Global Warming Watch

Interesting site MW...But a noticebale lack of participation by the Americas, most of Africa, Aussies/NZ, and the EU and northern tier countries across eurasia. Is it mostly a Brit -Asia thingy ? Nothing on the Nile that I saw, not to mention the Congo, Zambesi, etc. What kind of world thing is that with half of more of it missing ? just asking.

flow....:confused:
 
Namaste Flow,

few items...from this non scientific type...

isn't it carbon monoxide that is created when something burns? Carbon dioxide created mostly created by human/animal respiration? and good for plants?

Haven't I read that the variations of carbon dioxide and monoxide found in contained Antarctic ice from millenia past vary much more widely than today's levels??

Lastly haven't we been taught never to trust any global warming chart that starts at 1850 since that was the end of the last mini ice age hence provides only part of the picture and a completely biased one at that??

Plus all this stirring could cause folks to take action which may decrease the sea level from rising which will negatively affect my land speculation for future waterfront properties....
 
flowperson said:
Interesting site MW...But a noticebale lack of participation by the Americas, most of Africa, Aussies/NZ, and the EU and northern tier countries across eurasia. Is it mostly a Brit -Asia thingy ? Nothing on the Nile that I saw, not to mention the Congo, Zambesi, etc. What kind of world thing is that with half of more of it missing ? just asking.

flow....:confused:
Click to expand...

Hmm wrong link - woops. See if this goes to the right place:

Edit - no it doesn't work. Damn is a really good report, will try to find i somewhere else. Sorry.

(note to self, when posting links check them after posting them)
 
Hi wil
I'm not sure enough of the chemical reactions involved to answer your questions thoroughly. All I know is that both compounds are bi-products of burning organic materials, especially fossil organic fuels. I'm fairly certain that monoxide breaks down and degrades more rapidly than dioxide. Mono is more directly toxic to life than dioxide however. Dioxide is more persistent in the environment and unless it is used in plant respiration it tends to be absorbed over time by water, earth, etc.( that's how stuff like calcium carbonate, limestone, etc.is created over millions of years).

We've been burning such an excess of fossil fuel materials for so long now, the carbon dioxide is remaining in the atmosphere to a greater degree for longer periods of time, and is not being utilized or absorbed as it was in the more distant past. This is what is heating up the atmosphere since the sun's energies tend to stick around the earth's surface longer than they did in the past when the dioxide absorption/respiration cycle was more efficient. Think of the excess CO2 as a black down comforter laying above and around the Earth that keeps its natural heat radiation into space capabilities bottled up

That's about the best that I can do to explain this very complex problem. I think Al the Pal did a decent job explaining it, but I didn't see the film, only clips, so I can't comment knowledgeably. All I know is that it is clear, based on a bunch of research done since the 60's that it is human burning activities since about 1850 that have screwed up the eternal natural balancing systems in Earth's atmosphere so handily. The CO2 thingy is but a single facet of a more complex set of issues IMHO, but getting that problem into a correctible mode is seen by experts as a key to having any chance at fixing the others.
 
Wil,
If you don't mind I'll also answer your questions:

Carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H2O) are the primary gasses produced by people and cars. Carbon monoxide (CO) is produced by an incomplete burn when there is not enough oxygen, heat, or pressure to oxidize the fuel completely. The catalytic converter in cars are designed to help convert the incompletely burned CO into CO2.

CO2 is good for trees and plants. Research shows increased foliage and healthier trees and plants with higher concentrations of CO2. Conversely excessive ozone (O3) and oxygen (O2) can suffocate trees and plants.

Variations in carbon dioxide found in Antarctic ice do NOT vary more widely than todays levels. Today's levels (~380ppm in Hawaii) are higher than the peaks found in the ice cores. A millennium is only 1,000 years... per the ice core today's levels are higher than the last +650 millenia.

Image:Carbon Dioxide 400kyr.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Going back further though... millions of years... geochemical modeling has the Earth with higher concentrations of CO2.
Image:phanerozoic Carbon Dioxide.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From the ice cores they also extract an estimation of temperatures into the distant past. There is a very strong correlation of temperature and CO2 in the ice cores. If a higher CO2 concentration causes an increase in temperature then Al Gore is right and the Earth is already in for a serious change even though it has not yet been felt. If a higher temperature causes increased CO2, or if what causes a higher temperature also causes the increased CO2, then Al Gore is wrong... but still charting into uncertain territory.

A bit of my own commentary:
The slope of the increase in CO2, regardless of what CO2 is or does, shows a problem. Anything that grows exponentially is unsustainable at some point. Whatever goes up exponentially will either plateau, come down, oscillate, or simply break away and never be measurable again... someday, somehow. Yup, even the stock market... eventually.

While the CO2 concentrations are relatively higher today, lets put it in perspective. The Earth's atmosphere is 78% Nitrogen, 21% Oxygen, 1% Argon, about 1% water vapor,... and .038% Carbon dioxide.

Water is the biggest global warmer, it is a far better infra-red absorber, and it is 10 to 20 times more concentrated in the atmosphere... and the water is a ga-ga-zillion times more prevalent on the planet... and it cycles many times a year... and the CO2 is ionically broken apart in water. Set the CO2 aside though: If water did not cycle in the atmosphere then the planet would heat up like a real greenhouse to a much higher temperature and we'd surely all die.

Let me say that again... if water did not cycle in the atmosphere then the planet would heat up like a real greenhouse to a much higher ambient temperature than it is today. But as water does cycle the planet is allowed to cool down. Luckily water does cycle because it commutates the sun's light. Each cycle of the water is net-cooling. It removes entropy from the planet and the cycle iteself, like nearly everything here, is powered by the sun. The frequency of the water cycle must match the rate that energy is used on the planet or there is going to be a change in the Earth's average ambient temperature.
 
Salaam Sal...I've hit upon that site a few times before. There's always a lot of reliable information there.

I ran into this interesting opinion piece in the NY Times site today. What does anyone think of this fresh approach to the warming issues. At least it appears that this might bring things into a rebalancing mode in the near term while we approach the larger global imbalance problems that have developed.

flow....:)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/24/opinion/24caldiera.html
 
flowperson said:
Salaam Sal...I've hit upon that site a few times before. There's always a lot of reliable information there.

I ran into this interesting opinion piece in the NY Times site today. What does anyone think of this fresh approach to the warming issues. At least it appears that this might bring things into a rebalancing mode in the near term while we approach the larger global imbalance problems that have developed.

flow....:)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/24/opinion/24caldiera.html
Click to expand...
Extremely misguided. It is understood today that there is global dimming in combination with global warming. The pan evaporation rates gave some important data there. The missing energy has important things to do on the planet.

As an example: Is the home cooled down when the energy supplies to the home are cut off? No air conditioner... no fan... the earth's energy comes from the sun. Cut that off and disaster will arrive sooner rather than later.

When the house is a mess it takes energy to clean it up. Using energy will heat it up, and then it takes energy to get rid of the heat. In all cases energy is required. Again, the planet's primary energy: wind, hydroelectric, solar, oil... all comes from the sun.
 
Cyberpi,

Perhaps I am a bit dim myself but it seems to me that when you do your "math" you always seem to assign each gas an equal value which is utterly misleading. Your homing in on the water cycle as the key to understanding variabilities is valid but I feel you tend to overlook and seriously undervalue the effect other gases play in determining the volume of water vapour. Increasing, by flooding as you have suggested, the surface area on which evaporation (cooling) would in the medium to long term only increase the mean liquid water temperature globally. Liquid water absorbs most radiant solar heat and releases it very slowly, (and your flooded areas that the worlds poor once called home would create at best shallow seas that warm fast). This in turn would heat the atmosphere. And water vapour does not infer reflective cloud cover to achieve dimming. Humidity levels could well rise a long way before we see any additional cloud formation.

To me you seem fascinated by the word entropy but none of our current climate modelling is anywhere near giving a value for that entropy. Indeed as you have just stated in regard to unlimited expansion entropy is equally silly as it is a fluid mean not a fixed state.

Disregarding the impact of increasing levels of atmospheric co2 and methane on the water cycle is folly. I agree with you that much of the science being purported to validate the Man Made Global Warming scenario is usually debatable, spurious or downright flawed. But the fact is man made or not we have a duty to understand the truth of what is happening and not disregard obvious factors in the event. Recent science has put a strong case for the last 3 big mass extinction events being simultaneous with the last 3 times we had elevated co2 levels to above 450ppm, something we are on target to reach within 50 years. There is a link between warming and co2 and it should not be disregarded. co2 and water vapour are intricately linked in the Earths climate balance and looking at one alone is looking at it with one eye when we need binocular vision.

For the record co2 levels at only slightly higher than at present atmospheric concentrations do aid plant growth but to use this as a reason for accepting them is wrong. Much higher than they are now and there is no net benefit to plant growth.

I think Global Warming is happening. In fact it cannot be denied. That its consequences will mean serious events affect communities around the globe also cannot be in doubt. But climate has always been and always will be in flux and it is how we respond to these changes that matter. It would be foolhardy to embark on any unproven experiment on land, sea or air that started trying to tinker with what nature is doing. Instead we should be spending resources in protecting the potential areas at risk and providing rapid and effective response to disasters. And, of course, continue to find ways to reduce our carbon emissions.

Tao
 
cyberpi said:
Variations in carbon dioxide found in Antarctic ice do NOT vary more widely than todays levels. Today's levels (~380ppm in Hawaii) are higher than the peaks found in the ice cores. A millennium is only 1,000 years... per the ice core today's levels are higher than the last +650 millenia.

Image:Carbon Dioxide 400kyr.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Going back further though... millions of years... geochemical modeling has the Earth with higher concentrations of CO2.
Image:phanerozoic Carbon Dioxide.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...
Namaste Cyberpi, Tao,

More silly questions from the uneducated...

Why are C02 records coming from Hawaii? Wouldn't antarctica be better...as that is also where the cores are from...doesn't Hawaii have these things called active volcanoes?? I'd think they'd be spewing out gasses which would affect the localized testing??
 
flowperson said:
C'mon CPi...don't kid us. We're all grown up adults here. I don't believe that you lead a nomadic existence. And I'll be that you spend time most days in the west wing basement doing "testimony editing".

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/25/science/earth/25climate.html
Click to expand...

Gosh no huge surprise there then. Every time I write to my mother I call her to see if what I sent is what she received. It does make you wonder what else our governments 'edit'.
 
wil said:
Namaste Cyberpi, Tao,

More silly questions from the uneducated...

Why are C02 records coming from Hawaii? Wouldn't antarctica be better...as that is also where the cores are from...doesn't Hawaii have these things called active volcanoes?? I'd think they'd be spewing out gasses which would affect the localized testing??
Click to expand...

Hi Wil,

I believe that Hawaii measurements are used due to its relative isolation out in the middle of the Pacific and because the records there are about the oldest consistent records we have. As for the question of volcanism in the islands causing false readings well I have no idea. The readings are taken at the top of Mauna Kea(?), where the telescopes are, and may be above the altitude where erupted co2 may cause false measurements. co2 is heavier than air. As the ppm count of atmospheric co2 is so low and volcanoes do pump out such huge quantities I too would like to be sure that measurements there are reliable. But I am not sure where to look or ask. I will try and look into it.

Tao
 
flowperson said:
C'mon CPi...don't kid us. We're all grown up adults here. I don't believe that you lead a nomadic existence.
Click to expand...
If you don't believe a little, you don't believe a lot. Why bother calling yourself an adult... are you even a kid? If the planet destroys itself tomorrow or if someone plants the seed that destroys it someday, do you think it would be gone... lost... dead?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top