Uh oh another one jumps ship

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

There are scientists researching this who claim that the focus on co2 is wrong & that water vapor is a far more significant player in temps.

That darn hydrologic cycle. Now if only we can figure out a way to stop evaporation and precipitation...

Drinking 8 glasses of water daily is far too wasteful when we could easily get by with 4.

Forget the fluorescent light bulbs... stillsuits anyone? Is there no end to our anthropomorphical malfeasance?
 
Skull - your comprehension of math and chemistry is really starting to frighten me. Please let me know what engineering projects you are working on so I can avoid them.

It all boils down to this - you want to believe that man can not damage the environment, so you are willing to ignore any proof we are doing so. I don't think there is any scientific evidence that would change your opinion because you do not want to change it. For whatever reason, this belief of yours is very important to you. Like I said earlier, luckily for the rest of us you are in a very small (but obnoxiously vocal) minority, and science will eventually triumph.
 
Trig all I can say is science is a two edged sword ...careful what you wish for. Second I am working on several in SoCal, Las Vegas, Hawaii, The Bay Area and Arizona ...I get around ...

It really boils down to this I do not believe that a gas which comprises 4/100ths of 1 percent of our atmosphere is the culprit behind the obvious warming which has been going on since 18,000 yrs ago. I find it incredibly hard to believe that the earths atmosphere is so sensitive to gas rearrangement such that a lesser gas like CO2 can change the ballance of the Climate....just my opinion ...yet nobody wants to address this issue ...Furthermore I am quite sure that eventually the culprit will be found in the output of the sun ... but that too is my opinion. In my learned opinion the Sun is a very big source of heat and CO2 is hardly measurable compared to O2 and N.

Finally Trig ...don't stoop so low as to try and sully my character as being obnoxious ...you really haven't sat down with me and got to know me that well ... beside slinging mud reflects on a weak intellect ...another one of my opinions!
 
Skull - the composition of the overall gases in the atmosphere does not stay constant. If the concentration of one gas increases, by definition the concentration of other gases must decrease. You must be confusing quantity with concentration. This makes sense, since you said you were EE and not ChemE. :wink: If the ppm of CO2 increases, then something else decreases because ppm is a measure of concentration. A percentage or a ppm is a ratio, not an absolute quantity.

If the atmosphere was 1% CO2, 19% O2, and 80%N2, and you burned enough carbon to increase the percentage of CO2 to 2%, the concentration of O2 would be 18%.
That is what is happening as the CO2 concentrations are increasing, except the concentration of CO2 is so low compared to the concentration of O2 that the change in O2 concentration is negligible.

In addition, you are correct that sinks are absorbing CO2 - the ocean especially. That is why the chemistry of the ocean is also slowly changing, which can also have devastating effects.

If ??...Trig that is not the earths composition ...it is however the following
78.1% N
20.9% O
.9% Argon
.04% CO2
methane,CO, Helium,hydrogen,ammonia and other inert gases

So for a 100% increase in CO2 would result in a composition of ~ .08% hardly a change at all-eh? statistically that is
 
I've looked through this thread and done a search from Bob Carter. I didn't find it anywhere on SB. So...

I'm still on the fence. I see "bad science" and "really bad math" on both sides of the argument. As a classically trained scientist - chemist, I'm often frustrated by the way science is reported in the news (similar feeling to the O2 tanks we divers wear on our backs when diving).

Yesterday, I listened to a report that claimed 2,000 tons of CO2 were produced from burning 4,000 gallons of fuel oil in one the Sea Shepard's boats. I must have been asleep when the laws of conservation of matter were repealed.

So, has anyone had a chance to view these videos from one of Bob Carter's lectures? Any thoughts?

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Ian

I am still undecided as to whether or not global warming is a man made phenomena or not but lean towards saying it is not. I also lack the scientific training possessed by many of the contributors to this thread and therefore am still reading, listening and learning. The Bob Carter presentation referenced in the links above are very persuasive and I also would like some thoughtful critiques from those who believe otherwise.

So how about it, Kim, Trigfunctions, Trillhouse, Warthaug, et al, any thoughts?
 
If ??...Trig that is not the earths composition ...it is however the following
78.1% N
20.9% O
.9% Argon
.04% CO2
methane,CO, Helium,hydrogen,ammonia and other inert gases

So for a 100% increase in CO2 would result in a composition of ~ .08% hardly a change at all-eh? statistically that is

I know the composition of the atmosphere, Skull - I was trying to present an example that you would understand since you are obviously having problems with the concepts of concentration.

You obviously do not think that a concentration of 0.04%, or 400 ppm is significant, but it is. For example, the concentration of chlorine gas in air which is immediately dangerous to life and health (IDLH) - that is, it could kill you or cause permanent damage very quickly - is 10 ppm, or 0.001% if you prefer. There are gases with IDLH concentrations as low as 1 ppm (TeF6 for example). Very, very small concentrations can have enormous effects.
 
Trig all I can say is science is a two edged sword ...careful what you wish for.

There is no wishing in science - just results. And, according to my old PhD supervisor, there is also no crying in science, but that's another thread...

Second I am working on several in SoCal, Las Vegas, Hawaii, The Bay Area and Arizona ...I get around ...

It really boils down to this I do not believe that a gas which comprises 4/100ths of 1 percent of our atmosphere is the culprit behind the obvious warming which has been going on since 18,000 yrs ago.

Nor is it. The post-glacial warming has been due numerous factors, including solar output, albedo, GHGs and potentially cosmic rays (although that hypothesis is considered to be largely incorrect at the moment).

The warming over the last century is another can of worms. Intense warming - far more intense then anything in the climatic record. And only one factor which even correlates with the warming - GHG concentrations, largely CO2.

I find it incredibly hard to believe that the earths atmosphere is so sensitive to gas rearrangement such that a lesser gas like CO2 can change the ballance of the Climate....just my opinion ...yet nobody wants to address this issue


Firstly, science is not a matter of belief, but rather what you can prove. The very issue you claim has not been addressed was dealt with by scientists several decades ago. First, the greenhouse effect was used to explain the climates of Venus and Mars - both of which are significantly warmer then one would expect based on solar incidence and albedo alone. Laboratory experiments looking at near-IR absorption by CO2 confirmed that hypothesis.

Eventually the same calculations were done on the earth, where it was found that the CO2 levels in the atmosphere (circa 1960's) accounted for about 18C of the earths surface temperature - meaning that if we scrubbed out that "tiny" amount of CO2 from the atmosphere the temp would drop to an average worldly temperature below freezing. Even though CO2 was (at the time) in the 300ppm range.

When you get down to it, CO2 has the unfortunate characteristic of having an absorbance curve that overlaps with the energetic range of the earths black body radiation, meaning that on a molecule-by-molecule basis it has a huge warming capacity.

All of that is pretty basic science, and science which was preformed during the 1950's through 1970's.

You'd think before arguing about this stuff you'd at least read up on the basics.

...Furthermore I am quite sure that eventually the culprit will be found in the output of the sun ... but that too is my opinion.

And completely unsupportable by the existing data. Solar output has varied greatly since the GW was first proposed - nearly three 11-year minimums/maximum cycles, plus at least one longer cycle (sorry, name escapes me at the moment). And even with these large fluctuations in solar output our earth warmed continually. This also represents the first time in the climatic record where the temperature of the earth no longer waled in lock-step with the output of the sun.

In my learned opinion the Sun is a very big source of heat and CO2 is hardly measurable compared to O2 and N.

But since N2 and O2 are not GHG's, and do not absorb significantly in the near-IR range, they are not a significant part of the global temperature equation. When you get down to it the insulating effect of our atmosphere is generated almost entirely through the insulating properties of a few trace gases - CO2, water vapor, methane, and a few other trace gases.

Bryan
 
Another great post Warthaug. You are obviously more knowledgeable on these issues (and patient) than I am. In the end, though, some people believe in the concept of "science" and others don't. Believing in science requires a person to admit to themselves that their own opinions may be wrong, and some people can't overcome that hurdle.
 
Are you kidding me Venus' atmosphere is 97% CO2 ...
and Mars atmosphere is 95% CO2 ...

Earth is 0.04% CO2 ...
I am not convinced ..call me a moron I don't care but from a systems guy looking at the entire scale of the system ...I find it incredibly hard to believe that CO2 has that much control over the entire earths climate...just my opinion.
 
Are you kidding me Venus' atmosphere is 97% CO2 ...
and Mars atmosphere is 95% CO2 ...
Earth is 0.04% CO2 ...

And rising. But the % CO2 doesn't really matter, and is quite deceiving. What truly matters is the total amount (i.e. number of CO2 molecules) a light ray encounters as it travels through the atmosphere. So while Mars has a high % of CO2, the thinness of its atmosphere produces a much weaker greenhouse effect then the percentage would suggest.

I am not convinced ..call me a moron I don't care but from a systems guy looking at the entire scale of the system ...I find it incredibly hard to believe that CO2 has that much control over the entire earths climate...just my opinion.


And one you hold despite the fact that scientific analysis showed, almost 50 years ago, that CO2 plays exactly that role in the atmosphere. Its also worth mentioning that the greenhouse effect is independent on concentration, and rather is dependent on the molar amount of CO2 that the IR passes through. As such, a column 10m long, containing 10% CO2 would absorb just as much IR as a 1m column containing 100% CO2, even though the concentration of CO2 is 10x higher in the shorter column. As such, comparing the concentrations is meaningless - Mars has a far thinner atmosphere then does earth, so even though it has a lot more CO2, percentage wise, the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is actually quite low, hence why Mars has a relatively weak greenhouse effect - despite its high concentration of CO2.


Bryan
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/swift/

Back
Top Bottom