The Official Global Warming/Climate Change Thread

[Alejandro24 575]

On 20/5/2016 at 7:27 AM, A Nonny Moose said:

A hot time in India.

51^oC = 123.8^oF  Seems this area may become uninhabitable.  Expect another volkerwandrung.

And I'm complaining because 35°C. I should be more grateful to be in a more temperate place.

About the complains of El Niño: let the El Niño-La Niña oscillation continue, this haven't ended yet. There was expecting a wet winter for the west of Mexico too, but instead that we got a mainly dry winter with isolated rains, and a complete day of march with rainfall and snow in the afternoon -that were completely strange-.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Now is the time for inexpensive but effective environment suits.  If Earth becomes uninhabitable, we really have no place to go.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Grizzly/Polar Bear cross shot in Nunavut.

Grizzlies are mature Brown Bears and they are the forebears (no pun intended) of the Polar Bear.  It is hardly surprising that they would be inter-fertile.  Since Polar Bears generally mate on the ice, one wonders what a receptive female was doing on shore at the right time (spring).  The shrinking of the polar ice is driving the Polar Bears ashore, I guess.

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

18 minutes ago, A Nonny Moose said:

Grizzly/Polar Bear cross shot in Nunavut.

Grizzlies are mature Brown Bears and they are the forebears (no pun intended) of the Polar Bear.  It is hardly surprising that they would be inter-fertile.  Since Polar Bears generally mate on the ice, one wonders what a receptive female was doing on shore at the right time (spring).  The shrinking of the polar ice is driving the Polar Bears ashore, I guess.

Allegedly. They don't even know if it was a cross. Odd way to shoehorn global warming propaganda into a news story. Pure speculation, no facts. Very crafty.

I wonder if there will be a follow up story confirming whether or not their suspicions are correct.

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

20 hours ago, OcramsRzr said:

As Hurricane Sandy and other disasters (such as methane being released from permafrost, causing Sinkholes in the Arctic), we have reached the tipping point. All models that have this decade (or 2015/2016) as the tipping point are more accurate than older models. Almost all climate scientists accept anthropogenic climate change, with most naysayers having conflicts of interest (oil money). Anyway, pollution in the tropopshere (the air closest to the ground) seriously impacts health, causing and worsening many diseases and maladies.

 

Global warming and climate change are indeed occurring, but not because of human interference or CO2. Humans can have a negative impact on the environment and eco-systems, but climate change isn't one of them.

Hurricanes like Sandy will happen regardless. There is no evidence that such events are caused by AGW. The effect of the "disaster" of such weather events are only felt because of the density of human population in certain areas. This is the beauty of what I call the Goldilocks paradox of AGW where anything can be proof of global warming. Is it too hot? Global Warming. Is it too cold? Global Warming. Is there too much snow? Global Warming. Is there too little snow? Global Warming. Anthropogenic Global Warming can never by wrong because every single weather event seems to be proof thereof.

You don't think there is big money behind Global Warming research? Money that might adversely affect the results? Ever heard of the Club Of Rome or the 1001 Club? There is a lot of big money behind the environmentalist movement of global warming, which is my opinion is a hijacking of true environmentalism in favor of globalist policies that will limit the growth of certain nations and favor certain energy production over others (just my conspiracy theory, would have to go back and do a lot of digging to prove it).

Just speculation here, but you watch, this "tipping point" is total BS. The planet, at least in terms of climate, is going to be just fine.

 

[Ocram's Razr 964]

Clouds at night trap more heat in. Haze and white clouds in the day reflect more heat out.

 

If you want future generations to live in a permanent interglacial period, surrounded by garbage, toxins, and carcinogens, then keep polluting. If however, you want no humans to live in polluted filth or breathe in particulates, without caring whether we live in an ice age, interglacial period, or in between (our species arose during an ice age and industrialized during the Little Ice Age), engineers could build seawalls or domes for protecting coastal cities. Arctic temperature increases will release methane, which is much less common in the atmosphere, making it 86 times more powerful than carbon dioxide for its first 20 years. Once the permafrost thaws, a truly interglacial period will occur. Without glaciers, the sea level will rise up to 70 meters in under a century. So maybe domes would be better than walls.

 

Nature (publishers of Scientific American) has a paywall but I can give you the titles of the articles and a link to an article describing the works of a freedom-of-information-loving scientist out of Russia.

[Ichigo951 22]

17 minutes ago, OcramsRzr said:

Clouds at night trap more heat in. Haze and white clouds in the day reflect more heat out.

 

If you want future generations to live in a permanent interglacial period, surrounded by garbage, toxins, and carcinogens, then keep polluting. If however, you want no humans to live in polluted filth or breathe in particulates, without caring whether we live in an ice age, interglacial period, or in between (our species arose during an ice age and industrialized during the Little Ice Age), engineers could build seawalls or domes for protecting coastal cities. Arctic temperature increases will release methane, which is much less common in the atmosphere, making it 86 times more powerful than carbon dioxide for its first 20 years. Once the permafrost thaws, a truly interglacial period will occur. Without glaciers, the sea level will rise up to 70 meters in under a century. So maybe domes would be better than walls.

 

Nature (publishers of Scientific American) has a paywall but I can give you the titles of the articles and a link to an article describing the works of a freedom-of-information-loving scientist out of Russia.

I would love those links, but are they still with paywall?

[Ocram's Razr 964]

@Ichigo951: The easier-to-read Scientific American Articles are behind a paywall so you would need to go to a library or know someone else's login. However Sci-Hub exists, which allows anyone to read published scientific articles, and everyone uses it.

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

6 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

 

Global warming and climate change are indeed occurring, but not because of human interference or CO2. Humans can have a negative impact on the environment and eco-systems, but climate change isn't one of them.

Hurricanes like Sandy will happen regardless. There is no evidence that such events are caused by AGW. The effect of the "disaster" of such weather events are only felt because of the density of human population in certain areas. This is the beauty of what I call the Goldilocks paradox of AGW where anything can be proof of global warming. Is it too hot? Global Warming. Is it too cold? Global Warming. Is there too much snow? Global Warming. Is there too little snow? Global Warming. Anthropogenic Global Warming can never by wrong because every single weather event seems to be proof thereof.

You don't think there is big money behind Global Warming research? Money that might adversely affect the results? Ever heard of the Club Of Rome or the 1001 Club? There is a lot of big money behind the environmentalist movement of global warming, which is my opinion is a hijacking of true environmentalism in favor of globalist policies that will limit the growth of certain nations and favor certain energy production over others (just my conspiracy theory, would have to go back and do a lot of digging to prove it).

Just speculation here, but you watch, this "tipping point" is total BS. The planet, at least in terms of climate, is going to be just fine.

Psst... Forget to mention the Carbon Credits which would have opened up a whole new derivatives market worth trillions!

Anyway, I have very mixed feelings about AGW. First of all was Climategate and the controversy of tailoring the hockey stick; second is the fact that the Earth's temperatures decreased a little between the 1950s and 1970s despite the rapid increase of urbanization, developing country growth, airports and cars, so CO2 surged upwards but temperatures did not for that period; thirdly is the logarithmic effect of carbon dioxide greenhouse effect which creates a tapering off effect when more CO2 is in the atmosphere; fourthly is the role of the Earth's electromagnetic field and how its fluctuation can cause changes to jet streams many thousands of miles away from the poles; fifth is the role of water vapour and how water vapour is fifty times more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2, sixth is how CO2 is not a pollutant but a vital gas which plants need and lastly when global warming changed to climate change.

The one thing that does concern me with AGW is the acidification of the oceans, that can't be good for plankton right? Another thing of interest is this logarithmic effect of CO2. Personally I think we need more CO2 because during the last ice age the CO2 parts per million dropped to 180, if it had gone to a 150 then plants would have stopped functioning.

Finally stopping climate change is an impossible task because it assumes that everything revolves around CO2. If CO2 levels return to where they were say in 1900 (after a few hundred years) then the assumption is that the sea levels will return to where they were in 1900 as will the weather. As for the methane, well I presume its coming from gas reserves underground so there must have been periods in the Earth's history where the tundra thawed out throughout the year and for long periods of time, this means, giving the gas reserves below, constant release of methane- but no evidence of runaway global warming because otherwise there would be a ridiculous spike upwards in temperatures for certain historical periods.

Just in the last 20000 years areas of the Earth have seen extraordinary climate change. The Sahara was once a jungle 10000 years ago. Tectonic activity and gaseous fissures along faultlines release a gargantuan amount of gases, some of which is CO2. What man does to this planet is absolute peanuts compared to the electromagnetic field, the power of the Sun, the shifting tectonic plates and other powerful forces.

Global warming hysteria is nothing new by the way. In the 1940s glaciers worldwide were melting and there were fears of runaway global warming. Furthermore the catastrophic predictions of global warming have been whittled down. Back in 2000 it was sea level rises of ten or something metres and global temperatures increasing by at least seven degrees centigrade by 2100. Now its sea level rises of up to a metre by 2100 and perhaps further warming of one or two degrees centigrade, I believe that's the current consensus.

Of course no one seems to be actually serious about global warming and preparing for it. I don't see massive funds being created to pay for sea walls to protect coastal areas, I see fracking is going ahead and that is way worse than normal oil extraction because of the release of methane, I see governments and economists all saying that the economy in Western countries needs to grow 3% to 4% every year- so exponential growth. I see wind farms and solar farms as only supplementing a small fraction of existing power supplies. I see natural gas exports surging. I see virtually no interest in desalination or tidal power. I see poor countries having to bear the brunt of climate change agreements by agreeing to not chopping down most of their forests and restricting their usage of their own energy resources; this despite Western countries having chopped down most of their forests and reaping the rewards of cheap fossil fuels. I see biofuels which are a waste of food resources; especially palm oil plantations which are cutting down the very rainforests the Greens are so desperate to protect. I see green technologies utilising an extraordinarily large amount of rare earth metals; elements which are so rare they require massive strip-mining and this mining is the most dirtiest industry on the planet.

The fact that tidal power has not been properly invested in is a travesty; the tides always go in and out night and day! The fact that fusion power and thorium power are not getting the funds they need is another disgrace. Talk about technologies which can break our dependence on fossil fuels. Wind power and solar power are a complete waste of time and will only make electricity more expensive, they do not work 24/7 and could only be truly viable when electricity can be stored. Why aren't billions of pounds being spent on electricity storage?

Any politician who claims they want to fight climate change and also say the country needs 3% to 4% economic growth is a big fat liar. You cannot cut CO2 emissions when economies need exponential growth to function. And if green technologies do explode in usage then expect large scale strip-mining of rare earth elements- some of these elements are so rare that sifting through a cubic kilometre of crust will only yield a few grams. I cannot emphasise enough just how dirty rare earth element extraction is; the chemicals used are some of the most deadliest on the planet and the whole process requires a lot of electricity.

To sum up the efforts used to fight global warming are contradictory, illogical and ill-planned.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

@Ln X : A little known secret is that capitalism and monetary-based mercantilism (Capitalism's predecessor) requires scarcity and growth. Farmers are paid by the government to leave parts of their fields fallow. Intellectual Property protection induces an artificial scarcity on information. Digital piracy, alternate currencies, low birth rates, net emigration, and decreased consumption all undermine the capitalist system. A credit bubble is fueling our "Jobless Recovery." Once that bubble bursts, the capitalist system would only need panicked traders and poor enforcement of IP rights (whether through decreased prosecution or increased infringement) to go kaput.

Capitalism can adapt to become more ecologically friendly but that would require heavy alterations to subsidies and taxes. Remove all fossil fuel subsidies, tax all pollutants (different rates for different LD50, carcinogenicity, and greenhouse gas effects), create incentives for expanding green power (renewable, fusion, and fission), and decrease taxes on productivity and the free market will go green. Complete lack of taxes and subsidies would encourage frugality, locally produced resources, and biomass fuel at the expense of social cohesion and certain economies of scale.

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

14 minutes ago, OcramsRzr said:

@Ln X : A little known secret is that capitalism and monetary-based mercantilism (Capitalism's predecessor) requires scarcity and growth. Farmers are paid by the government to leave parts of their fields fallow. Intellectual Property protection induces an artificial scarcity on information. Digital piracy, alternate currencies, low birth rates, net emigration, and decreased consumption all undermine the capitalist system. A credit bubble is fueling our "Jobless Recovery." Once that bubble bursts, the capitalist system would only need panicked traders and poor enforcement of IP rights (whether through decreased prosecution or increased infringement) to go kaput.

Capitalism can adapt to become more ecologically friendly but that would require heavy alterations to subsidies and taxes. Remove all fossil fuel subsidies, tax all pollutants (different rates for different LD50, carcinogenicity, and greenhouse gas effects), create incentives for expanding green power (renewable, fusion, and fission), and decrease taxes on productivity and the free market will go green. Complete lack of taxes and subsidies would encourage frugality, locally produced resources, and biomass fuel at the expense of social cohesion and certain economies of scale.

I think that's more oligarchy, monopolies and crony capitalism. Another part is trade tarriffs and government trade policy to keep certain industries within a country globally competitive. Look into how money is created- this is the root source of material corruption. The same bankers and globalists who control the world's money supply are also the same ones who have a big interest in going green because it means new technologies to be sold, higher energy prices thus more inflation and of course a derivative market in carbon credits. I do believe that in the future carbon credits will be a new source for a derivative market; a market would could be worth tens of trillions. To put that into perspective, a market whose value is greater than the Earth's entire GDP, possibly by multiples of 2, 3, 4 or maybe more. HUGE!

Now, even with generous tax cuts for business going green and punitive taxes for businesses that pollute it would not achieve the desired effect. The problem is that a large part of the economy uses fossil fuels: petrol, oil, natural gas and of course plastics which require oil. If energy companies are heavily taxed they they will respond by increasing the price of oil, gas and coal. Giving my post above about how green electrical generation can only supplement current electricity supply, then the end result is higher prices for everyone and tougher conditions for business.

And when I say renewable sources of electricity supplement existing non-renewable sources of electricity, I mean that power stations running on non-renewables must always be running since the power output of renewable sources varies daily: different wind speeds, different amounts of sunlight in the day (clouds/haze). Gas, oil and coal power stations can run at a minimal level but they cannot be switched on or off at a drop of a hat.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

@Ln X : Perhaps I was wrong on capitalism... http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/journal/issue-6/does-capitalism-require-endless-growth

However, when I mentioned 'green energy,' I included nuclear power, and working reactors exist that switch between desalination and electricity production (there is one in California, desalinating water for San Diego) and the Sulfur-Iodine cycle can introduce another use for the reactors. This allows High- Temperature Generation IV Nuclear Power Plants to function as Peak Matching Power Plants, instead of only Base Load Power Plants. Also, I did say a decrease in taxes on productivity. That means that if income tax is reduced, sales tax is reduced, and payroll tax is eliminated, prices could remain the same (or possibly decrease in innovative regions) with pollution taxes. Pollution is a negative externality and deadweight loss can be eliminated by decreasing taxes on productivity (income, corporate, sales, payroll, etc), removing subsidies on businesses without externalities, taxing negative externalities, and subsidizing positive externlities.

[zahrul3 472]

I have no idea what kind of education people here once received, or how the people here came to know about climate change (since it's only been popular very recently). Whether it is a product of human activity or not, global warming activity is the result of industrial activity and pollution 50-80 years before. Yes, it does exist and it is known to be a product of human activity, based on graphing surface temperature rates from different periods. It can't be denied and there are already many places on the earth where global warming has had a negative effect, ie. Indonesia.

At the same time though, by 2100, oil and coal would be rare and expensive enough, we'd naturally lean towards renewable energy anyway, which by that time would be even cheaper due to improvements in technology.

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

9 hours ago, OcramsRzr said:

@Ln X : Perhaps I was wrong on capitalism... http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/journal/issue-6/does-capitalism-require-endless-growth

However, when I mentioned 'green energy,' I included nuclear power, and working reactors exist that switch between desalination and electricity production (there is one in California, desalinating water for San Diego) and the Sulfur-Iodine cycle can introduce another use for the reactors. This allows High- Temperature Generation IV Nuclear Power Plants to function as Peak Matching Power Plants, instead of only Base Load Power Plants. Also, I did say a decrease in taxes on productivity. That means that if income tax is reduced, sales tax is reduced, and payroll tax is eliminated, prices could remain the same (or possibly decrease in innovative regions) with pollution taxes. Pollution is a negative externality and deadweight loss can be eliminated by decreasing taxes on productivity (income, corporate, sales, payroll, etc), removing subsidies on businesses without externalities, taxing negative externalities, and subsidizing positive externlities.

Yeah Type IV nuclear power plants and modern salt reactors not only make nuclear fission very safe, it also makes it very easy to shut down too. China, of all places, is investing very heavily in salt reactors and Type IV nuclear power plants.

Reducing income tax, sales tax and eliminating payroll tax would create a surge in consumer and business spending. But taxing carbon pollution would require extensive measuring of carbon footprints, so companies which provide office jobs could be adversely effected since computers use a lot of electricity and many workers drive to work. This could be mitigated with electric cars or hydrogen cell cars. Superconductors, super-cooled computer components, could substantially cut down on electricity because computers need a lot of electricity due to resistance generated by high temperatures. So it's all there either in practice or in theory, it's just putting it all together.

Cutting taxes is one of Trump's policies but what his plans for Type IV nuclear power plants and salt reactors are is unclear.

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

8 hours ago, zahrul3 said:

Yes, it does exist and it is known to be a product of human activity, based on graphing surface temperature rates from different periods.

How far back do our "surface temperature rates" go? 50 years? 100 years? 200 years? 1000 years?

8 hours ago, zahrul3 said:

It can't be denied and there are already many places on the earth where global warming has had a negative effect, ie. Indonesia.

In what way has Global Warming negatively affected Indonesia? How do you know for sure it's caused by Global Warming?

8 hours ago, zahrul3 said:

I have no idea what kind of education people here once received, or how the people here came to know about climate change (since it's only been popular very recently).

"Global Warming" or "Climate Change" has been in the popular consciousness for at least 30 years. Introduction of the theory to the public is over 50 years.

[zahrul3 472]

13 minutes ago, MilitantRadical said:

How far back do our "surface temperature rates" go? 50 years? 100 years? 200 years? 1000 years?

In what way has Global Warming negatively affected Indonesia? How do you know for sure it's caused by Global Warming?

"Global Warming" or "Climate Change" has been in the popular consciousness for at least 30 years. Introduction of the theory to the public is over 50 years.

As for 'how it affects Indonesia', first we have coral reefs that bleach out and die, therefore less fish for our fishermen to catch. Secondly, several coastal cities on the north shore of Java are now below sea level and there are already areas where the sea has completely inundated parts of the city. I'm still in college and I have classes dedicated to understanding how humanity has negatively changed Earth and how we could at least mitigate that from an urban/regional planning perspective

This is how much it affects Semarang (dark blue = extremely prone to coastal inundation)

[Ocram's Razr 964]

7 hours ago, Ln X said:

Reducing income tax, sales tax and eliminating payroll tax would create a surge in consumer and business spending. But taxing carbon pollution would require extensive measuring of carbon footprints, so companies which provide office jobs could be adversely effected since computers use a lot of electricity and many workers drive to work. This could be mitigated with electric cars or hydrogen cell cars. Superconductors, super-cooled computer components, could substantially cut down on electricity because computers need a lot of electricity due to resistance generated by high temperatures. So it's all there either in practice or in theory, it's just putting it all together.

 

There is no need to calculate carbon footprints. Just tax all fuels by the dirtiest they can be used (with different grades getting different rates), offer tax refunds for using cleaner methods (if emissions can be measured then give more tax relief to those which measure), and tax all toxic waste and contaminated sewage emitted. This will raise prices on fuel and manufacturing, which will trickle down to a rise in costs for everyone using fossil fuel electricity and consumer goods. If the Administration times things correctly (announcing at the same time, cutting current taxes as pollution taxes raise costs), they could bolster the economy (reducing deadweight loss) and slightly raise revenue (because taxing and subsidizing come with deadweight loss, while an overzealous tax on negative externalities drives innovation and has less deadweight loss, equal to the overzealousness), while creating a cleaner, healthier America.

Subsidies on corn/maize also come with deadweight loss, plus the hidden healthcare costs from fueling the obesity epidemic. However, corn is very cheap and agribusiness corporations are powerful. Taxing pollutants could harm Monsanto's bottom line because it can be argued that their products are pollutants but The Donald says he cannot be bought. However, Climate Change deniers tend to also be ambivalent at best towards welfare and health issues caused by pollution. Blue Baby Syndrome is common near conventional agriculture.

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

7 hours ago, zahrul3 said:

As for 'how it affects Indonesia', first we have coral reefs that bleach out and die, therefore less fish for our fishermen to catch. Secondly, several coastal cities on the north shore of Java are now below sea level and there are already areas where the sea has completely inundated parts of the city.

Yeah but nothing is permanent in nature. The sheer vastest and density of human civilization across the planet puts it in the direct path of nature's wrath. That cities will sink, crumble, or flood, is only inevitable. Isn't it?

7 hours ago, zahrul3 said:

I'm still in college and I have classes dedicated to understanding how humanity has negatively changed Earth and how we could at least mitigate that from an urban/regional planning perspective

So your academic success depends and future career-path depends on your belief in Global Warming...

Isn't there potentially a bit of a conflict there? How could you be skeptical if you risk alienating yourself?

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

Nitpick here but I can't help but hear the word "heretic" or "witch" every time someone uses the term "Climate Change denier" which is incredibly loaded. First there's the word "denier" which has an association with "holocaust denial", then there is the term Climate Change which is very vague. Of course the climate is changing, no one denies that, not even "deniers".

It is designed to denigrate skeptics and skepticism. If it were an honest, rational, and scientific discussion, no one would use this term, but since it's all about ad-hominem and group-think the "denier" label is liberally applied.

[metarvo 711]

That is the whole purpose of the switch from the somewhat innocuous word "skeptic" to now the harsher "denier."  The group-think of which you speak has all but displaced critical thinking IMHO.  Shameless plug: I say this as it's -3 °F (-19.4 °C) outside.

[Bdub01 201]

I believe we all have no problem in believing in 'climate change' I just want to know what makes us puny little humans think that we somehow have in any way, been able to influence it. 

[zahrul3 472]

For those still unconvinced climate change is a thing, the amount of climate change that happens is disproportionate. Basically put, what happens is that the climate is more extreme. This results in some places seemingly becoming slightly colder (esp. during winter) or not experiencing any change but the upper range of climate extremes increase. However, there are regions where the climate is increasingly hotter, around the equator and deserts during summer. This increase in temperature increases ocean temperatures worldwide (even in areas where temperatures aren't rising) melts Arctic ice.

Can humans influence change? Yes, while we can't actually prevent it outright we can stop the rate of climate change from going through the roof in 2050. This is why things like carbon tax and gasoline tax should be or are currently being implemented in many countries, as well as encouraging people to use solar panels and movements to reduce deforestation as forests keep the climate cool, not just through absorbing CO2 but also by retaining moisture and cover which stops temperature from shooting up to above 40 degrees centigrade during summer. There's also some small, but significant things that can be done to reduce climate change. Planting trees in the desert for instance, can improve the local climate to the point you can grow crops on somewhere you couldn't have done before.

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

13 hours ago, zahrul3 said:

For those still unconvinced climate change is a thing, the amount of climate change that happens is disproportionate. Basically put, what happens is that the climate is more extreme. This results in some places seemingly becoming slightly colder (esp. during winter) or not experiencing any change but the upper range of climate extremes increase. However, there are regions where the climate is increasingly hotter, around the equator and deserts during summer. This increase in temperature increases ocean temperatures worldwide (even in areas where temperatures aren't rising) melts Arctic ice.

Goldilocks paradox. Climate Change is whatever you want it to be when you want it to be.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

1 hour ago, MilitantRadical said:

Goldilocks paradox. Climate Change is whatever you want it to be when you want it to be.

You just don't understand. An increased greenhouse effect traps more infrared energy, which increases evaporation. When the evaporation happens to land, it leads to droughts; when the ocean has more evaporation, it leads to storms. These storms create a great deal of precipitation, which turns to hail and snow when it gets cold enough. The increased heat and changing ocean currents can melt arctic ice, which results in less light being reflected and ocean currents changing further, which melts more ice... That is why a dampening effect is unlikely. You can actually try this at home with fish tanks, water, ice, and dry ice (sand optional, plastic wrap cap optional).

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

39 minutes ago, OcramsRzr said:

That is why a dampening effect is unlikely. You can actually try this at home with fish tanks, water, ice, and dry ice (sand optional, plastic wrap cap optional).

A home fish tank can't simulate the earth's systems. Dry ice is pure CO₂, put a bunch of dry ice in a closed fish tank and your atmosphere will become toxic. It is in no way similar to the air we breathe which I don't need to tell you is less than 1% CO₂. The  fog or "smoke" created by mixing the CO2 and water doesn't match atmospheric or cloud density.

Just what exactly is this experiment supposed to show and how does that relate to the earth?

[Ocram's Razr 964]

@MilitantRadical

1. Make a terrarium of any quality you desire (lifeless is easiest) with an accurate and precise thermometer

2. Fill one with clean outdoor air or nearly pure nitrogen; fill the other with indoor air, the air of your lungs, or put a sliver of dry ice in the water

3. Cap the terrarium if in a windy location or desired and shine a heat lamp on each terrarium

4. Record the temperature in each terrarium after set intervals (including 0 seconds)

5. Notice that the terrarium with clean air is colder than the terrarium with breath after a while.

6. Realize that the greenhouse gas effect from CO2 is real.

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

8 minutes ago, OcramsRzr said:

@MilitantRadical

6. Realize that the greenhouse gas effect from CO2 is real.

You're basically rigging an experiment to give you the greenhouse effect of your desire. What is the size of your CO₂ sliver? What is the percentage of the CO₂ in the atmosphere of your tank with the Dry Ice? Anything over 0.06% is a faulty experiment. And still your system does not accurately represent the earth because it's stagnant.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

5 minutes ago, MilitantRadical said:

You're basically rigging an experiment to give you the greenhouse effect of your desire. What is the size of your CO₂ sliver? What is the percentage of the CO₂ in the atmosphere of your tank with the Dry Ice? Anything over 0.06% is a faulty experiment. And still your system does not accurately represent the earth because it's stagnant.

 

I described an experiment literally meant for elementary school kids in extremely simplistic terms. If you want it more accurate, you can create bigger terrariums from equally sized and proportioned fish tanks, fill both with pure nitrogen, stoichiometrically add 0.06% CO2, cap both terrariums with plastic wraps, and shine identical lights at identical angles to both terrariums. The earth is essentially a closed system. Energy can enter and leave the Earth but matter mostly stays on Earth or far away (with the exception of man-made satellites, space dust, and the occasional meteorites).

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

58 minutes ago, OcramsRzr said:

I described an experiment literally meant for elementary school kids in extremely simplistic terms.

I know you did. Was going to say I did that experiment in 8th grade, and of course accepted it uncritically at the time, like most 8th graders do.

Never really thought about it until now and realized what a bunk experiment it is.

59 minutes ago, OcramsRzr said:

The earth is essentially a closed system.

It's closed but it isn't stagnant. There are many "moving parts". We can't simulate that in a terrarium of any size. Your model doesn't account for the spin of the earth or it's axis. It doesn't account for the rate of energy or heat coming from the sun, or the sun-earth orbital relationship. It doesn't account for currents (air and sea), cloud reflection, energy and heat absorption, or internal temperature of the planet itself. You're comparing a dead closed system to a live closed system, and even if you put plants in it, even if you made an actual greenhouse, you still wouldn't be simulating earth conditions.

And I'm not denying that there is a "greenhouse". Our atmosphere traps heat, but to what degree a minimally increased level of CO2 affects the earths temperature, how much humans are contributing to that, and the consequences are still up for debate in my books.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

@MilitantRadical : The experiment is a model of the greenhouse gas effect. Models are simplifications that accurately scale to whatever complex system they emulate for the purposes of the experiment. Supercomputers come up with more complex models, which get better every year as more real life data is added, computers become more powerful, and our understanding of the world improves. After a certain point, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere will reach a point where it will take tremendous effort to change things. This will be the point where sequestration will become ineffective and a complete transition to green energy becomes moot, where coastal cities will require domes, and humanity will become doomed if it doesn't expand beyond Earth. Before that point, methane will become an issue as permafrost melts and releases the trapped gasses.