I got a number of interesting questions from our activity on Monday, but I felt that one of them in particular which showed up a number of times was outside of my topic. Therefore, I decided to answer it here just for the fun of it.
Are there other affects of Carbon Dioxide on the environment?
Absolutely. Carbon Dioxide is a key reactant in the process of photo synthesis, the method plants use to convert electromagnetic energy from the sun into chemical energy in the form of adenosine triphosphate, or ATP. The increase in atmospheric concentrations of Carbon Dioxide has resulted in a stimulation of plant growth, which has obvious implications for domestic plants as well as wild ones. In fact, increasing temperature and increasing Carbon Dioxide are two great ways to fertilize plants world wide, and sense plants filter Carbon Dioxide out of the air and replace it with oxygen, nature does have ways of mitigating the affects of Carbon Dioxide emissions on its own. Carbon Dioxide should really be looked at as a fertilizer rather than a pollutant. But don't go out and buy a hummer because of that. Your emissions don't really make a difference any way.
Although Carbon Dioxide does dissolve in water to create Carbonic Acid, which moves the pH of rain water from 7 to approximately 5.7. (Yes, a smaller pH means that the solution is more acidic). Despite this fact, I have not heard anyone attribute increasingly acidic rain to higher concentrations of atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. Most attribute the increase in the acidity of rain to a pH below 5.7 to higher concentrations to Sulfur Dioxide, which creates Sulfuric Acid, and contributes to the already present acidity due to Carbon Dioxide. Therefore, I would be hesitant to assert that Carbon Dioxide attributes to increasingly acidic rain, although I would be open to any information that suggested it was the case. One related speculation that I have heard is that the increase in atmospheric concentrations of Carbon Dioxide could lead to increasing acidity in the ocean, due to the same process, which would have extremely detrimental affects on hard coral, which is composed mainly of Calcium Carbonate, which dissolves in acidic solutions. However, there has not been a measured increase in the acidity of the ocean to my knowledge, and there are certainly huge amounts of Calcium Carbonate present in the form of discarded shells, such as one finds along the beach, that would act as a buffer against any acids, including Carbonic Acid. Sorry, but I don't currently have any articles on these topics that I can point you to, but you can probably find good stuff pretty easily with a quick google search if your interested in any of this. (Which you probably aren't, since it's chemistry.)
Please feel free to ask questions by commenting on this post. I love talking about chemistry.
Friday, February 18, 2011
Phase 6
My source for this assignment is an article from LBC's data base, ECO, titled Global Warming: A Consequence of Human Activities Rivaling Earth's Biogeochemical Processes by Jerald L Schnoor from the journal "Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal 11, no. 6 (2005): 1105-1110".
I believe my source is credible because the author is a recognized expert in the field of climate change and the article appeared in a pear-reviewed journal. Furthermore the author did give a number of sources that support his article. On the other hand, it is a bit of a red flag that AEHS, The Association for Environmental Health and Science, the publisher of the journal, basically has a mission statement that implies the existence of man-caused global warming. On the other hand, it's hard anyone who isn't strongly opinionated on this issue, so it is impossible to discard every source for bias. It would also be nice if the article was a little more recent, but it is one of the most recent informative articles I have found, so I can't really complain.
This source is useful because it shows the other side of the argument from were I stand and helps give my research some semblance of balance. Unfortunately, it does not respond to the positions of the authors I have been sighting in the past, but it does at least provide an example of the beliefs of those on the other side of the issue. Although the article does not give detailed evidence for many of its claims, it does give a good sampling of the arguments that those who support evidence use, which at least helps one think about how one might respond or agree in advance, so that you aren't caught off guard. Despite some minor short comings, I believe this article could be useful for someone who wants to be able to defend his or her opinion.
Dr. Schnoor began by explaining that Global Warming will have an affect on the future entire world and is therefore important for everyone on earth to address. Dr. Schnoor then explained that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide must be due to human activities because the flux began with the industrial revolution, when humans first began using fossil fuels and that the dynamics of Carbon Dioxides distribution can only be explained by human activities. Dr. Schnoor also related that the earth is warmer than it has been for the last 1000 years and that the warmest years have also been the most recent. He also pointed out that damages from natural disasters have been increasing recently, which would be one of the expected affects of Global Warming. Dr. Schnoor further states that the ice caps have been rapidly melting, which would be an obvious result of Global Warming. Dr. Schnoor continued by saying that the detrimental affects of Global Warming that have already been documented include increasing heat stroke in humans and the alteration of the behavior of Mexican Jays. Dr. Schnoor concluded that the entire source of power for our economy needed to be changed and that large cuts in green house gas emissions are obligatory but that if this requirement was met world would be OK.
I disagree with Dr. Schnoor's statement that Global Warming has been caused by man because I believe that a lot of his "evidence" is flawed. His main argument for the fact that humans are responsible for Global Warming is that humans burn fossil fuels. By that reasoning there should be huge amounts of Carbon Dioxid ein the atmosphere, while the data shows that the increase in atmospheric Carbon Dioxide is significantly less that the amount released by the combustion of fossil fuels. If not all of the Carbon Dioxide released makes a difference, how can one know that the fossil fuels are actually driving the change. They certainly have an affect, but Dr. Schnoor cannot prove that they are driving the increase. Furthermore, as my source from Phase 5 pointed out, ice core data, which is our only method of determining ancient concentrations of atmospheric concentrations of Carbon Dioxide, is flawed and due to drilling techniques will read a lower concentrations of Carbon Dioxide that was actually trapped in the ice. I would suspect that the rise in Carbon Dioxide is more due to the fact that the earth is warming than that the earth is warming because of a rise in Carbon Dioxide, as I read in one of the sources I decided not to use. Because the solubility of Carbon Dioxide decreases as temperature increases, less Carbon Dioxide will dissolve in the ocean as the earth warms. As for the fact that the earth is warming, of course it is! If it isn't cooling, then it's warming. I'm not sure where he found out that it's warmer than it has been for 1000 years, because I found another source that claimed that were are actually below the temperatures from the medieval period. The Mexican Jays have been adjusting to the environment since God created and I wouldn't worry about them changing the behavior a little bit. (Isn't that what this whole evolution thing is about?) As for the increasingly fat Americans that are dying from heat stroke, I'm sorry for them, but people don't live forever and just because Americans are not as physically fit as they used to be does not mean that we need to ban the use of fossil fuels right away.
I believe my source is credible because the author is a recognized expert in the field of climate change and the article appeared in a pear-reviewed journal. Furthermore the author did give a number of sources that support his article. On the other hand, it is a bit of a red flag that AEHS, The Association for Environmental Health and Science, the publisher of the journal, basically has a mission statement that implies the existence of man-caused global warming. On the other hand, it's hard anyone who isn't strongly opinionated on this issue, so it is impossible to discard every source for bias. It would also be nice if the article was a little more recent, but it is one of the most recent informative articles I have found, so I can't really complain.
This source is useful because it shows the other side of the argument from were I stand and helps give my research some semblance of balance. Unfortunately, it does not respond to the positions of the authors I have been sighting in the past, but it does at least provide an example of the beliefs of those on the other side of the issue. Although the article does not give detailed evidence for many of its claims, it does give a good sampling of the arguments that those who support evidence use, which at least helps one think about how one might respond or agree in advance, so that you aren't caught off guard. Despite some minor short comings, I believe this article could be useful for someone who wants to be able to defend his or her opinion.
Dr. Schnoor began by explaining that Global Warming will have an affect on the future entire world and is therefore important for everyone on earth to address. Dr. Schnoor then explained that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide must be due to human activities because the flux began with the industrial revolution, when humans first began using fossil fuels and that the dynamics of Carbon Dioxides distribution can only be explained by human activities. Dr. Schnoor also related that the earth is warmer than it has been for the last 1000 years and that the warmest years have also been the most recent. He also pointed out that damages from natural disasters have been increasing recently, which would be one of the expected affects of Global Warming. Dr. Schnoor further states that the ice caps have been rapidly melting, which would be an obvious result of Global Warming. Dr. Schnoor continued by saying that the detrimental affects of Global Warming that have already been documented include increasing heat stroke in humans and the alteration of the behavior of Mexican Jays. Dr. Schnoor concluded that the entire source of power for our economy needed to be changed and that large cuts in green house gas emissions are obligatory but that if this requirement was met world would be OK.
I disagree with Dr. Schnoor's statement that Global Warming has been caused by man because I believe that a lot of his "evidence" is flawed. His main argument for the fact that humans are responsible for Global Warming is that humans burn fossil fuels. By that reasoning there should be huge amounts of Carbon Dioxid ein the atmosphere, while the data shows that the increase in atmospheric Carbon Dioxide is significantly less that the amount released by the combustion of fossil fuels. If not all of the Carbon Dioxide released makes a difference, how can one know that the fossil fuels are actually driving the change. They certainly have an affect, but Dr. Schnoor cannot prove that they are driving the increase. Furthermore, as my source from Phase 5 pointed out, ice core data, which is our only method of determining ancient concentrations of atmospheric concentrations of Carbon Dioxide, is flawed and due to drilling techniques will read a lower concentrations of Carbon Dioxide that was actually trapped in the ice. I would suspect that the rise in Carbon Dioxide is more due to the fact that the earth is warming than that the earth is warming because of a rise in Carbon Dioxide, as I read in one of the sources I decided not to use. Because the solubility of Carbon Dioxide decreases as temperature increases, less Carbon Dioxide will dissolve in the ocean as the earth warms. As for the fact that the earth is warming, of course it is! If it isn't cooling, then it's warming. I'm not sure where he found out that it's warmer than it has been for 1000 years, because I found another source that claimed that were are actually below the temperatures from the medieval period. The Mexican Jays have been adjusting to the environment since God created and I wouldn't worry about them changing the behavior a little bit. (Isn't that what this whole evolution thing is about?) As for the increasingly fat Americans that are dying from heat stroke, I'm sorry for them, but people don't live forever and just because Americans are not as physically fit as they used to be does not mean that we need to ban the use of fossil fuels right away.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Phase 5
My Article for this post is from http://brneurosci.org/ and is titled Cold Facts of Global Warming, by T. J. Nelson. The article can be found here. Besides having a list of sources at the end of his article, Nelson shows that the article was written in 2003 and has been updated as recently as January 1, 2011. Furthermore, on researching "T. J. Nelson Global climate" one can discover that he has a PhD in Biophysics and that he has written a number of articles on this topic. Furthermore, although he may not offer more than one viewpoint in his article, Nelson does take a somewhat central course between the two extremes.
This article is very helpful because he takes the exaggerations that have bean made by the IPCC and other organizations and explains with very simple language how they have bean exaggerated. This is great because it dispels some "facts" that have bean spread by sub-scientists in the past couple years and helps the reader get down to the "cold facts". This should be interesting to anyone who is skeptical of the biased science that is coming out of universities and government organizations these days. , but that it does affect them
I agree with Nelson, his argument is directly between the two sides of the argument that I have bean reading lately. While he admits that CO2 has the potential to increase the average global temperature by 1.5 K, he also shows that doubling the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere would take an extremely long time if the current trend continues and points to the fact that Global temperatures are not controlled by CO2, but that it does affect them. I agree, because while it is certainly obvious that adding somewhat significant amounts of a green house gas must affect the environment to some extent, I also can see that the predictions of many "scientists" are in their own benefit, due to the fact that a crisis will always receive government money, and that it stands to reason that factors other than man must affect the environment dramatically. Really what it boils down to is that Nelson's conclusion makes sense to me. Many of the facts made by both sides are true, but neither of them are, in my opinion, completely correct. In fact, I found all of Nelson's claims in other articles on both sides of the issue, but this is the first time I found points from both sides supported in the same article. Therefore, I see both sides as supporting his premises, just not his conclusions, causing me to agree with the sensible path his article takes.
P.S. Although I always thought of responses as being much easier than summaries, I thought that this response might have been harder than the summary. I guess I either wrote a bad summary without realizing it or this was a hard topic to summarize for me.
This article is very helpful because he takes the exaggerations that have bean made by the IPCC and other organizations and explains with very simple language how they have bean exaggerated. This is great because it dispels some "facts" that have bean spread by sub-scientists in the past couple years and helps the reader get down to the "cold facts". This should be interesting to anyone who is skeptical of the biased science that is coming out of universities and government organizations these days. , but that it does affect them
I agree with Nelson, his argument is directly between the two sides of the argument that I have bean reading lately. While he admits that CO2 has the potential to increase the average global temperature by 1.5 K, he also shows that doubling the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere would take an extremely long time if the current trend continues and points to the fact that Global temperatures are not controlled by CO2, but that it does affect them. I agree, because while it is certainly obvious that adding somewhat significant amounts of a green house gas must affect the environment to some extent, I also can see that the predictions of many "scientists" are in their own benefit, due to the fact that a crisis will always receive government money, and that it stands to reason that factors other than man must affect the environment dramatically. Really what it boils down to is that Nelson's conclusion makes sense to me. Many of the facts made by both sides are true, but neither of them are, in my opinion, completely correct. In fact, I found all of Nelson's claims in other articles on both sides of the issue, but this is the first time I found points from both sides supported in the same article. Therefore, I see both sides as supporting his premises, just not his conclusions, causing me to agree with the sensible path his article takes.
P.S. Although I always thought of responses as being much easier than summaries, I thought that this response might have been harder than the summary. I guess I either wrote a bad summary without realizing it or this was a hard topic to summarize for me.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Phase 4
My source for this phase is an article from warwickhughes.com titled Climate Change: Incorrect information on pre-industrial CO2 (http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/).
This source is credible because its author describes his position as an academic and gives a list of sources at the end of the article that could be used to check his statements. Admittedly, it would have been nice if the essay had been written more recently, but considering that it merely exposes the unscrupulous behavior of political scientists, I don't think that is a major problem. Admittedly, the information he provides goes against main-stream science, but since he is exposing the flaws of main-stream science, that is to be expected. Furthermore, he is not the first person to suggest that main-stream science may be twisting the facts to fit their agenda. The significance of this article for my project is that this article gives reason to doubt the "data" that has been used to prove that the concentration of CO2 has increased significantly along with the somewhat mild increase in temperature, suggesting a corollary. If CO2 has not increased significantly enough then it would be reasonable to conclude that CO2 has not caused Global Warming. Although this article does not prove that atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have not increased sufficiently to cause global warming, it shows that the "proof" that it has is based on faulty reasoning warping of the data.
Dr. Jaworoski claims that using ice-core samples to determine historic atmospheric concentrations of CO2 is unreliable. He described the method by which the ice samples lose CO2 due to the presence of liquid water within the ice. Dr. Jaworoski further pointed out that originally the data from ice-core samples did not fit with the trends of data taken by more reliable methods in comparatively recent years. He then pointed out that researchers had arbitrarily moved the data 83 years foreword to fit the curve of the more recent data and support Global Warming. Dr. Jaworoski also mentioned a set of data in which the researchers chose to ignore high readings of CO2 in early years, so that their data would show that the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have increased dramatically in the past couple centuries. Dr. Jaworoski concluded that researchers and organizations have chosen to blatantly skew data that suggests that atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have not increased as much as the Global Warming Theory requires.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Phase 3
My first source is an article by Monte Hiebe from http://www.geocraft.com/ titled "Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers". You can use this link to access the article: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
I believe that this page is credible because it's information is consistent with other resources on the topic and provides a list of references which can be used to verify its authenticity. Furthermore, the sight is free of advertising, which is a good sign. Although it does not express more than one viewpoint, this sight mostly gives data, not opinions, which makes the fact that it does only expresses one side of the issue somewhat irrelevant. I would have liked the author to have told the reader more about himself, but he did give a link to contact him by email, which is better than nothing. Another down side was that the page did indicate when it was created, but I doubt that would be a problem for most of the data in the article. I was really excited when I found this page because it shows the data on the actual affect of CO2 that I have been looking for, including how much CO2 contributes to the green house affect and how much CO2 can actually be attributed to human activities. This data would be really helpful in debate with friends who still buy into global warming.
My second source is an article by Tom V. Segalstad from www.folk.uio.no (I have no idea what language the home page is in, but it seems to be a university site) titled Carbon cycle modelling and the residence time of natural and anthropogenic atmospheric CO2: on the construction of the "Greenhouse Effect Global Warming" dogma.
How's that for a title? The article can be accessed at http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm. I thought that this article was credible because the author gave his credentials and a long list of sources that he used in the article. It was also encouraging to see that the article had been in print. I can't really find any reasons to doubt the credibility of this source. Although the web page does not give the last date that it was edited, it does say when the article was printed. Over-all, I consider this a very strong source.
This article uses a "they say/I say" approach to demonstrate apparent discrepancies in the arguments of the scientists who claim that CO2 is a pollutant that is endangering life on earth. This information gives weight to arguments that carbon-phobia is really a hoax and has little scientific basis.
I believe that this page is credible because it's information is consistent with other resources on the topic and provides a list of references which can be used to verify its authenticity. Furthermore, the sight is free of advertising, which is a good sign. Although it does not express more than one viewpoint, this sight mostly gives data, not opinions, which makes the fact that it does only expresses one side of the issue somewhat irrelevant. I would have liked the author to have told the reader more about himself, but he did give a link to contact him by email, which is better than nothing. Another down side was that the page did indicate when it was created, but I doubt that would be a problem for most of the data in the article. I was really excited when I found this page because it shows the data on the actual affect of CO2 that I have been looking for, including how much CO2 contributes to the green house affect and how much CO2 can actually be attributed to human activities. This data would be really helpful in debate with friends who still buy into global warming.
My second source is an article by Tom V. Segalstad from www.folk.uio.no (I have no idea what language the home page is in, but it seems to be a university site) titled Carbon cycle modelling and the residence time of natural and anthropogenic atmospheric CO2: on the construction of the "Greenhouse Effect Global Warming" dogma.
How's that for a title? The article can be accessed at http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm. I thought that this article was credible because the author gave his credentials and a long list of sources that he used in the article. It was also encouraging to see that the article had been in print. I can't really find any reasons to doubt the credibility of this source. Although the web page does not give the last date that it was edited, it does say when the article was printed. Over-all, I consider this a very strong source.
This article uses a "they say/I say" approach to demonstrate apparent discrepancies in the arguments of the scientists who claim that CO2 is a pollutant that is endangering life on earth. This information gives weight to arguments that carbon-phobia is really a hoax and has little scientific basis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)