@Sixy: I'm just saying that his comment was very neutral. People DO seem to get weather and climate confused on either side of the argument.
Climate Change (nee Global Warming) Strkes Again!!
by slipnslidemaster 108 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
villabolo
Slipandfall: Global Warming predicted an increase in precipitation due to the fact that the Oceans are getting warmer. That precipitation could be either rain or snow. Snow?, you may say. Well the average temperature increase GLOBALLY is about 2 degrees from the 1900's. Assuming, for the sake of simplicity, that the average applied to a location that used to average 25 degrees at this time of year doing the math will get you 25 + 2 degrees. That is still enough to generate snow.
So please don't confuse amount of snow with mere temperature. In Alaska, for instance, the branches of trees were snapping because they were not used to the wet warm snow they started getting recently which is heavier than the colder drier snow they used to get. Eventually, an intense Global Warming scenario will get to the point where there is no subfreezing weather at all in the Continental United States but that is decades or a century or two away. That assuming business as usual or a tipping point in the Siberian permafrost.
villabolo
-
BurnTheShips
Don't we have any greenhouse effect/anthropogenic global warming experts here that can tell us what proportion of the CO2 dumped into the atmosphere globally is human caused? After all, it has been basic science since, like, 6of9 was, like, abortable 'n stuff.
BTS
-
besty
a brief excursion in the direction of wikipedia clarifies the difference between climate change and global warming, making the title of the thread erm....uninformed....
-
SixofNine
Inquiring minds want to know.
Indeed they do. Devious, political minds want to avoid the very simple, straightforward question I posed.
But for the inquiring minds on the forum:
Nature emits about 210 Gigatons of carbon per year into the air, and absorbs 213.8 gigatons of carbon per year from the air.
Humans emit 7.1 gigatons of carbon into the air every year, and we absorb zero from the air.Notice, from the answer, what BTS devious, political mind has done by asking that question; he's equated two very different things. Same substance, C02, but very different context. Nature has an emit/absorb cycle. Industrialized humans have an emit/emit-some-more cycle. IOW, even if the answer was only 1%, in 10 years, the answer is 10% (btw, the answer is really around 3% per year).
Put another way, the answer is 100% of the C02 "put" (ie: outside of nature) into the atmosphere is anthropogenic.
Pretty basic ninth grade Earth Science "carbon cycle" stuff really.
-
SixofNine
People DO seem to get weather and climate confused on either side of the argument.
I'm sure it happens, but at least when an ignoramous on the climate-change-is-real side of the aisle makes that mistake, they've got a basic, underlying scientific theory to back them up, even if anecdotal observations are misread. IOW, they aren't (usually) just saying "dang, it's hot today in El Paso, guess that'll show those damn deniers". And if it happens that they do say that, well then teh stupid is every bit as painful (in fact more so) as when it comes from your side of the aisle.
But goddamn you gave me a hell of a headache with your original post.
-
BurnTheShips
Shit, that's only what, 3% percent of the total emissions by Sixy's unsourced ephemera? At least if my publik skool rithmetic can be trusted. I'm breathless.
Tom V. Segalstad, Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, The University of Oslo, Norway:
In a paper recently published in the international peer-reviewed journal Energy & Fuels, Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh (2009), Professor of Energy Conversion at The Ohio State University, addresses the residence time (RT) of anthropogenic CO 2 in the air. He finds that the RT for bulk atmospheric CO 2 , the molecule 12 CO 2 , is ~5 years, in good agreement with other cited sources (Segalstad, 1998), while the RT for the trace molecule 14 CO 2 is ~16 years. Both of these residence times are much shorter than what is claimed by the IPCC. The rising concentration of atmospheric CO 2 in the last century is not consistent with supply from anthropogenic sources. Such anthropogenic sources account for less than 5% of the present atmosphere, compared to the major input/output from natural sources (~95%). Hence, anthropogenic CO 2 is too small to be a significant or relevant factor in the global warming process, particularly when comparing with the far more potent greenhouse gas water vapor. The rising atmospheric CO 2 is the outcome of rising temperature rather than vice versa. Correspondingly, Dr. Essenhigh concludes that the politically driven target of capture and sequestration of carbon from combustion sources would be a major and pointless waste of physical and financial resources.
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N31/EDIT.php
BTS
-
JWoods
Here is a really cute post from/about the "Build a Bear" people to help little kids (who still believe in Santa Claus) believe in Globar Warming:
http://biggovernment.com/2009/12/22/build-a-climate-scare-why-you-should-boycott-build-a-bear/
-
villabolo
Burns:
"Six, Warmies, et al: What percentage of the yearly global CO2 put into the atmosphere is anthropogenic?
Inquiring minds want to know."
That question is close to being meaningless or at most irrelevant. First of all where would an increase in natural CO2 come from? For example there has been an increase from 280ppm to 380ppm (about 35%) since the 1950's. If a good portion of that came from "natural" sources the natural source(s) it came from should stick out like a sore thumb. "Natural" though would mean any source that mankinds activities are not influencing.
Coal and petroleum are "natural" but their burning in prodigious quantities is anthropogenic. The Siberian permafrost is, again, "natural" but it's thawing out is anthropogenic.
As for the increase of 100ppm that has occured in the past several decades there is no "natural" cause that could account for that. However when climatologists do the math, and it's relatively easy to count how much coal and oil we've burnt.
villabolo
-
BurnTheShips
The system has a metric asston of carbon (that's the scientific term for you laymorons), and had a LOT more than in the not too distant past. We are adding only a drop to to the bucket. All the warmies get all zOMG GTFO!! over it. Besides, WTF is "natural CO2"? Ain't we natural bro?
J ust how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?
It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.
This point is so crucial to the debate over global warming that how water vapor is or isn't factored into an analysis of Earth's greenhouse gases makes the difference between describing a significant human contribution to the greenhouse effect, or a negligible one.
Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas , accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4) . Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.) , are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).
Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.
" I can only see one element of the climate system capable of generating these fast, global changes, that is, changes in the tropical atmosphere leading to changes in the inventory of the earth's most powerful greenhouse gas-- water vapor. "
Dr. Wallace Broecker , a leading world authority on climate
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University,
lecture presented at R. A. Daly Lecture at the American Geophysical Union's
spring meeting in Baltimore, Md., May 1996." There is no dispute at all about the fact that even if punctiliously observed, (the Kyoto Protocol) would have an imperceptible effect on future temperatures -- one-twentieth of a degree by 2050. "
Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist
Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia,
and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service;
in a Sept. 10, 2001 Letter to Editor, Wall Street Journal
Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant