# Anthropogenic Global Warming



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Anthropogenic global warming is the theory that humans are partly or wholly to blame for global warming. What is your opinion.


----------



## Bote (Jun 16, 2010)

Voted serious but reversible. Earth recovered from a nuclear winter so it can recover from a bunch of monkeys burning coal and gas.


----------



## Valdyr (May 25, 2010)

I also voted serious but reversible. The question is not "will the earth be able to recover/will we be able to fix it?" One of those two is probably true. But there is the question that gets me every time; "but at what cost?"


----------



## LostInMyOwnMind (May 5, 2010)

Effects to what/whom, us, the planet, the solar system, the galaxy, the universe? The Earth has recovered from numerous cataclysms in the past and I suspect it would recover from anthropogenic global warming, real or imagined. It will likely, one day, rid itself of whatever parasites threaten its longevity. Perhaps Earth will actually be inhabited by intelligent life in the future. The scenario below is the only real threat to the planet itself and will even survive this as a crispy cinder.

Life of the Sun


----------



## Trout Whisperer (Dec 7, 2010)

The earth's climate is not constant, and I've not seen convincing evidence that links human factors to climate change.


----------



## noz (Dec 7, 2009)

Negligible.

The equilibrium that has evolved which is known as the earth's body will not be undone by a few pesky mols of carbon emissions. Any sufficiently evolved system in nature has the capacity to jettison excesses that do not synch with that equilibrium, especially one as vast as our atmosphere (ours has a mass on the order of magnitude of 10^18 kg.)

Hell, I CHALLENGE you to release a catastrophic amount of CO2 to the point the mean earth's temperature jumps 10o C, i dont even think it could be done. Let it get to 1000 ppm. Nothing will happen, carbon dioxide is not some miraculous insulating material. The thermal energy will still leave our surface. Look at the stefan-boltzman relationship to gain an idea of what happens as our temperature goes up:

J= oT^4 , where J is the power emitted from a body. That means as temperature increases, the power emissions go up a factor of FOUR!! this is why i say you would practically have to TRY to get any significant increase in our temperature by carbon dioxide alone. Its just not going to contribute like people imagine it does.

also consider concentration equilibriums - if 280 ppm CO2 was the equilibrium before human activities, that means the more above 280 we go, the more that will escape from the atmosphere, as diffusion rate is directly proportional to concentration values.... right?

in short, equilibriums are NOT fragile and you have to do a lot of work to upset them. They are demanded by nature herself, not nursed by mankind.



EDIT: this is interesting, too: http://www.suite101.com/content/royal-society-humiliated-by-global-warming-basic-math-error-a296746


----------



## xezene (Aug 7, 2010)

Depends if you mean 'catastrophic for humans' or 'catastrophic for the environment.' It is harmful for both (in a sense), but certainly humans will get the short end of the stick if we are up against the environment.


----------



## perennialurker (Oct 1, 2009)

The Earth will undoubtedly survive. The problem is that our civilizations have grown and prospered under specific climates. Empires rose and fell as a result of climate change, irrespective of who or what caused it.


----------



## EctoplasmicGoo (Dec 9, 2010)

noz said:


> Negligible.
> 
> The equilibrium that has evolved which is known as the earth's body will not be undone by a few pesky mols of carbon emissions. Any sufficiently evolved system in nature has the capacity to jettison excesses that do not synch with that equilibrium, especially one as vast as our atmosphere (ours has a mass on the order of magnitude of 10^18 kg.)
> 
> ...


What about the other aspects of a dramatic change in CO2 in our atmosphere, like human living conditions(Respiratory health), ice caps melting(sorry polar bears), and flooding(hey where'd new york go?). The earth would survive certainly, but what significance would it have compared to that of lets say Mercury?(bit extreme, but if we're not here to observe the universe because we stripped our selves of the privilege then what's the point of having such a beautiful world)
It seems our world is perfect for life, only because it's able to sustain it with the delicate balances. you said that they'll eventually leave our earth, life as we know it in the present seems to be very fragile(in terms of dramatic changes), and how long have we been having a significant impact on our world 100-150 years tops? All these negative aspects are changing so rapidly, i think it's hard to make assumptions of the tolerance of our world to such change in so short a time of study. Better to be safe then sorry. 

Just throwing these things out there, i have limited knowledge but i think i hit the general points. These things have significance to me, and I'd love to have them maybe verified or dismissed.

Sorry if i sounded stupid, lol, i'm not good with naming details, only the big picture.:happy:


----------



## Digger Blue (Dec 1, 2010)

If you wanted to really change the living conditions on the entire planet, it would have to be a multi pronged attack. 

First of all, you'd have to manufacture lots of greenhouse gases. This could be done with powerplants, internal combustion engines, etc. You would want to burn everything you can get your hands on immediately. Of course you'd have to build the appropriate equipment for the job: oil rigs and giant oil tankers, for instance. You must convert all nuclear resources into heat (Which is where all the nuclear energy ends up going), and you must expend huge energy resources to do this: concrete cooling towers for reactors, for instance). I should mention Acid Rain here as well, as it takes its toll on the biosphere. 

Second, you must cut down the rain forests with their biological canopies. Suburban sprawl displaces green with homes and pavement. 

Third, you must pave as much of the landscape with asphalt or concrete as possible to absorb heat from the sun, and to create run off problems of water. Water being drained rather than sinking into the ground to refill aquifers.

Fourth, when you take organic chemistry, there are two things that come across again and again in terms of catalysts for chemical reactions: UV light and Mercury. We have learned how to decimate the O-zone layer which has resulted in more frequent incidents of skin cancer and earlier onset of cataracts. We are putting mercury up the stacks of coal fired power plants such that the mercury is distributed through the air we breathe, and it collects in the bodies of fish (which we eat). 

Finally, the timing of all of this has been about 300 years. I figure that is a good time to mark the beginning as it coincides with the whaling industry (1822). 1832 marked the invention of the Internal Combustion Engine. Somewhat before the Internal Combustion Engine came the evolution of the steam engine. As steam engines were built and developed, wood was in high demand for fuel. Many horses were needed, and this resulted in the commonality of the name Smith in America. 

Sorry for the digression, but the date of about 1800 or 1850 marks the beginning of serious demand for energy, and it has seen such a dramatic increase in the 20th century with the world wars and the interstate highway system. 

This being 2010, it means that we have converted the first third or half or so of the world's convenient energy into heat in 175 years. On either an anthropological or a geological timeline, that is, well, overnight.

Live simply that others may only live.

Digger Blue


----------



## prufrok (Nov 28, 2008)

I think if we don't change our behavior/technology things will become quite dire. Hopefully we can stop heading down the path we're on before it's too late, and find a way to reverse whatever damage we've already done, if we can.


----------



## OxidativeCleavage (Dec 27, 2010)

noz said:


> Negligible.
> 
> The equilibrium that has evolved which is known as the earth's body will not be undone by a few pesky mols of carbon emissions. Any sufficiently evolved system in nature has the capacity to jettison excesses that do not synch with that equilibrium, especially one as vast as our atmosphere (ours has a mass on the order of magnitude of 10^18 kg.)
> 
> ...


This is incorrect. The Earth as a whole is by all intents and purposes a "closed system" therefore the earth allows energy not mass across it's system boundary... and the system boundary of the earth would be the outer limits of the atmosphere thus virtually no mass is interchanged between the earth and space..

That being said - the equilibriums that govern things like our oxygen cycle etc are very delicate.. what you're saying here doesn't make sense and certainly is not based on any fundamental scientific principles... CO2 is not "escaping from the atmosphere" it is re-equilibrating into the oceans, soil etc... 

Increasing the concentration of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere - since we now know that it is by all intents and purposes a closed system - is a lot like increasing C02 concentrations in your garage with all the doors and windows closed (another example of a closed system for all intents and purposes).....

Overtime increasing the CO2 concentrations will result in the following: (this is NOT an exhaustive list)
- acidification of the oceans (this is what will ACTUALLY happen with the equilibrium)
- changes in regulation of global climate (CO2 is critical in this)
- addition of fresh water to the oceans via the melting of polar ice which will then impact the currents of th oceans which will then impact the weather systems etc (this is also all due to delicate equilibriums)

*since matter cannot be created or destroyed we are left with only one choice to begin to impact man's effects on the environment and that is to a.) significantly reduce our CO2 emissions immediately and b.) find a way to safely convert or (sequester and covert) CO2 into something useful - without upsetting yet another equilibrium -because we cannot just convert it all back to oxygen in a short period of time for obvious reasons.... 

*This doesn't even touch on the methane problem.... 
or 
*any of the other manmade impacts on the oxygen cycle

Currently we have a real problem on our hands because technology for sequestering CO2 is not adequate... If we don't take immediate and severe action to reduce and reverse our effects on the planet we will definitely regret it.


----------



## Mutatio NOmenis (Jun 22, 2009)

I think the world is headed for a crash.


----------



## Teigue (Jun 8, 2010)

The Earth will be all right, we won't be!


----------



## Mathy_Otter (Jan 8, 2011)

Directed at everyone:

Svante Arrhenius actually did some global warming calculations himself about 100 years ago, soon after when the Stefan-Boltzmann law emerged.

The issue is that you omit that gases can also absorb heat, as well as radiate it, and the amount of energy radiated depends on the absorption spectra of each compound. It's not as simple as you'd like to think it is.

Here's a link to Arrhenius' paper. It's highly technical, but if you're going to seriously go down this argument I suggest you read this paper and understand it.

ht tp://ww w.rsc.org/im ages/Arr henius1896_tcm18-173 546. pdf

Sorry, you'll need to remove all the spaces I added into the link when you go type this into the URL bar. I had to do this to get around the "<10 posts, you can't post a link" rule. I only added spaces so it's not that bad... 

(Hey at least you know I'm a person, bots don't just get around these rules all that easily. )

What actually matters is:

Power radiated = Power absorbed. The actual numbers don't actually matter, what matters is the equilibrium temperature that the atmosphere and the ground is at that allows such an equilibrium.

Until anyone is able to come up with a quantitative argument about global temperatures based on physical laws, any discussion on this matter is mere speculation and generally of little value.


----------



## Sir Monocle (Jan 8, 2011)

I suggest you see this documentary on youtube. The guy here is not a scientist or anything, but he does have really good points, from the economic and kind of scientific point of view. Its very intresting. I will give you the name:

Collapse Documentary
the name of the man being interviewed is Michael Ruppert.

Watch it, you wont be dissapointed. I hope.


----------



## OxidativeCleavage (Dec 27, 2010)

Mathy_Otter said:


> Directed at everyone:
> 
> Svante Arrhenius actually did some global warming calculations himself about 100 years ago, soon after when the Stefan-Boltzmann law emerged.
> 
> ...


Unfortunately what he did not account for was the absorption of the ocean - as is evidenced from reading his paper. I introduced my thermo students to this a few years ago when I TAed thermo as an undergrad. I've been to multiple climate change conferences throughout my PhD and I can tell you that this issue has been addressed. You can start with google scholar or scifinder if you want to find links to the modern technical papers associated with this topic (if you focus on computer models of climate change) or look in up computational green chemistry papers related to this issue you will also find the information you need. 
I will summarize it below and you can fact check me through your own google search: 

What Arrhenius did not consider was that if CO2 was emitted more rapidly than he accounted for the ocean absorption would not be able to keep up in the way he described - thus altering the concentrations and making his prediction of the equilibriums inaccurate. He could not have known what man's CO2 usage would have been at the time and there is no way he could have projected for this kind of expansion and industrialization... Because kinetics are not that straightforward you cannot just plug in the new numbers for emission and concentration and get an answer.


----------



## Snakecharmer (Oct 26, 2010)

Scientific American just posted a link to a new article on climate change on their FB page. I gained more valuable information from the comments on the SA website than I did from the actual article. One of the people who commented has a PhD in Chemistry, and he provided this link, which I found very interesting and informative:
Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Personally I'm not worried about the planet. Earth has gone through ice ages and intense volcanic activity, gamma ray blasts that killed off almost all plant and animal life..etc. 

What we should be worried about is killing ourselves and other living things with all the BS that we are doing. We are simply wasting resources for non useful things. It has to stop.


----------



## tapwater (Apr 17, 2011)

The earth itself will survive but the problem will be if we can adapt or not. Were so used to using resources and wasting the we may not be able to change.


----------

