SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: RetiredNow who wrote (15490)12/18/2009 3:02:34 PM
From: RetiredNow1 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 86356
 
Ocean acidity could increase 150 percent just by mid-century, according to the report by the Secretariat of the U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity.

"This dramatic increase is 100 times faster than any change in acidity experienced in the marine environment over the last 20 million years, giving little time for evolutionary adaptation within biological systems," it said.

cyprusweekly.com.cy



To: RetiredNow who wrote (15490)12/18/2009 4:25:44 PM
From: Brumar892 Recommendations  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 86356
 
No, you can't make a clear statement that todays temperatures are out of "control" and not "within three sigma" and demand me to prove it isn't true! You need to show what the mean is, what the three sigma boundaries are and show that we're outside them now. Lets let the last 10,000 years (basically the holocene, all after the end of the last major ice age) be the base period. Show us what the mean global temperatures are for that period and what the three sigma boundaries are and that the last century or half century or whatever period you choose is outside those boundaries.

If you can't do this with specific numbers, your claim is based simply on your own imagination - iow you're making up your statistic based claim.

---------------

I have seen charts that show the rate of change, in other words acceleration, in CO2 ppm. At no point in the hundreds of thousands of years records we have from ice cores, has atmospheric CO2 content accelerated as fast as it has within the last 50 years. That is an astounding finding.


The issue is temperature. CO2 only matters if it has or will produce a big change in our temperature. If CO2 doubles or triples or goes up by 10 times, if it hasn't produced or we can't prove it will produce a big change in temperature, it doesn't matter.
-------------------------
Why is it accelerating? Is it because someone has manipulated the data? Maybe. With all the recent press, I wouldn't rule that out. But let's say the ice core data has not been manipulated for a second. What conclusion would you draw if you knew that CO2 content is accelerating faster in the last 50 years than at any time in the last 800 thousand years? Would you still say, nothing different is happening? Or like a real scientist, would you look for causes?

I have little doubt CO2 is going up because we're burning fossil fuels. However, I repeat, CO2 going up only matters if it does something bad. CO2 isn't just something that is evil per se ... If its bad it has to be bad for a reason.



To: RetiredNow who wrote (15490)12/18/2009 5:36:53 PM
From: longnshort  Respond to of 86356
 
youtube.com



To: RetiredNow who wrote (15490)12/18/2009 6:54:37 PM
From: The Vet  Respond to of 86356
 
I have seen charts that show the rate of change, in other words acceleration, in CO2 ppm. At no point in the hundreds of thousands of years records we have from ice cores, has atmospheric CO2 content accelerated as fast as it has within the last 50 years. That is an astounding finding.

If you read the literature on ice core data and the limitations (Ian Plimer's Heaven+Earth has an excellent set of references) you would realise that ice cores naturally "average" the levels of gasses and isotopes due to diffusion and other mixing effects. In practice, ice cores samples cannot distinguish day to day, month to month or even all the year to year differences but can be used to determine trends and levels averaged in longer periods. In other words you can't determine "rate of change" over relatively short periods accurately from ice cores, so your statement cannot be supported by the data.

Regardless, CO2 levels fluctuate seasonally and CO2 levels actually decline by about 8 ppm from a peak in May and a low in September. That rapid 2% reduction occurs in just 4.5 months and alone puts paid to the absurd statement that CO2 lasts for hundreds of years in the atmosphere. The spring/summer growing season effectively removes all the CO2 released from all sources during that time and actually uses up much of the excess released in winter.

Warming would obviously lengthen the growing season and would decrease to atmospheric CO2 naturally without any other measures. The figures are plain and easily available from "Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide - Mauna Loa" even though these graphs are created from "selected" data.

esrl.noaa.gov

Add to that the proven fact that increased atmospheric CO2 levels increase plant growth and energy conversion (solar to carbohydrate) as do higher temperatures and you can see how the earth's carbon cycle self regulates, and the minimal extra CO2 man adds is on balance more beneficial. Anyone who doubts this should go and ask a farmer producing greenhouse crops why he bothers to build a greenhouse (to increase temperatures) and even adds CO2 (to three times current levels) to improve yields...