Pesticides? Hell, during my lifetime, we were told coffee was bad and good. There are so many dangers "out there," we should just stay at home and watch tv.
Quote:Water Vapor
Water vapor is the most abundant of the greenhouse gases, and is the dominant contributor to the natural greenhouse effect. Human activity has little direct impact on the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere; however, changes in its concentration are an indirect result of climate feedbacks related to the warming of the atmosphere.
http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/428.html --- lots of good info here
Quote:Respiration, both on land and in the sea, is a key component of the global carbon cycle. On land, an estimated 60 thousand million tonnes of carbon is emitted to the atmosphere each year by autotrophic respiration. A similar amount, about 55 thousand million tonnes, is emitted as a result of heterotrophic respiration.
In the sea, autotrophic respiration is thought to account for about 58 thousand million tonnes of the dissolved inorganic carbon in surface waters each year, with the contribution of heterotrophic respiration being 34 thousand million tonnes.
Human Impact
Though the worldwide human population has now grown above 6 billion, our direct contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations via respiration is relatively insignificant. Of more concern is the impact human-induced global warming could have on global respiration rates. As temperatures increase rates of respiration also increase in many organisms, microbes for instance, and there exists a danger of warming inducing further increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, and so yet more warming.
http://www.ghgonline.org/co2resp.htm --- lots more info here
Quote:Concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are naturally regulated by numerous processes collectively known as the "carbon cycle" (Figure 2). The movement ("flux") of carbon between the atmosphere and the land and oceans is dominated by natural processes, such as plant photosynthesis. While these natural processes can absorb some of the net 6.1 billion metric tons of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions produced each year (measured in carbon equivalent terms), an estimated 3.2 billion metric tons is added to the atmosphere annually. The Earth's positive imbalance between emissions and absorption results in the continuing growth in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
What Effect Do Greenhouse Gases Have on Climate Change?
Given the natural variability of the Earth's climate, it is difficult to determine the extent of change that humans cause. In computer-based models, rising concentrations of greenhouse gases generally produce an increase in the average temperature of the Earth. Rising temperatures may, in turn, produce changes in weather, sea levels, and land use patterns, commonly referred to as "climate change."
Assessments generally suggest that the Earth's climate has warmed over the past century and that human activity affecting the atmosphere is likely an important driving factor. A National Research Council study dated May 2001 stated, "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and sub-surface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability."
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html
Here is some more info on mans contribution:
Quote:Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a colorless, odorless non-flammable gas and is the most prominent Greenhouse gas in Earth's atmosphere. It is recycled through the atmosphere by the process photosynthesis, which makes human life possible. Photosynthesis is the process of green plants and other organisms transforming light energy into chemical energy. Light Energy is trapped and used to convert carbon dioxide, water, and other minerals into oxygen and energy rich organic compounds. (Encyclopaedia Britannica Volume 25) Carbon Dioxide is emitted into the air as humans exhale, burn fossil fuels for energy, and deforest the planet. Every year humans add over 30 billion tons of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by these processes, and it is up thirty percent since 1750 (www.envirolink.org/orgs/edf/sitemap.html). An isolated test at Mauna Loa in Hawaii revealed more than a 12% (316 ppm in 1959 to 360 ppm in 1996) increase in mean annual concentration of carbon dioxide. Mauna Loa, located in Hawaii, is the worlds largest volcano at 40,000 cubic km and 4,170 meters above sea level. (Encyclopedia Britannica Volume 27) . Ice core samples have also shown a dramatic increase in carbon dioxide levels. Drilling deep into glaciers and polar ice caps and taking out samples of ice, then melting the ice and capturing the gas has shown an increase in carbon dioxide concentrations over the past 100 years. Ice core samples are essentially "drilling through time", because the deeper the ice is, the older the ice is.
In 1996, carbon dioxide world emissions increased by 2.8%. The U.S. reported a 3.3% increase in CO2
concentrations. The U.S. continues to emit more than any other country in the world, accounting for 25% of all emissions. The European Union had an increase of 2.2%, much larger than a small increase of 1.1% in 1995. Eastern Europe had a decreasing rate of -2.4%. China's increase in 1996 was 4.7%.(http://infoweb.magi.com/~dwalsh/wfsesr.html)
Fossil Fuels were created chiefly by the decay of plants from millions of years ago. We use coal, oil and natural gas to generate electricity, heat our homes, power our factories and run our cars. These fossil fuels contain carbon, and when they are burned, they combine with oxygen, forming carbon dioxide. The two atoms of oxygen add to the total weight. The World Energy Council reported that global carbon dioxide emissions from buring fossil fuels rose 12% between 1990 and 1995. (www.eb.com:180) The increase from developing countries was three times that from developed countries. Middle East carbon dioxide emissions from burning of fossil fuels increased 35%, Africa increased 12%, and Eastern Europe increased rates by 75% from 1990-1995.
http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/greenhouse.htm
Figure 1. Trends in Atmospheric Concentrations and Anthropogenic Emissions of Carbon Dioxide
A seemingly fairly balanced discussion
here about natural vs. manmade CO2. My favorite quote:
"Both sides tend to commit logical fallacies to support their position in lieu of actual data, which is amazingly scarce."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think we all may be guilty of that charge.
I have already agreed that global warming is indeed happening. I just don't believe that it is as bad as Al Gore and others believe it is. To state that we only have a decade left is ludicrous when the debate over global warming has barely begun.
Again, I believe global warming is happening. I believe man is contributing to it. I think we should all take steps to conserve energy and lower emissions.
I do not think we should do it in a knee-jerk reaction. Rushing into treaties that confine some countries to high standards but not others is not the way to go. Fear mongering is not the way to go. I think there should be open honest debate as to exactly what is causing global warming, what the effects of continued warming will be and what can be done about global warming.
jpinMil, To believe people who say we have only a decades left on this planet are looney. This planet has gone through two major climate cycles that we are aware of, and we're still here.
The sad thing about this subject is that fear tactics works for many people.
I'm just not buying.
cicerone imposter wrote:jpinMil, To believe people who say we have only a decades left on this planet are looney. This planet has gone through two major climate cycles that we are aware of, and we're still here.
The sad thing about this subject is that fear tactics works for many people.
I'm just not buying.
What do you mean by climate cycles? There have been several periods of glaciation, not just two, if that is what you are referring to.
Most of the Ice Ages came and went prior to the presence of humankind.
And why would you call taking precautions, "fear tactics"? I remember when we bought our first house just prior to the birth of our daughter, that it seemed like everyone heated their homes to 60 degrees. It had nothing to do with politics, which were never discussed.
In fact, prior to WWII, thermostats were set to 60. Why do you think men wore smoking jackets? And remember, women dressed in a much cozier manner as well.
People heat their houses to higher temperatures and often air condition them to temperatures below their winter heat level. It's not healthy. But, why were people more sensible a couple of decades ago?
Main article: Paleolithic
Map of early human migrations, according to mitochondrial population genetics (numbers are millennia before the present).Paleolithic means "old stone age." In other words, this is the first period of the stone age.
Scientific evidence based on genetics and the study of fossils, places the origin of modern Homo sapiens in Africa [1]. This occurred about 200,000 years ago during the Palaeolithic period, after a long period of evolution. Ancestors of humans, such as Homo erectus, had been using simple tools for many millennia, but as time progressed, tools became far more refined and complex. Humans also developed language sometime during the Paleolithic period, as well as a conceptual repertoire that included systematic burial of the dead, which suggests a development of foresight after being consistently exposed to rotting bodies after some previously misunderstood event of death.
Humans of this age also decorated themselves with objects to improve their appearance. During this period, all humans lived as hunter-gatherers, who were generally nomadic.
Modern humans spread rapidly over the globe from Africa and the frost-free zones of Europe and Asia. The rapid expansion of humankind to North America and Oceania took place at the climax of the most recent Ice Age, when today's temperate regions were extremely inhospitable. Yet, by the end of the Ice Age some 12,000 years ago, humans had colonised nearly all the ice-free parts of the globe.
Hunter-gatherer societies have tended to be very small, although in some cases they have developed social stratification, and long-distance contacts are possible as in the case of Indigenous Australian 'highways' in Australia.
Eventually most hunter-gatherer societies either developed, or were absorbed into, larger agricultural states. Those that did not were either exterminated, or remained in isolation, such as small hunter-gatherer societies which are still present today in remote regions.
O.K., I think we all know this data.
plainoldme wrote:
Most of the Ice Ages came and went prior to the presence of humankind.
I'm calling you a liar.
c.i. -- You obviously do not understand what a lie is.
Okay, tell me what "I" said and posted, and what you said and posted.
Please summarize.
Woe!..... CI has called plainoldme a liar. Surprised me for sure. Gather around folks. This could be interesting.
CI
Type in Ice Ages in goggle. Modern man is about 1 million years old. We (the earth) has been having ice ages for 1 billion years or more. Most ice ages did predate man.
I read your post, Mr. Parados and, for the sake of continuing the argument, I will accept(FOR NOW AND UNTIL I DO MORE RESEARCH) the figures given by your source. They are, I believe---.22C to .26C per decade.
Now, Mr. Parados, let us look at the ridiculous figures given by the IPCC.
All of the IPCC predictions are based on Models(Please do not tell me that you do not know that future temperature estimates do not come from Computer modeling). These models predict a rise in temperatures of 2.5C to 4.5 C( by 2100) BASED ON SIX DIFFERENT SCENARIOS PRESENTED BY THE IPCC.
If you take the midpoint of the .22C to .26C per decade, you will find that the temperature rise by 2100 will be only 2.20C to 2.26 C. That is quote a difference from 2.5C to 4.5C total.
Now, what should be done.?
People who subscribe to the left wing notion, as I am sure that you do, Mr. Parados, that the USA should immediately shut down all of its economy( even though China and India continue their CO2 emissions full blast BECAUSE they are "developing" countries, are people whose ideas will never be accepted by the US Congress even if that body were to change materially in the next election.
What is to be done?
Here( and I am sure that because of your premise, Mr. Parados, that the evil US economy must be destroyed) is a solution.
Taken from the book'The Skeptical Environmentalist" by Bjorn Lomborg.
(And before you even try to shoot the messenger, Mr. Parados, please remember that Mr. Thomas showed us how and why any left wing attacks on this author and books FAILED UTTERLY)
quote
P.322
First,Do we want to handle global warming in the most efficient way, or do we want to use global warming as a STEPPING STONE TO OTHER POLITICAL PROJECTS...( like the left wing extremists do)?
Second, we should not spend vast amounts of money to cut a TINY SLICE OF THE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE INCREASE when this constitutes a poor use of resources and when we could probably use these funds far more effectively in the developing world.....
The Kyoto Protocol will likely cost at least $150 billion a year, and possibly much more. UNICEF estimates that just $70-80 billion a year could give all Third World inhabitants access to basics like health, education, water and sanitation. More important still is the fact that if we could muster such a a missive investment in the present day developing countries, this would also give them a muchj better future position in terms of resources and infrastructure from which to MANAGE A FUTURE GLOBAL WARMING.
Third, we should realize that the cost of global warming will be substantial--about 5 Trillion, Since cutting back CO2 emissions QUICKLY BECOMES VERY COSTLY, AND EASILY COUNTERPRODUCTIVE, WE SAHOULD FOCUS MORE OF OUR EFFORTS AT FINDINGS WAYS OF EASING THE EMISSION OF GREENHOUSE GASES OVER THE LONG RUN. PARTLY, THIS MEANS THAT WE NEED TO INVEST MUCH MORE IN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OF SOLAR POWER,FUSION AND OTHER LIKELY POWER SOURCES OF THE FUTURE."
end of quote:
I do hope that you noticed, Mr. Parados that I responded directly to your post and utilized your figures. I do hope that you have the integrity to respond directly to my post--ALL OF IT. If you have trouble doing that, I will be happy to replicate all or most of it for you.
rabel, Do you know how to read? I said there were a couple of ice ages that man survived. That's supported by your own last statement.
BernardR wrote:I read your post, Mr. Parados and, for the sake of continuing the argument, I will accept(FOR NOW AND UNTIL I DO MORE RESEARCH) the figures given by your source. They are, I believe---.22C to .26C per decade.
Now, Mr. Parados, let us look at the ridiculous figures given by the IPCC.
All of the IPCC predictions are based on Models(Please do not tell me that you do not know that future temperature estimates do not come from Computer modeling). These models predict a rise in temperatures of 2.5C to 4.5 C( by 2100) BASED ON SIX DIFFERENT SCENARIOS PRESENTED BY THE IPCC.
You seem to have a problem reading numbers Bernard. This from the IPCC report section 9.3.3
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/353.htm#933
Quote:The range of global mean temperature change from 1990 to 2100 given by the six illustrative scenarios for the ensemble is 2.0 to 4.5°C
YOu again Bernard..
Quote:
If you take the midpoint of the .22C to .26C per decade, you will find that the temperature rise by 2100 will be only 2.20C to 2.26 C. That is quote a difference from 2.5C to 4.5C total.
Now we get to see your math problems along with your reading problems. .26 x 100 is 2.6 not 2.26. Now lets compare 2.2 to 2.6 to the 2.0 to 4.5 numbers. In fact the models show a lower number and a higher number. The average of the 6 models used in the IPCC result in a 2.8 increase. Close to the 2.2 to 2.6 range you are willing to accept. .2 degree is hardly worth mentioning as you have so loudly proclaimed before.
I notice you didn't deal with any of the links I posted earlier. Does your failure to do so mean you admit defeat as you claim it does for anyone else?
Of course we could all just agree that the only ridiculous figures and statements are yours Bernard. You can't do simple math. You lie about the figures presented in the IPCC. Congratulations on showing us how deceptive you are.
CI
I have learned not to argue with posters like you. My post backed up Plainoldme statement about the ice ages predating man. No one said man didn't survive them. 1billion years of ice ages, 1 million years of man. Ill let the other posters read for themselves who said what.
oops, I guess I didn't read that carefully the first time. The math is slightly different because the IPCC uses 110 years not 100.
.22 per decade makes it 2.42 for the 110 years
.26 makes it 2.86 for the 110 years.
So the range based on the simple decade number is 2.42 to 2.86 and the average of the IPCC 2 scenarios is 2.8 and within that range. Suddenly the IPCC numbers look pretty good Bernard.
You are obviously frightened to death of answering my post, Mr. Parados.
Because you can't?
I will give you another chance.If you are incapable of doing so, please let us know:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, what should be done.?
People who subscribe to the left wing notion, as I am sure that you do, Mr. Parados, that the USA should immediately shut down all of its economy( even though China and India continue their CO2 emissions full blast BECAUSE they are "developing" countries, are people whose ideas will never be accepted by the US Congress even if that body were to change materially in the next election.
What is to be done?
Here( and I am sure that because of your premise, Mr. Parados, that the evil US economy must be destroyed) is a solution.
Taken from the book'The Skeptical Environmentalist" by Bjorn Lomborg.
(And before you even try to shoot the messenger, Mr. Parados, please remember that Mr. Thomas showed us how and why any left wing attacks on this author and books FAILED UTTERLY)
quote
P.322
First,Do we want to handle global warming in the most efficient way, or do we want to use global warming as a STEPPING STONE TO OTHER POLITICAL PROJECTS...( like the left wing extremists do)?
Second, we should not spend vast amounts of money to cut a TINY SLICE OF THE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE INCREASE when this constitutes a poor use of resources and when we could probably use these funds far more effectively in the developing world.....
The Kyoto Protocol will likely cost at least $150 billion a year, and possibly much more. UNICEF estimates that just $70-80 billion a year could give all Third World inhabitants access to basics like health, education, water and sanitation. More important still is the fact that if we could muster such a a missive investment in the present day developing countries, this would also give them a muchj better future position in terms of resources and infrastructure from which to MANAGE A FUTURE GLOBAL WARMING.
Third, we should realize that the cost of global warming will be substantial--about 5 Trillion, Since cutting back CO2 emissions QUICKLY BECOMES VERY COSTLY, AND EASILY COUNTERPRODUCTIVE, WE SAHOULD FOCUS MORE OF OUR EFFORTS AT FINDINGS WAYS OF EASING THE EMISSION OF GREENHOUSE GASES OVER THE LONG RUN. PARTLY, THIS MEANS THAT WE NEED TO INVEST MUCH MORE IN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OF SOLAR POWER,FUSION AND OTHER LIKELY POWER SOURCES OF THE FUTURE."
end of quote:
I do hope that you noticed, Mr. Parados that I responded directly to your post and utilized your figures. I do hope that you have the integrity to respond directly to my post--ALL OF IT. If you have trouble doing that, I will be happy to replicate all or most of it for you.
Read it and answer it, Mr. Parados, or retire from the argument!!!
jpinMilwaukee wrote:Thomas,
Isn't that why he used the GWP multiplier? He clearly states that the numbers are "adjusted for heat retention characteristics, relative to CO2."
But even so, the real power is in the volume of said greenhouse gases. Even if water vapor only absorbed a fraction of infrared rays as CO2 or other greenhouse gases, the shear amount of water vapor, when compared to amount of atmospheric CO2, would have a much greater impact than other greenhouse gases.
The numbers from the EIA state that water vapors have a heat retention rate of 50-86% depending on the form of water vapor (fog, clouds, humidity, etc.)
With a rate of 88% (only 2% higher than some forms of water vapor) heat retention of CO2, but much lower concentrations compared to water vapors, it is hard to demonstrate that CO2 is the main cause of global warming. Considering that CO2 occurs naturally and at much higher percentages than manmade CO2, it is even more difficult to blame man and SUVs for global warming.
Only when eliminating the effect/volume of water vapor and naturally occuring CO2 do you get these doomsday statistics that are used to champion global warming. And I haven't seen anyone that refutes the notion that water vapor is the most abundant of green house gases.
But, but, BUT... it's the
naturally occurring CO2 which is the bigger problem, isn't it? Take, for instance, the Amazon jungle... Log it, reduce it, and then you have to deal with the CO2 being released from its dying~no-longer-existing trees...
http://www.climateark.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=58635 Scientists predict that without the Amazon rainforest, life, as we know it,
because of temperature changes would be a whole 'nother matter by 2050...
