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:
    24,443
    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:
    9,793
    What geological record ?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,443
    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:
    12,806
    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:
    9,793

    We don't know this for sure .

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

    Messages:
    9,793
    The Earth was obviously different than it is now .
     
  10. river

    Messages:
    9,793
    Why don't these fossils come from the poles ?

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

    Messages:
    24,443
    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:
    30,644
    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:
    24
    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:
    12,806
    Yes, it was. Things change slowly over time. We are now changing them rapidly.
    Plate tectonics.
     
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,443
    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:
    51,941
    You're wrong.
     
  17. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,644
    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 Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,998
    Keep on working on it, you should be able to figure it out with all the information out there.
     

Share This Page