1. We have added the ability to collapse/expand forum categories and widgets on forum home.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Photobucket has changed its policy concerning hotlinking images and now requires an account with a $399.00 annual fee to allow hotlink. More information is available at: this link.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. All Civ avatars are brought back and available for selection in the Avatar Gallery! There are 945 avatars total.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. To make the site more secure, we have installed SSL certificates and enabled HTTPS for both the main site and forums.
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Civ6 is released! Order now! (Amazon US | Amazon UK | Amazon CA | Amazon DE | Amazon FR)
    Dismiss Notice
  6. Dismiss Notice
  7. Forum account upgrades are available for ad-free browsing.
    Dismiss Notice

CO2 emmissions make largest jump ever in 2010

Discussion in 'Science & Technology' started by Narz, Nov 17, 2011.

  1. Silurian

    Silurian Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2010
    Messages:
    5,737
    Ignoring the CO2 and methane and other ecological damage im not sure if a rapid warming of northern Canadian or Siberian would be good in the short term. The permafrost will take a while to completely melt. Where the surface melts you get a swampy landscape as shown in the photo in verbose,s link.

    From TerraNature

    http://terranature.org/methaneSiberia.htm


    Good if you like insects in the summer. No good for farming in the short term.
     
  2. peter grimes

    peter grimes ... Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2005
    Messages:
    13,143
    Location:
    Queens, New York
    Here's a quote from a publication that's 10 years old:
    source: Earth Policy Institute, Plan B update, Nov. 15 2001

    Your CO2 and my CO2 emissions are doing this. This is directly affecting people. To claim otherwise is to ignore the truth. It took me less than a minute from reading your quote above to posting this response. You don't have to look very hard to find people who are already being adversely affected by rising CO2 concentrations.
     
  3. MrCynical

    MrCynical Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2005
    Messages:
    4,507
    Location:
    The Dreaming Spires
    It may come across as flippant to say "name one", but it's a reasonable request and one which needs to be made more often when the moral outrage starts clouding a debate. It's very easy to make vague claims that loads of people are affected while leaving out any specifics. Snag is it's completely unfalsifiable as well. The "name one" request isn't just being callous - if there really are loads of people harmed it shouldn't be that difficult to give one specific example. Frankly a few specific case studies would be far more convincing than any amount of hand-waving about people in general.

    If you want to see an example of this with a little less moral outrage baggage attached to it, consider the link about land loss you've just posted. 10 years ago it was predicted that X amount of land in a specific area would be lost in the next 25 years. OK - but where's the other half of this argument if you're going to say harm has been done? Has land been lost - and where specifically? OK there's still 15 years to go, but you'd expect if you're going to lose all that land to slow sea level rise then at least some of it would have gone now. The scientist in me says put up two satellite photos, one from 10 years ago and one from now, and show the difference in the coastline and the exact areas of land that have been lost. That'd be a very convincing piece of evidence. What are the names of the people who now own several acres of seabed instead of coastal land? This is information that should be out there (and that this oceanographic institute should be collecting if they're really doing this scientifically).

    Do you see what I mean? If you want to be convincing that harm has been done, give specific examples. If harm is occurring on a scale to justify the moral outrage, it really shouldn't be hard to find one unmbiguous case. Now I'll be interested to see whether the response to this is actual evidence or a complete non-response like the last person to make this request got.
     
  4. mdwh

    mdwh Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 14, 2005
    Messages:
    3,565
    For some effects, see references from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming .

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise suggests that the sea level is continuing to rise.

    I don't think it's as simple as showing satellite pictures - the problem is that sea level fluctuates (obviously things like tides), so you have to take an average over a period of time. Flooding of land isn't going to be something that happens continuously at a uniform rate, because of things like flood barriers.

    What exactly do you dispute? That average temperatures are increasing? Or the effects that increased temperatures will have?
     
  5. classical_hero

    classical_hero In whom I trust

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2003
    Messages:
    33,209
    Location:
    Perth,Western Australia
    I personally see nothing wrong with global warming, it is just a natural process. Conflating globl warming and pollution is stupid, since they are two different things.
    http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/research/CLOUD-en.html

    This is interesting research into climate modelling, since rather than rely on CO2, it is showing the vast effect that cosmic rays are having on our climate. The numbers are exiciting in that they are showing the massive effect the sun is having on our climate.
     
  6. Cutlass

    Cutlass The Man Who Wasn't There.

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2008
    Messages:
    40,358
    Location:
    US of A

    And the exact same effect it had on climate when the temp was a lot cooler. And the exact same effect it will have when the temp is a lot higher. The temp is changing independently from the change in the sun and cosmic rays.
     
  7. Narz

    Narz keeping it real

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2002
    Messages:
    25,792
    Location:
    New York City
    Extinction is a natural process too. But that doesn't mean we're not causing/influencing it. After all, humans are natural creatures and we wouldn't be the first organisms to influence climate change.
     
  8. El_Machinae

    El_Machinae Colour vision since 2018 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    39,770
    Location:
    Pale Blue Dot youtube=wupToqz1e2g
    This is so frustrating. CLOUD is a proof-of-concept experiment of something that was already believed (or suspected) already. It's why it was allowed to run, because we thought we knew the answer already. But, it's just a seed of an idea, and there's not been sufficient correlation between those rays and temperature change to explain the change.

    When you look for changes in a system, you filter out the known cycles, and see what's left. Day and night are massive changes, but we account for them. Seasons too. The El Nino/La Nina. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Sunspots. All of these are cycles, that have measurable (or estimatable) influence. The correlations with the cosmic rays are just not powerful enough to explain the rising temperature. It's like you've noticed that your kettle has excess heat, and are using it to explain the increase in temperature in your house. Yes, the kettle has excess heat, yes it can cause warming. But no, it's not why your house is warming. It's because you've turned on the furnace

    As an aside, it's frustrating when someone who rejects 90% of science will cling to a pilot study in order to justify people's pollution. It's a classic cognitive bias. IF you reject the majority of science, then you have NO way of determining whether something is true or not.
     
  9. peter grimes

    peter grimes ... Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2005
    Messages:
    13,143
    Location:
    Queens, New York
    Yes, I agree with you completely here. That's why I bothered to look in the first place.

    Again, I agree with you - and that's one of the reasons I linked that specific article. It made a prediction that can be verified without having to go to Greenland or Kilimanjaro. It's got a robust real estate market, and I imagine a search of local media and business publications can help sort out an answer. I rejected linking to an article about Tuvalu trying to relocate 11k people to New Zealand because I wasn't able to find any corroboration. At least in this case corroboration should be (i hope) simpler.

    I hope I don't come across as morally outraged. I'm not, for the most part. But I do find a selfish attitude of 'I'll do what I want until you can show me examples that my actions are hurting other people' to be a recipe for a failing society. In game theoretical terms this is the stance of a cheater. Successful populations of individuals can't tolerate too many of them before they collapse. It's not moral outrage, it's self interest ;)
     
  10. Ziggy Stardust

    Ziggy Stardust New Englander

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2005
    Messages:
    23,868
    Location:
    High above the ice
    What's also frustrating is that this isn't the first time this has been pointed out. What's also frustrating is that drive-by poster has dropped what it perceives as a bombshell, and walks out without seeing if there is feedback, thinking he got the upper hand having dropped the bombshell link. Cycles you say? Well there's one. Every Global Warming debate the argument has been made. Every Global Warming thread it has been debunked. Next Global Warming thread the same argument will be used and so on, and so forth.

    Next article: The sun coming up in the morning and going down in the evening has a profound effect on global warming, respectively warming and cooling the Earth. Except in Australia, where it's the other way around.
     
  11. peter grimes

    peter grimes ... Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2005
    Messages:
    13,143
    Location:
    Queens, New York
    This touches on something I've been curious about - Why does it seem that there are a disproportionate number of climate change deniers from Australia?

    - Is this just an illusion, and are there not really that many more than here?
    - Australia is a major exporter of Coal, which we all know has a terrible CO2 : BTU ratio...
    - Australians have among the highest per capita CO2 footprint

    I really don't want this to become a 'pick on an aussie' discussion, but I'm curious if any of the above may be relevant (assuming, of course, that my observation is even correct!)
     
  12. ParadigmShifter

    ParadigmShifter Random Nonsense Generator

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2007
    Messages:
    21,810
    Location:
    Liverpool, home of Everton FC
    It's weird because Australia was one of the places on Earth most bummed in the gob by the Ozone layer thing. Short memories...
     
  13. Quackers

    Quackers The Frog

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2008
    Messages:
    10,282
    Location:
    Great Britain
    I read in Super Freakonomics if we had 2 pipes at certain areas of the globe we could funnel Sulphur up through the pipe right into the stratosphere (12 miles high iirc) and due to strong winds the sulphur would be dispersed entirely around the stratoshere of Earth and that would cost something like $20million and reverse all CO2 caused climate change. Plus we would only need a few % of total sulphur we emit right now (the sulphur we do emit only goes up 700feet so doesn't have the same effect). Anybody know any more about this? It's based on a volcano which erupted in the Far East which dispersed an enormous amount of sulphur into the stratosphere and reduced ground tempreture by a few degrees.
     
  14. Cutlass

    Cutlass The Man Who Wasn't There.

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2008
    Messages:
    40,358
    Location:
    US of A
    It wouldn't do anything to help ocean acidification, which is proceeding to make shellfish extinct and drastically destabilize the world's food chain. Nor do they consider that acid rain will have vast damaging effects on plant life worldwide.
     
  15. Quackers

    Quackers The Frog

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2008
    Messages:
    10,282
    Location:
    Great Britain
    Hmm, but is that a worse outcome then global warming?
     
  16. classical_hero

    classical_hero In whom I trust

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2003
    Messages:
    33,209
    Location:
    Perth,Western Australia
    That is just the beginning of the research for that experiment. But here is the problem that you have is that every time the IPCC has come up with a forecast for the future, it has failed to be true. Also some of the things you are describing are localised weather events and these experiments are not about localised events, but about the climate. There is a difference between the two.
    http://www.thegwpf.org/the-observatory/3702-cern-finds-qsignificantq-cosmic-ray-cloud-effect.html
    The bit in bold is important to understand about this study, is that there is more to go in understand how clouds are formed and so far the results have been surprising and we are still to see what the effects are in our atmosphere, but you should be more cautious about saying about accepted science, since that often get overturned when better evidence comes along and shows the previous understanding to be wrong.
    http://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/08/24/cern-experiment-confirms-cosmic-ray-action/

     
  17. El_Machinae

    El_Machinae Colour vision since 2018 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    39,770
    Location:
    Pale Blue Dot youtube=wupToqz1e2g
    It's completely a red-herring.

    Finding additional cycles is always welcomed. Getting a paper published in Nature is very much not the same thing as getting suppressed.

    Secondly, this has nothing to do with whether carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. There's a cosmic ray component to climate, but if you match the cosmic ray cycle with climate, you'll see that it's got its own influence, independent of GHGs.

    It is currently unknown whether clouds will form positive feedback cycles or negative feedback cycles with increased warming (for either warming or climate change). There've not been any positive indicators published so far, but there's not enough negative indicators to assume a trend. If clouds are influenced by cosmic rays, then that's great that we find out. But that doesn't change the effect of CO2 on climate.
     
  18. uppi

    uppi Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    3,420
    It's called climate engineering. The approach is to think beyond limiting CO2 emissions (which have steadily increased despite all efforts) and see if we can offset the climate effect of CO2 by other means. There are several proposals, some of them seem to be feasible, others not. However there are a few issues with all of these proposals:

    - If you mess with the climate on a global scale, you want to be really sure to know what you are doing. You want to make sure that there are no unintended consequences that could make the situation worse. But as we have no second earth to experiment with, the only possibility is to model it. But there is always the question how good those models actually are.

    - Once you know what you are doing, there are ethical concerns. Should one do this if the calculations says that it will help region X, but hurt region Y? There might be a solution, where the industrial nations will benefit, but some poor countries will suffer. Can we say we sacrifice region Y, because the world as a whole will be better off?

    - Who gets to do it? Whoever controls the process will have the power to alter the climate of the whole planet. How do you regulate such a thing. And it has to be regulated, as we cannot have everyone altering the climate as he wants. In the worst case you would get a climate war, where multiple entities try to counteract each others measures with unforeseeable consequences for the planet.

    - And if the belief spreads that there is a quick fix, even if this isn't really the case, less effort might go into avoiding the problem in the first case, i.e. limiting CO2 emissions.


    There are scientists looking into this and my prediction is that we are going to hear more in this direction when the effects of climate change become more evident.
     

Share This Page