CO2, sea level, and warming

I'm confused. Eastwood22 says "Mt. St. Helens threw more green houses gases, the majority of which were CO2, up into the air than mankind had created in his entire "industrial" existance."

Yet E22 links to an article that says "Volcanoes contribute about 110 million tons of carbon dioxide per year while man's activities contribute about 10 billion tons per year."

10 billion tons is 91 times as much as 110 million tons, correct? And with the Earth's eco-system's ability to process C02, perhaps the human contribution overwhelms nature's capabilities to effectively deal with the overload?
 
Yeah, I screwed up there...

I was in a rush at work and the need for speed overtook the quality of the facts...

I am a huge pusher for a hydrogen economy and for a paperless society. So here is a flip side to it:

Say we go to hydrogen, well, everything. A city like Phoenix would have more water vapor (a byproduct of hydrogen combustion) than usual. Could the added water vapor in the air change the climate and kill off the animals that depend on desert conditions?
 
I think it is important to disregard some portion of the Earths history when discussing climate change because our current conditions are not analogous to all conditions. Keep in mind the development of life, the decrease in impacts, decrease in volcanism, and plate locations, # of hours in a day (which is related to earth-moon distance) all play an important role in climate change.

I should probably clarify this statement further..but Law and Order is on, and I am sure you get what I mean (study, look for patterns, but put more weight on the similar environment to develop a mean)

I also think it is important and not addressed here that there are many different cycles operating contemporaneously. So do not put too much credit into singular predictions which are only looking at 1 component (e.g. the latest solar predictions). This only adds to the confusion when climatologist call our current trend a 'snowball' earth but we are concerned with global warming while we appear to be in an interglacial period.
 
well, since we appear to be going into a maunder minimum, temps should drop in the next few years.



btw, the sci-fi writer is doing better with his made up un-scientific religion than the theology sckool dropout is with his made up un-scientific religion.
 
kgp,

It's great to read the graphs. It may also be useful to read the conclusions of the NAS report:

“changes observed over the last several
decades are likely mostly due to human
activities” with some contribution from
natural variability.

The conclusions of climatologists who are trained to interpret these kinds of data seem straight-forward. There is uncertainty. There always is in science. However, the overwhelming majority of climate scientists believe that climate change is real and is due, in part, to human activities.

texasflag.gif
 
"When you come to a conclusion in science, these two words should not be together"

You want certainty? Science deals in probabilities not certainty. I'm not a climate scientist but I think I can understand their frustration in trying to convince a public that is so unfamiliar with how science works. If addressing the problem of climate change requires the cooperation of the American people we're screwed.

texasflag.gif
 
I get called a moron by everyone every time this thread comes up, but I did want to point out again that the pH of the oceans is something of an issue. Flame on.
 
Here is a thought I had. I have read estimates of current GW rates at roughly 3.6 degrees F per century (projected, of course, to rise) which is 2E-2 K/yr. The mass of the atmosphere is about 5E21 g, mostly made up of nitrogen (c roughly 1 J/gK) and oxygen (c roughly .9 J/gK) with a little water (c roughly 4.2 J/gK). Using about 3.6E17 BTU of energy worldwide per year (used energy winds up as heat loss), we would be directly heating the atmosphere by virtue of our energy use (regardless of source or emissions). Estimating mean c for the atmosphere at 1, my ballpark math says the atmosphere should be warming at just under 2E-2 K/yr with no greenhouse effect figured in whatsoever.

Of course, this is a rough estimate. It also does not account for other heat sinks (or rather, it assumes that heat exchange rate equilibrium between the earth and its atmosphere has not appreciably shifted, nor between the atmosphere and space). As heat transfer rates tend to follow temperature differential and the differential we are introducing here is quite small relative to the absolute temperature, this assumption did not seem too outlandish.

Please feel free to check my math, as I no longer keep chemistry texts nor scientific calculators handy.
 
"Humans are adaptive by nature and as soon as technology permits, we will make the appropriate discoveries necessary to better the planet."

Humans tend to make choices that are to our short-term benefit. We choose a better economy today over a better environment tomorrow. That ain't likely to change.

God bless Texas!



texasflag.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top