Numbers Game

[astroron (Ron)]

350 A very important number.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2562611.htm

[Robh (Rob)]

Originally Posted by astroron

350 A very important number.

"... a team led by NASA scientist James Hansen concluded that the red line for planet earth was 350 parts per million."

"350.org is a last ditch effort"

If the current levels of CO2 are 387 ppm, reducing to 350 ppm or lower is going to take some doing. Attention has been taken away from climate action by the world economic crisis; look at Rudd's delay on serious action. As soon as things pick up, we will be puffing away again to build up our economies and maintain full employment.

The question is ... what is the point of no return?
Let's hope we haven't passed it, Rob.

[ngcles]

Hi All,

To quote from the article:

"For all 10,000 years of recorded human history, the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere remained relatively constant, at somewhere near 275 parts per million. Call it the Genesis number ... "

Are we all aware that 10,000 years is only 1/460,000 of the time the Earth has been here?

Are we all aware that 10,000 years is only about 1/53,000th of the time frame since the Cambrian explosion occurred when animal life became wide-spread, varied and rampant?

Genesis number? So the "Genesis Event" happened only 10,000 years ago?

Why are we looking at such a short time-frame here for assessing the impact that CO2 has on our biosphere?

It's bit like saying that, of today, the temprature has been relatively constant for the last few seconds.

It's like a doctor looking at a patient and saying something like: Well you've enjoyed 50 years of perfect health, but I can see you've got a cough and a wheeze today. If that's not fixed, you'll probably be dead in an hour or so."



Best,

Les D

[Robh (Rob)]

Originally Posted by ngcles

To quote from the article:

"For all 10,000 years of recorded human history, the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere remained relatively constant, at somewhere near 275 parts per million. Call it the Genesis number ... "

Why are we looking at such a short time-frame here for assessing the impact that CO2 has on our biosphere?

Best,

Les D

Good point Les.

Found this in Wikipedia (Carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere).
Ice cores from Antarctica have been sampled to 800000 years ago. These show atmospheric CO2 levels varied between 180-210 ppm during ice ages and 280-300 ppm during warmer interglacials.
We are now in an warmer interglacial.

Regards, Rob.

[ngcles]

Hi Robh & All,

Ah yes, quite true but look at this from the same Wiki article that shows CO2 over the last 500 million years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ph...on_Dioxide.png

CO2 levels were much, much higher in the past than now yet life continued to blaze onward evolving evermore complex and intelligent organisms all the while. Yes the climate changed -- it always does. If you look at the graph it shows the last 10-odd million years CO2 levels are at their lowest over 500-odd million years.

Back in the days of the dinosaurs, there was no one around to regulate CO2 yet the levels rose and fell over much larger scales than what we see in the last 1 million years -- and they did it all by themselves.

Anyways, these climate change debates always cause angst here so I've got my view and yours also is very much entitled to respect.

Is it a good thing to limit our fossil fuel consumption and grow more plants anyway --yes for all sorts of other reasons so I'm not going to get upset over it all.

I won't get upset until they start extracting money from me, making me feel guilty about my carbon footprint and later on indicting me as a climate-change denying carbon-criminal. (Don't laugh -- this has already been seriously proposed to stop opposition to the anthropogenic global warming theory).

That's the end of my contribution and I hope this thread won't turn nasty ...


Best,

Les D

[Barrykgerdes]

Saying CO2 is causing global warming is not based on fact it is a theory put forward generated by statistics. These same statistics can be used to give the opposite theory if you want it. Too much "science" is generated today by statistics rather than fact.

The effect of an increase of carbon dioxide on our so called greenhouse is insignifficant against the prime temperature stabiliser or greenhouse if you like, water vapour, which is 1000 times greater than the amount of cardon dioxide in the air.

There is a mammoth amount of CO2 absorbed in the ocean and raising the temperature of the ocean by 1 degree will release enough CO2 to account for the present rise in CO2 levels.

Our eccology is based on the carbon cycle which derives its energy solely from the Sun. Animal life burns its fuel to create CO2, Vegetables take this CO2 and with the help of the Sun and the catalyst chlorophyl remove the carbon and release Oxygen.

The rate of plant life extracing the carbon is affected mostly by the reduction in our great rain forests. Vast tracts of land that have become barren by forest clearing do actually cause a change in the air circulation pattern around the globe which is probably the main reason for any real climate change that we may be experiencing. Our burning of coal as a fuel produces less CO2 than the cycle of wild fires and volcanic activity around the planet and don't forget all the coal was once vegetation on the earth's surface taking the carbon out of the air and storing it.

Political correctness stops us from citing the main causes of pollution, the effects of human habitation. If we overnight stopped all generation of power by coal burning, I would not expect to see any signifficant change in the amount of CO2 in the air.

[multiweb (Marc)]

Originally Posted by Barrykgerdes

Political correctness stops us from citing the main causes of pollution, the effects of human habitation. If we overnight stopped all generation of power by coal burning, I would not expect to see any signifficant change in the amount of CO2 in the air.

Yeah I reckon us causing this whole global warming thing is BS and a big media hype. Too much ink wasted on this. I can't believe how much money we are going to spend on it and cut jobs. Whatever anybody say they can do to counteract it is to me just like p***ing into the ocean. (up wind I might had) There are bigger forces at work here. We're just riding the wave and following the flow...

[Barrykgerdes]

Hi Marc

Thanks for the support. Yes media hype and polititions seeking votes will cause so much unnecessary problems and in the end the climate will do whatever the Sun wants it to do.

[multiweb (Marc)]

Originally Posted by Barrykgerdes

Hi Marc

Thanks for the support. Yes media hype and polititions seeking votes will cause so much unnecessary problems and in the end the climate will do whatever the Sun wants it to do.

So true. But big kev's money box is running out now ... payback 's gonna be a b**ch. For our kids anyway. What a waste.