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

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

  1. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,309
    This one is not.

    This warming (and ocean acidification) is ten times faster - an order of magnitude faster - than any global warming in the geological record. It is being driven primarily by a CO2 concentration boost likewise ten times faster than any sustained natural CO2 boost in the geological record, comprising - entirely- CO2 from human sources; hence the acronym: "AGW", for Anthropogenic Global Warming. Because it is a greenhouse warming rather than by solar fluctuation or Milankovitch cycles, it is not going to follow the common distribution and timing patterns they cause (it will continue to warm the nights more than the days, the high latitudes more than the equator, winters more than summers, and so forth). And it is being visited upon a planet with less "natural" ecological resilience than it has ever had outside of a very large meteorite aftermath.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. river

    Messages:
    10,584
    What geological record ?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,309
    We have a science called "geology". Among its contributions to human understanding has been the compilation of a kind of history, or timeline, of the way things were physically on this planet in the past. That's what I called "the geological record".
     
    exchemist likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,840
    When it's caused by nature, it's natural.
    When it's caused by man, it's anthropogenic.
    And at one time, the Earth was molten.

    Your point?
    Right - and those fossils often don't come from the poles, since rocks move around quite a bit. Again, your point?
     
  8. river

    Messages:
    10,584

    We don't know this for sure .

    Pollutants I'm against . But to blame climate change on just Human activity is wrong .
     
    sculptor likes this.
  9. river

    Messages:
    10,584
    The Earth was obviously different than it is now .
     
  10. river

    Messages:
    10,584
    Why don't these fossils come from the poles ?

    How do these Rocks move around quite a bit ?
     
  11. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,309
    Why did you type the word "just" in there?
    Because nobody is doing that.
    But it is now as it is now. Right?
    Good question. A current active topic of research - are you interested?
     
  12. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    31,255
    They still do.

    Have you heard of continental drift and plate tectonics?

    The continents all drift around over millions of years. A couple of hundred million years ago, Antarctica was part of a supercontinent called Pangea.

    Also, the climate has changed a lot over millions of years. The whole planet was warmer during the age of the dinosaurs, for example.
     
    mcurie likes this.
  13. Thales Registered Member

    Messages:
    36
    This is a great thread; I would encourage all participants to continue writing down their ideas, in good faith.

    From a young age, I was raised as a bit of a so-called "denier" of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW); Indeed whenever the matter was presented, I would deny the proposition that human activity (particularly, occurring at/around the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, in factories) caused a significant rise in world-wide temperatures. It seemed to me a bad suggestion, not really "targeted" towards my own ego, but to the contrary: it is quite evident that the folks who insist that the Greenhouse Effect, involving forced CO2 injection, were deeply concerned with our planet and the people inhabiting it.

    However, as I am not one for "politicization" I find it hard to change my perception of the current climate and these environmental conditions. I do admit: it's conditioned, and to the degree that this obtains, the discussion surrounds those conditions. And yet, these change. Hence we have the counterpoint: the climate is changing. The whole polemic seems to resonate along the lines of the Medieval/Scholastic disputes involving the same themes: change, the problem of motion, time, etc. What was once the question of "What changes in humbly submitting to God?" is now roughly, even satirically, transliterated as: "Is the Earth heating disproportionately to its own historiographical indices?" An undoing of Genesis, really, in that the counterclaim of opponents to the deniers of AGW is: "Human activity" created this warming.

    The focal point of whether average measured temperature rises (1) are happening, and (2) are consequential, seems to result in the greatest admixture of opinions. For obviously it contains many "sub-classes": in the temperature modulations of the two North-South poles of the Earth, Water/Oceanic temperature, Air, Urban cities, Hemispheres/Tropics, Sea currents, etc. And after thoughts preside in its effect upon wildlife, foliage, and so forth. Now, I am not actually it appears the "theist" I used to be, but what shows up at this juncture often involves a delicate craft and argumentative ingenuity. Very productive, this dialogue!

    A few commentators, on all sides, have provided excellent literature through which I am slowly sifting. It suffices for now to note: it seems to me that the host of this thread, Woody1, did not actually mention "politics", at least not until he was pressed by multiple other supporters of this phenomena. I do not purport to know his politics, save for the potential temptation to assume something of the scenario described in the original topic ("I'm discussing climate with an Austrian horticulture professor"). However, the usual crowd did surround, at least until river showed up. I submit at the outset that my stated tendency in future posts shall be slated against "politicization" of any typology.

    We're carving out a most interesting terrain herein. Thanks to all; In this moment, I remain undecided.
     
  14. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,840
    Yes, it was. Things change slowly over time. We are now changing them rapidly.
    Plate tectonics.
     
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,309
    If you leave all the politics out, you can find careful summaries of the hard research into what has happened and what it most likely indicates will happen next - probabilities including error ranges, carefully expressed - here: https://www.ipcc.ch

    One major flaw of that site is that it omits detailed discussion of the meaning of the range of the uncertainties they include, and omits discussion of research and analysis that is more tentative than the nailed down stuff they present. In particular it omits how the better establishment of these less solid but nevertheless carefully investigated matters would affect what they do report as solidly based.

    So the threat posed by the recent anthropogenic CO2 boost is likely to be significantly underestimated by a more naive or less alert peruser. But the basic, floor level physical situation, without politics, is clear enough.
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2017
  16. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    52,963
    You're wrong.
     
  17. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    31,255
    It isn't just the human activity. There are positive feedback loops, too. That is, human-caused warming tends to lead to further warming due to natural processes that occur as a result of the initial warming.
     
  18. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,349
    Keep on working on it, you should be able to figure it out with all the information out there.
     
  19. Thales Registered Member

    Messages:
    36
    Whose?
     
  20. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,226
    If you have the powers of critical analysis of an educated person, you can conduct the usual exercise of comparing and contrasting sources, I suppose. All I can give you is my own perspective, which is along the following lines:

    It is indisputable that CO2 levels have risen very rapidly and significantly indeed since the industrial revolution.

    It is indisputable that CO2 absorbs strongly in the IR and would be expected to trap heat from the sun that is re-radiated from the warmed ground.

    There are numerous studies showing a rising temperature trend. Some of these are disputed, but there seems to be a large body of evidence in favour.

    These facts indicate a risk, if not a certainty, that climate is occurring or can be expected to occur.

    The effects of a warmer world, such as sea level rise or a change in the abundance and location of desert terrain would be very disturbing to humanity, perhaps causing mass migration, wars over resources and so on.

    It seems prudent not to take the risk.
     
    Walter L. Wagner likes this.
  21. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,349
    I would look at everyone's. Since this is a scientific question I would pay much less attention to any political views point. Since this is about climate, I would certainly pay most attention to experts in the field of climatology.

    Good luck on your investigation.
     
  22. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,309
    No, it doesn't. That's a politicized stance - a Republican propaganda meme.

    We have now, as they did not have then, the benefit of information gained by research into the physical circumstances involved. That changes the terms of the discussion, fundamentally.
    Those in possession of it - the researchers into the physical circumstances.
     
  23. Thales Registered Member

    Messages:
    36
    What do you mean?

    How is Scholasticism akin to contemporary USA Republicanism? Very intrigued in what you will say next.

    Thanks for commenting. I suppose do not yet know how to ascertain which researchers are pertinent, and which to discard. Moreover, no users have provided examples, save this injunction to "just be intelligent" about it.

    I do not wish to be ignorant, but there appear to be multiple impasses and obstacles in how to go about that attainment of knowledge.

    It is rather challenging, as the topoi of "climate" - of course - should be.
     

Share This Page