Now here is where things get a bit tricky... what about global dimming? This is just a theory... but as well as pumping out C02 from burning carbon, we also add many particulates to the atmosphere. We are not sure how much this reflects the light back into space (similar to particles from volcanoes). Some scientists reckon that if we start to clean emmisions then we may actually warm the planet up!
We do know that we are adding Co2, and we do know its physical properties to reradiate in the IR region thus warming the atmosphere (as per Joramund above)
Environmental debate
Forum rules
Please read the Forum rules and policies before posting.
Please read the Forum rules and policies before posting.
-
Tom Hatfield
- Ee Master
- Posts: 688
- Joined: Mon May 07, 2001 7:00 pm
- Location: Indiana, USA
- Contact:
A bit of an aside.
Humans are not the predominate lifeform on the planet. Both ants and termites out-mass humans 10 to 1. I'm talking pound-for-pound, not numbers. Ant and termite mounds generate more errant methane than all the humans on the planet combined, and methane is a worse greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
The other fact of the matter is that the earth is not getting hotter; it's getting colder. The reason there haven't been any publicized arguments against global warming is because it took the nation by surprise right after the cold war ended, and everyone sunk their talons into it so deeply that the wizened individuals who are able to speak against simply refuse to do so because they no longer have a voice in the matter.
Dig up statistics — I mean real, legitimate statistics, not the biased media-stained crap you find in popular science — on global temperatures stretching back over the last century and you'll notice a distinct trend toward reduction in unpopulated areas, with a distinct increase in urban areas. Why is that? Because the average ground temperature of urban areas increases as cities expand. More people, more houses, more cars equals higher temperature. Whereas in rural areas, the ground temperature reflects what it should be.
It's been widely accepted that we're on the verge of another Ice Age. This happens ever 20,000 years or so, and we're due for one in the next several hundred years. Theoretical, of course, but statistics do in fact support it, while the media and U.S. government does not. So how did global warming take off throughout the world? It's as Beo said: countries are pushing to be like the U.S. and Europe, and that includes absorbing cultural ideas, even if it means embracing the same misplaced fears without even trying to rationalize them.
If you're going to cut back on pollution, don't do it for the sake of the world. Do it for the sake of the air you're breathing right now. I choose not to smoke because I'm not particularly interested in contracting lung cancer. I try not to waste things because resources are limited, no matter how wealthy an economy looks today. On the other hand, my lifestyle dictates that I drive a car. Fortunately, I'm not required to drive it nearly as much as some people — I spend about $30 on gas every other week. But I'm still not shedding any tears over the ozone. I'll let the termites worry about that.
Humans are not the predominate lifeform on the planet. Both ants and termites out-mass humans 10 to 1. I'm talking pound-for-pound, not numbers. Ant and termite mounds generate more errant methane than all the humans on the planet combined, and methane is a worse greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
The other fact of the matter is that the earth is not getting hotter; it's getting colder. The reason there haven't been any publicized arguments against global warming is because it took the nation by surprise right after the cold war ended, and everyone sunk their talons into it so deeply that the wizened individuals who are able to speak against simply refuse to do so because they no longer have a voice in the matter.
Dig up statistics — I mean real, legitimate statistics, not the biased media-stained crap you find in popular science — on global temperatures stretching back over the last century and you'll notice a distinct trend toward reduction in unpopulated areas, with a distinct increase in urban areas. Why is that? Because the average ground temperature of urban areas increases as cities expand. More people, more houses, more cars equals higher temperature. Whereas in rural areas, the ground temperature reflects what it should be.
It's been widely accepted that we're on the verge of another Ice Age. This happens ever 20,000 years or so, and we're due for one in the next several hundred years. Theoretical, of course, but statistics do in fact support it, while the media and U.S. government does not. So how did global warming take off throughout the world? It's as Beo said: countries are pushing to be like the U.S. and Europe, and that includes absorbing cultural ideas, even if it means embracing the same misplaced fears without even trying to rationalize them.
If you're going to cut back on pollution, don't do it for the sake of the world. Do it for the sake of the air you're breathing right now. I choose not to smoke because I'm not particularly interested in contracting lung cancer. I try not to waste things because resources are limited, no matter how wealthy an economy looks today. On the other hand, my lifestyle dictates that I drive a car. Fortunately, I'm not required to drive it nearly as much as some people — I spend about $30 on gas every other week. But I'm still not shedding any tears over the ozone. I'll let the termites worry about that.
The Earth, on average is getting warmer, even when taking measurements from remote places, and these have ben repeated many times to get a more accurate picture. The sea is warmer, as is the atmosphere at different heights. Indeed the Earth may be due for an ice age due to the Earths orbit around the sun (eccentricity, tilt, wobble etc) cycles, but there is another large factor currently pressing and thats the contribution from Human beings. I studied a large array of stats when doing my physics degree, some of which invloved environmental physics, and I think that we can be 95% confident that the planet is warming at a rate in excess of what could be expected if we did not burn fossil fuels.
Methane is indeed more effective a greenhouse gas, but these processes from termites were/are in equilibrium (roughly) for the past few thousands years as part of a natural cycle. Overall numbers have increased due to more grasslands, but the uncertainties in the amount of methane produced vary considerably., and the increased numbers are not to the extent C02 has risen, proportionally. CO2 is rising far faster than any other greenhouse gas producing process.
Methane is indeed more effective a greenhouse gas, but these processes from termites were/are in equilibrium (roughly) for the past few thousands years as part of a natural cycle. Overall numbers have increased due to more grasslands, but the uncertainties in the amount of methane produced vary considerably., and the increased numbers are not to the extent C02 has risen, proportionally. CO2 is rising far faster than any other greenhouse gas producing process.
You're right Paul. CO2 is IR reflective (linear particle)
As for the global diming... Krakatau anyone? It's a very good example of what MIGHT occur if the particle concentration in the atmosphere reaches critical point
Paul, can I catch you on AIM to discuss it further? I'm quite intrigued about your research results and would like to discuss some theoretical models.
As for the global diming... Krakatau anyone? It's a very good example of what MIGHT occur if the particle concentration in the atmosphere reaches critical point
Paul, can I catch you on AIM to discuss it further? I'm quite intrigued about your research results and would like to discuss some theoretical models.
Last edited by Suule on Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
