Global Warming

[Caleb]

As far as I see it, I cannot find any reason why humans could have caused significant global warming. According to the data from the Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii, there has been a steady increase of carbon dioxide levels in the air since about 1920. Then according to the data from 1979 to the present taken by NASA satellites, there is not a corresponding increase in the temperature of the earth. Instead, the average global temperature increased in a very shaky pattern by about 0.5 degrees Celsius. After that, however, the temperature change varies up and down quite a bit, but continues to hover around zero. Could someone please help me to figure this out.

[swansont]

There are a number of effects that come into play, including variability in the weather, which dominates the year-to-year temperature variation. One should not expect a monotonic increase that simply tracks with the CO2 levels.

[npts2020]

Also global warming lags behind the carbon dioxide increases.

[iNow]

Also global warming lags behind the carbon dioxide increases.

 

Just a point for clarity, npts. When contributions of CO2 to the atmosphere are increasing as a result of human activity (namely, burning fossil fuels), then the warming (as you suggest) lags the increase in CO2.

 

However, in the past, when humans were not digging vast stores of CO2 which have been buried in the ground and burning them into the air... essentially before the industrial revolution... CO2 increases tended to lag increases in temperature (exactly opposite to your claim above).

 

In the historical past, the temperature would rise and there would be a feedback effect whereby permafrost and water sources would melt and warm, consequently releasing stores of CO2 as a result of that warming. At present, though, the primary mechanism causing CO2 to increase in the atmosphere is human activity... So, the CO2 tends to come prior to the warming right now (it is a forcing)... whereas in the past the primary mechanism which caused CO2 to increase was temperature increases, and CO2 lagged temperature (it was a feedback... and still is... just is overwhelmed by human activity).

 

Both effects... the feedback which was more prominent in the past and the forcing which is more prominent now... are present, it's just that humans are adding CO2 in such massive quantities that the present situation is different than it was in the past, and temperature tends to lag CO2 as you suggested.

 

 

(sorry it took me so many words to say that... I've been inhaling chainsaw fumes all morning clearing brush and I'm struggling to summarize the point more concisely).

[toastywombel]

As far as I see it, I cannot find any reason why humans could have caused significant global warming. According to the data from the Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii, there has been a steady increase of carbon dioxide levels in the air since about 1920. Then according to the data from 1979 to the present taken by NASA satellites, there is not a corresponding increase in the temperature of the earth. Instead, the average global temperature increased in a very shaky pattern by about 0.5 degrees Celsius. After that, however, the temperature change varies up and down quite a bit, but continues to hover around zero. Could someone please help me to figure this out.

 

It is good to consider the last couple years have been part of a low-energy solar cycle. We are actually at the deepest solar minimum in nearly a century. Many scientists predicted that the global warming would cause the earth to continue to heat even during this cycle, but it has not gone exactly that way.

 

However, 2009 still is still in the top five hottest years on record so far. 2005 and 2007 are the hottest. That is according to NASA. So there is a trend of warming that has been going. Just because it is slow and subtle doesn't mean it is not happening.

 

http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/24/nasa-hottest-year-on-record-2009-2005-2007/

[Caleb]

What about volcano's? I bet when Mt. St. Helens erupted, it gave off more CO2 then the human car industry has ever. And considering the amount of volcano's that have erupted in the past century, don't you think that nature could be most of the problem?

 

Another thing that I have noticed is that in this last December, the United States has had nation wide snow storms, two infact. In first one, Nevada, Texas, and California got a couple inches of snow, more or less. The storm spreaded from California to the eastern United States. The second storm, Mexico got a Winter weather advisory! Is this global warming? Right now I have a 8ft snow pile in my front yard!

 

I am very confused about the issue of global warming, many say it is the human races' fault, others say it does not even exist.

[iNow]

What about volcano's? I bet when Mt. St. Helens erupted, it gave off more CO2 then the human car industry has ever.

Hi Caleb,

 

That is simply not true. When you add together the CO2 which has been put into the atmosphere by volcanoes, the amount adds up to only 1/150th of the amount of CO2 added by human activity (cars, factories, coal burning energy plants, etc.)... and that's adding ALL volcanoes, not just Mt. St. Helen's. Below are two good links which explain this simply if you want to check them out:

 

http://www.grist.org/article/volcanoes-emit-more-co2-than-humans/

http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm

 

 

Also, somewhat non-intuitively, a volcanic eruption tends to actually cool the planet a bit. This is because they release a lot of dust and soot into the atmosphere, and this blocks much of the incoming sunlight. It's like drawing closed the shades on your windows for a while. While CO2 goes up, the larger effect from a volcanic eruption tends to be one of cooling. It's called the "albedo effect." That basically just means that sunlight is being blocked from passing through the dust, and so the earth is overall a bit cooler (despite the extra CO2 which has been added).

 

 

 

 

Another thing that I have noticed is that in this last December, the United States has had nation wide snow storms, two infact. In first one, Nevada, Texas, and California got a couple inches of snow, more or less. The storm spreaded from California to the eastern United States. The second storm, Mexico got a Winter weather advisory! Is this global warming? Right now I have a 8ft snow pile in my front yard!

As I'm sure you know, Caleb, it's a bit more complicated than that. When people call it "global warming," they generally refer to the fact that the average temperatures on an annual basis have been steadily increasing. When we take the average temperature of the entire year, we get a nice normalized number. Then, when we compare that average to the years which came before, we see that the trend is one of warming. There will be slight dips and bumps from year to year, but when we look at several decades we can tell that the temperatures are going upward overall.

 

Now, another factor is that these changes in climate have other effects. For example, ice melts and causes ocean levels to rise. Also, that melting ice causes the warm currents in the ocean to change their patterns. This all has significant impacts on local weather (like ice storms in Texas and California, or droughts in the mid-west, for example). The climate system is a very complex one, and many things happen after even small changes.

 

The simple fact is that we will experience overall more intense weather activity... harsher storms... more intense hurricanes... more drought... raising sea levels... and all of that other scary stuff... but, just because it snows a day or two in Texas or is cold for three days during December in California does not mean that the average annual temperature has not been rising since humans started pumping large amounts of CO2 into our atmosphere.

 

There are other factors which effect climate, like the sun and even volcanoes, but none of them can account for either the amount of warming we are experiencing nor the speed with which that warming is occurring. Human activity, however, does... and we should be glad about that since it's something we can change... by decreasing the amount of pollution we put into the air, including CO2.

 

I hope that helps a bit with your questions. It's not an easy topic, but it's a very interesting one. Take care.

 

 

 

Edited December 30, 2009 by iNow

[jackson33]

That is simply not true. When you add together the CO2 which has been put into the atmosphere by volcanoes, the amount adds up to only 1/150th of the amount of CO2 added by human activity (cars, factories, coal burning energy plants, etc.)... and that's adding ALL volcanoes, not just Mt. St. Helen's. Below are two good links which explain this simply if you want to check them out. [/Quote]

 

iNow; I believe it's a bit more complicated; One way CO2, get into the atmoshpere...

 

Through the decay of animal and plant matter. Fungi and bacteria break down the carbon compounds in dead animals and plants and convert the carbon to carbon dioxide if oxygen is present, or methane if not. [/Quote]

 

Volcanic eruptions and metamorphism release gases into the atmosphere. Volcanic gases are primarily water vapor, carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide. The carbon dioxide released is roughly equal to the amount removed by silicate weathering [citation needed]; so the two processes, which are the chemical reverse of each other, sum to roughly zero, and do not affect the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide on time scales of less than about 100,000 years.[/Quote]

 

Forests store 86% of the planet's above-ground carbon and 73% of the planet's soil carbon.[1] At the surface of the oceans toward the poles, seawater becomes cooler and more carbonic acid is formed as CO2 becomes more soluble. This is coupled to the ocean's thermohaline circulation which transports dense surface water into the ocean's interior (see the entry on the solubility pump). [/Quote]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle

 

Roughly 23,000 acres of dead decaying timber, plant life and animals, released CO2 and additional elements into the atmosphere, over a long period of time. Remember the carbon in one pound of gasoline turns into 20 pounds of CO2, if you going to try the math.

 

When this mountain scoured, scorched or buried 230 square miles of iconic Northwest landscape, scientists got a front-row seat to nature's recovery from massive disturbance. [/Quote]

 

The blast knocked down enough timber to build 300,000 two-bedroom homes. More than 5,000 deer died, along with 1,500 elk, 15 mountain goats, 200 black bears. Fewer than half of the 32 species of small mammals known to live in the blast zone survived. [/Quote]

 

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/special/helens/story2.html

 

I fail to understand; It's my understanding moisture, dust and some other compounds actually absorb solar heat, not reflect back into space, much like retention is accomplished when the energy has been reflected from the earth. That is if it can't get in or out, wouldn't it actually cause a stalemate, or warming if anything, not a cooling?

[iNow]

Jackson - Unless your argument is that plants are dying in significantly greater number and the overall equilibrium of plant death and CO2 from decay has shifted by several orders of magnitude during the last two centuries (relative to the centuries before), then your suggestion cannot account for the change we are experiencing.

 

Further, you seem to suggest that the plant death resulting from an eruption accounts for 150 times the amount of CO2 than that which came out of the volcano itself. That's simply untenable. It makes no sense. You're arguing that the volcanoes spew huge amounts of CO2 and dust, and also result in plant death, but that plant death accounts for 150 times more than the amount of CO2 which came from the eruption itself. Sorry... No. That's simply not what happens. Plant death certainly plays a role, but if anything, those deaths release only a tiny fraction of the CO2 spewed by the volcano (not to mention that those plants will grow back quickly in the highly fertile soil around the volcano and sequester CO2 as part of their photosynthetic processes).

 

As for the part you didn't understand... Yes, that stuff will absorb and help retain heat which is already in the system, but it will also reflect heat away from outside the system... it will reflect new solar radiation away and prevent it from ever entering. It's like carrying a parasol in the summer. The shade it provides causes you to feel cooler than you would without the parasol (or umbrella). It's the same with the dust which volcanoes release. It shades the surface for a few years, resulting in overall cooling.

 

Check out the albedo link I shared above. It explains it far better than I can.

 

 

Besides... Caleb specifically suggested that the amount of CO2 released from Mt. St. Helen's was greater than the amount being pushed into the atmosphere by humans. That's simply not true, and even when you add the CO2 from all volcanoes together it is still only 1/150th the amount of CO2 humans are adding.

Edited December 30, 2009 by iNow

[toastywombel]

I have to agree with iNow and the facts.

 

On average, volcanic eruptions account for 200 million tonnes of CO2 released into the atmosphere annually. This includes volcanoes, hot springs, and any other form of geothermal venting.

 

In 2003, the release of CO2 through the burning of fossil fuels totaled 26 billion tonnes.

 

As you can see it is not even a close comparison. The CO2 released from volcanic eruptions is 0.76928% that of CO2 released from the burning of fossil fuels. Furthermore, this math is including all the volcanic activity on the earth. If one were to just include Mount St. Helens the percentage would be even smaller.

[Caleb]

How would you suggest the human race to fix the global warming effect? Burning hydrogen will only cause in more water vapor which acts like CO2 as a greenhouse gas. Please correct me if I am wrong.

[npts2020]

Water vapor from burning hydrogen is easily condensed.

[jackson33]

Jackson - Unless your argument is that plants are dying in significantly greater number and the overall equilibrium of plant death and CO2 from decay has shifted by several orders of magnitude during the last two centuries (relative to the centuries before), then your suggestion cannot account for the change we are experiencing. [/Quote]

 

inow; Briefly, I said the issue 'volcano influence' is more complicated than the eruption. Picking your source, mankind contributes 4-6% of all GH Gases, NATURE produces 94-96%. In my little world of reality, we are simply part of nature, as far as nature is concerned.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle

 

The above mentioned site, gives you a list of all sources for natural production of CO2 and in combination, YES I could argue changes over time, before mankind or before industrialization, where CO2 levels were more/less than todays. I know your concerns are the temperature may climb a couple degrees over a hundred years or that water levels will flood low lying areas, but all the money and sacrifice man could offer, will not change the fact they have before and will again. It's very possible, those efforts will increase these changes and my problem, with a political, agenda driven to change perceived indiscretion of mankind.

 

 

 

Visible radiation ranges from about 0.35 to about 0.75 micrometers in wavelength. Very little visible radiation is absorbed by gases in the atmosphere. About 30-31 percent of incoming solar radiation is reflected and about 19 percent more is absorbed, mostly by clouds and particulate matter rather than by carbon dioxide and water vapor and oxygen. Those gases absorb a small amount of visible light, but not much. This is in contrast to the infrared (wavelengths greater than about 0.75 micrometer) radiation emitted by the earth's surface. This radiation has wavelengths mostly between about 2 and 20 micrometers and over 90% of it is absorbed by water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, ozone, nitrous oxide, fluorocarbons, and other radiatively active ("greenhouse") gases on the way up. [/Quote]

 

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/faq.html

 

I have to agree with iNow and the facts. [/Quote]

 

toasty;

No one is saying volcano eruption alone give off extreme amounts of CO2, to make much difference (TODAY). First the majority of GW elements are going to be locked into the lava, as methane or carbon having never been subject to enough oxygen, required to produce the gas. However the cumulative effect in nature, by decay alone amounts to a great share of the 95% of natural sources for natures CO2 contribution, which the after effects of most larger eruption can or should be considered, just as should be periods of time, with a large number of recorded forest fires.

 

In 2003, the release of CO2 through the burning of fossil fuels totaled 26 billion tonnes. [/Quote]

 

Before I go further, do you have any idea, how many quadrillion tons of atmosphere there are hovering around the earth or how many megatons are used by plant life each year, to produce the food and oxygen us 6.7 Trillion people use each year, not including the indeterminable animal life, much of which humans eat....? A clue, 26 BT (thinks you understated), is a very, very small fraction.

 

How would you suggest the human race to fix the global warming effect? Burning hydrogen will only cause in more water vapor which acts like CO2 as a greenhouse gas. Please correct me if I am wrong.[/Quote]

 

Celeb; IMO, all the things involved with the suggestion, man causes change in the environment, boil down to weather patterns on the earth. There are probably 100 viable combinations of events that cause changes from year to year and certainly over longer periods, 10's, 1000's of years and more. Solar activity (increases luminosity 6% each billion years), the electromagnetic field (has decreased around 10% in 150 year or so and well overdue to shift poles), our travels as a solar system around the Galaxy core (every 250 million yeas and there are connections to events, in that time period), even the influence from a moon, that inches away from planet earth each year.

 

Water vapor is important, can change from season to season and around 1% of what's in the atmosphere at any one time, far more variable than CO2, Methane or anything naturally added by nature and/or mankind. I believe some, place to much emphasis on water vapor or clouds, which IMO generally offset inbound and outbound solar energy to earth and the reflection outbound. Staying on opinion, I believe a more attention should be paid to what causes our upper wind directions in the lower atmosphere, which can and do change weather patterns.

 

Keep in mind; Humans could handle 1000ppm, even 10000ppm CO2 with no problems and we know plants grown in enclosed farms (hot houses) where CO2 levels are artificially kept at 1000 or more ppm, are 50% MORE productive. Our atmosphere oxygen level are around 21% and kept there by plant life. To emphasize one point made above, humans began growing their own food thousands of years ago, today nearly all intentionally grown around the world. Each year all those trillions of plants use CO2 (6 units CO2) to grow one unit sugar (food), while producing additional oxygen.

[iNow]

I'll let someone else address the numerous flaws in your post, Jackson, and I'll limit my response to the last.

 

Yes, plants like CO2, but the CO2 they like also causes temperatures to rise, which they don't like. The challenge is if we add that much CO2 to the earth atmosphere, the warming will be huge, and the heat and change in weather patterns will have more of a negative effect on plants than the positive effect gained from the extra CO2 (not just from temperature, but also in drought and more severe weather overall).

 

In essence, the effect of higher CO2 levels is higher temperatures, more drought, and more severe weather. Higher temperatures alone are enough to negate (and often over-power) any increases in plant growth to which the higher concentrations of CO2 might contribute.

 

More below.

 

 

http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1748-9326/2/1/014002/erl7_1_014002.html

For wheat, maize and barley, negative yield impacts for the 1980s and 1990–2002 indicate that recent climate trends have, unless addressed through adaptation measures, suppressed global yield progress for these three crops. Effects are less pronounced for other crops and decades, though with significant yield suppression for soybean and sorghum since 1990, and wheat in the 1970s. All instances of significant yield effects were attributable mainly to warming temperature trends, as precipitation trends had only minor effects on yields (not shown).

 

While small when expressed as a percentage of current yields, the absolute losses in global production due to warming trends since 1981 were substantial. Wheat, maize and barley production in 2002, for example, would have been roughly 2–3% higher without climate trends since 1981.

 

<...>

 

The results suggest that recent climate trends, attributable to human activity, have had a discernible

negative

impact on global production of several major crops.

The impact of warming was likely offset to some extent by fertilization effects of increased CO2 levels.

 

<...>

 

If each additional ppm of CO2 results in ~ 0.1% yield increase for C3 crops (a yield increase of 17% for a concentration increase from the current 380 ppm to the frequently studied 550 ppm), then the ~ 35 ppm increase since 1981 corresponds to a roughly 3.5% yield increase, about the same as the 3% decrease in wheat yield due to climate trends over this period. Thus, the effects of CO2 and climate trends have likely largely cancelled each other over the past two decades, with a small net effect on yields.

This conclusion challenges model assessments that suggest global CO2 benefits will exceed temperature related losses

up to ~ 2° warming.

 

 

Finally, Jackson, I don't care about the politics of the issue. You are directly attacking the science, so focus on that. Your comments about politics are little more than an off-topic red herring and have no bearing on the FACTS which I have been sharing above.

[swansont]

toasty;

No one is saying volcano eruption alone give off extreme amounts of CO2, to make much difference (TODAY).

 

On the contrary, someone was saying that just a few posts back. It has been debunked.

[bascule]

inow; Briefly, I said the issue 'volcano influence' is more complicated than the eruption. Picking your source, mankind contributes 4-6% of all GH Gases, NATURE produces 94-96%.

 

The issue isn't total production. The issue is how much accumulates beyond the natural fluxes. A dying tree gives off CO₂ but a growing tree sequesters it. The natural sinks cannot accommodate the CO₂ that man is introducing into the climate system. Given that, recent increases in average CO₂ levels are due almost entirely to anthropogenic sources, which is the point iNow was trying to make:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Anthropogenic_greenhouse_gases

 

Since about 1750 human activity has increased the concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Measured atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide are currently 100 ppmv higher than pre-industrial levels.[21] Natural sources of carbon dioxide are more than 20 times greater than sources due to human activity,[22] but over periods longer than a few years natural sources are closely balanced by natural sinks such as weathering of continental rocks and photosynthesis of carbon compounds by plants and marine plankton. As a result of this balance, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide remained between 260 and 280 parts per million for the 10,000 years between the end of the last glacial maximum and the start of the industrial era

[jackson33]

On the contrary, someone was saying that just a few posts back. It has been debunked. [/Quote]

 

swansont; No sir, Caleb said;

 

What about volcano's? I bet when Mt. St. Helens erupted, it gave off more CO2 then the human car industry has ever. And considering the amount of volcano's that have erupted in the past century, don't you think that nature could be most of the problem? [/Quote]

 

I took it as a general statement on natures contributions, which volcano's are a listed cause. I feel sure he/she was not thinking one volcano eruption, could equal the all the cars on the planet for a hundred years in CO2 content, but that nature could. I agree.

 

The only thing to debunk, would be "nature could be most the problem" and I'd like to hear someone try. In fact the comment in total was right on, NATURE out produces all mans activities cars, factories and the works, 20-1.

 

The issue isn't total production. The issue is how much accumulates beyond the natural fluxes. A dying tree gives off CO2 but a growing tree sequesters it. The natural sinks cannot accommodate the CO2 that man is introducing into the climate system. Given that, recent increases in average CO2 levels are due almost entirely to anthropogenic sources, which is the point iNow was trying to make. [/Quote]

 

bascule; Whether successful or not, I was trying to show a chain reaction of events leading to a cumulative effect of CO2 production, 230 square miles of dead stuff, is no minor reaction nor was this sequestered. A growing tree or plant doesn't pick and choose what CO2 it digest. By the way life on that 230 acres has been coming along just fine, with hardly any dead matter still around.

 

If you hadn't noted; Mankind also plants trillions and trillion of plants each year just to feed itself, which take CO2 from the pool available, in there environment. I'll look up some figures on this later, but all natural and man caused CO2 is used in some manner every 7-15 years and does have reasonable 20-50 year half life.

 

 

 

iNow; Am late for my nightly holdem game, but will comment on your post tomorrow.

[toastywombel]

This is ridiculous jackson, caleb clearly was inferring that Mt. Saint Helens released more CO2 than the human car industry. That was simply not true. You turned it into how much CO2 is released by nature compared to the release of CO2 by the burning of fossil fuels.

 

Furthermore, that argument of nature producing more CO2 is ridiculous. You ignore the fact that there is a balance between CO2 released by nature and CO2 absorbed by nature. By releasing the amount we do through burning fossil fuels we create a surplus of CO2 that is not absorbed every year. This is from wikipedia,

 

"Carbon dioxide is released to the atmosphere by a variety of natural sources, and over 95% of total CO2 emissions would occur even if humans were not present on Earth. For example, the natural decay of organic material in forests and grasslands, such as dead trees, results in the release of about 220 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide every year. But these natural sources are nearly balanced by physical and biological processes, called natural sinks, which remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. For example, some carbon dioxide dissolves in sea water, and some is removed by plants during the photosynthesis."

 

The amount of carbon we release, though small changes the balance. Also, deforestation decreases the amount of carbon that is absorbed every year also from wikipedia,

 

"Global deforestation sharply accelerated around 1852.[74][75] It has been estimated that about half of the earth's mature tropical forests — between 7.5 million and 8 million km2 (2.9 million to 3 million sq mi) of the original 15 million to 16 million km2 (5.8 million to 6.2 million sq mi) that until 1947 covered the planet[76] — have now been cleared.[77][78] Some scientists have predicted that unless significant measures (such as seeking out and protecting old growth forests that have not been disturbed)[76] are taken on a worldwide basis, by 2030 there will only be ten percent remaining,[74][77] with another ten percent in a degraded condition.[74] 80% will have been lost, and with them hundreds of thousands of irreplaceable species.[74]"

 

This causes more carbon to be stuck in the atmosphere. Also you mentioned about how CO2 is a small percentage of the atmosphere. This is true. CO2 makes up 0.0387% of the Earth's Atmosphere. But it still plays an important role. More from wikipedia,

 

"Despite its relatively small concentration overall in the atmosphere, CO2 is an important component of Earth's atmosphere because it absorbs and emits infrared radiation at wavelengths of 4.26 µm (asymmetric stretching vibrational mode) and 14.99 µm (bending vibrational mode), thereby playing a role in the greenhouse effect.[5] See also "Carbon dioxide equivalent"."

 

Furthermore, CO2 is an extremely potent gas. Although it may be in small concentrations, if the CO2 in the atmosphere was anywhere above 1% of the total volume we all would become sickly and ill. Again from wikipedia,

 

"CO2 is toxic in higher concentrations: 1% (10,000 ppm) will make some people feel drowsy.[2] Concentrations of 7% to 10% cause dizziness, headache, visual and hearing dysfunction, and unconsciousness within a few minutes to an hour.[3]"

 

In conclusion, to use the argument that the amount we release is so small it doesn't account for nearly anything, or that nature releases much more CO2 than the burning of fossil fuels, are really ridiculous. It misses the point that there is a delicate balance that is being disrupted by artificial CO2 release. One more thing, you are aware that since the beginning of the industrial revolution CO2 levels in the atmosphere have rose 36%, according to studies using ice-core samples. I wonder what could explain the increased temperatures and CO2 levels? To totally ignore this statistic and argue that it is nature that is causing the increase is rather ignorant. If you do argue that nature is causing the greater amounts of CO2 propose something, don't just say it's nature. For your argument to be valid, it would be necessary to find a reason that would match the known facts better than the burning of fossil fuels, and so far you have not proposed one.

 

My philosophy teacher told me something once that people think rationally all the time in nearly everything that they do, but when it comes to politics and religion these rational thought processes break down. Just something you might want to keep in mind.

Edited January 1, 2010 by toastywombel

[iNow]

iNow; Am late for my nightly holdem game, but will comment on your post tomorrow.

For context, Jackson... By analogy, you're coming into this discussion holding a deuce/seven off-suit, and you don't seem to realize how weak your hand is. You're playing it like you've got a fullhouse aces over kings, when the rest of us are sitting back quietly playing our straight flush and letting you dump in all of your chips despite having such a losing hand. Relatively soon it will be time for us to show our hands, and you're going to have lost your entire stack unless you wisen up a bit and change your approach.

 

Happy twenty-ten, man. I hope you did better this evening that Darvin Moon did at the final table in the '09 WSOP (translated: I hope your knowledge of poker is better than your knowledge of climate change).

[npts2020]

Jackson33; One thing you have mentioned at least twice now that nobody seems to have addressed is that humans grow plants for their own use and you claim that it helps sequester CO2, which is true. However, nearly anywhere we grow plants for our own use there would be some growing there anyway, without any human input. Unless you are claiming that the plants we grow for agriculture are better at sequestering CO2 than the ones that would grow there naturally, there should be little difference. I don't think I am going too far out on a limb to say if there is a difference, it should be the other way around. Plants that grow naturally are rarely killed by harvesting or other cause before they die naturally after a full life cycle. I will look for the source but IIRC agricultural land is rarely as efficient a CO2 sink as it would be if left fallow. Sorry if it seems like I am "piling on" but I think this point is important

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

A recent reference for what I am talking about.

[toastywombel]

How would you suggest the human race to fix the global warming effect? Burning hydrogen will only cause in more water vapor which acts like CO2 as a greenhouse gas. Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

There are many ways to try and fix the CO2 problem. However, many of them would cost lots of money. One being wind turbines and solar farms. This could also create a new industry of technicians who repair and manufacture solar farms and wind turbines.

 

Of course these do not work everywhere though. In harsh weather climates solar panels are not so great. They are delicate so they are easily broken by hail or objects in high wind situations. Wind turbines are pretty good as long as they are equipped with a speed regulating clutch. If not, they can end up spinning so fast they rip apart.

 

There are also ways of harnessing electricity from the power of oceanic waves.

 

Geothermal heating and Nuclear Power are also promising ways. Although nuclear power creates waste we can implement a model like France where we recycle much of that waste.

 

If we were to switch all the power we get from coal power plants to getting it from solar, wind farms, oceanic waves, and nuclear power we would initially have to curb our energy use because these sources might not be initially as reliable as coal. It would be important to continue to make appliances more energy efficient as we have been doing so far.

 

Also a smart grid, that can store and re-direct power to where it is needed would be important. This would allow the electricity from these sources to be used more efficiently.

 

As for replacing the internal combustion engine, that seems a little more daunting. Of course we will need internal combustion engines for high powered construction vehicles and for trucks. However, for regular commuting cars, they can be replaced with electric cars. For this to work we would have to convert many of our gas stations to battery exchange stations. Where one could go and exchange their dead battery for a new fully charged on, much like how people exchange propane tanks. This would require many infrastructure overhauls, although daunting it is possible.

 

Another way we can reduce the amount of CO2 is by re-planting and conserving forests. This is already being done by many groups today.

 

Here is a link to many ways to conserve energy, some of them I have covered above, but some not so much.

 

http://globalwarming-facts.info/50-tips.html

 

Hope this helps.

[bascule]

Burning hydrogen will only cause in more water vapor which acts like CO2 as a greenhouse gas. Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

1) Why would we burn hydrogen when we can use it in far more efficient fuel cells?

2) Unlike CO₂, water vapor exits the atmosphere: it's called rain.

[jackson33]

npts; Well composed and polite reply, by you...

 

1- Normally I no longer get involved in AGW debate. I find it very similar to discussing religion, where opinions from laymen (including myself) are based on other writings and opinions taken from scientist, which are NO LESS divided than the laymen.

 

2- Your site and explanations are a good example, which I could counter with just as many articles with opposing viewpoints. Other articles acceptable to 'e! Science News' are as slanted as the one you presented.

 

http://esciencenews.com/topics/earth.climate

 

3- I'm not convinced many to most advocates for AGW, or at least those desiring to change society, it's attitudes for consumption, the corporate structure, adopting socialism, and advocates for every little agenda that can't survive on there own merits (using AGW in be involved) are not politically driven. Add the media, advertisers to media, then the political agenda itself, to me there is a systematic drive to aid and abet a false premise or at least overblown a seemingly minor issue, in my judgment.

 

4- Most importantly, I HAD been involved, with the Global Cooling debates or other environmental discussions dating back to the 1940's, which had even then worked there way into education. For instance, we were taught, in the early 50's, the human species was doomed to extinction (before 2000) for more than one reason, mostly for over population and limitations of the soil to produce food, think the big pitch being 4 inch of fertile soil had been reduced to 2 and would eventually be unable to produce anything. Later the pending Ice Age became the issue and the next ice age was inevitable as Ice was moving south of the Arctic at an alarming rate, where in fact in the mid 30's, it was less than claimed several time in recent years. Then it became, Peak Oil and at one point NO natural gas was available. All of this and many other inevitable, we were told by media, came from REAL Scientist and science could not be argued with....

 

Food today, especially in the US and Canada is grown where very little forest (terrestrial ecosystems/CO2 sinks) had been. Most of today large agriculture fields were grasslands and where irrigation is used, nothing much grew at all. California, Arizona, South/West Texas are good examples, where a good share of all our food supply comes from today, much being grown for year round consumption.

 

As for the amount of CO2 consumed in these fields; Compared to what was, I'd GUESS. it must be tremendous and it's known the process speeds up (productivity) with added CO2. We basically eat the seeds, roots or leaves of plants, which are loaded with stored carbon, produced from CO2/Water/Energy.

 

Sorry if it seems like I am "piling on" but I think this point is important. [/Quote]

 

Obviously, I agree it is a point, but a positive one and one that makes humans part of the natural Carbon Cycle, in my opinion. As for piling on; I KNOW and expect when I post on certain issues on certain forums, what to expect and I don't bother spending time on thread issues, if I happen to agree with them in the first place. This actually adds to the theme of my discussion this thread, since NO ONE would argue my points, on a conservative political forum. Like it or not, agree or not the foundation for AGW (opposed to GW) IMO is a politically based issue.

 

 

iNow; Interesting comments...In my old age I don't get out much and play Texas Holdem online. I've found it's more playing the software, than other players or that percentages/odds mean very little. Wish I could be the D. Moon, to AGW debate, as he is to Poker? However I do make the final table (10 cent, 360 seat tournament, all I play lately) and it's a different game, at that point. One on one, with less chips is almost a joke, playing software, as I'll usually win. Boy, talk about name calling, I get my share during every tournament.

 

As for my hand on AGW (must be kept separate from natural cycles) I believe it's more comparable to a Q/K, at least playable. Basically and to repeat; The potential demands on Society for changing drastically (cost/sacrifice), opposed to crossing some bridge, slowly testing its strength (systematic/acceptance of technology) as we cross, to me seems out of line and ridiculous. Personally and for reasons mentioned, I believe the entire issue that mankind is capable of altering any natural cycle is not conceivable, but that for other reason, we should and in time will adapt to better/more efficient, energy sources.

 

Yes, happy 20-10 (I like that) and will say it that way also, to you and all persons reading this thread. It's most certainly going to be an interesting political year.

[bascule]

opinions taken from scientist, which are NO LESS divided than the laymen

 

Almost every scientific institution in the world with national or international standing recognizes the reality of anthropogenically-forced climate change:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

 

None of these institutions dispute it. A few are noncomittal.

 

97% of actively publishing climate scientists agree that global warming is primarily caused by human activities such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation. See: http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

[StringJunky]

I've found a lecture given by James Lovelock in Canada a few months ago that I think is pertinent to this thread. I think it's part of a tour promoting his latest book 'The Vanishing Face of Gaia'...he touches on many aspects discussed here. It's in five parts of ten minutes each:

 

http://www.youtube.com/user/CorporateKnights#p/a/f/2/Eg7Jt_Yzl1o