3 ms·
1) We're releasing huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. 2) This CO2 does not magically disappear. We can measure it. 3) We know how CO2 interacts with inf
by TillE 10y ago
1) We're releasing huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.
2) This CO2 does not magically disappear. We can measure it.
3) We know how CO2 interacts with infrared radiation. You can test it yourself with an FTIR machine.
This is all extremely simple. The computer models are just about getting some precision about the broad cause and effect which is utterly obvious to anyone who knows a little physics.
- alphapapa 10y agoRegarding 1, how much CO2 does humanity emit compared with how much CO2 the oceans emit?
- bluesign 10y agowhy does this matter? We are breaking the equilibrium.
- alphapapa 10y agowhy does this matter? Because anthropogenic CO2 is a tiny fraction of oceanogenic CO2. It's like sneezing into the wind: it does not change the direction of the wind. We are breaking the equilibrium. What equilibrium? Equilibrium would imply a stable climate, but the climate has been changing for millions of years, long before humans arrived. Are you saying that the climate wouldn't change without humans?
- yongjik 10y ago> Because anthropogenic CO2 is a tiny fraction of oceanogenic CO2. Really? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sink https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sink > Oceans are at present CO2 sinks, and represent the largest active carbon sink on Earth, absorbing more than a quarter of the carbon dioxide that humans put into the air. Next time you want to equivocate, at least try something that can't be falsified by ten seconds of Googling.
- alphapapa 10y agoGlobal Natural and Anthropogenic Sources and Absorption of Greenhouse Gases in the 1990s | | | Sources | | | Gas (million metric tons of gas) | Natural | Human-Made | Total | |----------------------------------+---------+------------+---------| | Carbon Dioxide | 770,000 | 23,100 | 793,100 | Source: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001), p. 39.
- yongjik 10y agoFYI: When you quote source A, which quotes source B for raw data, it is customary to reference A instead of B. So I found your table in Table 3 of here: http://www2.bren.ucsb.edu/~keller/courses/esm202/DOE_US_GHG2005.pdf http://www2.bren.ucsb.edu/~keller/courses/esm202/DOE_US_GHG2... And you seemed to have cut off two more columns: Absorption | Annual Increase in Gas in the Atmosphere ----------------------------------------------------- 781,400 | 11,700 I.e., nature is absorbing about half of anthropogenic CO2. I stand by my previous remark.
- alphapapa 10y agoFYI: When someone posts factual data, it is poor etiquette to downvote them. Notice that I have not downvoted you even though I disagree with your conclusions. I am not afraid to debate the matter, so I feel no need to try to censor opponents. I cut them off because they are irrelevant. My point remains: anthropogenic CO2 emissions are approximately 3% of natural emissions. Natural variation in natural emissions utterly dwarfs human emissions. Were the climate so sensitive to +/- 3%, we would not even exist today, because the climate would have gone to an extreme and stayed there millions of years ago. This is a very simple matter of scale and historical data that grossly exceeds human timescales. To think that human CO2 emissions are breaking the planet is ludicrous.
- rhino369 10y agoIt's extremely simple to measure the greenhouse effect, sure. But climate models are incredibly complex due to complex feedback loops. If it were simple there would be one model. There are dozens upon dozens. There is a consensus that some global warming is happening, there really isn't a consensus on how much other than fairly large ranges calculated by the IPCC.