New answers tagged climate-change
5
Measuring long-term temperature trends from satellites is possible, but difficult due to a variety of reasons.
This is ongoing research.
In short: the satellites that have been around long enough were built for measuring weather, not climate, and the standards to which instruments need to be built to measure one are entirely different from the other.
We ...
2
The NASA has recently lowered their recommendation for astronauts on the ISS from 7000 ppm to 5300 ppm CO2
NASA has continued to lower CO2 exposure levels for ISS astronauts, down from 5.3 mm Hg (7000 ppm) to “4 mm Hg [under 5300 ppm] more recently.”
see https://thinkprogress.org/its-taking-less-co2-than-expected-to-cause-health-risks-in-astronauts-...
-4
You seem to conflate several things in your question.
First, AGH skeptics don't deny "climate change". They don't even deny that anthropogenic activity does have some impact on thermal balance of Earth. They just don't think this impact has any significance, since the same climate scientists already have established that CO2 was 10-fold higher in the Earth ...
6
First things first: There's nothing per se wrong in science with answering "We don't know" to a vexing problem. This might well be one of those cases.
The question you are asking was asked by Imbrie and Imbrie in 1980. The problem you have noticed (a very strong interglacial despite low Milankovitch forcing) is now known as the "stage 11 problem", and this ...
0
Prof Malte Jansen and his team at Chicago University have found that when the sea ice surrounding Antarctica increases, it cuts off the supply of CO2 from sea to air, which would explain the lows. When the sea ice retreats, that might explain the highs.
You will immediately be thinking that the normal course of events is that CO2 moves from air to sea, so ...
0
The RIP-nomenclature is used to distinguish between different runs of the same scenario within a modeling center rather than to indicate any similarity across modeling centers. Strictly it's within and across models not centers, because some centers have more than one model, e.g., the MIROC center submitted models MIROC5, MIROC4h, MIROC-ESM, etc. So r1i1p1 ...
2
CO2 does not fall back quickly:
graph shows the IPCC 2007 CO2 liftime from a computer model run that shows what happens to a single instantaneous pulse of CO2 emitted to the atmosphere. One thousand years after the CO2 is emitted to the atmosphere 20% is still there according to this model.
only zero carbon
The decline shown is mostly due to CO2 ...
6
Two recent studies tend to contradict the 2016 study mentioned in Ken Fabian's answer.
Acute Exposure to Low-to-Moderate Carbon Dioxide Levels and Submariner Decision Making (June 2018) reports:
METHODS:
Using a subject-blinded balanced design, 36 submarine-qualified sailors were randomly assigned to receive 1 of 3 CO2 exposure conditions (600, ...
0
I don't doubt that CO2 has the potential to impact cognitive abilities and that poor air quality really affects many people. However, if we consider all factors impairing cognitive abilities in a typical office environment, the elephant in the room is the noise.
Therefore I believe that the impact of CO2 on cognitive abilities doesn't hit the news because ...
3
Even if your concern is interesting the "fact" you bourght up seems surprinsing to me. With ventilation and open windows, it seems strange to me that CO2 level increase that much but still, I'm no expert... So I checked.
After a bit of research I found this article which talk about the 15% drop in cognitive function in office with 1000ppm (which Michael ...
34
There looks like legitimate cause for further study, preferably by scientists breathing air under 950ppm CO2 (this study showing a 15% decline in cognitive ability at this level).
Because it is not known what mechanisms are involved in this decline in cognitive ability it is not clear if there are threshold levels, with step changes in impacts or if the ...
4
You are being alarmist. CO2 levels vary considerably from place to place, but as you know, the average level is just over 400 ppm. You have a higher level than that in your own lungs at this moment, so it is far too low to cause mental problems. Places with raised CO2 levels have existed since time immemorial, but were rarely high enough to produce the ...
1
According to @AllInOne from the comments: This is currently what a project in New York City is trying to do.
Their listed goal on wikipedia is to get one billion live oysters in New York Harbor by 2035.
According to their website, they do this because of the following reasons:
Oysters have a remarkable ability to filter nitrogen pollution from water ...
1
A linear correlation can not be done as the atmosphere have not a linear progression. Take a look to this interested link to these Chicago University Climate Models Webpage. The first one you should check is this.
First of all, CO2 is acting as a Greenhouse Effect Gas because it is absorbing some of the infrared radiation that it is trying to leave the ...
2
It looks as if you are assuming a constant percentage increase, compounded annually. There are many reasons why this is not so. It reminds me of many decades ago when I routinely weighed my baby son. On the basis of his rate of growth I calculated that he would weigh 2660 kg by the age of 3! So much for simple extrapolation.
Humans are already using vastly ...
1
As a thought experiment it may tell us something about why simplistic extrapolation is inadequate for climate change prediction. Climate modelling of extreme scenarios might be compared and contrasted with simple extrapolation, but is more likely to show deficits in such extrapolation than in the modelling. It cannot work as prediction because there are very ...
0
If the issue is assessed on other grounds than science ones there can be rational reasons to reject climate science. e.g. if it is being assessed with respect to how addressing versus not addressing AGW impacts costs, competitiveness and profitability of specific business enterprises then rejecting climate science and encouraging other business operators as ...
-5
Just because someone says that man made CO2 emissions are not the sole cause of climate warming does not mean they are rejecting climate science. On the contrary, it is those who claim it is the sole cause who are rejecting science. Prof.Malte Janson of the University of Chicago, quoted in the journal Nature Geoscience, is among those who say man made CO2 is ...
2
Dedito's answer is valid, but I wanted to offer a laymen's version.
A nuclear winter scenario blocks the sun's rays from "smoke" (e.g. particulate matter, not transparent gases such as CO and CO2). This causes a net global cooling effect, due to the large volume of particulate that is trapped in the stratosphere and reflecting sunlight back to space. ...
1
While the main emissions from these fires are CO2 and CO, the more important difference is what happens to the poorly combusted carbon products that are aggregated into larger particles. The climate community tends to refer to these as black carbon (BC), although that’s an oversimplification. These BC particles are strong absorbers of solar radiation, ...
0
To get a rough estimate you should be using a logarithmic interpolation rather than a linear interpolation. The response to added $\text{CO}_2$ would be linear if the atmosphere had barely any $\text{CO}_2$ in it. Even 280 ppm does not qualify as "very little". "Very little" would mean a handful of parts per million, at most.
The issue is that the ...
1
You have done multiple things wrong here. One is that you have used a linear interpolation when you should have used a logarithmic interpolation. But that's a different question, one that you have already asked. I'll address that there. That said, a logarithmic interpolation would indicate that the warming due to a 73% increase would be 2.37 °C rather than 2....
3
There are a few ways
Basically the best way is to see how many experts in the field are convinced, as great as it would be to assess the evidence individually, one person can't be an expert in everything and unless you and your audience are a climate scientists most papers are going to be beyond a lay assessment. So the best thing you can do for the lay ...
3
The question contains a false assumption that climate science fails to consider the cooling effects of aerosol particles, including from smoke, that are the principle forcing expected for nuclear winter scenarios. Climate science does attempt to quantify every significant effect, both warming and cooling - not only the warming effect from increased ...
-6
No, it is not possible to establish a human cause with the degree of certainty you are asking for. There have been similar episodes in the distant past when either there were no humans at all, or the total emissions of all the worlds cooking fires were comparable with the emissions of one solitary and unremarkable volcano If global heating with humans as ...
0
Take a look to the Carbon Cycle.
In the atmosphere there are around 700 GTn of carbon. Most of it CO2. The living biomass (plants + animals) keep 600 GTn and the dead biomass is 1000 GTn.
So the biomass it is very effective in order to fix CO2 as it is fixing in 2 ways: photosynthesis (absorving CO2 and emiting O2) and, when biomass die, then it is fixed ...
1
Not directly. What possibly could happen is that rising temperatures turn the parts of the ocean anoxic, which leads to large releases of hydrogen sulfide, which is toxic: https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/ocean-chemistry-changes-triggered-earths-greatest-extinction-event/2500368.article
-2
No. For a start, humanity will not burn all the fossil fuels it can find. But let's suppose for the sake of argument that humanity recognises no restrictions and fulfils all its energy needs by burning fossil fuels. Only a limited amount of fossil fuels are recoverable; the vast majority will have to stay in the ground.
Oil, for example, won't suddenly run ...
Top 50 recent answers are included
