Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Carbon Catastrophe

  1. Mar 24, 2004 #1
    Carbon Catastrophe....

    Carbon dioxide, mostly from burning of coal, gasoline and other fossil fuels, traps heat that otherwise would radiate into space. Global temperatures increased by about 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.6 degrees Celsius) during the 20th century, and international panels of scientists sponsored by world governments have concluded that most of the warming was probably due to greenhouse gases.

    Carbon dioxide, mostly from burning of coal, gasoline and other fossil fuels, traps heat that otherwise would radiate into space. Global temperatures increased by about 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.6 degrees Celsius) during the 20th century, and international panels of scientists sponsored by world governments have concluded that most of the warming was probably due to greenhouse gases.

    The climatologists forecast continued temperature rises that will disrupt the climate, cause seas to rise and lead to other unpredictable consequences -- unpredictable in part because of uncertainties in computer modeling of future climate.

    Before the industrial age and extensive use of fossil fuels, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere stood at about 280 parts per million, scientists have determined.

    Average readings at the 11,141-foot Mauna Loa Observatory, where carbon dioxide density peaks each northern winter, hovered around 379 parts per million on Friday, compared with about 376 a year ago.

    That year-to-year increase of about 3 parts per million is considerably higher than the average annual increase of 1.8 parts per million over the past decade, and markedly more accelerated than the 1-part-per-million annual increase recorded a half-century ago, when observations were first made here.

  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 25, 2004 #2

    Now finally we can have the famous AGW discussion. I say that temperature and carbon dioxide have limited direct causality. see:
    http://hanserren.cwhoutwijk.nl/co2/howmuch.htm [Broken]

    You could claim equally simple that temperature rise is inducing a rise in carbon dioxide.

    So, for explaining the current "global" warming we should also take in account, natural solar cycles, other atmospheric effects, especially soot, and changes in ocean circulation. For instance the warm summers in Europe may be caused by abnormally low Sea Surface Temperatures in the mid Atlantic.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  4. Mar 31, 2004 #3


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Carbon dioxide content of the air swings by more than 3ppm from one minute to the next, much less one year to he next. To get an accurate picture of content level flux requires much longer term analysis.
  5. Mar 31, 2004 #4
    Empire Exhaust...

    In 1996, carbon dioxide world emissions increased by 2.8%. The U.S. reported a 3.3% increase in CO2
    concentrations. The U.S. continues to emit more than any other country in the world, accounting for 25% of all emissions. The European Union had an increase of 2.2%, much larger than a small increase of 1.1% in 1995. Eastern Europe had a decreasing rate of -2.4%. China's increase in 1996 was 4.7%.

    The World Energy Council reported that global carbon dioxide emissions from buring fossil fuels rose 12% between 1990 and 1995. (www.eb.com:180[/URL]) The increase from developing countries was three times that from developed countries. Middle East carbon dioxide emissions from burning of fossil fuels increased 35%, Africa increased 12%, and Eastern Europe increased rates by 75% from 1990-1995.
    One of the greatest derivative correlations in the data is the result of burning fossil fuels, more specifically, oil production and consumption.
    [PLAIN]http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/greenhouse.htm [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  6. Apr 1, 2004 #5
    Yes and?

    Oh of course
    I'm happy that your link states "many scientist believe", so we are not to late applying the self correcting of science and we can discuss this in an orderly manner. Suppose that those three words were not in that sencentce:
    then we would have war. Such a statement can only be true or false. However invariably the media present the AGW like this, in order to "offer scary scenarios" and thus creating the worst hype of the century because the newspaper needs to increase it's numbers.

    Anyway let's look at plain physics:

    http://hanserren.cwhoutwijk.nl/co2/howmuch.htm [Broken]

    A fiend of mine said:
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  7. Apr 1, 2004 #6


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Just some thoughts...

    Andre - What do you make of the similarity/difference between observed increases in CO2/temperature (Orion cites a 0.6 C increase with a 34% increase in CO2 levels) and the physics you present (0.7 C increase for a 100% increase without considering feedback effects)?

    Aside: That's a global average change in temperature...regional changes would vary.

    How do we distinguish which is Cause and which is Effect? (or the relative mix, I suppose)

    To be sure, human output of greenhouse gases has increased and greenhouse gases do trap heat. (I assume that is not the debate...the debate is whether humans are significantly increasing the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases and what the effects of that will be.)

    Better to stick with the technical arguments, IMO. Rejecting all predictions by "these people" based on the failure of past ones is no way to go. I'm sure the Global Warming issue has received more research than conducted by the Population Bomb folks

    I don't think we need to lose sleep, but I think there is enough evidence to suggest proceeding-with-caution.

    Anyway, I'm looking forward to seeing more from both sides of the debate.
  8. Apr 1, 2004 #7
    You're right about that last quote, but then again it is only a quote.

    I agree with Hans Erren who makes a pure clean approach and his basic message is that greenhouse effect definitely exist but it is greatly exagarated. Perhaps note that the IPCC figures are getting down about every year.

    But why the chicken little effect? Because of the percieved palea climate history as the ice cores seem to be indicating apparantly a much more sensitive relationship between GHG and temperature. But I see a lot of indications that paleao climatology was way to fast with their conclusions. Incidentely I posted http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/Laurentian%20ice%20sheet%20on%20greenland.htm [Broken] , unaware of this post in an attempt to start all over with the explanation of the Pleistocene and the ice age and its meaning for Global warming.

    But what causes the current global warming? Candidates are natural cycles, thermohaline current changes, El Nino behavior, delta Solar irridiance, sun spots, soot and industrial haze(my choice).
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  9. Apr 2, 2004 #8
    Entropic Engine...

    In an attempt to develop a more comprehensive planetary thermodynamic engine...

    Orion1 Planetary Dynamics Hypothesis:

    Spherical Planetary Temperature: (Terra)
    [tex]T_o = \sqrt[4]{ \frac{S_o}{4 \sigma e_o}}[/tex]
    To = 288.76 K - Planet Temperature
    So = 1372 W*m^-2 - Solar Constant (NIMBUS-7)
    eo = 0.870 - Planet Emissivity
    [tex]\sigma[/tex] - Stefan Constant

    Note that the Solar Constant is not a static constant but is a fluxuating stellar dynamic of the Terra star (Sol). The Solar Cycle activity is an additive or reducive function of this 'constant'.

    The Planetary Emissivity is a measurement of the total thermodynamic of any entropic planetary engine.

    Increasing planetary temperature is a result of decreasing planetary emissivity.

    [tex]>T_o \leftarrow <e[/tex]

    Decreasing planetary temperature is a result of increasing planetary emissivity.

    [tex]<T_o \rightarrow >e[/tex]

    The change in Terra emissivity is the result of a change in the planetary emissivity dynamics of the thermodynamic Terran engine.

    [tex]dTi = (dT_1 + dT_2 + dT_3 + dT_4)[/tex]
    dTi = .6 C - planetary temperature increase (Terra)
    dT1 - Continental emissivity temperature
    dT2 - Entropic polar icecaps emissivity temperature
    dT3 - Oceanic salinity emissivity temperature
    dT4 - Greenhouse atmosphere emissivity temperature

    For example, processes that produce changes in dynamic emissivity temperature:

    Continental emissivity temperature:
    Soot and industrial haze, decreasing or evaporating continental lakes, dry riverbeds, melting mountain snow, deforestation, continental forest firestorms, continental rainfall, continental snowfall, etc.

    Entropic polar icecaps emissivity temperature:
    Melting polar icecaps, retreating polar glaciers, polar surface area reduction, polar continental surface exposure, etc.

    Oceanic salinity emissivity temperature:
    Melting polar icecaps, evaporation, decreased salinity, increased ocean surface area and volume, etc.

    Greenhouse atmosphere emissivity temperature:
    Increase in greenhouse gases, meterological effects, total planetary cloud surface area and volume, total planetary precipitation, planetary hurricanes, tornadoes, etc.

    C is CO2 in ppm - 379 ppm
    M is CH4 in ppb - 1843 ppb
    N is N2O in ppb - 318 ppb
    X is CFC in ppb - 979 ppb

    [tex]dT_4 = \alpha \frac{ln([CO2]/[CO2]orig)}{4 \sigma T_o^3}[/tex]
    [tex]dT_4 = \frac{5.35 ln(1.34)}{4 \sigma (288.16^3)}[/tex]
    dT4 = 0.288 C

    First Dynamic Solution:
    [tex]dTi = (dT_1 + dT_2 + dT_3 + 0.288 C) = .6 C[/tex]

    All other dynamics:
    [tex](dT_1 + dT_2 + dT_3) = .312 C[/tex]

    http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/IRRADIANCE/irrad.html [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  10. Apr 2, 2004 #9

    The pole ice sheets are not melting:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3587251.stm (last sentence):
    The glaciers are not (all) retreating:
    http://www.sepp.org/controv/afp.html [Broken]
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,2851309a7693,00.html [Broken]

    .6C? .312C? Where is the carbon catastrophe?
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  11. Apr 16, 2004 #10
    Reading about the evaporation of the L.I.S. and reforming to make the G.I.S. makes me wonder why Greenland is yet today an ice sheet when land at the same latitude is not covered in an ice sheet...
  12. May 30, 2004 #11
    Planetary Photosphere...

    Scientists studying earthshine -- the amount of light reflected by the Earth -- say the planet appeared to dim from 1984 to 2001 and then reversed its trend and brightened from 2001 to 2003.

    The shift appears to have resulted from changes in the amount of clouds covering the planet. More clouds reflect more light back into space, potentially cooling the planet, while a dimmer planet with fewer clouds would be warmed by the arriving sunlight. That means the changes in brightness could signal climate change, though it's too early to tell.

    The researchers used two sets of records. They include measurements of cloud cover taken by satellites and an analysis of earthshine, which was determined by studying how much it illuminates the dark portion of the moon.

Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook