Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

It's a good thing varrus isn't in my Astronomy class...Follow

#1 Oct 13 2009 at 5:49 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
Because I'm being indoctrinated.

Quote:
Learning Goal: To understand data that lend strong support to the idea that human activity may cause global warming.
Introduction. The graphs display real data on global average temperature and carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration. The more recent data (shown in the zoomed-out graph on the right) come from direct CO2 measurements (made at Mauna Loa). Most of the earlier data are based on studies of air bubbles trapped in Antarctic ice core samples. The carbon dioxide concentration is measured in parts per million, which is the number of CO2 molecules among every million air molecules.

Part A -

The average temperature over the past 1000 years has been about 15^C. From the graphs, you can conclude that Earth's average temperature during the past 400,000 years has __________.

-varied between about 7^C and 19^C
-varied between about -10^C and +4^C
-stayed remarkable steady, never varying by more than about 2^C
-never been as high as it is today

The zero level on the graph represents the 15^C average temperature over the past millennium, so the peaks near +4 on the graph represent a temperature of about 15^C + 4^C = 19^C and the troughs near -8 represent 15^C - 8^C = 7^C.

Part B

On the graphs shown, you can identify an ice age by looking for __________.

-a peak on the temperature graph
-a place on the temperature graph where the temperature curve falls steeply
-a trough (bottom of a dip) on the temperature graph
-a trough (bottom of a dip) on the carbon dioxide graph

The graph shows that one ice age ended only about 10,000 years ago, and there have been numerous other ice ages during the past 400,000 years.

Part C

Notice that the peaks and troughs on the temperature graph occur at the about the same times as peaks and troughs on the carbon dioxide graph. What can we infer from this fact alone?

-Higher carbon dioxide concentrations cause higher global average temperatures.
-The carbon dioxide concentration is inversely related to the global average temperature.
-There is a correlation between the carbon dioxide concentration and the global average temperature.
-Higher global average temperatures cause higher carbon dioxide concentrations.

A correlation means that two things go up and down together. In this case, there is a correlation between the temperature and the carbon dioxide concentration because both were generally high at the same times in the past and low at the same times in the past.

Part D

Although the data show only a correlation between the carbon dioxide concentration and the global average temperature, there are other reasons to think that a rise in the carbon dioxide concentration actually causes a rise in the global average temperature. All of the following statements are true. Which statements lend support to the idea that carbon dioxide is a cause of planetary warming?
Check all that apply.

-Models of the greenhouse effect successfully predict the temperatures of Venus and Mars from their atmospheric carbon dioxide amounts.
-We understand the physical mechanism of the greenhouse effect, through which carbon dioxide can increase a planet's temperature.
-Models of Earth's climate that include recent increases in the carbon dioxide concentration match observed temperature increases better than those that do not include it.
-Isotope ratios in atmospheric carbon dioxide show that much of the carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere today comes from the burning of fossil fuels.

Together, the success of the models and our clear understanding of the mechanism of the greenhouse effect leave little room for doubt that carbon dioxide is indeed a cause of higher temperatures on a planet.

Part E

Based on the evidence that atmospheric carbon dioxide is a cause of planetary warming, what aspect of the graphs should most concern us?

-The carbon dioxide concentration today is significantly higher than at any time in the past 400,000 years and is rapidly rising.
-Earth's past carbon dioxide concentration rises and falls naturally.
-Earth's past temperature rises and falls naturally.

Therefore, if past trends continue, we would expect Earth's temperature to rise substantially as a result of this increase in the carbon dioxide concentration.
Part F
Make a prediction: If the rise in carbon dioxide concentration continues at its current pace, the concentration in the year 2037 will be about _____ parts per million.

-330
-390
-430
-510

Screenshot



Edited, Oct 13th 2009 6:51pm by AshOnMyTomatoes
#2 Oct 13 2009 at 5:52 PM Rating: Good
@#%^
*****
15,953 posts
I think you mean 'astrology'.

hahahaha not a science
____________________________
"I have lost my way
But I hear a tale
About a heaven in Alberta
Where they've got all hell for a basement"

#3 Oct 13 2009 at 6:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
My astronomy class didn't teach us jack about the Earth's climate. But it did have big comfy reclining seats in a darkened planetarium where the teacher would project Powerpoint slides onto the ceiling from 6:30-9:15pm.

I slept a lot in astronomy class.

Edited, Oct 13th 2009 7:02pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#4 Oct 13 2009 at 6:04 PM Rating: Excellent
****
4,158 posts
Professor AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:
which is the number of CO2 molecules among every million air molecules.


Theres no such thing as an 'air molecule'.

Thats as far as I got....
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#5 Oct 13 2009 at 6:05 PM Rating: Good
****
5,684 posts
paulsol wrote:
Professor AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:
which is the number of CO2 molecules among every million air molecules.


Theres no such thing as an 'air molecule'.

Thats as far as I got....


I think that "air molecule" is referring to everything that isn't CO2 in this case

or the liberals are makinitup

Edited, Oct 13th 2009 7:05pm by Bardalicious
#6 Oct 13 2009 at 6:07 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
paulsol wrote:
Professor AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:
which is the number of CO2 molecules among every million air molecules.


Theres no such thing as an 'air molecule'.

Thats as far as I got....
An "air molecule" is a molecule nitrogen or oxygen. Basically everything that isn't CO2.
#7 Oct 13 2009 at 6:08 PM Rating: Decent
Professor AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:
Basically everything that isn't CO2.


CO2 is no less an air molecule than O2 is. parts per million doesn't mean parts plus a million. It means parts of a million.

#8 Oct 13 2009 at 6:09 PM Rating: Default
****
4,158 posts
Quote:
Make a prediction: If the rise in carbon dioxide concentration continues at its current pace, the concentration in the year 2037 will be about _____ parts per million.

-330
-390
-430
-510


Iamadam was rite. Astrology. Known for making 'predictions' and relating them as 'facts'.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#9 Oct 13 2009 at 6:09 PM Rating: Good
What about argon?

Fucking racist.
#10 Oct 13 2009 at 6:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
paulsol wrote:
Iamadam was rite. Astrology. Known for making 'predictions' and relating them as 'facts'.

Iamadam's ritualistic astrology?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#11 Oct 13 2009 at 6:10 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Professor AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:
Basically everything that isn't CO2.


CO2 is no less an air molecule than O2 is. parts per million doesn't mean parts plus a million. It means parts of a million.

Ah ha! Science.
#12 Oct 13 2009 at 6:13 PM Rating: Default
****
4,901 posts
Professor AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:
paulsol wrote:
Professor AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:
which is the number of CO2 molecules among every million air molecules.


Theres no such thing as an 'air molecule'.

Thats as far as I got....
An "air molecule" is a molecule nitrogen or oxygen. Basically everything that isn't CO2.


There are no such things as nitrogen or oxygen molecules either. Smiley: disappointed
____________________________
Love,
PunkFloyd
#13 Oct 13 2009 at 6:14 PM Rating: Good
****
5,684 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Professor AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:
Basically everything that isn't CO2.


CO2 is no less an air molecule than O2 is. parts per million doesn't mean parts plus a million. It means parts of a million.

this criticism doesn't make sense, maybe I am reading it wrong.
#14 Oct 13 2009 at 6:15 PM Rating: Good
****
5,684 posts
PunkFloyd, King of Bards wrote:
Professor AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:
paulsol wrote:
Professor AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:
which is the number of CO2 molecules among every million air molecules.


Theres no such thing as an 'air molecule'.

Thats as far as I got....
An "air molecule" is a molecule nitrogen or oxygen. Basically everything that isn't CO2.


There are no such things as nitrogen or oxygen molecules either. Smiley: disappointed

I can't tell if you are being serious: O2 = oxygen molecule and N2 = nitrogen molecule
#15 Oct 13 2009 at 6:16 PM Rating: Decent
PunkFloyd, King of Bards wrote:
Professor AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:
paulsol wrote:
Professor AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:
which is the number of CO2 molecules among every million air molecules.


Theres no such thing as an 'air molecule'.

Thats as far as I got....
An "air molecule" is a molecule nitrogen or oxygen. Basically everything that isn't CO2.


There are no such things as nitrogen or oxygen molecules either. Smiley: disappointed


What the fuck are you talking about? O2 is an oxygen molecule, made up of two oxygen atoms.
#16 Oct 13 2009 at 6:17 PM Rating: Decent
Bardalicious wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Professor AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:
Basically everything that isn't CO2.


CO2 is no less an air molecule than O2 is. parts per million doesn't mean parts plus a million. It means parts of a million.

this criticism doesn't make sense, maybe I am reading it wrong.


I was saying "that isn't CO2" was an incorrect exclusion.
#17 Oct 13 2009 at 6:17 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts
Bardalicious wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Professor AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:
Basically everything that isn't CO2.


CO2 is no less an air molecule than O2 is. parts per million doesn't mean parts plus a million. It means parts of a million.

this criticism doesn't make sense, maybe I am reading it wrong.

He's saying that "air" isn't "everything that isn't CO2." The CO2 is included in "air."

As for an "Oxygen molecule," the technical term I suppose would be "dioxygen." Referred to in the vernacular as simply "oxygen," but the precise term delineates it from ozone and other forms.


Edited, Oct 13th 2009 7:20pm by trickybeck
#18 Oct 13 2009 at 6:22 PM Rating: Good
****
4,158 posts
What about the faecal coliform 'molecule'? Is that counted?
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#19 Oct 13 2009 at 9:22 PM Rating: Good
@#%^
*****
15,953 posts
Jophiel wrote:
paulsol wrote:
Iamadam was rite. Astrology. Known for making 'predictions' and relating them as 'facts'.

Iamadam's ritualistic astrology?


Who didn't see it coming?
____________________________
"I have lost my way
But I hear a tale
About a heaven in Alberta
Where they've got all hell for a basement"

#20 Oct 14 2009 at 3:00 AM Rating: Decent
***
3,229 posts
You know ages ago, on the Planet Earth series, David Attenborough narrated that the forests of the world are capable of photosynthesising more carbon dioxide than we could ever produce.

Now we have carbon trading and CO2 limits/targets etc...

Were they lying to us?
#21 Oct 14 2009 at 5:37 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
15,952 posts
Goggy wrote:
You know ages ago, on the Planet Earth series, David Attenborough narrated that the forests of the world are capable of photosynthesising more carbon dioxide than we could ever produce.

Now we have carbon trading and CO2 limits/targets etc...

Were they lying to us?

How old is that series now? 30 years? At a rough but realistic guesstimate, we've actually clear-felled half the planet's forests since then, particularly throughout South-East Asia, Australia, and the Amazon rainforest. Not to replace these forests with old growth timber, but to creating cattle-grazing, crop lands and urban areas.

In Australia they get two bulldozers with a huge length of chain between them, and pull down trees in huge swathes. Or they use single man robotic vehicles that can cut, hold and strip an enormous tree down to trunk timber in under a minute. In some third-world countries, they just burn forests down, to clear it out for more desired purposes.

The problem has never been simply how much CO2 humans can put in the atmosphere as a total. It's always been the atmosphere's total mix, and what percentage CO2 is of that. The planet already had a natural cycle of CO2 going in and out of the atmosphere, including large spikes from volcanic activity. (Co2 usually takes a couple of hundred years to be recycled out of the air.) Now we're interfering both with the rate of it going into the air, and the rate at which it's being taken out of the air.

If we manage to put all the CO2 that was in crude oil under the ground 100 years ago up into the atmosphere, we'll return to an atmosphere like that of hundreds of millions of years ago, where there were rainforests at the North and South Poles, and lifeless deserts everywhere else on land.

If you want a really informative, short and easily read book on the subject, read "The Weathermakers" by Tim Flannery. The new introduction doesn't really have any information, just more current politics of the issue. It's the main book I highly recommend, if you want to be informed about how the atmosphere works.
#22 Oct 14 2009 at 5:37 AM Rating: Decent
You don't have to lie to be wrong.
#23 Oct 14 2009 at 5:49 AM Rating: Good
*****
15,952 posts
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
You don't have to lie to be wrong.

Or outdated.
#24 Oct 14 2009 at 5:51 AM Rating: Decent
***
3,229 posts
#25 Oct 14 2009 at 5:52 AM Rating: Decent
Aripyanfar wrote:
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
You don't have to lie to be wrong.

Or outdated.


Same thing, really, only you have the comfort of knowing a lot of other people were wrong too.
#26 Oct 14 2009 at 6:13 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Goggy wrote:
You know ages ago, on the Planet Earth series, David Attenborough narrated that the forests of the world are capable of photosynthesising more carbon dioxide than we could ever produce.

Did he? I saw that series and don't remember him saying that.

Edited, Oct 14th 2009 7:25am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 196 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (196)