global warming?

Want to talk politics, religion, opinion, or Current events? go here.

Moderator: Officers

Postby Worff » Fri May 04, 2007 1:12 pm

Yeah an Ice Age is one of the theories as a possible outcome. And those have some very good arguments, such as data collected revealing past Ice Ages and the warming trends that preceded them, along with levels up to 280 ppm of CO2. Now the levels of CO2 are 370 ppm and rising. If 280 ppm eventually = a mile of ice over your head, what would 400-500 ppm mean?

Here is a more realistic theory: short version: (imo)
Warming will lead to desertification of some major agricultural areas, as well as aggravate the supply of fresh water to areas that already have crisis, and introduce this problem to new areas. It will lead to a rise in sea levels, which in itself we can deal with at high cost, but this will further change the landscape of an already sensitive eco system. It will lead to further extinction levels of the earth's known species which will damage already hurting eco systems (the pace species are becoming extinct now has not been seen in evidence over the last 65 million years). New and old diseases also... as famine and pestilence spreads at a seemingly unstoppable pace, more and more wars will break out fighting over remaining resources. Wars also will be waged over remaining cheap fossil fuels. (Keep in mind our society in all it's aspects depends on cheap fossil fuels). Goverments will use desperate methods to offset its problem of sustaining huge populations with much fewer resources. What does this mean to you? The nice comfy suburbia lifestyle we've enjoyed for a mere couple of centuries will no longer be able to be rationalized. The extent of the suffering here and in other "wealthy" countries will be defined by how fiercley we fight to maintain "disneyland" beliefs and lifestyles, rather than acknowledging a problem and fighting to survive.

Sound good? No? Then stop wasting resorces. That's all I'm saying. I'm not saying everyone sell everything they own and live under a bridge.. I'm just saying to be more aware of what you are consuming and don't be wasteful... it's a start :)
Last edited by Worff on Fri May 04, 2007 1:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Worff Makesitso - Magelo | EQPlayers
Image
User avatar
Worff
Webmaster
 
Posts: 5403
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2003 3:37 pm
Location: Galveston, Texas
Highscores: 42

Postby Jahras » Fri May 04, 2007 1:14 pm

I am not convinced that the apparent climate "crisis" we are having is traceable to only human contributions.


The carbon content of the atmosphere today is about 20% higher than it has ever been, as far as the ice cores can show us, and the biggest noticeable jump in this started RIGHT after the industrial revolution.

Image

data from NOAA

This leaves the question of what could possibly causing this if the activities of humans isn't? We know just how much CO2 cars, factories and the like, and its astronomical compared to the volcanic activity and forest fires we see.

That combined with knowing, and can prove with any number of experiments, that CO2 displays black body radiation effects on the longer wave lengths reflected off the earth's surface to generate heat... in turn making water vapor levels increase which adds to the effect. This is why 98% of scientists agree that human activity is causing climate change.

And some ice core data from up to 600,000 years ago displaying trends in sunlight intensity, and volume of ice in the antarctic, which is calculated by isotope concentration, density, and structure.

Image

You'll notice, that we are at the second lowest ice volume in the last 600,000 years, and are posed to surpass it for the lowest ice volume on record. (ice cores have only been dated up to 800,000 max)

If we are on the very peek of a warm cycle and are going to flip back very soon, that's np. but it would appear that our CO2 emissions are certainly not helping the effect, at all, and may very well aid in the destruction of a lot of habitats. Polar bears are already dyng off in large numbers, because the ice planes are cracking apart that they usually walk on to feed from, and now have to swim as far as Canada and Greenland to feed. Heh and on a local basis, canadian geese coming through the carolinas have stopped migrating at all, and because they've been driving native ducks out of their habitats, a new goose season has been opened to try and control the new residents (new = in the last ~12 years, with more ariving each year)

Edit: I should add that a LOT of what I read and see, including an inconvenient truth, seems like way too much doomsday talk, and that whats been done is irreperable etc. It's my personal belief that if our emissions continue like they have been, without providing equal carbon-sink tech, then we're about going to see the hottest century or two on record, with the least ice, destroying a lot of ecosystems. But atm people are moving in the right direction, just not quite fast enough because many don't really understand the problem's nature.
Last edited by Jahras on Fri May 04, 2007 1:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Jahras
Member
 
Posts: 1629
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 2:20 am
Location: Raleigh, NC
Highscores: 2

Postby Uilea » Fri May 04, 2007 1:20 pm

I made this available for Worff so I might as well post it here. However I'm breaking about 80 billion rules by doing so, so will be pulling it after a few days.

http://www.sinensis.org/sleepwalking.pdf

Kunstler and I have pretty similar views of things, except I'm not so fatalistic. But if you want a harsh, sarcastic and mildly funny read, check it out. It's an 11 page excerpt from his book The Long Emergency. While imo it drips with hyperbole, there's a lot of stuff in there that makes you think.

And as long as we're on the topic, this had me REALLY excited for the future of energy production. The z-machine has been a huge topic of interest for me, so I'm excited to see that they think they can put it to use as an alternate energy souce.

http://www.physorg.com/news96730015.html

And for anyone who has not seen the z-machine, it looks every bit as impressive as it sounds =P

http://www.sandia.gov/news-center/news- ... achine.jpg
User avatar
Uilea
Member
 
Posts: 2939
Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 10:47 am
Location: Denver

Postby Stonecrush » Fri May 04, 2007 1:43 pm

I have some information as to another possible heat generating source.

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/seg/hazard/str ... nfact.html

Guide to all major volcanic activity for the past 100 years.

I am beginning to believe that human kind tends to think we are all that is, in how we understand. That we a lone cause most of the worlds "problems" and if something changes it is primarly the western worlds fault (no I am not letting those Europeans slide!)

Ok, first thing every climate specialist (Climatetologist?) needs to focus on are the temperature and climate/weather patterns that predate 1000 years. NOT ESTAMATES! I am sick of hearing estamates, this isn't something that can just be guessed because its theory math on exploring the potential of the Universe... These people, groups... want to change a shit load (scientific term!) of lives just on the latest popular scare tactic craze! I say fuck off (not to anyone here!), and get some real numbers, do your damn homework, and show me the time bomb... until then I drive my auto (which moves 2-3 times a week goes 10 miles and comes home...) I BEER fart more Methane (damn those feel good) than I do produce CO2.... (from my car, unless I stop breatheing suddenly)

People also need to realise that with time change DOES happen. We live in a comfortable climate zone that was NEVER EVER meant to last indefinately, why people have a hard time grasping this concept I do not know.

In the economic world if given enough time someone will find a better way to power things, transporting people to their satisfaction, lets face it no one wants to drive a Preious, damn thing looks like a sepository, and as a test driver the pickup is pathetic compared to a real car, sorry. It won't take 100 years to find a better way so give it time and stop getting the panties in a wad! Everyone in this country is alloud a choice on what they want to do with their time here. No one, based on a half cocked theory with a corrupt politician trying to be their spokesman should be afforded the time spent to be listened too. There should be more than 1 side to the arguement of warming the planet is a problem.. There is never a mention of any good it will cause, since we DON'T know... we think we do, but we don't really know.

Example. The threat that warmer temperatures cause more hurricanes, and to also be more Powerful hurricanes. Well, last year 2006 we had a normal, thats right AVERAGE Hurricane numbers than the year before. 2005... we had Katrina hit a poorly equiped city due to Political spending and stupid budget arguements, and ontop of all else the city is below the water level. WTF did you expect to happen? Stupid. I have sympathy for the people but I am sick of hearing about who's fault it is, its the damn local governments miss magament of funds... the Levi's broke because they didn't maintain the shit... There were documented reports going back 5 years (I watched one on the discovery channel with the damn warnings...)

One other small point I like to point out, everyone (Europe mainly) points the finger at us as the major source of this problem as if we (the Unitied States) are the sole contributor to this *problem*. Did we forget about China? Oh wait Europe doesn't have the balls to threaten them because they'll start calling on the Debt's owed to the labor giant China. More Politics in this whole global warming feild than facts... and We all know what Politics involves.

Oh, and a side point I hate scare tactics, they've never worked with me, and I am sure there are a lot of other people with the same thought process. The worlds not going to be destroyed over current CO2 emissions sorry to burst the bubble.

/rant off, and before you go thinking I am a Oil Lobbiest I love my tree's and plant 2-3 a year in my local area... I love the out doors, but I am not a fanatic about the terrible end, which seems to be preached by the Al Gore group more than the Christian Right.. haha


I am sorry if I've offended anyone, or precieved to do so, that was not my intetion, and I am a happy person by nature. I just used to be into the whole green peace movement and was a member of the Audobon Society untill I started reading for myself as a student.

Fnord please get back to me with all Grammar/spell checks Thanks! <3
Stonecrush
Member
 
Posts: 807
Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 6:27 pm
Location: South Jersey

Postby Jahras » Fri May 04, 2007 2:07 pm

based on a half cocked theory

A theory that a vast majority of scientists and climatologists agree is half cocked? We aren't talking about a blind theory about the earth being flat, this is all testable and able to be duplicated in microcosm experimentation.

If volcanic activity to blame, lets take a look at the last MAJOR erruptions and see how that year's CO2 levels compare. That would be Mt. St. Helens, 1992

Image


Welp, I see no spike around the eruption, the curve looks static. Maybe it was too small, maybe crater peek's eruption will show a bigger blip. Oops, that one also erupted in 1992. No spike for the 1985 eruption of nevado either, instead it's a nice smooth curve with very small bumps, that seem totaly unrelated to volcanic activity?

notice that these co2 levels are measured from a volcano, yet still line up with data from other collection stations

But lets say that on some off chance the CO2 rise IS from volcanic activity and thermal vents. Why did it start rising faster than any time studied in the last 600,000 years right when the industrial revolution got moving? VOLCANO GOD NO LIKE MACHINES.

Some numbers, from the US volcanoes hazards program. http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/
Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)


145-255 million tons vs 30 billion tons


Do you have any facts to back up your statements? I can spew facts and studies for weeks on how much CO2 is generated by combustion by humans, and how that translates to increased entropy from long wavelength absorption properties of the molecule.

Edit: Yes, china is second behind the US in CO2 emissions, and is predicted to surpass us soon, which is one of the reasons bush didn't sign an international greenhouse emissions agreement proposed by the UN, it gave special treatment to countries like china, while putting extra pressure on the west.

Real solid science does not need to be discredited because al gore is hypocritical and a kinda fanatical.
Last edited by Jahras on Fri May 04, 2007 2:24 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Image
User avatar
Jahras
Member
 
Posts: 1629
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 2:20 am
Location: Raleigh, NC
Highscores: 2

Postby Goofydoofy » Fri May 04, 2007 2:20 pm

When the magentic poles switch and all religions go the way of Anna Nicole Smith, I'll be happy.
Level 105 Druid, Level 105 Enchanter, Level 105 Paladin
Drinal - Maelin Starpyre Server
Goofydoofy
Member
 
Posts: 4788
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 5:15 am
Location: Bullhead City, AZ, USA

Postby Meso » Fri May 04, 2007 2:21 pm

Its KY warming gel - thats the cause of all this.
Image
User avatar
Meso
Officer
 
Posts: 2970
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 9:35 am
Location: Virginia
Highscores: 3

Postby Worff » Fri May 04, 2007 2:51 pm

lol Stone... it's not really a scare tactic anymore there is plenty of evidence and agreement among most science communities. I fail to see what someone would gain from saying something that would make even a most caloused person uncomfortable... I guess sell more DVD's? /shrug it's not exactly a best seller (referring to Al Gore's documentary) However, it's far easier to not believe a word because once one acknowledges it, the moral obligation to do something (or at least try) is inescapable.

Lets put global warming aside though, for a minute.. and pretend it doesn't exist. Are the suggestions I'm making THAT offensive or difficult? Many of these would address aspects of other issues I've gotten into debates about in the past too. Most of my suggestions don't invade personal comfort levels... admittedly yes a couple of them might. Again, I'm just saying to be aware of what you consume and don't be wasteful.. as our personal contributions to several issues.

I'm sensing I touched some sensitive areas hehe... if having a fast car or something is your thing you can't live without, so be it .. no worries.. pick another area to be conservative in. Like with me, computers are my thing and I have 4, I also have 4 TV's those are my thing too. I used to enjoy leaving them all on all the time.. but have changed that and now only have running what I need, not what I thought I wanted/needed. I've changed the setting on my A/C to be 2 to 4 degrees warmer (its hot here so thats a savings change).. I've changed some of my driving habits (some peeps cannot change this, but I could so I did).. I go behind my kids and make sure lights and crap not being used is turned off, while they are learning to do it themselves... just these things I reduced my average hot-season electric bill from 115/mo to about 80/mo. I've also reduced my fuel consumption for both vehicles (dork vehicles lol Nissan P/U and Hyundai Sonata) by about 15%. Maybe you can't do as much, maybe you can do more... just do something.

But there isn't a single reason you could get me to swallow on why you should be a wasteful person just because you CAN. Extreme example: This millionaire dude I knew and did some computer work for.. took me and wife to dinner once at nice restaurant... he orders one of everything on the fukkin menu, eats a few bites of what he liked, and the rest got thrown away. It made me sick to the point I had nothing to do with him anymore... then a couple years later his fat-ass died from bed sores in hospital because they couldnt move his 500 pound butt :P Waste like that is far more common among the rich, most people would never waste like that.. I'd be getting a 50-gal doggie bag LOL.

Edit: HAHAHAH Oerin
Worff Makesitso - Magelo | EQPlayers
Image
User avatar
Worff
Webmaster
 
Posts: 5403
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2003 3:37 pm
Location: Galveston, Texas
Highscores: 42

Postby Bilnick » Fri May 04, 2007 4:21 pm

We just gotta do sumthin' about carbon dioxide.'
BY PATRICK BEDARD, November 2002


Once again, California is foaming all over its own puffed-out chest in self-congratulation. The occasion is the politically hyperactive state's new carbon-dioxide regs, and columnist Gregg Patton's gushings in San Bernardino's The Sun are typical of the sentiment: "If California, with its buying power, doesn't take a stand, forcing automakers to make changes, who will? Rhode Island's four drivers? Wyoming's three?"

Poor California, never a state to sit on its hands when it could be inventing an enemy and throwing itself into a symbolic battle. According to the Los Angeles Times, the bill was going nowhere until lawmakers "began receiving recorded messages" from the noted thespian and salad-dressing visionary Paul Newman. In a land of ignorance about chemistry, a blue-eyed Oscar winner is a powerful catalyst. Too bad he and the others don't know dick about carbon dioxide.
They think it's pollution. It's not. All the nation's auto-emissions laws so far have restricted "pollutants" that result from either imperfect combustion or imperfect fuels. These substances, in very high concentrations, can cause health problems directly or they may be transformed by natural actions in the atmosphere into substances that cause health problems. Smog and acid rain are examples of the latter.

Carbon dioxide (CO2), on the other hand, is the product of perfect combustion. It has no health effects. You could spread CO2 on bread and eat it. Actually, the little empty spaces in bread are formed around CO2 bubbles released by yeast during baking. The bubbles in Budweiser and Pepsi are CO2.
If there's a stigma associated with CO2, word of it hasn't circulated far. I see TV commercials for the Mosquito Magnet; they proudly promise to spew CO2 all around your patio as bait for mosquitoes. The CO2 is produced by burning propane.

California's war against CO2 gets even stranger. Columnist Patton himself is a CO2 emitter (one wonders: does he know?). All humans and animals exhale CO2 when they breathe.
CO2 is the breath of life. Animals release it to stay alive, plants absorb it to stay alive. And when animals and plants stop living and begin the natural process of decomposition, they both give off CO2. It goes into the atmosphere, where the concentration is a tiny fraction of one percent.

The only rap on CO2 is this: It's a "greenhouse gas." The atmosphere around the earth acts like a greenhouse, keeping the planet warmer than most of the other rocks whizzing around in space. Global warming, as it's called now, is not news. The planet's temperature has been on a general uptrend since the Little Ice Age about 300 years ago, to the general satisfaction of all residents. In fact, the biggest worry until relatively recently was that the warming would stop: A 1975 article in Newsweek fretted about just that. Time-Life books from the 1970s express the same fears. Since then the worriers have shifted into reverse. We'll get too warm, they say, unless we...well, here's where it gets strangely selective: There are no alarums about Mosquito Magnets, but you're an environmental savage for driving, particularly in your SUV.
Remember, CO2 is the product of perfect combustion. That rules out all cleanup techniques. For now, only less combustion will satisfy (in the future, fuels that yield less CO2 are possibilities).

Here's the math: A gallon of gas, perfectly or imperfectly combusted, yields 19.6 pounds of CO2. So a 15-mpg car makes 1.3 pounds per mile. A 50-mpg car makes 0.39 pound.
And here's the deal: No one forces Californians to drive SUVs, Turbo Porsches, and guzzler Benzes. Suzuki would happily supply thrifty Aerios to all. Or they could drive fewer miles. The notion that CO2 is the fault of the auto industry is a peculiar California delusion.

Individual Californians could cut their CO2 production any time they choose, with no new laws necessary. But as usual, they think they can push the pain of cutbacks out of state and onto the shoulders of big business through the magic of statehouse politics.
But this time it's different. CO2 is life. And life goes on, never mind the conceit of politicians and Oscar winners and others who weren't paying attention in chem class. Human activity is not the only source of CO2. Mother Nature herself is by far the dominant producer, primarily through decay, generating about 29 times man's CO2 output each year (all the numbers I'm quoting here come from an assessment of more than 1500 scientific publications through 1998 by Hans Peter Lenz and Christian Cozzarini of the Technical University of Vienna).

Moreover, CO2 ranks rather low on the ladder of warming agents. Methane, also known as natural gas, has 21 to 24 times more warming influence, nitrous oxide (N2O) has 290 to 320 times more, ozone has 2000 times more. Plain old water vapor—we call it humidity—is far less potent, but there's far more of it than all the others put together, so it's responsible for somewhere between 60 and 95 percent of the greenhouse effect by itself (the gap in the numbers comes from uncertainty among scientists).
The bottom line is this: All human contributions add up to a tiny share of the total greenhouse effect; between half a percent and one-and-a-half percent is science's best estimate. About half of that (35 to 65 percent) can be blamed on CO2 from all human sources, including Explorer exhaust, Budweiser bubbles, Weber barbecues, and chardonnay fermentation.

So all car exhaust taken together amounts to some fraction of about half of maybe one percent of the greenhouse effect. Shaving that fraction a little is hopelessly out of scale with the problem. Imagine trying to lower the Pacific with a thimble. That's California's CO2 regs.
When society's thinking gets this far off the track, you don't know what it'll crash into next. Cars are the social villains today. But one puff of CO2 is the same as another. Humans, on average, exhale 2.2 pounds of CO2 per day. That means 803 pounds per year, upwards of 1000 pounds if you're a jogger. And think of those dogs panting on summer days. That's CO2, too. Do we need dogs running around willy-nilly huffing out CO2? Once the politicians start limiting the gas that makes bubbles in bread, where will the line be drawn?

I'm reminded of the early days of the Third Reich. The absolute conviction, expressed by many, that we just gotta do sumthin' about CO2 is an intellectual malignancy. What they're saying comes down to, "We gotta do sumthin' about life."
Whose life?

How long can those who really care about the planet allow 2.2 pounds of CO2 a day from those of us who seem to care less? On what night will we hear the knock on the door?
User avatar
Bilnick
Officer
 
Posts: 5494
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 3:32 pm
Location: Saline, Michigan

Postby Bilnick » Fri May 04, 2007 4:33 pm

An inconvenient truth: SOS from Al Gore.

BY PATRICK BEDARD, September 2006


He’s baack! Just when you thought the scolding was over and it was safe to pull your ear plugs out, Al Gore has a brand-new harangue going.

Actually, it’s the same old doomsday prediction he’s been peddling since he was a senator bucking to be President back in the ’90s, only this time it’s packaged as a 94-minute film. An Inconvenient Truth previewed at the Sundance Film Festival last January. “This is activist cinema at its very best,” said the official festival guide.

You can guess what activated him; his long-playing paranoia about global warming. He and the mainstream media say it’s a done deal. We’re toast.

“Be Worried. Be Very Worried,” blared the cover of Time in April. “Climate change isn’t some vague future problem — it’s already damaging the planet at an alarming pace. Here’s how it affects you, your kids, and their kids as well.”

This is, by the way, the same Time that was telling us as late as 1983 to be worried, very worried, that temperatures were descending into another era of “glaciation.”

Gore’s “inconvenient truth” is that — there’s no tactful way to say this — we gas-guzzling, SUV-flaunting, comfort-addicted humans, wallowing in our own self-indulgences, have screwed up the planet. We’ve hauled prodigious quantities of fossil fuels out of the ground where they belong, combusted them to release carbon dioxide (CO2) into the sky where it shouldn’t be, and now we’re going to burn for our sins.

This feverish sort of should-and-shouldn’t evangelism plays particularly well these days among those who are looking for something to believe that carries no obligation to sit in a church pew. Nature has left us no scripture, so Gore can preach it as he feels it. Faith, brother. Don’t even pretend to understand. Anyway, humans, except for the rare enlightened ones like Al Gore, are alien trespassers in nature.

Let’s not dispute the earth’s temperature. It’s warmer than it used to be. As an Iowa farm boy, I learned about the soil we tilled. Most of Iowa is flat, graded smooth by glaciers. The rocks we plowed up in the fields, or plowed around if they were big, were rounded in shape. The glacier tumbled them as it scraped along, and it ground their corners off.

The North American ice sheets reached their largest expanse about 18,000 years ago and then began to recede. Within 5000 years they had pulled back considerably but still reached south as far as central Ohio. After another thousand years, however, the U.S. was largely ice-free.

Needless to say, there have been no glaciers reported in Iowa as long as anyone can remember. It’s warmer now. And if it would just warm up a bit more, fewer Iowans would need to trot off to Florida, Texas, and Arizona during deepest winter.

The long absence of farm-belt glaciers confirms an inconvenient truth that Gore chooses to ignore. The warming of our planet started thousands of years before SUVs began adding their spew to the greenhouse. Indeed, the whole greenhouse theory of global warming goes wobbly if you just change one small assumption.

Logic and chemistry say all CO2 is the same, whether it blows out of a Porsche tailpipe or is exhaled from Al Gore’s lungs or wafts off my compost pile or the rotting of dead plants in the Atchafalaya swamp.

“Wrong,” say the greenhouse theorists. They maintain that man’s contribution to the greenhouse is different from nature’s, and that only man’s exhaustings count.

Let’s review the greenhouse theory of global warming. Our planet would be one more icy rock hurtling through space at an intolerable temperature were it not for our atmosphere. This thin layer of gases — about 95 percent of the molecules live within the lowest 15 miles — readily allows the sun’s heat in but resists its reradiation into space. Result: The earth is warmed.

The atmosphere is primarily composed of nitrogen (78 percent), oxygen (21 percent), argon (0.93 percent), and CO2 (0.04 percent). Many other gases are present in trace amounts. The lower atmosphere also contains varying amounts of water vapor, up to four percent by volume.

Nitrogen and oxygen are not greenhouse gases and have no warming influence. The greenhouse gases included in the Kyoto Protocol are each rated for warming potency. CO2, the warming gas that has activated Al Gore, has low warming potency, but its relatively high concentration makes it responsible for 72 percent of Kyoto warming. Methane (CH4, a.k.a. natural gas) is 21 times more potent than CO2, but because of its low concentration, it contributes only seven percent of that warming. Nitrous oxide (N2O), mostly of nature’s creation, is 310 times more potent than CO2. Again, low concentration keeps its warming effect down to 19 percent.

Now for an inconvenient truth about CO2 sources — nature generates about 30 times as much of it as does man. Yet the warming worriers are unconcerned about nature’s outpouring. They — and Al Gore — are alarmed only about anthropogenic CO2, that 3.2 percent caused by humans.

They like to point fingers at the U.S., which generated about 23 percent of the world’s anthropogenic CO2 in 2003, the latest figures from the Energy Information Administration. But this finger-pointing ignores yet another inconvenient truth about CO2. In fact, it’s a minor contributor to the greenhouse effect when water vapor is taken into consideration. All the greenhouse gases together, including CO2 and methane, produce less than two percent of the greenhouse effect, according to Richard S. Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lindzen, by the way, is described by one source as “the most renowned climatologist in all the world.”

When water vapor is put in that perspective, then anthropogenic CO2 produces less than 0.1 of one percent of the greenhouse effect.

If everyone knows that water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas, why do Al Gore and so many others focus on CO2? Call it the politics of the possible. Water vapor is almost entirely natural. It’s beyond the reach of man’s screwdriver. But when the delegates of 189 countries met at Kyoto in December 1997 to discuss global climate change, they could hardly vote to do nothing. So instead, they agreed that the developed countries of the world would reduce emissions of six man-made greenhouse gases. At the top of the list is CO2, a trivial influence on global warming compared with water vapor, but unquestionably man’s largest contribution.

In deciding that it couldn’t reduce water vapor, Kyoto really decided that it couldn’t reduce global warning. But that’s an inconvenient truth that wouldn’t make much of a movie.
User avatar
Bilnick
Officer
 
Posts: 5494
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 3:32 pm
Location: Saline, Michigan

Postby Bilnick » Fri May 04, 2007 4:59 pm

Less 'sunscreen' for Earth
In its study, NASA described the aerosol effect as a "sunscreen" for Earth.

"When more sunlight can get through the atmosphere and warm Earth's surface, you're going to have an effect on climate and temperature," lead author Michael Mishchenko of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies said in a statement. "Knowing what aerosols are doing globally gives us an important missing piece of the big picture of the forces at work on climate."

Scientists extracted an aerosol signal from satellite measurements originally designed to observe clouds and weather systems that date back to 1978. "The resulting data show large, short-lived spikes in global aerosols caused by major volcanic eruptions in 1982 and 1991, but a gradual decline since about 1990," NASA said in a statement. "By 2005, global aerosols had dropped as much as 20 percent from the relatively stable level between 1986 and 1991."
User avatar
Bilnick
Officer
 
Posts: 5494
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 3:32 pm
Location: Saline, Michigan

Postby Worff » Fri May 04, 2007 5:15 pm

lol dude I hate to tell ya this.. but the author of those quotes is PATRICK BEDARD, who is simply a retired race car driver turned journalist and writer for Car and Driver magazine, where he spent the better part of 50 years. I can't see him understanding science, but I can see him being bitter over coming in 30th at both Indy 500's he drove in in 83-84.. also, his salary and job security depends upon his lack of understanding of sciences, specifically ideas that undercut cars and fuel hogs. So, I kinda view that as a disinformation campaign of some sort, as well as blatant denial. Sorry /duck
Worff Makesitso - Magelo | EQPlayers
Image
User avatar
Worff
Webmaster
 
Posts: 5403
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2003 3:37 pm
Location: Galveston, Texas
Highscores: 42

Postby Jahras » Fri May 04, 2007 5:19 pm

Is the above article from Car and Driver, written by a retired race car driver?

I'd just as soon put my faith in a race car driver as I would al gore on a complex scientific issue like this. Each of their pieces are designed to merely swap people to their side, rather than present concrete peer-reviewed facts, as is standard protocol with most scientific dealings, due to how easy it for someone to overlook something.

NOAA's job is to come up with an unbiased accurate view of the oceans and atmospheric conditions, and usually does a very good job, as they're paneled by highly qualified climatologists and scientists.

They have a very good article about the global warming topic here http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

It's pretty long, but the first few sections are very good, specially their sat measurements of the recession of ice in the antarctic, and that it shows no signs of the cyclic nature familiar from studying ice cores.
Image
User avatar
Jahras
Member
 
Posts: 1629
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 2:20 am
Location: Raleigh, NC
Highscores: 2

Postby Bilnick » Fri May 04, 2007 5:24 pm

Right....there is no science or engineering involved in racing. He must be an idiot. He does cite the souces he got his data from.

So I should beleive what a college student and a computer guy say about global warming? :)

Seriously....what facts are incorrect?
User avatar
Bilnick
Officer
 
Posts: 5494
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 3:32 pm
Location: Saline, Michigan

Postby Jahras » Fri May 04, 2007 6:40 pm

All of his talk of CO2 and the breath of life etc shows a total misunderstanding of the carbon cycle, which is one of the most basic biochemical cycles that governs life on the planet. Levels seen in all the graphs above are simple increasing faster than carbon sinks on the planet can re-absorb them, with the VERY conspicuous date of that starting with the industrial revolution.

I did some searching on his sources, but was not able to find any of the studies related to global warming he is supposedly referencing without buying the books by Hans Peter Lenz. His points might be more believable if they were publicly available.

All the information I've put up I did not come up with on my own, I'm certainly not qualified to, but it is nearly all cited from NOAA who most certainly is.

nature generates about 30 times as much of it as does man. Yet the warming worriers are unconcerned about nature’s outpouring. They — and Al Gore — are alarmed only about anthropogenic CO2, that 3.2 percent caused by humans.
No citation for this monumental claim? Has he even looked at the graphs and data for atmospheric carbon changes since the industrial revolution? He offers no explanation for this

When water vapor is put in that perspective, then anthropogenic CO2 produces less than 0.1 of one percent of the greenhouse effect.
no citations?

In deciding that it couldn’t reduce water vapor, Kyoto really decided that it couldn’t reduce global warning.

They did? This is a very basic fallacy in the global warming debate, water vapor displays a positive feedback relationship with the other gases. And you can take that from scientists, not a student of biotechnology. http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi ... ode=energy

EDITING IN: Full text also available here: http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/cachedpage/472984/1

To put that in simpler terms: CO2, methane, N2O, CFC and other greenhouse gases' effects are magnified when they cause more evaporation fo water into the atmosphere. The more of these gases, the more water vapor we get, on a nearly 2 H2O : 1 other relationship.


And this article is by a senior research scientist at the geophysical fluid dynamics laboratory, part of NOAA. Not a race car driver. So you can be pretty sure he knows what's what when it comes to water vapor.

Carbon dioxide (CO2), on the other hand, is the product of perfect combustion.
It is only a part of combustion equations when hydro-carbons are combusted, none to be seen when something like simple hydrogen is combusted, simple chemistry.

There are no alarums about Mosquito Magnets, but you're an environmental savage for driving, particularly in your SUV.

This is most likely because there are very few mosquito magnets compared to the number of cars out there? I believe I've only ever even seen two. I do go with his point that people go overly nuts over cars, when the conservation should be extended to all wasteful energy consumption that produces waste, including leaving light bulbs on and all that jazz.

CO2 is the product of perfect combustion. That rules out all cleanup techniques.
This is false, I believe it's CO state that recently has been raising a microbe that absorbs CO2 and secrets a hydrocarbon, uil would know where to find info about that. Penn state has also made headway in the area, using serpentine to sequester CO2, as seen here if you are interested. http://www.psu.edu/ur/2004/serpentine.html


The list goes on and on, his article is obviously written for a magazine that derives support from people who wouldn't want to think that their CO2 emissions are doing something wrong, why would a car mag write something to make its readers feel bad or guilty? I'm only a student and can see all his misunderstandings, I'd hate to see how one of my professors more schooled on the topics would tear that paper apart.

If you find something wrong in one of my arguments let me know and I will try to find the source of it, I'm sure the debate is a a good learning time for all of us haha.
Last edited by Jahras on Fri May 04, 2007 6:53 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Image
User avatar
Jahras
Member
 
Posts: 1629
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 2:20 am
Location: Raleigh, NC
Highscores: 2

PreviousNext

Return to Real Life and Opinion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron