Climate Change is Simple

UnderMiSensi
UnderMiSensi Members Posts: 955 ✭✭✭✭✭
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7ktYbVwr90

Basically the video is saying that if the earth's climate goes above 2 degrees Celsius we are ? . As I look at the way things are going with China and India becoming more industrialized emitting more CO2 and the US not giving a ? about the climate I think it's probably safe to say we're ? or atleast the future generation is definitely ? .

Comments

  • Drew_Ali
    Drew_Ali Members Posts: 1,403 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Climate change is a natural process............

    "That research showed a temperature spike in the 20th century, but it was unclear whether human-caused greenhouse gas emissions or natural variability was the culprit, noted study co-author Gifford Miller of the Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research at the University of Colorado, Boulder."
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/09/090903-arctic-warming-ice-age.html


  • UnderMiSensi
    UnderMiSensi Members Posts: 955 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 2013
    Objection: It’s clear from ice cores and other geological history that CO2 fluctuates naturally. It is bogus to assume today’s rise is caused by humans.

    Answer: We emit billions of tons of CO2 into the air and, lo and behold, there is more CO2 in the air. Surely it is not so difficult to believe that the CO2 rise is our fault. But if simple common sense is not enough, there is more to the case. (It is worth noting that investigation of this issue by the climate science community is a good indication that they are not taking things for granted or making any assumptions — not even the reasonable ones!)

    It is true that CO2 has gone up on its own in the past, most notably during the glacial-interglacial cycles. During this time, CO2 rose and fell by over 100 ppm, ranging between around 180 to 300ppm. But these rises, though they look steep over a 400Kyr timeframe, took 5K to 20Kyrs, depending on the glacial cycle.

    By contrast, we have seen an equivalent rise of 100ppm in just 150 years! Check this plot for a dramatic juxtaposition of the slow glacial termination versus the industrial revolution.

    There is still more to the case. By analyzing the isotopes of the carbon and oxygen atoms making up atmospheric CO2, in a process similar to carbon dating, scientists can and have detected a human “fingerprint.” What they have found via the isotope signatures can be thought of as “old” carbon, which could only come from fossil fuel deposits, combined with “young” oxygen, as is found in the air all around us. So present day combustion of fossilized hydrocarbon deposits (natural gas, coal, and oil) is definitely the source of the CO2 currently accumulating — just as common sense tells us.

    For more of the nitty gritty technicalities straight from the climate scientists, including links to the actual research that established this, visit RealClimate’s article on how we know the CO2 is ours.

    Of all the pillars holding up the theory of anthropogenic global warming, this is one of the most unassailable.
  • UnderMiSensi
    UnderMiSensi Members Posts: 955 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 2013
    Drew_Ali wrote: »
    Climate change is a natural process............

    "That research showed a temperature spike in the 20th century, but it was unclear whether human-caused greenhouse gas emissions or natural variability was the culprit, noted study co-author Gifford Miller of the Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research at the University of Colorado, Boulder."
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/09/090903-arctic-warming-ice-age.html


    How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?
    Filed under:

    Climate Science
    FAQ
    Greenhouse gases
    Paleoclimate

    — eric @ 22 December 2004 - (Svenska) (Español) (Français)

    Note:This is an update to an earlier post, which many found to be too technical. The original, and a series of comments on it, can be found here. See also a more recent post here for an even less technical discussion.

    Over the last 150 years, carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations have risen from 280 to nearly 380 parts per million (ppm). The fact that this is due virtually entirely to human activities is so well established that one rarely sees it questioned. Yet it is quite reasonable to ask how we know this.

    One way that we know that human activities are responsible for the increased CO2 is simply by looking at historical records of human activities. Since the industrial revolution, we have been burning fossil fuels and clearing and burning forested land at an unprecedented rate, and these processes convert organic carbon into CO2. Careful accounting of the amount of fossil fuel that has been extracted and combusted, and how much land clearing has occurred, shows that we have produced far more CO2 than now remains in the atmosphere. The roughly 500 billion metric tons of carbon we have produced is enough to have raised the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to nearly 500 ppm. The concentrations have not reached that level because the ocean and the terrestrial biosphere have the capacity to absorb some of the CO2 we produce.* However, it is the fact that we produce CO2 faster than the ocean and biosphere can absorb it that explains the observed increase.

    Another, quite independent way that we know that fossil fuel burning and land clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years is through the measurement of carbon isotopes. Isotopes are simply different atoms with the same chemical behavior (isotope means “same type”) but with different masses. Carbon is composed of three different isotopes, 14C, 13C and 12C. 12C is the most common. 13C is about 1% of the total. 14C accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms.

    CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases.

    Isotope geochemists have developed time series of variations in the 14C and 13C concentrations of atmospheric CO2. One of the methods used is to measure the 13C/12C in tree rings, and use this to infer those same ratios in atmospheric CO2. This works because during photosynthesis, trees take up carbon from the atmosphere and lay this carbon down as plant organic material in the form of rings, providing a snapshot of the atmospheric composition of that time. If the ratio of 13C/12C in atmospheric CO2 goes up or down, so does the 13C/12C of the tree rings. This isn’t to say that the tree rings have the same isotopic composition as the atmosphere – as noted above, plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes, but as long as that preference doesn’t change much, the tree-ring changes wiil track the atmospheric changes.

    Sequences of annual tree rings going back thousands of years have now been analyzed for their 13C/12C ratios. Because the age of each ring is precisely known** we can make a graph of the atmospheric 13C/12C ratio vs. time. What is found is at no time in the last 10,000 years are the 13C/12C ratios in the atmosphere as low as they are today. Furthermore, the 13C/12C ratios begin to decline dramatically just as the CO2 starts to increase — around 1850 AD. This is exactly what we expect if the increased CO2 is in fact due to fossil fuel burning. Furthermore, we can trace the absorption of CO2 into the ocean by measuring the 13C/12C ratio of surface ocean waters. While the data are not as complete as the tree ring data (we have only been making these measurements for a few decades) we observe what is expected: the surface ocean 13C/12C is decreasing. Measurements of 13C/12C on corals and sponges — whose carbonate shells reflect the ocean chemistry just as tree rings record the atmospheric chemistry — show that this decline began about the same time as in the atmosphere; that is, when human CO2 production began to accelerate in earnest.***

    In addition to the data from tree rings, there are also of measurements of the 13C/12C ratio in the CO2 trapped in ice cores. The tree ring and ice core data both show that the total change in the 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere since 1850 is about 0.15%. This sounds very small but is actually very large relative to natural variability. The results show that the full glacial-to-interglacial change in 13C/12C of the atmosphere — which took many thousand years — was about 0.03%, or about 5 times less than that observed in the last 150 years.

    For those who are interested in the details, some relevant references are:
    Stuiver, M., Burk, R. L. and Quay, P. D. 1984. 13C/12C ratios and the transfer of biospheric carbon to the atmosphere. J. Geophys. Res. 89, 11,731-11,748.
    Francey, R.J., Allison, C.E., Etheridge, D.M., Trudinger, C.M., Enting, I.G., Leuenberger, M., Langenfelds, R.L., Michel, E., Steele, L.P., 1999. A 1000-year high precision record of d13Cin atmospheric CO2. Tellus 51B, 170–193.
    Quay, P.D., B. Tilbrook, C.S. Wong. Oceanic uptake of fossil fuel CO2: carbon-13 evidence. Science 256 (1992), 74-79
  • Drew_Ali
    Drew_Ali Members Posts: 1,403 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 2013
    Global Warming vs. the Next Ice Age

    Will the greenhouse effect prevent the return of glaciers?

    "But even that warming will not stave off the eventual return of huge glaciers, because ice ages last for millennia and fossil fuels will not. In about 300 years, all available fossil fuels may well have been consumed.Over the following centuries, excess carbon dioxide will naturally dissolve into the oceans or get trapped by the formation of carbonate minerals.

    Such processes won’t be offset by the industrial emissions we see today, and atmospheric carbon dioxide will slowly decline toward preindustrial levels. In about 2,000 years, when the types of planetary motions that can induce polar cooling start to coincide again, the current warming trend will be a distant memory."
    http://www.technologyreview.com/article/416786/global-warming-vs-the-next-ice-age/


  • LUClEN
    LUClEN Members Posts: 20,559 ✭✭✭✭✭
  • UnderMiSensi
    UnderMiSensi Members Posts: 955 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 2013
    Drew_Ali wrote: »
    Global Warming vs. the Next Ice Age

    Will the greenhouse effect prevent the return of glaciers?

    "But even that warming will not stave off the eventual return of huge glaciers, because ice ages last for millennia and fossil fuels will not. In about 300 years, all available fossil fuels may well have been consumed.Over the following centuries, excess carbon dioxide will naturally dissolve into the oceans or get trapped by the formation of carbonate minerals.

    Such processes won’t be offset by the industrial emissions we see today, and atmospheric carbon dioxide will slowly decline toward preindustrial levels. In about 2,000 years, when the types of planetary motions that can induce polar cooling start to coincide again, the current warming trend will be a distant memory."
    http://www.technologyreview.com/article/416786/global-warming-vs-the-next-ice-age/


    Ok you obviously didn't watch the video which touched on the topic of positive feedback from the environment in regards to excess greenhouse gases due to chain reactions of man made climate imbalance. Like melting ice which releases more carbon/methane which more causes more heat as we release more carbon which melts ice that releases more carbon/methane etc. It all about proper balance and the unnatural ? we're doing is disrupting that balance.

  • Drew_Ali
    Drew_Ali Members Posts: 1,403 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Drew_Ali wrote: »
    Global Warming vs. the Next Ice Age

    Will the greenhouse effect prevent the return of glaciers?

    "But even that warming will not stave off the eventual return of huge glaciers, because ice ages last for millennia and fossil fuels will not. In about 300 years, all available fossil fuels may well have been consumed.Over the following centuries, excess carbon dioxide will naturally dissolve into the oceans or get trapped by the formation of carbonate minerals.

    Such processes won’t be offset by the industrial emissions we see today, and atmospheric carbon dioxide will slowly decline toward preindustrial levels. In about 2,000 years, when the types of planetary motions that can induce polar cooling start to coincide again, the current warming trend will be a distant memory."
    http://www.technologyreview.com/article/416786/global-warming-vs-the-next-ice-age/


    Ok you obviously didn't watch the video which touched on the topic of positive feedback from the environment in regards to excess greenhouse gases due to chain reactions of man made climate imbalance. Like melting ice which releases more carbon/methane which more causes more heat as we release more carbon which melts ice that releases more carbon/methane etc. It all about proper balance and the unnatural ? we're doing is disrupting that balance.

    I didnt watch the video......

    But I did read your summary............

    Again..........

    "But even that warming will not stave off the eventual return of huge glaciers, because ice ages last for millennia and fossil fuels will not. In about 300 years, all available fossil fuels may well have been consumed.Over the following centuries, excess carbon dioxide will naturally dissolve into the oceans or get trapped by the formation of carbonate minerals.




  • UnderMiSensi
    UnderMiSensi Members Posts: 955 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 2013
    Drew_Ali wrote: »

    I didnt watch the video......

    But I did read your summary............

    Again..........

    "But even that warming will not stave off the eventual return of huge glaciers, because ice ages last for millennia and fossil fuels will not. In about 300 years, all available fossil fuels may well have been consumed.Over the following centuries, excess carbon dioxide will naturally dissolve into the oceans or get trapped by the formation of carbonate minerals.

    Even if what you say is true I doubt we have 300 years to keep ? up the climate and environment to the point where the next generation we'll be hard pressed to have clean water, stable temperatures, successful grow seasons with no drought, regular water levels, and clean air.

    @kai_valya I'd like to hear your opinion on this since your a biologist. Do we have 300 years to keep ? up and is this positive feedback runaway chain of greenhouses gases(see video) BS or simple cause and effect due to unnatural imbalance, because of our excess carbon emissions?

  • Drew_Ali
    Drew_Ali Members Posts: 1,403 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 2013
    Drew_Ali wrote: »

    I didnt watch the video......

    But I did read your summary............

    Again..........

    "But even that warming will not stave off the eventual return of huge glaciers, because ice ages last for millennia and fossil fuels will not. In about 300 years, all available fossil fuels may well have been consumed.Over the following centuries, excess carbon dioxide will naturally dissolve into the oceans or get trapped by the formation of carbonate minerals.

    Even if what you say is true I doubt we have 300 years to keep ? up the climate and environment to the point where the next generation we'll be hard pressed to have clean water, stable temperatures, successful grow seasons with no drought, regular water levels, and clean air.

    @kai_valya I'd like to hear your opinion on this since your a biologist. Do we have 300 years to keep ? up and is this positive feedback runaway chain of greenhouses gases(see video) BS or simple cause and effect due to unnatural imbalance, because of our excess carbon emissions?


    Humans can attempt to ? -up or change the climate..........

    However the attempts would be in vain...........

    This planet is headed for another ice age regardless of what humans do...............

    global-temp-chart-2500bc-2040ad.gif]

    415k-year-temp-graph.jpg
  • BiblicalAtheist
    BiblicalAtheist Members Posts: 15,668 ✭✭✭✭✭
  • UnderMiSensi
    UnderMiSensi Members Posts: 955 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Drew_Ali wrote: »
    Humans can attempt to ? -up or change the climate..........

    However the attempts would be in vain...........

    This planet is headed for another ice age regardless of what humans do...............

    global-temp-chart-2500bc-2040ad.gif]

    415k-year-temp-graph.jpg

    We are ? up the climate. My standpoint isn't if we can stop another ice age from coming as the earth goes through cycles. I'm saying that while we emit more CO2 and disturb the balance of the climate we'll be making life a lot harder on our selves and future generations, to say otherwise you'd have to believe there is no reaction to an action.

    Also I think I found the article you were reciting verbatim and even the article says that carbon emissions are getting out of control regardless of an impending Ice Age sometime down the line.

    http://www.technologyreview.com/article/416786/global-warming-vs-the-next-ice-age/

  • BiblicalAtheist
    BiblicalAtheist Members Posts: 15,668 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Idk, climate change stinks of money laundering scheme.
  • Drew_Ali
    Drew_Ali Members Posts: 1,403 ✭✭✭✭✭
    .IRS. wrote: »
    Idk, climate change stinks of money laundering scheme.

    & that's pretty much all it is............

    LOL @ foolish mortals thinking they can manipulate the domain of the gods.....................