Atmospheric CO2 question
- Thread starter Stelth
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Stelth
The questions I have are as follows: Is there a threshold at which the "greenhouse effect" is increased or decreased by the presence or absence of a particular gas? In other words, would 1 part per million of CO2 in the atmosphere raise the surface temperature of the earth by a theoretical or measurable amount, or is a certain atmospheric concentration required before effects are seen?
The info I read shows that its a logarithmic correlation between increase in C02 and increase in global temperatures. So eventually the continued increase in C02 won't change the temperature.
To address a previous post I also read we are still in an ice age - ice age is only defined by having ice present on the polar caps. We are in a warm stage within an ice age, but still an ice age.
The questions I have are as follows: Is there a threshold at which the "greenhouse effect" is increased or decreased by the presence or absence of a particular gas? In other words, would 1 part per million of CO2 in the atmosphere raise the surface temperature of the earth by a theoretical or measurable amount, or is a certain atmospheric concentration required before effects are seen?
The info I read shows that its a logarithmic correlation between increase in C02 and increase in global temperatures. So eventually the continued increase in C02 won't change the temperature.
To address a previous post I also read we are still in an ice age - ice age is only defined by having ice present on the polar caps. We are in a warm stage within an ice age, but still an ice age.
Now that's interesting. Do you have any links to any of that info? I'd like to read it.
Originally Posted By: SVTCobra
To address a previous post I also read we are still in an ice age - ice age is only defined by having ice present on the polar caps. We are in a warm stage within an ice age, but still an ice age.
Originally Posted By: SVTCobra
To address a previous post I also read we are still in an ice age - ice age is only defined by having ice present on the polar caps. We are in a warm stage within an ice age, but still an ice age.
I found the article that I read, but it seems the author is not a scientist and some people have questioned whether he knows what he talking about (just because he isn't a scientist doesn't mean he does not). Not wanting to turn this into a bashing thread and still answer the OPs question, linked below is another article I found that gives more detail and history behind the idea. And there seems to be more rigor behind this and doesn't seemed biased to me.
The gist I got from the article is that its a lot more complex than just the amount of C02 in the air or the rapid increase.
http://donaitkin.com/the-relationship-between-co2-and-temperature/
The gist I got from the article is that its a lot more complex than just the amount of C02 in the air or the rapid increase.
http://donaitkin.com/the-relationship-between-co2-and-temperature/
Originally Posted By: SVTCobra
I found the article that I read,
The gist I got from the article is that its a lot more complex than just the amount of C02 in the air or the rapid increase.
http://donaitkin.com/the-relationship-between-co2-and-temperature/
Not a real great article. There is more to it than CO2. But CO2 is always the biggest player.
Again for those interested in reading good science on the Quaternary Period:
https://www.britannica.com/science/Quaternary
Its a fascinating subject. Earth science is one of about 6 areas of study that I have spent a lot of time on.... Maybe a dozen books in one year.
One of the best (I have read) is "Earth Science Demystified" by Linda Williams. The book really wets your appetite to get into other areas..like anthropology, Ice age, Climate Science. The good thing is once you read even this one book it allows you to chuckle at folks that think they have a clue (but don't)
BTW these "Demystified Books" are very good.
I found the article that I read,
The gist I got from the article is that its a lot more complex than just the amount of C02 in the air or the rapid increase.
http://donaitkin.com/the-relationship-between-co2-and-temperature/
Not a real great article. There is more to it than CO2. But CO2 is always the biggest player.
Again for those interested in reading good science on the Quaternary Period:
https://www.britannica.com/science/Quaternary
Its a fascinating subject. Earth science is one of about 6 areas of study that I have spent a lot of time on.... Maybe a dozen books in one year.
One of the best (I have read) is "Earth Science Demystified" by Linda Williams. The book really wets your appetite to get into other areas..like anthropology, Ice age, Climate Science. The good thing is once you read even this one book it allows you to chuckle at folks that think they have a clue (but don't)
BTW these "Demystified Books" are very good.
If you leak a unit of CO2 into the air and it then leaks/melts a unit of Russian methane from their permafrost, it's foolish to wish to exclude the latter's symbiotic effect on the thing you're trying to measure.
That's why modeling is such a hassle, takes a few "fudge factors" so that no two scientists have the same conclusion. Many are similar, and that's why we have peer review for the serious published journals.
That's why modeling is such a hassle, takes a few "fudge factors" so that no two scientists have the same conclusion. Many are similar, and that's why we have peer review for the serious published journals.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Ahh, another quality Nick post...
LOL Shannow, I can't match your threads on NLP pseudoscience and anti-American pseudo-history easily dispelled by a Wiki page...
Where are your quality posts on the subject?
Ahh, another quality Nick post...
LOL Shannow, I can't match your threads on NLP pseudoscience and anti-American pseudo-history easily dispelled by a Wiki page...
Where are your quality posts on the subject?
Originally Posted By: Shannow
LOL, anti-American...guess that's why I've visited twice, including getting married there...
LOL I still have several PM's thanking me for commenting back, it was around March of 2015 so no way to easily search it....
And I don't care if you love or hate America, it was your "facts" that were objectionable...
LOL, anti-American...guess that's why I've visited twice, including getting married there...
LOL I still have several PM's thanking me for commenting back, it was around March of 2015 so no way to easily search it....
And I don't care if you love or hate America, it was your "facts" that were objectionable...
Originally Posted By: Shannow
LOL, anti-American...guess that's why I've visited twice, including getting married there...
edit...re anti american pseudo history, that would be my CAFE posts, wouldn't it ? ROFL now.
Nope, you have a right to believe what you want on "CAFE". I don't think of CAFE as historical but I guess it is...
LOL, anti-American...guess that's why I've visited twice, including getting married there...
edit...re anti american pseudo history, that would be my CAFE posts, wouldn't it ? ROFL now.
Nope, you have a right to believe what you want on "CAFE". I don't think of CAFE as historical but I guess it is...
Last edited:
Incidentally, my understanding is that the "CO2" isn't just from the last "150" years of the Industrial Revolution, but more like 10,000 years since the dawn of organized herding and agriculture...
Originally Posted By: 69GTX
Global warming is going the way of "peak oil" of the early 1970's. Weren't NY and Miami already supposed to be underwater by now based on predictions of 25-40 years ago? I also value the opinions of trained experts who don't earn their living via the "carbon industry," or through carbon related grants, or professional climate warming academia. The earth surely has continual climate change. Global warming and cooling are inherent parts of that.
Peak oil proponents also made a lot of noise in the first part of the 2000's. Without a doubt they said, we were on the downswing and every year going forward would see a decrease in supply that would cost more and more to extract.
They were wrong in the 1970's, as well as being wrong this century. Someday they will be right, but that is a loooong time from now, IMO.
Global warming is going the way of "peak oil" of the early 1970's. Weren't NY and Miami already supposed to be underwater by now based on predictions of 25-40 years ago? I also value the opinions of trained experts who don't earn their living via the "carbon industry," or through carbon related grants, or professional climate warming academia. The earth surely has continual climate change. Global warming and cooling are inherent parts of that.
Peak oil proponents also made a lot of noise in the first part of the 2000's. Without a doubt they said, we were on the downswing and every year going forward would see a decrease in supply that would cost more and more to extract.
They were wrong in the 1970's, as well as being wrong this century. Someday they will be right, but that is a loooong time from now, IMO.
Originally Posted By: SeaJay
They were wrong in the 1970's, as well as being wrong this century. Someday they will be right, but that is a loooong time from now, IMO.
I always love how folks lump past predictions on even totally different subjects to bolster their arguments. Shows they have no argument. Why not look at what research institutions say NOW. Wait you are not interested
They were wrong in the 1970's, as well as being wrong this century. Someday they will be right, but that is a loooong time from now, IMO.
I always love how folks lump past predictions on even totally different subjects to bolster their arguments. Shows they have no argument. Why not look at what research institutions say NOW. Wait you are not interested
Originally Posted By: Al
Shows they have no argument. Why not look at what research institutions say NOW. Wait you are not interested
Which research institutions, the same ones that all of those "peak oil has already passed" crowd folks used to support their predictions?
Shows they have no argument. Why not look at what research institutions say NOW. Wait you are not interested
Which research institutions, the same ones that all of those "peak oil has already passed" crowd folks used to support their predictions?
Research is one thing, predicting the future is another. All of the predictions are based on computer modeling, may as well use tea leaves to predict the future.
Why do the auto industry, aerospace etc. bother with testing physical components and setting up the experiments, when they have extremely sophisticated modeling at their fingertips? And they have the experience and expertise of making similar components for over a century now. They should know what works and what doesn't by now right? So why can't they rely on computer modeling 100%?
Now we have a bunch of computer models done about our future climate with no previous experience or models proven to be accurate. And people dare call it science.
Why do the auto industry, aerospace etc. bother with testing physical components and setting up the experiments, when they have extremely sophisticated modeling at their fingertips? And they have the experience and expertise of making similar components for over a century now. They should know what works and what doesn't by now right? So why can't they rely on computer modeling 100%?
Now we have a bunch of computer models done about our future climate with no previous experience or models proven to be accurate. And people dare call it science.
No one knows what its actual effect will be on earth excluding other factors like solar activities and deforestation / urbanization, etc.
CO2 has indeed increase in concentration, but as a whole water (both in air and ocean) has a bigger effect on the warming than CO2, and solar activities trump both of them.
I also have my own political opinion of the subject, and would try not to pollute this discussion with it.
CO2 has indeed increase in concentration, but as a whole water (both in air and ocean) has a bigger effect on the warming than CO2, and solar activities trump both of them.
I also have my own political opinion of the subject, and would try not to pollute this discussion with it.
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
CO2 has indeed increase in concentration, but as a whole water (both in air and ocean) has a bigger effect on the warming than CO2,
That may be true but the key is that CO2 is the one factor that is not fluctuating it is going up while the other things fluctuate about a mean.
That's why when people argue that man made CO2 contributes only 4% to GW I chuckle. If you have water on the stove that is just at the vaporization temp but not actively boiling try adding 4% more energy and then take bets what happens. This is the same old tired (and frankly silly) arguments that the deniers use.
CO2 has indeed increase in concentration, but as a whole water (both in air and ocean) has a bigger effect on the warming than CO2,
That may be true but the key is that CO2 is the one factor that is not fluctuating it is going up while the other things fluctuate about a mean.
That's why when people argue that man made CO2 contributes only 4% to GW I chuckle. If you have water on the stove that is just at the vaporization temp but not actively boiling try adding 4% more energy and then take bets what happens. This is the same old tired (and frankly silly) arguments that the deniers use.
Last edited:
Glad we're not locked yet. I appreciate a lot of the comments, and I've continued to read more on the subject. I've read and listened to information/arguments on both sides, and seen that there's no lack of sensationalism on either side. I think I'm at least beginning to get a clearer understanding of what the scientific argument is, as opposed to the political argument.
It can all be fixed according to Al Gore for the tidy sum of $15 trillion. Whenever money enters the subject, like carbon taxes, Mr. Gore seems to alway be nearby. Being taxed on a invisible substance is what governments dream of. Speaking of, I've heard that Australia is getting rid of their carbon tax. Any insights here?
http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/25/al-gores-new-group-demands-15-trillion-to-fight-global-warming/
Flame suit on for the name calling about to be thrown my way.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/25/al-gores-new-group-demands-15-trillion-to-fight-global-warming/
Flame suit on for the name calling about to be thrown my way.
- Status
Similar threads
