Alarming greenhouse gas discovery!

American Institute of Physics ^ | 2001 | Spencer Weart

[EdZ]

Roger Revelle's Discovery

Before scientists would take greenhouse effect warming seriously, they had to get past a counterargument of long standing. It seemed certain that the immense mass of the oceans would quickly absorb whatever excess carbon dioxide humanity might produce. Roger Revelle discovered that the peculiar chemistry of sea water prevents that from happening. His 1957 paper with Hans Suess is now widely regarded as the opening shot in the global warming debates. This essay describes Revelle's discovery in detail and places it in the context of Cold War and other contemporary concerns which gave him essential material support and intellectual stimulus. (1)

In the mid 1950s not many scientists were concerned that humanity was adding carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. The suggestion that this would change the climate had been abandoned decades earlier by nearly everyone. A particularly simple and powerful argument was that the added gas would not linger in the atmosphere. Most of the CO2 on the surface of the planet was not in the tenuous atmosphere, but dissolved in the huge mass of water in the oceans. Obviously, no matter how much more gas humanity might pump out, nearly all of it would wind up safely buried in the ocean depths. ... Revelle did not make much of his discovery in this 1957 paper, which described it only in passing and obscurely. Another two years passed before Bert Bolin and Erik Eriksson explained the sea water buffering mechanism in clear terms and emphasized what it meant. Unlike Revelle, they figured industrial production would indeed climb exponentially, and they calculated that atmospheric CO2 would probably rise 25% by the end of the century. Now the small community of geophysicists began to grasp that the oceans could not be relied upon to absorb all the emissions of fossil fuels.(28)

[EdZ]

I heard Rush Limbaugh say that "the Earth is so huge, that we puny humans couldn't possibly have any effect on it," and he denies that burning coal and oil produces significant amounts of carbon dioxide compared with natural sources. But this American Institute of Physics article discusses the discovery that the world's oceans would not be able to absorb our carbon dioxide emissions. Soon afterwards, in 1959, "a scientist working for Shell International Chemical Company publicly denied that 'our furnaces and motor car engines will have any large effect on the CO2 balance.'"

What do you think? Most people would find it shocking to think that we could permanently change the composition of our atmosphere. If you follow the links, you will find all sorts of fascinating information.

[ECM]

And oddly enough you registered today...

[demkicker]

Global warming troll alert.

[Truthsearcher]

It was also proven recently that it was much hotter 1000 years ago in the middle ages than it was today, thereby refuting that 1) man made emissions are causing global warming and 2) ecological disaster will result from a few degree increase in earth's temperature.

So can we put the global warming alarmist talk away for good please.

[HiTech RedNeck]

The question should be posed to biologists, not physicists.

[rwfromkansas]

Well, not necessarily. All it means is that natural causes made it warmer then.

I don't believe in all this global warming nonsense myself though.

[The Raven]

The trouble with the global warming theory is the effect of CO2 has less statistical variance than things like the simple variance in the sun's energy or earths reflectance. We could just as easily have global cooling with increased CO2.

[johniegrad]

Global warming!! I have more concerns about WMD in Iraq than I do about global warming!! - Blans Hix

[tomkat]

only a few nibbles so far, ehh ?

sux when your bait's stale ...

[Truthsearcher]

Right, which means there is no evidence that the less than 2 degree rise in temperature over the last 100 years isn't just a natural fluctuation of the earth totally unrelatedly to human activities.

But nevertheless the more devastating is the 2nd point, even if men made gases did contribute to a slight rise in temperature, so what? The global warming people kept trying to scare people by telling us that there will be all these unforseen ecological disasters that will result from small rises in temperature. That we seemed to made it out of the even higher temperatures in middle ages without much problem pretty much ends the debate over how concerned we need to be over this nonissue.

[gridlock]

Enjoy your ZOT!

Cue the Viking Kitties!

[KeyWest]

This is one paper. If you read enough of it you can see where the author is coming from. This is more speculation than science, but speculation is the bedrock of the Global Warming folks.

Also, we are at low CO2 levels compared to most of history. A Harvard researcher postulated that the Himalayas were the real CO2 sink, not the oceans, so you can pick your theory.

And welcome to FR, posting a two year old paper in breaking news. Looks trollish and not a desire for discussion. I am shocked, shocked that this might be nothing more than a troll piece. Saddened too.

[Pit1]

I can still remember Deepak Chopra (1985) commenting to a question posed by an earthnut at a Quantum Physics workshop. He said the arrogance of some people to believe that they can upset earth is sheer fallacy. He further said words to the effect, that earth will survive and it (earth) would jettison anything in it's way.

[libertylover]

Man can be causing global warming only if our actions are overcoming the forces of nature. Yet when the forces of nature really show themselves in the form of hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, floods, volcanoes, man's meager response is always the same:

*** RUN FOR YOUR LIVES ***

[MrsEmmaPeel]

What do you think?

Global Warming = junk science. I've yet to find an astronomer who believes in it. The sun's output is not constant, The earth's orbit nor shape are perfect. Small variations in solar output, can produce huge changes in climate.

It's just another ploy for the "woe is me" crowd to get govermnent funding for some idiotic project.

[Jaxter]

[BlueLancer]

VARMINT CONG ALERT!!!
Hottus Airian Enviroweenius subspecies

[Izzy Dunne]

His 1957 paper with Hans Suess

Let me guess - that's DOCTOR Hans Suess???

[MEG33]

Isn't it nice our air in the US is cleaner now than in years past and things have improved.Our industry is cleaner than Canada's.

[Ole Okie]

So can we put the global warming alarmist talk away for good please.

What? And take a chance that those global warming gummit grants go away?

And take a chance that some Central Earth Greenhouse Gases Socialist/Communist Commissariat won't get the chance to parcel out CO2 "rights" that will severely reduce the industrial output of the United States?

What could you be thinking, sir?

Personally, I would prefer that Henny Penny run and tell the king about the onrushing ice age that scientists were worrying about in 1975.