Climate Change due to Global Warming – a hoax?

[BriGuyPI]

I think there is like 5,000 Trillion tons of atmosphere and CO2 is 0.038% of it, so that is 190 Trillion tons of CO2 in our atmosphere. Now it is said in here that we have added 1100 Billion or 1.1 Trillion tons of CO2. So 1.1 Trillion divided by 190 Trillion is roughly 0.5% we have added since the start. This is too simple for most people to grasp. Whoever quoted the 1100 Billion has a good estimate based on estimates from current output; and estimating the amount we have put out and are putting out, is not too hard. So can someone now explain how .5 % added to a GHG that is only a very minor one next to water vapour, could be responsible for warming the planet ?

And, if you are someone who thinks that polar ice is what causes cold fronts, and rain to fall in the Northern Hemisphere please give it up and find someone else to waste your time on. What do you think causes polar ice if the ice is responsible for the cold ? Water vapour primarily comes from the tropics and moves North and falls as rain and snow. Has nothing to do with Polar Ice.

Does anyone know that some polar bears are having trouble finding food because there is too much ice? This climate thing gets rather complicated now. Too little, too much oh what are we going to do ? Maybe life is just tough after all.

Too Much Ice: Polar Bears Starving

[Bored Wombat]

Thanks for your post BriGuyPI. It's good to see some new blood here.

Originally Posted by BriGuyPI

I think there is like 5,000 Trillion tons of atmosphere

Actually, a bit more than that ... 5,660 trillion tons. (It's close to 5,000 trillion tonnes).

and CO2 is 0.038% of it

This value is by volume. The value is about 0.058% by mass.

so that is 190 Trillion tons of CO2 in our atmosphere.

You've multiplied by 0.038 and have forgotten that it is 0.038%, so you should have multiplied byt 0.00038, giving 1.9 trillion tons. Using the more correct values of 5.66 trillion x 0.00058 gives about 3.3 trillion tons of atmospheric CO2

Now it is said in here that we have added 1100 Billion or 1.1 Trillion tons of CO2.

That's looks about right, if you mean the amount by which human activities have increased the atmospheric CO2 concentration to date. Actual emissions are a little less than twice this, but not all of it has remained in the atmosphere. The oceans have dissolved some. (Increasing their acidity and becoming more hostile to oceanic calcifying organisms ... but I digress.)

So 1.1 Trillion divided by 190 Trillion is roughly 0.5% we have added since the start.

Using the correct figures, 1.1 trillion divided by 3.3 trillion is about 33.3% we have added since the start.

This is too simple for most people to grasp. Whoever quoted the 1100 Billion has a good estimate based on estimates from current output; and estimating the amount we have put out and are putting out, is not too hard. So can someone now explain how .5 % added to a GHG that is only a very minor one next to water vapour, could be responsible for warming the planet?

It's good to see that you are thinking with your head and not parroting a line from a denialist website. I hope that I don't seem to forward in correcting your arithmetic, and I certainly agree that your thinking is sound ... a 0.5% increase would be insignificant.

However the 50% increase in atmospheric CO2 has been noted from ice cores, and the part that has occurred since the late 50s has been directly measured:


The total natural greenhouse effect on earth is about 30 celsius degrees, so a 50% increase in that would result in about 15 further degrees of warming, so the IPCC's view that a doubling of CO2 will result in a warming likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C. Values substantially higher than 4.5°C cannot be excluded, but agreement of models with observations is not as good for those values. is quite believable.

[icareforyou]

Many scientists say that the recent harsh global winter witnessed around the world in no way undermines the enormous body of evidence pointing to a warming world with disrupted weather patterns. If one considers IPCC's view that a doubling of CO2 will result in a warming likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C, it is long time before we witness that type of concentration rise. However, as per some UN report, a 2 degree rise in temperature would result in 15-17% fall in rise and wheat yields. This is matter of grave concern since we need to grow more and more food crops to feed ever increasing population growth in under-developed and developing countries.

AS per the above graph given by Bored Wombat there is 30 ppm (380 ppm – 350 ppm) rise in the measured atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration between 1990 and 2006. There is a tendency in the graph to be linear-quadratic and all efforts need to be made to keep the linear relationship for the concentration vs time relation. Let us look seriously at all the possibilities and techniques, including reforestation and use of seaweed and algae to remove CO2 from the environment/ocean waters.

However, it is unscientific to blame the CO2 level alone to the present climate change. Natural events are also taking place periodically and results in warming and cooling of the environment. Every citizen of the world is looking at the United Nations Organization to make realistic assessment of the environmental impact of the greenhouse gas concentrations in the air and the extent of the warming caused.

FIRST OPINION

[forfismum]

Would this be the same United Nations that has had such great success down the years,such as Darfur ?

[cbacba]

Originally Posted by BriGuyPI

I think there is like 5,000 Trillion tons of atmosphere and CO2 is 0.038% of it, so that is 190 Trillion tons of CO2 in our atmosphere. Now it is said in here that we have added 1100 Billion or 1.1 Trillion tons of CO2. So 1.1 Trillion divided by 190 Trillion is roughly 0.5% we have added since the start. This is too simple for most people to grasp. Whoever quoted the 1100 Billion has a good estimate based on estimates from current output; and estimating the amount we have put out and are putting out, is not too hard. So can someone now explain how .5 % added to a GHG that is only a very minor one next to water vapour, could be responsible for warming the planet ?

And, if you are someone who thinks that polar ice is what causes cold fronts, and rain to fall in the Northern Hemisphere please give it up and find someone else to waste your time on. What do you think causes polar ice if the ice is responsible for the cold ? Water vapour primarily comes from the tropics and moves North and falls as rain and snow. Has nothing to do with Polar Ice.

Does anyone know that some polar bears are having trouble finding food because there is too much ice? This climate thing gets rather complicated now. Too little, too much oh what are we going to do ? Maybe life is just tough after all.

Too Much Ice: Polar Bears Starving

Welcome to the site.

You need to concentrate more on parts per volume than mass because what counts is the total number of molecules in a volume or column of atmosphere in radiative effect. Currently, we're at 380 ppm and it is believed that at the dawn of the industrial revolution - back around the little ice age, the co2 was more like 270ppm.

Note that it's seldom mentioned but vegetation starts to really be stressed around 200ppm and doesn't grow. Essentially, back then the world was in danger of losing plant life which would have been followed by all other life. The long term reconstructions show co2 levels were critically low for quite some time but going back to earlier eras one finds more reasonable levels of around 1000ppm and in some eras, up to 4000 ppm.

As for the co2 effect, in radiative transfer calculations, it shows that doubling the ppm results in an additional absorption in the atmosphere of 2.6 to 3.7 W/m^2 of power, depending on where the doubling begins and ends. However, this is ignoring other energy transfer mechanisms such as conduction and convection. Conduction is poor for air but convection is quite good and helps keep the atmosphere mixed. That means a shortfall in energy transport by radiation will result in a slight temperature rise which will invoke additional convection so the actual effect will be significantly less than what radiative only calculations would imply. If there were no convection then the rise in T would be related to the fourth root of the temperature so it's quite miniscule to begin with.

Also, the nature of absorption is such that each increment of power absorption requires a doubling of total concentration and even then, it appears that this increment decreases in magnitude for each new doubling. Assuming there was no convection or other feedbacks that reduce the effect of co2 increases, one might expect a whopping 0.2 deg K, very roughly speaking, for each doubling.

Unfortunately the video game makers that think the world follows their every calculation have programmed in a positive feedback where the world has been observed to have a net negative feedback. This has led to the hot air phenonmenon of algore and friends.

As for polar bears starving, when a population doubles over a fairly short time there are tremendous pressures placed on food supply.

[nemesis9]

Originally Posted by cbacba

Welcome to the site.

Note that it's seldom mentioned but vegetation starts to really be stressed around 200ppm and doesn't grow. Essentially, back then the world was in danger of losing plant life which would have been followed by all other life. The long term reconstructions show co2 levels were critically low for quite some time but going back to earlier eras one finds more reasonable levels of around 1000ppm and in some eras, up to 4000 ppm.

At about 175 ppm, forest will change to grassland. Vegetation will still grow, although different species. Also, temperature increases the absorption of CO2, such that warmer areas will be more forested than cooler areas, as long as there is water.

[cbacba]

Originally Posted by nemesis9

At about 175 ppm, forest will change to grassland. Vegetation will still grow, although different species. Also, temperature increases the absorption of CO2, such that warmer areas will be more forested than cooler areas, as long as there is water.

grasses require nutrients too. The amount of n2 fertilizer is more of a determinant at least for grasses here than water is.

[Bored Wombat]

I agree with most of what you have posted, but I object to these sentences:

Originally Posted by icareforyou

However, it is unscientific to blame the CO2 level alone to the present climate change. Natural events are also taking place periodically and results in warming and cooling of the environment.

The science shows that CO2 is the bulk of it, and it's unscientific not to believe that without some basis.

The IPCC stated that the change in radiative forcing with since the start of the industrial revolution is like this:


The natural change is far less than the anthropogenic one.

[Bored Wombat]

Originally Posted by cbacba

Note that it's seldom mentioned but vegetation starts to really be stressed around 200ppm and doesn't grow.

Have you got a citation for the study that established that?

Because it sounds like one of those factoids that you made up yourself.

The atmospheric CO2 concentration got below 200ppm in each of the last seven ice ages, and yet plants are still growing today.

The least tolerant of low CO2 levels of the metabolic pathways for carbon fixation in photosynthesis is C3 carbon fixation, which goes fine at 200ppm. C4 carbon fixation and Crassulacean acid metabolism operate well at lower concentrations.

So it is a little bit surprising that plants don't grow at 200ppm.

[icareforyou]

I agree with the Bored Wombat's reservation for my statement "it is unscientific to blame CO2 alone for the climate change". It is scientific that increased concentration of CO2 in the environment is causing a slight temperature rise.

However, the climate change we are witnessing today is not only due to increasing CO2 in the air. There are other stronger GHGases in the air, concentration of which are not studied as much as that of CO2. Why only target CO2?

I still believe that natural and cyclic phenomenon contributes in a big way for the present climate change.

FIRST OPINION