CO2 - Dumb question

We as humans are concentrators in every way you can think of, with the result that if problems of scale develops, we study, try to solve after the fact, some of which we olny reach at over certain population numbers.

We chose to accommodate multiplication in Vertical Concentrated ways like how cities are constructed, much humans per square meter, as oppse to a farming community with open spaces, so many humans per kilometer rather, and in between we have smaller to larger towns horizontally constructed but small plots.

So our multiplication to 7 Billion plus has not taken these factors into account, now we have the problems we do. It may not fixable at this scale with our best and finest knowledge, and it certainly look this wa over last 30 years.

We may have been caught up in tunnels of complicated knowledge taking our lifetime to acquire and experience and live out, but in the process and over time we loose common sense and direction regarding the bigger picture in a closed system like Planet Earth.

I think our best knowledge cannot save us from our concentrated was of life on eart, its like a pyramid scheme of life we only started face now, not saw it coming as a race.

To make it worse quickly the Planet can play it own tricks of scale existing in the Universe.

Edited By Chris Mate on 12/08/2022 15:33:25

Edited By Frances IoM on 12/08/2022 16:04:33

See Martin Kyte 10/08

Lots of explanations on the web, but same reason as the sea is blue and dyes have colour. The sea is blue because water absorbs red radiation (and heat) whilst reflecting blue frequencies.

The effect is molecular. Heat and light are electromagnetic waves and resonant effects occur when the vibrations match the dimensions of molecules. I imagine them like little dipole aerials. It's related to bridges resonating when soldiers march over them.

Fluorescent lamps are a good example. When a trace of Sodium vapour is excited by an electric current the molecules absorb energy at one frequency and spit it out at another. The process is very efficient; lots of light is produced from a tiny quantity of low-pressure gas.

Carbon Dioxide allows radiant energy from the sun to pass because it's not excited by incoming frequencies, but is by heat created by radiant energy hitting the atmosphere or surface. Greenhouses work the same way: more energy is allowed in than can escape. I've seen the combination of Carbon Dioxide and air described as acting like a string vest.

Carbon Dioxide is so good at absorbing heat it's used in refrigerators. Good stuff when it's compressed and decompressed tightly managed in a machine, but it can't be controlled once it's in the air.

Common-sense doesn't work in science and high-technology. Materials have to measured and endlessly studied before they're understood. It's not easy or obvious!

Dave

Edited By SillyOldDuffer on 12/08/2022 16:28:37

I expect is somewhat exactly the same way as heat being absorbed by everything which is ‘struck ‘ by electromagnetic waves it interacts with (unless it is perfectly reflected to some other location. Heat is similarly emitted by all bodies as they cool. This is separate from conduction and convection losses. If heat losses by re-radiation were not the reason for cooling, the Earth would not be in (relative) equilibrium regarding average temperature.

Mars, which has a carbon dioxide atmosphere (what there is of it) would be a lot colder if it did not have that atmosphere. The Earth is situated at a suitable distance from the Sun to provide conditions suitable for our life-forms on the surface and in the oceans. Ten degrees Celsius hotter, and warm blooded animals would be hard-pressed to survive, let alone live as the human race does at present.

I think Frances IoM has pointed to what appears a huge sticking-point in the public spats over the issue - that many people genuinely cannot see why a mere couple of degrees Celsius should matter so much.

My suspicion is that if they were ever taught it at school, they have not grasped the difference between heat and temperature, let alone such concepts as specific heat; hence do not understand what an apparently tiny overall temperature rise shows.

We have to be careful not to blame climate change purely on population growth. There certainly is correlation between world population growth and increasing atmospheric CO2 levels but not such a direct causal link overall.

That is because 50 percent of the world's carbon emissions are produced by the wealthiest 10 per cent of the population (that's us), who incidentally have the lowest birth rate. The poorest 50 per cent of the world population (The teeming masses of the "developing" nations) produce only 10 per cent of the world's carbon emissions.

So if we halved the 650 million population of the richest Western nations it would cut worldwide emissions by 25 per cent. But if we halved the the over 3 billion population of those developing countries it would cut global emissions by just 5 per cent.

So obviously, the solution is a change in emission-producing behaviour, not a change in population numbers.

Either that or eat the rich.

Edited By Hopper on 12/08/2022 22:59:44

It is in the nature of all creatures to breed and exceed their food supply, you can't expect people not to breed just because you don't like it. These are the days of miracle and wonder, I strongly suggest you have fun and stop worrying about stuff that will is best fixed by future technology should it ever turn out to be an actual problem

It is a problem and no-one is fixing it.

And making whoopee in the bar whilst expecting someone else to fix my problems has never worked for me.

Which part of my conclusion " So obviously, the solution is a change in emission-producing behaviour, not a change in population numbers" did you not understand?

I'm surprised that someone who knows more about climate science than the scientists struggles with such basic reading comprehension.

Edited By Hopper on 13/08/2022 12:05:38

The Sun's energy doesn't drive all food webs. Life existed before photosynthesis evolved. Although. we are mainly familiar with food webs that rely on photoautotrophs as producers, others rely on chemoautotrophs.

Photoautotrophs use light energy to synthesise organic chemicals, chemoautotrophs use chemical energy to do it.

Edited By Keith Wyles on 13/08/2022 12:25:33

Climate science isn't really science, it is all about making models that wildly overestimate the effect of CO2.

There is actually very little energy left to be had for CO2 in its absorption wavelength, so they have created a positive feedback loop based on water vapour. A runaway scenario that has never happened in the past.

To explain why it has never happened in the past, they say it is currently warmer than it has ever been before.

That seems rather unlikely.

They are digging a hole for themselves that keeps getting deeper and deeper but they can't seem to stop.

But your own argument is also too simplistic, there are more people living on the planet than it can support. Normally this would not be a problem as nature would reduce the population, lack of food, increase in predators, increase in disease etc. However, we have learnt to overcome these constraints. This has had disasterous consequences for our environment and the other organisms that we share the planet with. ignoring overpopulation ignores the cause of problems.

True, but do chemoautotrophs make much difference to mammals like you and me? 'Chemoautotrophs are commonly found in environments where plants cannot survive, such as at the bottom of the ocean, or in acidic hot springs.'

As such they might be the only form of life not effected by climate change - so it's not all bad news!

They do fix CO2 so will have some benefit to us. However, I doubt that they will be the only form of life to survive climate change, many others will be able do as well, or will evolve to do so. Just as we have evolved to live in cooler, or warmer climates as humans.

I don't disagree except I didn't say chemoautotrophs would be the only survivors, I remarked that they were not effected. All other plants and animals will be.

Not happy with evolution as the answer if it can be avoided:

• It does nothing for us or our grand-children!
• Takes about 100,000 years to alter a species, and climate change is faster than that.
• Evolution does not guarantee a species will survive. For one reason or another 90% of all previous species are extinct after failing to adapt to a change.

Dave

It doesn't take that long for change. Variation happens constantly due to mutations, if the selection pressure is there those organisms with beneficial mutations will survive and bring about change. it is noticable in our garden that some plants are better adapted to the present conditions than others.
There have been at least 5 previous major extinction events were a large number of species didn't survive, but life soon recovered.

So are those people who reckon it's all down to overpopulation ready for the vortex machine, ref Logan's Run

But it is not the overall number of people causing the current CO2 problem. It is the richest 10 per cent of those people causing 52 per cent of the CO2 emissions, while the poorest 50 per cent of the population cause only 10 per cent of the emissions.

The planet is in fact currently supporting it's present population. It is just that the food is not evenly distributed, a matter of economics and logistics, compounded by increasing natural disasters arising from global warming. But you are right, it can't keep increasing forever without food and water running short etc.

There is no arguing with willful ignorance.