This statement is “missing” in the “debate” about listening to all sides.
Are those who want us to listen to all “sides” on climate change willing to listen to flat earth “theories”? Or cube earth “theories”.
I doubt it. It has been well established that the earth is “round”: round as the irregularities of its surface permit. And it has been well-established the earth is warming because of human activity.
If fossil fuels are being pulled out of the ground and not replaced, wouldn’t it stand to reason that more carbon dioxide is being put into the atmosphere? If carbon dioxide is a heat-trapping gas, wouldn’t it stand to reason that more carbon dioxide would warm the earth?
The only counter to this trend would be a substantial increase in the number of plants taking in oxygen. If anything, we are reducing the amount of space for plants with more and more freeways, parking lots, and buildings.
Showing posts with label carbon dioxide. Show all posts
Showing posts with label carbon dioxide. Show all posts
Saturday, August 26, 2017
Wednesday, May 08, 2013
A simple arithmetic proof of global warming
Too many people deny that our atmosphere is warming. Many of these do so because they are making lots of money contributing to global warming. They also spend lots of money convincing people of a certain political view that the promotion of the idea of global warming is the plot of people of a certain other political view.
It is relatively simple to prove that there is global warming with one simple assumption: increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will cause the globe to be warmer.
For centuries there has been a certain balance of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. People have used plants for food and fuel for eons. As people use the plant carbon as food, they breathe out carbon dioxide. As they use plant carbon as fuel, their fires give off carbon dioxide. Plants, in turn, use the atmospheric carbon dioxide as food to grow. The balance is such, that even with huge forest fires and volcanoes, the excess carbon dioxide is used up over a few years or decades with the new growth of plants.
We could express this as
CB-CU=0
That is, carbon burned minus carbon used by plants equals zero. That is, we have a long term balance.
Then people took coal, oil, and gas from under the ground. Now are equation is
CB-CU=CG
where CG is carbon from underground: coal, oil and gas. That is, the carbon from coal, oil, and gas is not used up by the existing plants.
To make matters worse, human activity doesn't increase the amount of plant life to absorb the extra carbon. To the contrary, human activity reduces the volume of plant life. Humans cut down huge forests without replacing them with plants of equal volume. Sometimes they replace the huge forests with sugar cane, coffee plants, or corn. Sometimes they don't even replace the plants but cover the same ground with highways, parking lots, and mammoth buildings. Now our equation becomes
CB-CU=CG+CL
where CL is carbon uptake lost. CB, CG, and CL keep getting bigger, and CU keeps getting smaller.
If you assume the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide doesn't cause global warming, consider that residents of many cities are having breathing problems because of all the pollutants, including carbon dioxide, that are in the air because of the cities' dependence on fossil fuels.
It is relatively simple to prove that there is global warming with one simple assumption: increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will cause the globe to be warmer.
For centuries there has been a certain balance of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. People have used plants for food and fuel for eons. As people use the plant carbon as food, they breathe out carbon dioxide. As they use plant carbon as fuel, their fires give off carbon dioxide. Plants, in turn, use the atmospheric carbon dioxide as food to grow. The balance is such, that even with huge forest fires and volcanoes, the excess carbon dioxide is used up over a few years or decades with the new growth of plants.
We could express this as
CB-CU=0
That is, carbon burned minus carbon used by plants equals zero. That is, we have a long term balance.
Then people took coal, oil, and gas from under the ground. Now are equation is
CB-CU=CG
where CG is carbon from underground: coal, oil and gas. That is, the carbon from coal, oil, and gas is not used up by the existing plants.
To make matters worse, human activity doesn't increase the amount of plant life to absorb the extra carbon. To the contrary, human activity reduces the volume of plant life. Humans cut down huge forests without replacing them with plants of equal volume. Sometimes they replace the huge forests with sugar cane, coffee plants, or corn. Sometimes they don't even replace the plants but cover the same ground with highways, parking lots, and mammoth buildings. Now our equation becomes
CB-CU=CG+CL
where CL is carbon uptake lost. CB, CG, and CL keep getting bigger, and CU keeps getting smaller.
If you assume the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide doesn't cause global warming, consider that residents of many cities are having breathing problems because of all the pollutants, including carbon dioxide, that are in the air because of the cities' dependence on fossil fuels.
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Climate change - can you catch the typo?
"The annual rise of 17 billion tons [of atmospheric carbon] translates into a rising concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Each additional 7.8 billion tons is equivalent to one part per million in the atmosphere, so that an extra 17 tons each year is equivalent to a rise of roughly two parts per million."
- Common Wealth, p. 92, Jeffrey D. Sachs
Hint: The word "billion" is missing in one place.
Hint: If the amount of carbon dioxide needed to add 2ppm is what he wrote, then the earth would have become a desert already.
The moral: Once you proofread something you wrote, proofread it again. I caught at least one in what I typed above!
- Common Wealth, p. 92, Jeffrey D. Sachs
Hint: The word "billion" is missing in one place.
Hint: If the amount of carbon dioxide needed to add 2ppm is what he wrote, then the earth would have become a desert already.
The moral: Once you proofread something you wrote, proofread it again. I caught at least one in what I typed above!
Sunday, December 02, 2012
Spring skiing in December in Minnesota?
As I walk around Duluth and our cabin in Brimson, I'm amazed at the wet snow on the ground. Hey, this is December; we're supposed to have white fluffy stuff at least six inches deep. This snow is like March snow.
This is bad for the tourism industry because fewer people will come to Duluth to ski. In fact, Spirit Mt. will not be open for a full daily schedule until Dec. 8. It used to be that ski hills in Minnesota began full-time operation at Thanksgiving, even south of Minneapolis. Forget "over the hill and through the woods to Grandmother's house…"
It's also bad for all the snowplow operators, public and private. They will be called out less often.
Almost any change has winners and losers. The big winners are those who get to spew lots of CO2 and other pollution in the air. The losers are all those who depend on seasonal shifts, but they're little folk and I guess they don't count.
Am I getting to the age where the disappointment of fewer opportunities to ski are offset by the joy of shoveling less?
This is bad for the tourism industry because fewer people will come to Duluth to ski. In fact, Spirit Mt. will not be open for a full daily schedule until Dec. 8. It used to be that ski hills in Minnesota began full-time operation at Thanksgiving, even south of Minneapolis. Forget "over the hill and through the woods to Grandmother's house…"
It's also bad for all the snowplow operators, public and private. They will be called out less often.
Almost any change has winners and losers. The big winners are those who get to spew lots of CO2 and other pollution in the air. The losers are all those who depend on seasonal shifts, but they're little folk and I guess they don't count.
Am I getting to the age where the disappointment of fewer opportunities to ski are offset by the joy of shoveling less?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)