Advice Look at the FACTS

[August]

03/07/2007: Public 'in denial' about climate change - Telegraph

The UK is in denial about the consequences of global warming, new research reveals. - Although the majority of people accept the climate is changing, it is not a priority for most of them.

MORI's Head of Environment Phil Downing who is the author of the research, said: "The public is still behind the scientific community and industry in recognising the severity of the threat we are facing.

"Unfortunately there is a split - not between believers and non-believers but between those who recognise the need to do something and those who have a more passive response. They are a bit concerned by climate change but they think it has been exaggerated and over-hyped.

"The idea that the debate is over is not true. There are a lot of people out there who have not bought into the view that climate change is a threat."

[August]

Originally Posted by Common Sense aka Science

I've decided to stop trying to convince you "environmentalists" that you've got it all wrong, because I see nothing I say will change your mind. On the other hand, you can watch "The Great Global Warming Swindle", a documentary which aired on BBC, and I hope the numerous qualified scientists will help prove my point.

JPL on Global Gamble, Harvards Holdren on Stages of Climate Denial - Dot Earth - Climate Change and Sustainability - New York Times Blog

The centerpiece of the article was Dr. Holdren’s description of the evolving arguments put forward by public figures, including some scientists, challenging climate science as they fight restrictions on greenhouse gases:

Long-time observers of public debates about environmental threats know that skeptics about such matters tend to move, over time, through three stages. First, they tell you you’re wrong and they can prove it. (In this case, “Climate isn’t changing in unusual ways or, if it is, human activities are not the cause.”) Then they tell you you’re right but it doesn’t matter. (”OK, it’s changing and humans are playing a role, but it won’t do much harm.”) Finally, they tell you it matters but it’s too late to do anything about it. (”Yes, climate disruption is going to do some real damage, but it’s too late, too difficult, or too costly to avoid that, so we’ll just have to hunker down and suffer.”)

All three positions are represented among the climate-change skeptics who infest talk shows, Internet blogs, letters to the editor, op-ed pieces, and cocktail-party conversations. The few with credentials in climate-change science have nearly all shifted in the past few years from the first category to the second, however, and jumps from the second to the third are becoming more frequent. All three factions are wrong, but the first is the worst.

- And it sure seems to me is if the third position (”Yes, climate disruption is going to do some real damage, but it’s too late, too difficult, or too costly to avoid that, so we’ll just have to hunker down and suffer”) is the exact position adopted by the Norwegian population. Local newspapers have all but stopped reporting on the science of climate change and global warming, and people in general don't talk about these issues, but continue doing whatever they're doing according to the old routines, while accepting that large business corporations, political and administrative institutions don't do anything in order to change our societal ways. It's all about "business-as-usual." It's all about "ignorance is bliss."

[Windguy]

Originally Posted by Common Sense aka Science

Yes, I do, like actually watching the movie. Did you?

Um yes we did and it was tripe to be fed to the dumb armchair masses only.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Common Sense aka Science

...last time I checked there were no Natural Resources being exchanged on the stock market.

Many of the companies that are on the stock market are involved in the trading of natural resources...

[August]

Originally Posted by August

- And it sure seems to me is if the third position (”Yes, climate disruption is going to do some real damage, but it’s too late, too difficult, or too costly to avoid that, so we’ll just have to hunker down and suffer”) is the exact position adopted by the Norwegian population. Local newspapers have all but stopped reporting on the science of climate change and global warming, and people in general don't talk about these issues, but continue doing whatever they're doing according to the old routines, while accepting that large business corporations, political and administrative institutions don't do anything in order to change our societal ways. It's all about "business-as-usual." It's all about "ignorance is bliss."

Which reminds me of a 1980s Norwegian rock'n'roll classic: Raga Rockers: "Maskiner i Nirvana" - now, I'll try to translate some.

http://domen.uninett.no/~anders/raga...r/maskiner.txt

Ja, de har det så fint
De har det så bra
De har alt som de vil ha
De har nådd sine mål
De har det som grever
De råtner foran TV
og de kaller det å leve
De er maskiner i nirvana
De har fått det som de vil

Yes, they're doing alright
They're feeling just fine
They have all that they want
They have reached their goals
They live their lives like counts (or earls?)
They're rotting in front of their TV sets
and they are calling it living
They are machines in nirvana
They have got it like they want it

[Robert Northup]

Let me add to the confusion, as there seems to be plenty to go around.

Atmospheric composition, the four main ingredients:

78% nitrogen
21% oxygen
1% argon
0.038% carbon dioxide, and rising fast

Of these, argon is the only one whose concentration is regulated strictly by abiotic chemical and physical equilibria. As completely inert gas, argon is not produced or consumed in any way by organisms. Argon is the only significant gas in the atmosphere for which this is true.

Nitrogen gas is produced predominantly by biological denitrification, and is consumed predominantly by biological nitrogen fixation. A small fraction of the nitrogen gas in the atmosphere comes from the earth as plate tectonics subduct nitrogen containing organic matter, subject it to high heat and pressure, and bake it out. However, given the constant flux back and forth (nitrogen produced by denitrification, nitrogen consumed by nitrogen fixation), it is fair to say that organisms regulate atmospheric nitrogen. The closest thing to “equilibrium” that regulates nitrogen concentration is the manner in which the nitrogen-to-oxygen ratio influences combustion of organic carbon. The approximately 4:1 ratio of nitrogen to oxygen dilutes the aggressive oxidant just enough in relatively inert gas that combustion is not explosive, but is rich enough to support combustion at all. However, the combustible organic carbon is produced by organisms, so its availability is not regulated by any “equilibrium”, although it regulates the steady state concentration of nitrogen gas.

Oxygen is produced almost exclusively by organisms carrying out photosynthesis. Until a couple of centuries ago, oxygen was consumed primarily by living organisms or wild fires. Now, fossil fuel combustion is the largest “sink” for oxygen, but this is also regulated by organisms and not subject to any “equilbrium”. The steady state concentration of oxygen at 21% is regulated by the way that the nitrogen-to-oxygen ratio influences combustion. Without organisms, such as if the earth were suddenly sterilized by cosmic rays or something, both the oxygen and nitrogen concentrations would drift far from where they are now before reaching equilibrium. The true equilibrium concentration of oxygen would be zero percent.

Carbon dioxide is produced predominantly by oxidation of organic carbon produced during photosynthesis by organisms, and is consumed predominantly by photosynthesis. There are a host of other carbon dioxide regulating systems, such as the marine carbonate system and the ultimate “fixation” of much carbon dioxide into calcium carbonate shell, and, as usual, it is regulated by organisms. Acid neutralization by limestone carbonate can also release significant carbon dioxide, but, again, the limestone carbonate is of biological origin.

Carbon dioxide alone is not responsible for global warming, but is a major player. Less attention is given to other greenhouse gases that are also the product, directly or indirectly, of human activity. Chlorinated fluorocarbons, nitrous oxide, methane, and other gases also trap heat, and some of them far more effectively than carbon dioxide.

The general tone of the thread seems to be anti-science as well as anti-environmental, so I have no illusions that this information I provide will change any minds, but there are some objective facts we should be able to agree on, such as the percentage of some given gas in the atmosphere.

[williampinn]

Ditto! Volcanos throw up more CO2 in one day then all the humans throughout history, and the climate does get cooler.

[Windguy]

Originally Posted by williampinn

Ditto! Volcanos throw up more CO2 in one day then all the humans throughout history, and the climate does get cooler.

No they don't, and it's the sulphates and other aerosols that make the climate cooler, not the CO2.

VOLCANO VS MAN
http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/education/gases/man.html

and from Volcanic Hazards: Gases (sulfur dioxide, carbon dioxide, hyrdogen chloride, and hydrogen fluoride)

Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)

[williampinn]

Originally Posted by Windguy

No they don't, and it's the sulphates and other aerosols that make the climate cooler, not the CO2.

VOLCANO VS MAN
http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/education/gases/man.html

and from Volcanic Hazards: Gases (sulfur dioxide, carbon dioxide, hyrdogen chloride, and hydrogen fluoride)

"Present-day carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from subaerial and submarine volcanoes are uncertain at the present time. Gerlach (1991)"

You might be right, but then again... Anyway when Mt. Pinatubo erupted, it cooled the surface temperatures by 0.5 degrees within a year. That is a far greater impact than human industrialization. When did our emissions ever cause a 0.5 degree temperature change in a year? My money is on volcanoes.

VOLCANO VS MAN
'Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans' | Gristmill: The environmental news blog | Grist

Vocanoes emit way more CO2 than SO2. If there was anything to the greenhouse theory, Mt. Pinatubo should have warmed the planet, since it belched a superior amount of CO2. Given the Mt. Pinatubo experience, I don't see how one can leap to the conclusion that CO2 must necessarily warm the planet.

Volcanic Hazards: Gases (sulfur dioxide, carbon dioxide, hyrdogen chloride, and hydrogen fluoride)

So the claim that humans emit 150 times more CO2 than vocanoes seems untenable. The fact that CO2 has a higher denisity than air makes it a poor greenhouse gas. To achieve a greenhouse effect, it must stay aloft like water vapor (which is lighter than air) rather than sink to the surface and be asorbed by the oceans.

"Five hundred million years ago carbon dioxide was 20 times more prevalent than today,"

Carbon dioxide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To claim that CO2 levels have increased seems untenable given that there was 20 times the current amount.

[Robert Northup]

It is absolutely true that if you look at virtually any period of earth's history, up until a few million years ago, the concentration of carbon dioxide was much much higher than it is today. It is also true that the concentration of carbon dioxide today is significantly higher (30-50%) than it has been for 99.9999% (no exaggeration) of the last few million years. THAT is where the problem lies. This is a very new change (less than 150 years in the making) for the atmosphere. I know from working in airtight greenhouses to feed plants 13-C (stable rare isotope) carbon dioxide, with precise monitors, that small increases in carbon dioxide concentration cause large increases in the rate at which the chamber heats up. The closest thing to publishable data I have is the record of how frequently the thermostat got triggered (to keep chamber from overheating), but that was pretty compelling. I wasn't supposed to alter CO2 concentration (it was regulated to maintain constantly somewhere between 370-390 ppm), but I worried that the plants weren't taking up enough 13-C label, so I bumped up the CO2 concentration. It wasn't a controlled experiment - I couldn't guarantee that incoming sunlight was at a uniform, constant intensity throughout the process, and frequency of thermostat triggering isn't the kind of data that lends itself well to peer review.

However, I don't have to take anyone else's word about it, I know from my own research that carbon dioxide is an effective greenhouse gas