CO2 and Global warming

[Hale_Bopp]

The following letter to the editor appeared in todays Milwaukee Journal Sentinel...I am looking at writing a response.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/editori...p03/167539.asp

My understanding is that CO2 acts as a one way valve, letting in the short wavelength radiation from the sun, but trapping the infrared radiation given off by the Earth, much like a green house. I belive the flaw in his argument (well, the biggest flaw...there are more than one!) is that he believes CO2 is transpartent to all radiation when he uses the word "colorless" or that he simply ignores any other form.

Any comments before I put keyboard to email and send a letter is welcome!

Rob

[dgruss23]

Yeah, he definitely doesn't seem to understand the global warming issue. But there are two points that should be kept in mind. He is correct in his last paragraph when he points out that 25 years ago the environmentalists were banging out the global ice age disaster scenario. Also it is unfortunate that the environmental movement does not factor in the Sun's influence on climate. I've posted some links and we had a discussion about it on this thread. I must admit to being somewhat surprised that on this astronomy bulletin board the issue of the Sun's role in climate doesn't seem to generate that much interest when it is brought up.

[Pinemarten]

I think people confuse the ozone layer thing with global warming. It is a different scenario, and has different effects.
I think the largest greenhouse culprit is water vapour which contributes up to 95% of global warming. It has a 'snowball' effect with increasing evaporation rates and melting the ice caps etc. It may also be causing some ozone depletion.
Is this thread in the right forum?

[Kebsis]

Besides, how can anybody take environmentalists seriously about global warming when, 25 years ago, they were warning us that we were about to enter another Ice Age?

It's my understanding that we are actually in the middle of an Ice Age's resession right now, and in the next millenium or two the glaciers will begin to move south again. If I understand that right then the enviormentalists may have had the right idea 25 years ago.


BTW, the enviormentalists seem to have a problem with both Ice Ages and Global Warming. But both of those problems could very well be natural. Since the enviormentalists rail against them, couldn't they be considered anti-enviormentalists?

[Rogue_7]

I have personally decided to refrain from judgement for 25 years. If at that point I am either swimming or skiing to work, I will then know exactly who was right!

[kilopi]

I belive the flaw in his argument (well, the biggest flaw...there are more than one!) is that he believes CO2 is transpartent to all radiation when he uses the word "colorless" or that he simply ignores any other form.

I think you have a point there, that does seem to be his logic and conclusion.

Another thing, he mentions that CO2 is heavier than air--so that it "girdles" the Earth where plants can use it--but CO2 dissolves in air. If it didn't, it would not only girdle the Earth, it would be so tight that we couldn't breathe.

Heh. You can use that if you like.

[dgruss23]

BTW, the enviormentalists seem to have a problem with both Ice Ages and Global Warming. But both of those problems could very well be natural. Since the enviormentalists rail against them, couldn't they be considered anti-enviormentalists?

Rouge7 wrote: I have personally decided to refrain from judgement for 25 years. If at that point I am either swimming or skiing to work, I will then know exactly who was right!

You guys are funny!

[Pinemarten]

Here I go again...

I believe the flaw in his argument (well, the biggest flaw...there are more than one!) is that he believes CO2 is transparent to all radiation when he uses the word "colorless" or that he simply ignores any other form.

I think you have a point there, that does seem to be his logic and conclusion.

Another thing, he mentions that CO2 is heavier than air--so that it "girdles" the Earth where plants can use it--but CO2 dissolves in air. If it didn't, it would not only girdle the Earth, it would be so tight that we couldn't breathe.

Heh. You can use that if you like.

I am confused about the statement "but CO2 dissolves in air". Do you mean the same principle as 'compounds in solution always move to an area of lesser concentration'?

[johnwitts]

Here I go again...

I believe the flaw in his argument (well, the biggest flaw...there are more than one!) is that he believes CO2 is transparent to all radiation when he uses the word "colorless" or that he simply ignores any other form.

I think you have a point there, that does seem to be his logic and conclusion.

Another thing, he mentions that CO2 is heavier than air--so that it "girdles" the Earth where plants can use it--but CO2 dissolves in air. If it didn't, it would not only girdle the Earth, it would be so tight that we couldn't breathe.

Heh. You can use that if you like.

I am confused about the statement "but CO2 dissolves in air". Do you mean the same principle as 'compounds in solution always move to an area of lesser concentration'?

I think he means 'diffuses'.

[kilopi]

Can't two gases be a solution?

[Pinemarten]

You are probably right, I only remember the law applying to liquids.

[kilopi]

The point that he seemed to be making was that carbon dioxide was heavier than air--and so it would not be at high altitudes, but would be lower, where the trees and plants could use it. That's a vast oversimplification. If the CO2 didn't diffuse out, we'd suffocate.

Remember Lake Nios? Whoa, I just read that link, and that's not what happened at all. Let's see if I can find a better explanation...this one disputes part of the explanation also. Poisonous gases may have been involved, but a lot of the references point to a saturation of CO2 at depth in the lake that then "burped", with the heavy CO2 spreading out, and drifting down river valleys to suffocate thousands of people.

[Pinemarten]

You're scaring me. I'm going to move out of my basement suite. :wink:

Is that similar to something I read about 'thin air' bursts out of the ocean in the "Bermuda Triangle" causing planes to lose lift and boats to sink?
Remember that theory?

[kilopi]

Is that similar to something I read about 'thin air' bursts out of the ocean in the "Bermuda Triangle" causing planes to lose lift and boats to sink?
Remember that theory?

I do remember that theory. I don't think the air was thin though. Wasn't it gas hydrates that bubbled up? The water would be just a light low-density froth, and the ships would sink and take on too much water before they could do anything.

I don't remember that it affected planes, though.

[Pinemarten]

I don't remember which gas or gases it was, and they probably used the 'thin air' thing to explain planes as well as ships.
I also remember an FAA inspector stating: "that if you take any triangle over the continental US of the same size; there will have been just as many planes lost in the same amount of time".
I think it was a story explaining how the 'Bermuda Triangle' was a bunch of hokey. One coast guard person said he found a yacht lost out there because their only 'chart' was a National Geographic Atlas. I haven't heard of any 'events' lately so I guess people have learnt to read the instructions before they try their new boat. :wink:

[bobjohnston]

I think it was a story explaining how the 'Bermuda Triangle' was a bunch of hokey. One coast guard person said he found a yacht lost out there because their only 'chart' was a National Geographic Atlas. I haven't heard of any 'events' lately so I guess people have learnt to read the instructions before they try their new boat.

A good book for dispeling the Bermuda Triangle nonsense is The Bermuda Triangle Mystery--Solved. On Pinemarten's point--notice how inactive the triangles are, in this age of GPS, ELTs, satellite communications, and improved weather forecasting?

[TriangleMan]

A good book for dispeling the Bermuda Triangle nonsense is The Bermuda Triangle Mystery--Solved. On Pinemarten's point--notice how inactive the triangles are, in this age of GPS, ELTs, satellite communications, and improved weather forecasting?

It is also a case of 'remembering the hits but forgetting the misses'. Lots of Bermuda Triangle believers focus on the odd ship that sank without taking into account the amount of sea traffic that goes through that area without anything bad happening. Believe me, if a large number of ships & planes were vanishing/sinking south of Bermuda it would be a real concern here. I haven't read the book mentioned above so I wonder if it mentions this fact.

Another point, insurance policies for ships would include 'no going into the Triangle' clauses if there was any significant risk of it sinking. That is a clause I haven't seen yet in a ship insurance policy.

[gethen]

It also seems that any writer wishing to push the Bermuda Triangle thing will draw that triangle in a way that includes any "mysteries" they want to include. The triangle itself seems to shift, depending on the writer.