have a much greater affect on global warming as its the high level filtering(reflection) of light which I think really determines global temperatures.

Humm, yup, I know the greenhouse effect is misnamed. I'd go with water vapour being a feedback - http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...ack-or-forcing/ and I doubt that O3 has a greater effect than CO2. Not sure there is a obvious 'it warms > more cloud > it cools' effect - clouds being the maor uncertainty in the models? After all, don't I remember some clouds have a net warming effect on the planet, depends which sort CO2+ WV feedback trigger?

[BrickFielder]

Humm, yup, I know the greenhouse effect is misnamed. I'd go with water vapour being a feedback - http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...ack-or-forcing/ and I doubt that O3 has a greater effect than CO2. Not sure there is a obvious 'it warms > more cloud > it cools' effect - clouds being the maor uncertainty in the models? After all, don't I remember some clouds have a net warming effect on the planet, depends which sort CO2+ WV feedback trigger?

That acticle in realclimate is a little misleading because it talks about only half of the equation namely the absorption of long wave radiation and mentions nothing about incoming short wave radiation. Temperatures here on earth reflect the amount of energy coming in (shortwave radiation not reflected ) and the energy going back out (long wave radiation not absorbed and radiated out).

As to whether clouds have a net warming or cooling affect then it depends on the type of cloud. If I remember correctly thin high cloud and thin low cloud cool and deep cloud warms.

The effects of Ozone are different to CO2 where CO2 traps warmth in High level Ozone reflects warmth away before it reaches the low level. Most energy is reflected away before it ever reaches greenhouse affect levels.

United Nations Report on Ozone

[shuggee]

I'm bumping this up for security reasons.

[Guest Mike W]

I must admit having read the post on Venus and Earth that it is often overlooked that the eruptions from say Pinatobu and Mount St Helens and ones from say the 60's and 70's has still got the CO2 that they emmited still up their in the atmosphere, and they emmited alot of the stuff wheras the coolants they emmited stayed up their for a couple of weeks to a month or two top end, the warming emmisions it thru up are still with us and will be for another 30 to 40 years with regards to pinatobo at Mount St Helens' and the 70's ones still have a decade or two to go aswell, the 60's ones still have a another 10 years of life aswell, have they calculated this into their models, I'm not saying we should disolve our responsabilites on this, but the factor I have mentioned seems to have been ignored, probably becasue we only think of these eruptions as cooling pollutants rather than the huge amounts of long lasting CO2 and possibly other warming pollutants like methane.

Edited April 12, 2006 by Mike W

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Mike I nearly passed out reading that, where are your full stops? Pinutoba certainly had a cooling effect a year later, there are a generation of Polar Bears known as the Pinutoba cubs, or they were now full blown adults, as it apparently dropped global temps and the arctic conditions became perfect for a Polar Bear boom.

As to its added CO2 content which remains in the atmosphere for 40yrs? On e can assume thats included but who knows. The point Daniel made re comparing venus and Earth and proximity to the sun is THE most valid point. Mars has a much much higher CO2 level in the Atmosphere than us and its poles are huge areas of dry ice [frozen CO2]...proximity from the sun? :lol:

BFTP

Edited April 12, 2006 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[drgl]

How can anyone compare Venus to te Earth? If the Earth took 240 odd day's to rotate i'm sure we would be much warmer too!! There are far too many differences-rotational speed & distance from Sun been the biggest factors!!

Venus:-

average distance from the Sun: about 108,200,000 km

length of a year: 224.7 of our days

length of a day: 243.01 of our days

Earths minium distance from the Sun:146 million km ,and maximum distance from Sun: 152 million km.

[Methuselah]

Mike I nearly passed out reading that, where are your full stops? :lol: Pinutoba certainly had a cooling effect a year later, there are a generation of Polar Bears known as the Pinutoba cubs, or they were now full blown adults, as it apparently dropped global temps and the arctic conditions became perfect for a Polar Bear boom.

As to its added CO2 content which remains in the atmosphere for 40yrs? On e can assume thats included but who knows. The point Daniel made re comparing venus and Earth and proximity to the sun is THE most valid point. Mars has a much much higher CO2 level in the Atmosphere than us and its poles are huge areas of dry ice [frozen CO2]...proximity from the sun?

BFTP

One hole (gaping chasm?) in that argument, BFTP, is that the TOTAL atmospheric pressure on Mars is only a minute fraction of what it is here on Earth - Venus's atmosphere is CO2-rich AND has crushing density/pressure...In addition to that, Mars is approaching two AUs from the Sun; at that distance it will ony receive, in the order of, 1/4 of the mean Solar flux that we on Earth do...Then again, Venus, Earth and Mars each have a unique set of feedbacks...IMO, comparisons between entities where 'all things are so unequal', is little short of obfuscation?

IMO, if we want to make any more-than-just-useful comparisons, we'll have to wait for the day when we discover another planet: 93 million miles from its G-type sun, of identical mass and radius and age as our Earth; with an identical array of oceans, continents and life - but with one important exception: its human population must have developed some sort of carbon-free method of energy-generation...

But while we wait...and wait...and wait a bit more: perhaps we'd be better-off sticking with our (inherently flawed) computer models?

[Guest Mike W]

I wasn't really drawing on the Venus and Earth topic I was mentioning about ther fact that these big eruptions like Pinatono and Mount St. Helens emmited loads of Co2 which still up in the atmos and will be for long time and surley must be accounted for when mentioning Global warming, and as for post length I'm sure their have longer posts done on this board by others.

[Methuselah]

I wasn't really drawing on the Venus and Earth topic I was mentioning about ther fact that these big eruptions like Pinatono and Mount St. Helens emmited loads of Co2 which still up in the atmos and will be for long time and surley must be accounted for when mentioning Global warming, and as for post length I'm sure their have longer posts done on this board by others.

It's a good question, Mike...Though, I do have the feeling that as quickly as (averaged-out over time) new CO2 is added by present volcanic eruptions, old CO2 from previous ones (that occured 40+ years' ago) will be lost from the atmosphere via photosynthesis, weathering, asbsorption into the oceans etc.??? :lol:

[Guest Mike W]

The reason why I say this shouldn't be a get out clause is that on top all that huge amount of CO2 from those big eruptions, we are also emmiting our huge amount of industry CO2 aswell, which makes worse than it already would be, which is when I say we got it wrong in removeing the cooling pollutants, I meant it was wrong in only removing one type of pollutant, we should have instead killed the preverbial two birds with one stone and use the alternatives mentioned previously like Nuclear, Wind, Hygrogen fuel, trams, etc, all should be used not one or the other, then we would ahve reduced both the warming and cooling pollutants, this way we could say ok we may have removed the masking effect, but we have removed the reduced the warming effect alot aswell, brilliant result, if only. :blush:

Edited April 12, 2006 by Mike W

[Methuselah]

I understand exactly what you've been trying to say Mike...I agree with it, too! :blush:

[frozen_north]

The probem these days is that we seem to have got into this mentality that cutting our emmisions by 10% or whatever will be enough for us all to live happily ever after crap. I also hate all those green celebs a.g. the coldplay signer. Oh go green, save the planet rubbish while he is driving about in his massive 4x4 and jetting all over the world.

We need zero emmisions. Jeremy Clarkson is right when he goes on about driving 4x4. Why shouldnt we. Like is the planet going to saved by us all driving hybrid cars. No, it will only delay the affects of global warming and people seem to forget the world has gone through warming stages before and we are still technically in an ice age. But knowing us humans we want the weather and the temperature of every day to be the same as the average everyday of the year or else we panick.

Edited April 12, 2006 by frozen_north

[Devonian]

The probem these days is that we seem to have got into this mentality that cutting our emmisions by 10% or whatever will be enough for us all to live happily ever after crap. I also hate all those green celebs a.g. the coldplay signer. Oh go green, save the planet rubbish while he is driving about in his massive 4x4 and jetting all over the world.

We need zero emmisions. Jeremy Clarkson is right when he goes on about driving 4x4. Why shouldnt we. Like is the planet going to saved by us all driving hybrid cars. No, it will only delay the affects of global warming and people seem to forget the world has gone through warming stages before and we are still technically in an ice age. But knowing us humans we want the weather and the temperature of every day to be the same as the average everyday of the year or else we panick.

So, you throw your sh*t in the street do you? Fact is if it wasn't for campaigners we'd still be slinging sewege in the streets, that's the reality. It's campaigners, those you hate :unsure: , who bring about change. Be thankfull for them, for those agitating now, for those in the past. Ordinary people were to indolent or ignorant to do owt about sewege in the streets and the same is obviously the case wrt CO2

I wasn't really drawing on the Venus and Earth topic I was mentioning about ther fact that these big eruptions like Pinatono and Mount St. Helens emmited loads of Co2 which still up in the atmos and will be for long time and surley must be accounted for when mentioning Global warming, and as for post length I'm sure their have longer posts done on this board by others.

There is NO evidence of a spike in the CO2 record associated with ANY volcanic erruption, either recently, or in the ice cores. That alone ought to convince people of the effect humanity is having...

Edit, odd BB software this. Why do two replys to two different posts get put together???

Edited April 13, 2006 by Devonian

[Thundery wintry showers]

Zero emissions is an unrealistic aim if we are to sustain humankind- there were emissions even when humans lived very primitive lifestyles. However, it is entirely feasible to think in terms of significantly reducing emissions. Any significant reduction emissions is likely to help, regardless of the extent of human contribution to climate change, from sustainability and air quality points of view.

The problem with reducing emissions is that we risk destabilising economies and forcing a return to primitive lifestyles. That's why I favour the route of focusing on alternative technology, while progressively limiting/taxing greenhouse gas emissions- that way, there is hope that we may be able to achieve a situation where standards of living, economies etc. are limited only by availability of clean technology, rather than that plus additional draconian legislation. Alternatively, the more draconian approaches that are popular with environmental groups could well force far more extreme cutbacks than is necessary. But doing nothing isn't likely to have pretty consequences either.

I do find that there are a lot of extremists and hypocrites and "spin-doctors" in the environmental campaigning community, which tends to put people off and make them sceptical. Politics is an even larger barrier with politicians copying environmental agendas as an excuse to fulfil other political agendas. Maybe if they presented relatively unbiased and "as is" views, like the findings of the IPCC reports for example, the public might start to take notice, though the current lack of trust in the environmental movement would remain a problem.

[Guest Mike W]

Devonian, surely you could argue that the reason a spike didn't show in CO2 levels after those eruptions is that we were also emmiting high enough levels of cooling pollutants at the time which was masking any CO2 emmisions, now we don't do that anymore we are getting the full punch of CO2 warming.

[Thundersquall]

Real evidence of Global Warming whether man-made or natural, can be seen from the chart in this Met Office link.

Ever since early 1980's (with the exception of one year) the temperature's been warmer than the 1961-1990 average. :

http://www.metoffice.com/research/hadleyce...bsdata/cet.html

Edited April 13, 2006 by Thundersquall