Why is less than 0.04% CO2 important to climate change?

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by Woody1, Jun 12, 2017.

  1. Woody1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    178
    Because a lot of the subject matter is biased with political polemics.
    On the other hand, how do you explain 3 million years ago when the earth's temperature was 3 to 4 C degrees warmer than today and the same CO2 concentration at 365 to 410 ppm?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Woody1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    178
    I don't ask for credibility. I ask for answers. 3 million years ago, why was the earth 4 degree C warmer than today with the same CO2 concentration? 4C is off the scale for human global warming isn't it? It's a factor of ten greater than the 0.4 C in this graph.


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2017
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,757
    Well, keep in mind that he's not seriously asking questions. He has come here with a conclusion - that liberals suck, and therefore climate change is a myth, because his political worldview requires it to be. He is now just propping that opinion up with hastily Googled half-truths.
     
    exchemist likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,262
    Is it unfair of us to expect you to be honest? I only highlighted the most egregious instance of your dishonesty within this thread--that's my "contribution." ( <<< that's a response to what you posted prior to the edit.)

    The fact that you are (presumably) an adult and are not dead suggests that you at least have some understanding as to how relatively miniscule-seeming changes can effect a more profound change. Or do you take pills by the bucket-full whenever you are ill, simply because you cannot grasp how a tiny pill with only a few dozen, or a couple hundred, milligrams of an active ingredient can have effect upon your comparatively gargantuan body?
     
  8. Woody1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    178
    no sign of intelligent life here. *sigh*
     
  9. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,475
    You said it, mate.
     
  10. Woody1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    178
    I asked why the earth was 4C hotter 3 million years ago with the same CO2 concentration . That's what I said, but you took the cheap way out....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2017
  11. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,475
    No point. Anyone who thinks the greenhouse effect is about refractive index is not going to understand a scientific explanation.

    Look, it's easy for any jerk to come here and demand answers to arbitrary questions, when he doesn't have the intellectual equipment, the good faith or the openness of mind to take in the responses. We are not obliged to jump through hoops trying to answer such a person's questions. It's like creationists (I presume you are not one of those.). If I thought you were posting in good faith I might go to the trouble, but you will need to convince me first that you really are. Right now, I don't believe it.
     
  12. Woody1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    178
    I figured that refractive index couldn't be the cause, and I even said so in the OP. Perhaps we should just end this thread, and I can agree to that. I also agree that more CO2, methane etc can lead to temperature increases, but nobody here seems to have the data, and they would prefer to browbeat instead. Hence, I'm quite reluctant to even ask a rephrased question here. **

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. gmilam Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,727
    CO2 is part of "air".

    And there will be life on the planet for many years to come. Of course New York (and many other coastal areas) will be underwater - so non-ocean life will have to move further inland.
     
  14. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,475
    Yeah good plan.

    If you want to come back some time with an open-minded sounding question, having read a bit of the science about climate change, as opposed to just the arguments against it, we can try again and I'll be happy to give you the time of day, as will others.
     
  15. Woody1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    178
    yes, along with nitrogen (the main component), oxygen, etc.

    Hypothetically so, but would you prefer another ice age with glaciers covering the Ohio Valley? actually we are in an ice age right now.
     
  16. Woody1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    178
    Personally I'd just like to see the data, but nobody has it. Would it be better next time? I don't think it will, and the verbal exchange isn't something I look forward to.

    I believe the climate is changing, and I'm not arguing against that. I'm skeptical, just like you would be if we were discussing religion or God. I don't think that bars a discussion unless something is wrong with the place where we speak, and that is my conclusion about this forum. I shouldn't expect a civil conversation here unless I join the big group-think love in, and I piss on anyone that disagrees. That's the safe space mentality y'all seem to have here.
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2017
  17. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,757
    There is a classic pattern to climate change denialism which occurs in four stages:

    1) There's no such thing as climate change!
    2) OK maybe the climate is changing, but man has nothing to do with it
    3) OK maybe man has something to do with it, but all the changes will be good
    4) Well it might not be so good but it's too late to do anything about it

    You can tell a true climate change denier from a scientific skeptic by how quickly they flit between those explanations. The one consistency the denier maintains is denial. We see a good example above. While originally denying the connection between CO2 and warming, Woody has now progressed to "well OK perhaps, but all the changes will be good - it's preventing an ice age!" If the pattern holds he will soon revert back to denying the effect of anthropogenic CO2 on the climate, and the next time there's any discrepancy at all in instrumental data, will return to "See? THERE'S NO WARMING!"
     
  18. gmilam Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,727
    So you acknowledge that your statement about CO2 being heavier than air is bullshit. In fact, that statement pretty much killed any credibility you may have had.
     
  19. Woody1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    178
    Bwahahaha! Maybe your head is too small for a hat.

    CO2 has a molecular weight of 44
    Air is molecular weight of 29 (mostly nitrogen).

    Hence by Dalton's law (link) CO2 is heavier than air. QED and adios.

    This fourm is a great place for you... LOL

    Now, find somebody that thinks air is heavier than CO2. I could use another good laugh.
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2017
  20. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,799
    Ask your high school science teacher. The main forcing factors of the past were different. It might have taken 5,000 to heat up 1 degree. It's happening much faster now, and that's the issue. Plants and animals have a limited ability to adapt. You aren't truly a skeptical person, you are skeptical in this one area because you think it conflicts with your political ideology or religion. The science on human caused climate change is supported by data and the consensus of 99% of all climate scientists.
     
  21. gmilam Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,727
    Air Definition: Air is the general name for the mixture of gases that makes up the Earth's atmosphere. This includes CO2.
     
  22. Woody1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    178
    He died many years ago. I'd prefer engineering level or better. I worked in an environmental compliance department of an electric utility for 7 years as an engineer. We obeyed the law.

    Indeed, that's what the reference says (link)... but you apparently figured it out on your own. Good for you.

    Good point, and it begs the question, why?

    but at the end of the day, we're talking less than 0.5 C temperature increase, and I'd like to see a breakdown on the supposed causes.


    I think we'd all prefer what we have now over another ice age.

    No. I don't like pollution and I don't want it, but in my professional life I've had to mitigate it for a large electric utility where I worked in generation planning and environmental compliance. I understand the trade-offs pretty well, and a carbon tax buys you nothing. Renewables aren't there when you need them, so the only other realistic options (besides coal) are nuclear and natural gas, where nuclear produces NO greenhouse gasses, but who wants it?

    I agree the climate is changing. The real questions are: How much does it matter, how much is caused by CO2, and how much do we really control? As an engineer I'm not God to change the forces of nature. On the otherhand I can install scrubbers to reduce SO2 emissions, install selective catalytic reduction to attain NOX goals, change to nuclear power, utilize pump storage, etc. to meet you needs when you turn on the light switch, but it's going to cost you, so don't complain about your rates when we oblige your environmental conscience.
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2017
  23. Woody1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    178
    Here's the breakdown (link) if you want all of the components. It's in that microscopic sliver of the pie called "other" along with hydrogen, argon, krypton, helium, xenon, and neon.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page