Global Warming

[ManInTheMiddle]

A hot topic at boards I frequent. Obviously, it's happening. Causes & measures to be taken are debatable.

Thoughts?

As a side note: I've yet to see cosmic rays included in the debates I peruse. Google: cosmic rays; global warming and links abound.

[Dr Maturin]

There's global warming and then there's "Man-Made Global Warming."

[ManInTheMiddle]

<kosh> There's global warming and then there's "Man-Made Global Warming." <kosh>

Yep I agree, there's both external/natural & man-made contributors. IMO

[Karachi Vyce]

A hot topic

*honk honk*

Huddala huddala.

[ManInTheMiddle]

*honk honk*

Huddala huddala.

............

[Der Mike]

We left a mini-Ice Age in the 1850's. This is called a normal warming pattern that has happened on Earth, consistently, for the entire existence of this planet.

What can be done?

Outside of completely destroying the Earth's ecosystem and atmosphere, not a heck of a lot.
-=Mike

[Harrdy]

I heared you can bind a lot of CO2 if you put iron in some seas, because the microorganisms there have not enough of that, so it will trigger an explosive growth of them. But on the other side: CO2 is not the only - maybe even not the important - faktor here. Much more interresting is the rapid growth of Methan, from Farms and other sources. Methan is also a greenhouse gas, and the *big* difference is that more CO2 just increases the already happening absorbtion but more CO2 gives new and additional absorbtion lines to our atmosphere. Same with other gas that doesn't exist (in large quantitys) in our atmosphere, eg. FCCHs (? tried to translate Fluor Chlor Kohlen Wasserstoffe, but not sure if that is the correct term in english). And then there is the whole issue with water vapor, which in itself is also a greenhouse-"gas". So I wouldn't put all my money on the CO2 train...

Interresting enough the sea rised 3 Millimeters, so there seems to be an effect to the sea (opposite to the guys who say global warming will have no effect on the sea)... if the theory doesn't fit nature it shouldn't be natures fault 9-)

PeAcE

[Capt.Montoya]

The gases you speak of are ChloroFluoroCarbons, CFCs, or more properly perchlorofluorocarbons, hydrocarbons where the hydrogen has been completly ("per" in chemists lingo) replaced by chlorines and fluorines.
Those have a worse effect on the ozone layer. Thus they were phased out, starting several years ago. Very little of them are still produced, they have been replaced by partially chlorinated and fluorinated hydrocarbons, or entirely different compounds, that aren't so aggressive with ozone.
The ozone layer is recovering, CFC production has been greatly reduced through an international treaty, I see the Kyoto protocol as analogous to that CFC ban international treaty... it could be more succesful if certain countries also signed it.

Methane is indeed another big problem. There are big methane deposits in the bottom of the sea, in the form of "methane hydrates" (water molecules trap molecules of methane inside a crystal, forming a "methane ice"). Such methane hydrates also exist in the permafrost in the Siberian tundra and other cold places in the continents.
If those places warm up enough, the permafrost is no longer "perma" and it thaws seasonally, that methane might be released...

The worst case scenario is a runaway greenhouse effect.

Increased CO2 warms the oceans, and the tundra, maybe even the seafloor, warms enough to release methane. More methane, more greenhouse effect, more warming. The increase in water vapor also contributes to the greenhouse effect, more global warming yet.

Is this runaway greenhouse effect something that will happen for sure?
No, I don't think any scientist has said it will happen, but environmental scientists do consider it a scenario.

Personally I think that is an experiment we can't afford to run.

The technology is there, CO2 emissions can be reduced.
Even if it turns out that the warming is part of a natural trend there's no point in adding to it by increasing CO2 through human activities, otherwise we run the risk of warming the planet beyond what that assumed natural cycle would have.

[Dr Maturin]

Plant a tree for your tomorrow,
It's your tree that clears the air,
Plant a tree, trees for America,
Plant a tree today for all the world to share,
Taste the breeze, it's life inside you,
Make a promise to the Earth,
Plant a tree,
Now is the time to recognize,
A tree for all that it is worth,
Plant a tree your tomorrow,
Plant a tree that clears the air,
Plant a tree, trees for America,
Plant a tree today for all the world to share

-John Denver

[Harrdy]

The technology is there, CO2 emissions can be reduced.

Funny thing is that investments in technology give back more than expected. I don't want to bore someone by telling the good ol' Teflon story (which is also not quite true, but shows a point), but there are paybacks if you invest in new technologies. Or else it would make no sense to develop at all, why go to the moon? Why go down under the sea? Why don't we stay in our good ol' trees (or on the shorelines as some researcher suggest)? IMHO stagnation is regression, because the rest of the world will not stop developing.

Who knows what researching technology for CO2 reduction could spawn, maybe a new and efficient technology to gain fertilizer, maybe new surrogates for petroleum, maybe new insights in how plants do their "magic". Problem is: We don't *know* what will come out of it, so nowadays that means we wouldn't do it... the risk of loosing money is to big, so we stagnate. Yes, maybe CO2 reduction is a laughing matter for our (grand?)children, maybe they praise us because we did it. Maybe they drive with alternative fuels and don't even think about CO2, Methan and such...

PeAcE