Skip to comments.
Alarming greenhouse gas discovery!
American Institute of Physics ^
| 2001
| Spencer Weart
Posted on 04/24/2003 2:58:31 AM PDT by 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)
(Excerpt) Read more at aip.org ...
TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 2003wasacoldwinter; brrrritscoldhere; bsmeteroffthescale; carbondioxide; catinthehat; cheeseandmoose; climatechange; co2; cowsarepeopletoo; environment; falsegodsareus; globalwarming; globalwarminghoax; grabyourmittens; greeneggsandham; greenhousegases; grinchstolechristmas; kickme; manthelifeboats; monitorcowpoots; mooseandcheese; mynameisalgore; takeyourmeds; theskyisfalling; trollalert; willburncoalforfood; zotmaterial; zotmebaby; zotmebabyyeah
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60 next last
To: EdZ
Carbon dioxide is plant food. It would be a boon to worldwide crop production to have more CO2 in the atmosphere.
Global warming is a hoax by global socialists to get more power over economic activity.
21
posted on
04/24/2003 4:09:19 AM PDT
by
OK
To: EdZ
Farting cow alert!
22
posted on
04/24/2003 4:10:08 AM PDT
by
ricpic
To: OK
You are so correct. Scientists at what was then USL (Ragin' Cajuns) demonstrated that a LACK of CO2 is the limiting factor in agricultural (corn/wheat/rice) and marine flora growth. [VantHoff's law notwithstanding]
Would these folks, similarly mis-concenred, be as worried about a drop in CO2? Methinks not.
23
posted on
04/24/2003 4:14:02 AM PDT
by
Blueflag
To: EdZ
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.
Go to
The Science & Environmental Policy Project for information that is more up-to-date than an essay in 1959. Of all the so-called greenhouse gases produced, only about 9.86 E-6 is anthropogenic:
"I went to the trouble of adding up all the greenhouse gases, as provided in Gregg Easterbrooks excellent book, A Moment on the Earth, and then converted the total volume to a linear scale. Thats so you can get a better sense of mankinds total annual contribution. That is, I wondered if there were one mile of greenhouse gas, how much of that would be the result of all of mans doing. I found that out of 5,280 feet, mankind contributes five-eighths of an inch."
24
posted on
04/24/2003 4:20:36 AM PDT
by
aruanan
To: EdZ
What do you think? Most people would find it shocking to think that we could permanently change the composition of our atmosphereI think that since it's obvious that CO2 levels didn't rise 25% by the end of the last century, the new standard is it will be really really bad by the end of this century. And if that doesn't work, there will be folks saying it about the century after that...ad-infinitum/ad-nauseum...
25
posted on
04/24/2003 4:21:26 AM PDT
by
trebb
To: Truthsearcher
True. For the vast majority of the history of Earth, it has been warmer. And no metter what man does, it would only take about 2 good volcanic events to put more CO2, SO2 and O3 into the skies than man does in a thousand years.
26
posted on
04/24/2003 4:22:52 AM PDT
by
djf
To: ECM
How'd I know that?
27
posted on
04/24/2003 4:23:58 AM PDT
by
metesky
(My retirement fund is holding steady @ $.05 a can)
To: ECM
If it weren't for the poster's manners, I'm sure we'd be seeing the Viking Kittens.
28
posted on
04/24/2003 4:27:19 AM PDT
by
tcostell
To: EdZ
Please tell me why we had such a cold winter here in Florida. Enquring minds want to know.
29
posted on
04/24/2003 4:31:11 AM PDT
by
NautiNurse
(If Lawton Chiles runs for the Senate seat in 2004, we will **really** have Jurassic Park in Florida)
To: EdZ
Middle Ages were warmer than today, say scientists By Robert Matthews, Science Correspondent
(Filed: 06/04/2003)
Claims that man-made pollution is causing "unprecedented" global warming have been seriously undermined by new research which shows that the Earth was warmer during the Middle Ages.
To: tcostell
You had to go and mention cats...
Well,
here it is, the video Nokia discounts.
31
posted on
04/24/2003 4:38:52 AM PDT
by
djf
To: EdZ
BTW - it's worth nothing that during the "Medieval Climate Optimum", it was substantially warmer that it is now, and it was known as that due to the excellent agricultural outcomes it produced (grapes grew ~300 miles further north). Then enviralmentalist whackos with an ax to grind and grants to get got ahold of it, and it became the "Medieval Warm Period".
Medieval Climate Optimum
More info.
I guess it became less optimal when politics got involved, requiring it be renamed as the "Warm Period".
Perhaps a FReeper historian can help me: Were SUV's horse-drawn during this period?
Oh, and you - put that in your bong and smoke it.
To: FreedomPoster
Ya but they were burning a lot of people back then. You know, big smelly, smokey fat fires. Ye could hardly sit on yer roof at night and see the lovely glow of hundreds of fires of burning heritics, withces, pagans, leftist, democrats, socialists, lawyers......
Hey, those were the days!
33
posted on
04/24/2003 4:41:57 AM PDT
by
Leisler
(I am a carnivore and I vote.)
To: Leisler
Bring out your dead!
To: FreedomPoster
"I'm not dead yet!"
35
posted on
04/24/2003 5:01:21 AM PDT
by
Leisler
(I am a carnivore and I vote.)
To: EdZ
The paper can be summarized as follows: "Before 1950, it was thought that the oceans were absorbing all the carbon dioxide that industry was producing. But the ocean layers don't mix very efficiently, therefore the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to human contributions to the carbon cycle."
This is, of course, absurd.
The paper provides no deep ocean carbon dating. It does not discuss the huge effect of bio-absorbtion of carbon dioxide, such as by plankton. It doesn't discuss how completely miniscule human contributions to the carbon cycle are.
Your paper is interesting only from a historical point of view (such as how did all this global warming nonsense start?) - it is grossly inadequate from a scientific point of view.
36
posted on
04/24/2003 5:22:08 AM PDT
by
kidd
To: NautiNurse
According the the global warming "experts" (aka
dumba@@s) the cold winter is another sign of global warming. But if we have a warmer than normal winter they say that's a sign of global warming. AHH I am so confused
37
posted on
04/24/2003 5:22:44 AM PDT
by
sticker
To: EdZ
Here is a report quoting stats from 1957. Using the same type of data Lyndon Johnson created the Great Society. Now, all the data created by one study has been proven FALSE. People have been put to work and it is improving their lives. It is just as likely that power transmission wires DO NOT cause CANCER as earlier reported. The facts of this case are still being studied and new imformation makes your report look like the junk science like that monarch butterfly research.
38
posted on
04/24/2003 5:25:09 AM PDT
by
q_an_a
To: EdZ
Exponentially huh?
Has the CO2 concentration increased by 25%?
The silence on that small detail is defeaning.
Let me mole around and find that fascinating 30s article on the Flat Earth...
Then there's the series about the Hollow Earth.
Entertainment writ large...
39
posted on
04/24/2003 5:25:28 AM PDT
by
Publius6961
(Californians are as dumm as a sack of rocks)
To: EdZ
When I was in college, I learned that most plants are CO2 starved. Co2 would be released in greenhouses to stimulate growth.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson