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

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

  1. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,605
    There were no humans or large volcanoes.
    Which is huge, but go on...
    You have the internet, don't you? Humans are emitting CO2 in large quantities. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. These levels of CO2 haven't been seen in all of human history. The rate of warming is faster than in all of human history.
    No, the natural cycle was infinitely preferable to this.
    Is this your bargaining phase? First you have to accept that there is a problem.
    It's effecting all life on Earth, so it matters.
    The significant part.
    Human activity is completely responsible for increased CO2 levels. There are other sources, but they average out over time.
    God doesn't exist. People did change the course of the climate, that's as much of a fact as science can say.
    I don't think industrial society has a future, so your adaptation proposals are irrelevant.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,676
    I am fine with it. Unfortunately it's not that reliable or cheap.
    I generate my own power via solar. Not that hard.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Woody1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    178
    Indeed. I calculated the CO2 from 7.5 billion humans breathing air as they burn 2400 calories per day. It's a lot more CO2 than you might think, but that wasn't your real point.

    Overall the earth's rate (of temperature change) is faster, but the magnitude appears to be small.

    A lot of people have to go when the earth glaciates. Fortunately we won't be there when that happens.

    The regulations are always a problem to work out. The question is -- what do people really want for their money? I like a pretty environment. I like to catch fish from clean water. The pollution abusers should be dealt with. After that, what do we do?

    I think most people agree with that. I live here too, but I hate it when I spend a bunch of money on medical tests just cover the doctor's ass. It's a waste.

    Are you sure you want to give up all commodities and join the Amish? They renounced the industrial revolution a long time ago. That's what we can expect without the economies of scale (link) that were made possible by industrialization. We've just managed to shift the pollution problem overseas, where we have no authority to regulate it. As far as Americans are concerned -- out of sight means out of mind, right?
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2017
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,713
    The deniers, zealots and the crazies are coming out of the woodwork. I call it the Trump effect.
     
  8. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,291
    How is a forum any different? If it is impossible to separate the wheat from the chaff in articles (written by people), then it's going to apply equally to forum convos (written by people).

    The only solution is to educate yourself first, so you can tell the difference.

    Unfortunately, this thread is premature - the cart is before the horse. You've already formed a conclusion without even brushing up on the basic facts.

    I'm afraid this thread is doomed.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    uts on parachute and bails out:
     
  9. Woody1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    178
    I already agreed that climate change is real. At this stage of the game, I don't necessarily agree with people -- that a 0.4 C change in temperature is a big deal when -- we only recovered 10% of what we lost at the beginning of the ice age. How cold do you want the earth to be anyway? Would you like a glacier in the back yard? I'd kind of like a climate hedge myself, unless there is a compelling reason to live like an Eskimo.

    By the way, I suspect that deforestation (link) has played a greater role in climate change compared to CO2. CO2 is good for plants by the way. They love it.
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2017
  10. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,605
    Obviously small changes in CO2 have a large measurable effect. Is this a difficult concept?
    You can't equate a process that takes thousands of years to one that is having dangerous effects year to year.
    We aren't talking about pollution. CO2 can be perfectly clean, but it will kill your fish anyway. Fish are sensitive to small changes in temperature.
    I prefer the hippies, better parties. But basically yes. Industrial economies are inherently unsustainable. Even powered by solar energy. The Democrats are lying to you if they say you can have your cake and eat it too. The Republicans don't even admit the science is true. I believe things will collapse on their own when fossil fuels become less accessible and more expensive. Our economy can't run on anything else.
     
  11. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,291
    Well, you opened this thread by presenting the refractive index of air and C02 as part of your knowledge, so I guess you've come a long way relatively since then. But you've got a long way to go before you should start forming conclusions. And you won't be able to do anything with mere data.

    You came here for wisdom on climate change and CO2; why not take it?

    Perhaps I'll come back later and see if there's been progreeeeeeeeesssssssss*.
    * me falling freely with ripcord in-hand
     
  12. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,605
    That's not a danger. Get real. Grow up.
     
  13. Woody1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    178
    Actually I dismissed refraction index from the beginning. There is no way it could explain global warming.

    I won't find the answers I'm looking for here, unfortunately, but I found some pretty good references on my own.

    How do we know more CO2 is causing warming? (link)

    "Good scientific theories are said to have ‘predictive power’. In other words, armed only with a theory, we should be able to make predictions about a subject. If the theory’s any good, the predictions will come true."

    Now that's my kind of science reference!
     
  14. Woody1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    178
    Get real and growing you say. So do tell us, Spidergoat, do you still plan to give up commodities and go live like the Amish?
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2017
  15. Woody1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    178
    The same can be said for bull-dozing trees off of the land and constructing any kind of a building instead of planting replacements.
    You're an architect designer. That doesn't sound very promising.
     
  16. Woody1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    178
    "Small" and "large" are relative terms. I can agree that more CO2 increases the temperature to some degree.

    "Dangerous" is also a relative term. We don't know what the risks could be.

    My tropical fish were sensitive to chilly temperatures. Whereas in temperate climates, the fish survive temperatures from tepid to near freezing every year. The bottom of a lake is always about 20 degree F different from the top. In theory though, I can agree that warm water affects spawning, etc. It also holds less oxygen. In my environmental experience, the BOD (link) is the worst thing on the fish. It does everything wrong -- it depletes the oxygen, grows algae, increases CO2, and raises water temperature. It comes mainly from sewage.

    Everything is made in China, and that's who we buy from. Industry creates new money, and it shows in China's economy. The service industries are just swapping old money.

    It looks like nuclear will be the only thing left.
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2017
  17. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,605
    Then you agree with me. Humans emit large amounts of CO2, larger than all natural sources combined.
    No you don't know because you choose to be ignorant.
    Stop being stupid. Many species are sensitive to small changes in temperature and salinity.
    So what?
     
  18. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,605
    Fuck no. I won't be doing that until it's necessary. But it would be good to be prepared.
     
  19. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,605
    I'm not an architect.
     
  20. Woody1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    178
    No. I choose to observe facts. Computer models can be acceptable when they model the right thing. I don't accept crystal balls.

    Eutrophication killed the fish in Lake Erie (link), not CO2 in the air, or air pollution. It would be stupid to say otherwise. Eutrophication does all the bad things with temperature, CO2, O2, etc. You'll know it when you see it -- from the slimy green algae-choaked water and a foul smell -- with dead fish everywhere if any were still swimming. I know several places that suffered from it. It's starting to overload the oceans too.

    I was a member of NANFA (link). The USA has 150 darter species, and that is far more than the rest of the world combined. They are super-specialized to small ecosystems. Do you know how they survived glaciation? I kept a nice aquarium with rainbow darters. Here's a pic:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    We owe China. Do you have any ideas on how to pay them back?
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2017
  21. Woody1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    178
    So when brick and mortar goes away, you still have a job, right?
     
  22. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,605
    It's not about what we want. Circumstances will dictate what's possible, not technology.
     
  23. Kristoffer Giant Hyrax Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,233
    In one of his first posts (back) here he linked a thread he made 10 years ago as Woody. His tag line was something like "Musical creationist", so...
     

Share This Page