Welcome to the Science Forum Return to Homepage
    C4 Forums    Science    Science Forum    For any of you who like a challenge?
Page 1 2 
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
  Login/Join 
Two Silver Stars
Posted
I suppose that there are some of you on here who have actually carried out experiements based on the carbon cycle and so on.

I was wondering if anyone would be game enough to be able to list. YES list!! The complete list of variables someone would need to include in their study to calculate the 'supposed' reasons for climate change. This should give us some idea of the vast calculation that scientists are trying to make here.

Of course the obvious source of heat is the SUN and without it we would be a dead planet, and without the greenhouse effect we would not be able to survive either and as the programme stated..


Here is my list, in my unscientific mind these are the Variables I believe should be included.
Sun:Intensity/Heat of, number of sun spots, solar flares??
Water Vapour
Cloud density??/coverage
Absorption of heat by the earth, buildings, animals, people, oceans & seas etc etc
Absorption rate of co2 by plants, sea
Amounts of CO2 dispersed by sea, people, animals, sea, rotting plant-life
Other percentages of gases in atmosphere....
Heat generated by people, animals, fires/production plants which have a prolonged effect on the atmosphere...

Please feel free to pick me to pieces..
 
Posts: 77Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
New Member
Posted Hide Post
Doesn't look like anyone took this up....it is a shame! One hell of a challenge to list ALL of the variables!

There is therefore good reason to have so many climatologists and the like - the earth is such a complex ecosystem! We do have to invest in looking a ways to maintain/better the quality of our air etc,etc.

However, if they are being given tonnes of money to research such a tiny component of the system and ignore the rest is a waste of time....
 
Posts: 8Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Two Silver Stars
Posted Hide Post
Ninja

Thanks clalovell

I thought it was a great question at the time but obviously no one else did : (
 
Posts: 77Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
New Member
Posted Hide Post
WinkI think that it's just too big a job and the others must have knackered themselves out...my brain hurts reading all that has been written!
 
Posts: 8Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Two Silver Stars
Posted Hide Post
Not surprised....I've been slated for not being scientific enough...some of the guys here are taking it way too personally for my liking. I was told my one that they felt embarrassed for me!! : / How rude!! anyway my points all stem from doing Chemistry A Level (OK I failed) but even at school we did experiemnts that didn't always seem to be as straight forward as we expected. This documentary has shown people a different possibility and alot of people are panning it with gusto!!
 
Posts: 77Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
New Member
Posted Hide Post
Sarah77, I have become very sceptical of all things touched (even remotely) by politics over the years (obviously not as sceptical as 'sceptical yank'Smile

Too many people have motives and when there is a sincere lack of trust...in just causes infighting as proven here...I love the intelligence with it thoughSmile
 
Posts: 8Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Two Silver Stars
Posted Hide Post
It could be that everyone who is desperate to disprove the theory are the sort of people benefiting from the debate itself in some way.

I hate speaking on subjects when I am not fully informed it leaves me wide open for being torn to shreds mentally and that is never a nice thing. I needed to do this because I myself am sure that the political masterminds behind the bill that was passed yesterday about reducing CO2 and it being legally binding for us as a country are leading us up the garden path for the millionth time!!
 
Posts: 77Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
New Member
Posted Hide Post
I think it's a good thing to be a sceptic!...Some people have more brains and therefore more reasons to be sceptical...you wouldn't really find an idiot pondering the questions/conspiracies of the universe would you?
 
Posts: 8Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
APL
Three Silver Stars
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah77:
Sun:Intensity/Heat of, number of sun spots, solar flares??
Water Vapour
Cloud density??/coverage
Absorption of heat by the earth, buildings, animals, people, oceans & seas etc etc
Absorption rate of co2 by plants, sea
Amounts of CO2 dispersed by sea, people, animals, sea, rotting plant-life
Other percentages of gases in atmosphere....
Heat generated by people, animals, fires/production plants which have a prolonged effect on the atmosphere...

Please feel free to pick me to pieces..


I would include investigations into the natural CO2 cycle; to include questions relating to what happens or would happen to the CO2 in all the various fossil fuels if there is no human intervention - I would expect that with the earths core being molten the fossil fuels would burn anyway and the CO2 would be eventually released in to the atmosphere but in large amounts that would really be life threatening.
 
Posts: 187Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Two Silver Stars
Posted Hide Post
But is not a little bit of knowledge in the wrong hands a complete and utter catastrophe?!?!

See GW and T Blair for perfect examples!!
 
Posts: 77Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Two Silver Stars
Posted Hide Post
Do we have a case in the past where large quantities of CO2 were released into the atmosphere...did it result in people fainting or maybe internal combustion Roll Eyes
 
Posts: 77Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
APL
Three Silver Stars
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah77:
Do we have a case in the past where large quantities of CO2 were released into the atmosphere...did it result in people fainting or maybe internal combustion Roll Eyes


Yes but not fainting - dying from asphyxiation: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~youxue/lakeerupt.htm
http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/CCNet-21-07-06.htm http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs172-96/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limnic_eruption
 
Posts: 187Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
APL
Three Silver Stars
Posted Hide Post
 
Posts: 187Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Two Silver Stars
Posted Hide Post
So they were starved of oxygen! and nothing else!!nothing to do with the heat?
 
Posts: 77Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Two Silver Stars
Posted Hide Post
e any 'stupid' questions I am on a quest for knowledge here. Ninja
 
Posts: 77Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
One Gold Star
Posted Hide Post
quote:
I was wondering if anyone would be game enough to be able to list. YES list!! The complete list of variables someone would need to include in their study to calculate the 'supposed' reasons for climate change.


Take heart Sarah77, The people that run the GW computer models will have these listed along with the assumptions they make about what parameter values they use and why. They could make these available in a big spreadsheet and next to each there could be columns for those who agree to justify why they agree a particular assumption and a column for those to justify why they don't agree a particular assumption + the magnitude of its relevance.

Then under some sort of audit review control a peer review panel of real experts could assess the strength of each claim.

Meanwhile like on Wikipedia anyone could add new variables not currently in the models and the experts could debate the pros & cons and whether they should be in the models.

There could then be an assessment of the different models based on how closely they match the experts' assessment of the relevance of each parameter value.

Since so much money is being pumped into the GW industry there must be some able resource with access to the data who can make this happen.

This would then lead to put up or shut up on each item. I suggest nearly all will be experimentally verifiable.

The it's just down to whether you believe the model results.

I wonder if IPCC have / will do this.
 
Posts: 747Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
New Member
Posted Hide Post
And it started so well!!!....

The listing of variables is the first thing a scientist does when contemplating research....going back to pure science before all the politics, agendas etc!

The amount of data that everyone has already gathered could then be pooled ...as long as it's accurate....

You are probably thinking...what is she on about!! Think about it....it would put MMGW BELIEVERS AND NON-BELIEVERS together...if the believers are proved right - great! mankind's a winner..if the non-belivers are proved right mankind's a winner!!!!

I also have read all the threads and I love, love the ideas about how we can be encouraged to be ...(let's not use the word 'greener' it's tarnished by politics) you know what I mean though....

Babble overSmile
 
Posts: 8Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
APL
Three Silver Stars
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah77:
So they were starved of oxygen! and nothing else!!nothing to do with the heat?


The point is that fossil fuels will have a natural cycle that will enevitably result in it getting into the atmosphere - and this will be the case with or without human intervention. CO2 according to the pro-AGW is the main cause of global warming (hence the relationship with heat) - however in addition to it getting into our atmosphere anyway - if nature were to take it's course those huge underground oil and gas fields would burn and find thier way to the surface producing huge CO2 gas clouds that would kill all breathing creatures in it's path as well as warming our climate.
 
Posts: 187Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
APL
Three Silver Stars
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah77:
So they were starved of oxygen! and nothing else!!nothing to do with the heat?


Sorry that should be:

The point is that CO2 in fossil fuels will have a natural cycle that will enevitably result in it getting into the atmosphere - and this will be the case with or without human intervention. CO2 according to the pro-AGW is the main cause of global warming (hence the relationship with heat) - however in addition to it getting into our atmosphere anyway - if nature were to take it's course those huge underground oil and gas fields would burn and find thier way to the surface producing huge CO2 gas clouds that would kill all breathing creatures in it's path as well as warming our climate.
 
Posts: 187Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Two Silver Stars
Posted Hide Post
So if 37 people died as a result of a 'natural' phenomenon is it likely that the carbon cycle may result in big problems which are totally unrelated to human co2 emmissons and are totally unrealed to climate change which has been happening since the dawn of time??
 
Posts: 77Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Two Silver Stars
Posted Hide Post
And too much of anything...nickel, copper, oxygen is bad and the climate is based on an extremely delicate elemental balance.
 
Posts: 77Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
APL
Three Silver Stars
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah77:
So if 37 people died as a result of a 'natural' phenomenon is it likely that the carbon cycle may result in big problems which are totally unrelated to human co2 emmissons and are totally unrealed to climate change which has been happening since the dawn of time??


Pretty much although I would not rule out any CO2 GW effect.

quote:
Originally posted by Sarah77:
And too much of anything...nickel, copper, oxygen is bad and the climate is based on an extremely delicate elemental balance.


Too much of anything is bad, but I think the climate is much more robust and stuck in it's ways than can influence in any significant way where CO2 is concerned - I think de-forestation is much worse.
 
Posts: 187Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Two Silver Stars
Posted Hide Post
I agree. Killing endangered animals, polluting the seas and stripping the world of it's resources in a way that is greedy and non sustainable
 
Posts: 77Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Two Silver Stars
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah77:
I suppose that there are some of you on here who have actually carried out experiements based on the carbon cycle and so on.

I was wondering if anyone would be game enough to be able to list. YES list!! The complete list of variables someone would need to include in their study to calculate the 'supposed' reasons for climate change. This should give us some idea of the vast calculation that scientists are trying to make here.

Of course the obvious source of heat is the SUN and without it we would be a dead planet, and without the greenhouse effect we would not be able to survive either and as the programme stated..

Here is my list, in my unscientific mind these are the Variables I believe should be included.

Sun:Intensity/Heat of, number of sun spots, solar flares??
Water Vapour
Cloud density??/coverage
Absorption of heat by the earth, buildings, animals, people, oceans & seas etc etc
Absorption rate of co2 by plants, sea
Amounts of CO2 dispersed by sea, people, animals, sea, rotting plant-life
Other percentages of gases in atmosphere....
Heat generated by people, animals, fires/production plants which have a prolonged effect on the atmosphere...

Please feel free to pick me to pieces..


Hi Sarah,

Let me first of all say, while I have a scientific training I'm not a climate science specialist - I just try to keep up with what's going on in the field.

Your list seems like a good start, you've covered several important factors -- but you won't be surprised to know that there are a number of other factors which have some effect on global temperature and climate.

I'll leave the task of giving you a complete list to someone better qualified... but here are some factors that spring to mind:

1. Milankovitch cycles are the the mechanism now understood to cause ice-ages. The eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession of the Earth's orbit all vary in several patterns; these effect the amount of solar radiation absorbed by the earth atmosphere - resulting in the 100,000 year ice age cycles that the Earth has experienced over the last few million years.

Incidentally, you may remember the graph shown in "Swindle", where there was shown to be an 800 year time lag between CO2 levels in ice-cores lagged and the estimated average global temperature. This is because these graphs show vast periods of time; on this scale, the Milankovitch mechanism is the primary factor driving temperature change (and the changes are huge!). The transition to an inter-glacial warm period (we're in one now!) has an effect on the natural carbon cycle, gradually releasing more CO2 into the air.

Obviously, this doesn't prove that increases in CO2 have NO EFFECT on temperature, as was claimed in the program! It just means that in the long run, the Milakovich effect is bigger.

2. Aerosol pollutants (i.e., tiny particles come out of dirty industrial chimneys etc). The huge increase in this kind of pollution in the post war period produced, in effect, a thin layer of high altitude smog around the northern hemisphere - which reflected some solar radiation back into space. The effect is called "Global Dimming" - and is believed to explain the steady DROP in everage global temperatures between about 1950 and 1980. In the 70s and 80s, most industrial contries introduced "clean air" laws -- and when the pollution levels dropped, the cooling trend stopped -- and the global temperatre graph resumed the overall warming trend that's been apparent for most of the past century.

You'll remember that the temperature graph in "Swindle" showed the 1940s-1980 cooling period. It was suggested that this contradicted the view that CO2 raises temperatures.

3. Carbon sinks. When scientists first calculated the amount of CO2 we release into the atmosphere through burning fossil fuels, and calculated the effects this should have on temperature, they encountered a puzzle. Temperatures were rising - but much less than the calculations predicted! It was soon realised that this was due to various natural mechanisms which take CO2 out of the atmosphere. These include absorption of CO2 in the oceans, the growth of forests, the burial of vegetation in peat bogs etc. etc. When these factors are taken into account, the calculation fits the data much more closely.

4. Feedback effects. On of the long-term hazards of Global Warming is the possibility that increased temperatures could cause carbon sinks to rapidly release their carbon into the atmosphere -- either as CO2 or much worse, as methane (which is a much more powerful greenhouse gas). For instance, hotter temperatures in the tropics and a longer dry season causes more forest fires (releasing C02); hotter oceans are more likely to release methane, from deposits on the ocean bed; melting of the artic tundras will release still more. Its not yet clear exactly how much hotter it needs to get before these mechanisms kick in; current estimates are around the 3-5 degree mark. I just hope we don't have to see it happen, in order to find out!

4. Agriculture. Everyone goes on about fossil fuels, but a huge amount of greenhouse gas is produced on the world's farms. Rice paddies are a major source of methane -- and all the world's livestock, especially cows, produce vast quantities of the stuff. If we all went vegetarian, we'd reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by a huge amount. (Not quite sure of the relative figures here -- but suffice to say, its a significant factor).

Hope this helps.


* Free-thinking does not just mean choosing to believe whatever makes you feel good. There's no thought at all in that. *
 
Posts: 117Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete Message