NeedToUseYou
Posts: 2297
Joined: 12/24/2005
From: None of your business
Status: offline
|
Just quick replies not directed toward previous poster...
Is this even a debate. That more greenhouse gases are in the air today, than other "STABLE" periods of times in the past. Obviously if a large volcano blows it will release tons of gases and create its own "Natural" effect on the environment. But since we are in a fairly stable time period this isn't the cause. Sure a natural forest fire happens or a small volcano, or whatever natural event that occurs and releases green house gases. But that's always happened at the current rate or greater. So, why are the green house gases elevated then?
Hmmmmm, well, carbon is stored in trees, and living things, these things die, and under the right conditions turn to coal, and oil(of course most just rots and is absorded into other carbon life on the surface). Where it sits for millions of years... So, large pockets of carbon were isolated from the system. It was buried and didn't interact with the surface environment or air. Now, here we come, we dig it up and burn it. It's undeniable that there would be more carbon based gases in the air. Since we are introducing more carbon into the system(surface as opposed to buried). On top of it we are cutting down the most dense regions where carbon is absorbed, the rain forest. So, we release the buried carbon, and cut down the densest living carbon regions. And somehow more carbon doesn't end up in the atmosphere mixed with oxygen?
You don't need a scientific journal to rationalize the logic there.
So, I'm guessing everyone agrees that carbon dioxide levels are going to rise?
Yes, No. If not why wouldn't they rise if we are digging it up and burning it at the same time we are cutting the live dense carbon down and burning it(or building houses, which don't absorb CO2, and don't grow).
Well, then if you are adding carbon to a system and thus increasing carbon dioxide, the only logical next step is to ask what does carbon dioxide do? Well, I don't think anyone is debating the function of CO2, so we agree it will cause a decrease in the rate heat is released from the atmosphere? right.
If you don't believe this explain where it is stated that CO2, doesn't inhibit the release of heat from the atmosphere.
So, if that is agreed then the only question is how much CO2(and other gases, whatever), does it take to cause a appreciable increase in temperature. And what other factors could be possibly suppressing this effect. Those are really the only two questions of importance. Not that the CO2 levels are rising, and that CO2 tends to raise temperatures. That's a given.
Now, it's speculation after that to some degree... but this is what I believe..
They have ice cores that show the historic levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, and temperatures. Every spike in CO2 levels has been accompanied by a spike in temperature barring the release, simultaneously of large amounts of particle pollution, which have the effect of blocking the sun and reducing the temps. So, if you had let's say a huge volcano blow, well it will release vast amounts of greenhouse gases but it will also release vast amounts of particle pollution which will blot out the sun to one degree or another cancelling the effect for awhile, then once the particles settles out of the atmosphere, the increased CO2 effect becomes pronounced.
So, currently we are pouring particle pollution in the air, along with CO2. So, basic logic would imply any raise in temperature we are seeing is in fact being offset to some degree by the particle pollution.
Anywho, the ultimate logic is that as we clean up particle pollution, the effects of the CO2 would be become fully realized. This explains why the global temps are to some degree out of whack and lower than they should be compared to other measured periods in time where CO2 levels were high. The temp is going up, but not as much as it would if the air was clean. Less particle pollution in the past. The documentary global dimming is a good one to watch about particle pollution.
But it's fairly simple if the air is dirty, less light gets to the surface. Along with it's effects on cloud formation, reduce global temps. Or offset the increases caused by CO2, and other greenhouse gases.
|
RE: Global Warming: Some good news - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread