Human Induced Global Warming - Fact or Fiction

[CHEVY Member Find all posts View Profile Close CHEVY]

Re: Human Induced Global Warming - Fact or Fiction

Besides the retreating glaciers which you can see from the plane

gsmiley, wasnt most of north America covered in glaciers at one time ?

Here in Oz I did a tour boat trip up the Gordon river in Tasmania. I was dreamily admiring the huge old trees and impenatrable bush that seemed as though it had been there forever.... the tour guide comes over the pa and says, 10,000 years ago this was all ice

[Guest Close Marc1]

Re: Human Induced Global Warming - Fact or Fiction

So considering the many learned colleagues posting here, can anyone tell me how reducing by 30% CO2 in 20 or 30 years when man made CO2 contributes 0.117% to the greenhouse effect will achieve anything at all?

Has anyone registered the CON achieved by not disclosing all the gases responsible for the very useful and very natural and essential for life Greenhouse effect?

1. The following table was constructed from data published by the U.S. Department of Energy (1) and other sources, summarizing concentrations of the various atmospheric greenhouse gases. Because some of the concentrations are very small the numbers are stated in parts per billion. DOE chose to NOT show water vapor as a greenhouse gas!

TABLE 1. The Important Greenhouse Gases (except water vapor)
U.S. Department of Energy, (October, 2000) (1) (all concentrations expressed in parts per billion) Pre-industrial baseline Natural additions Man-made additions Total (ppb)
Concentration
Percent of Total Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 99.438%
Methane (CH4) 0.471%
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 0.084%
Misc. Gases ( CFC's, etc.) 0.007%
Total 100.00%


2. Using appropriate corrections for the Global Warming Potential of the respective gases provides the following more meaningful comparison of greenhouse gases, based on the conversion:
( concentration )X ( the appropriate GWP multiplier (2) (3) of each gas relative to CO2 ) = greenhouse contribution.:
TABLE 2. Atmospheric Greenhouse Gases (except water vapor)
adjusted for heat retention characteristics, relative to CO2
This table adjusts values in Table 1 to compare greenhouse gases equally with respect to CO2.

Contribution
Percent of Total (new)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 72.369%
Methane (CH4) 7.199%
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 19.000%
CFC's (and other misc. gases) see data 1.432%
Total 100.000%
NOTE: GWP (Global Warming Potential) is used to contrast different greenhouse gases relative to CO2.







Role of Atmospheric Greenhouse Gases
(man-made and natural) as a % of Relative
Contribution to the "Greenhouse Effect" Based on concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics Percent of Total Percent of Total --adjusted for water vapor
Water vapor ----- 95.000%
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 72.369% 3.618%
Methane (CH4) 7.100% 0.360%
Nitrous oxide (N2O) 19.000% 0.950%
CFC's (and other misc. gases) 1.432% 0.072%
Total 100.000% 100.000%








. Of course, even among the remaining 5% of non-water vapor greenhouse gases, humans contribute only a very small part (and human contributions to water vapor are negligible). Constructed from data in Table 1, the charts (below) illustrate graphically how much of each greenhouse gas is natural vs how much is man-made. These allocations are used for the next and final step in this analysis-- total man-made contributions to the greenhouse effect. Units are expressed to 3 significant digits in order to reduce rounding errors for those who wish to walk through the calculations, not to imply numerical precision as there is some variation among various researchers.

Putting it all together:
total human greenhouse gascontributions
add up to about 0.28% of thegreenhouse effect.

[Qwarla Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Qwarla]

Re: Human Induced Global Warming - Fact or Fiction

Looking at the above graphs one would have to ask why the hell are they making such a fuss about a bit of CO2 when it is easy to see CFC's and other gasses are the bigger proportion followed by Methane, and Nitrous Oxide.

[CHEVY Member Find all posts View Profile Close CHEVY]

Re: Human Induced Global Warming - Fact or Fiction

..."the many learned colleagues posting here"... Marc1, this dumb farm boys feeling a little left out


Reading in another forum - another name for Nitrox oxide is laughing gas, the other name for CO2 is Hysteria gas

[Alga Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Alga]

Re: Human Induced Global Warming - Fact or Fiction

Marc1, I find your graphs and whole post rather hard to understand, I'm not a scientist, bureaucrat nor academic, but do believe from my humble viewpoint it makes no sense at all. You state it's in parts per billion, yet within your entire post there are no figures given in PPB, just percentages. Plus I do believe atmospheric pollutants are in pars per million, not billion which would dramatically change any statistics.

I do believe science wants to restrict the amount of CO2 to less than 450 PPM because they believe that is the point where our climate will begin to undergo dramatic life threatening change, your post only states percentages and in PPB compared to all other information I have read, which is always displayed in PPM. Your post looks like it was put together by a politician, bureaucrat or academic as it makes no sense and is designed to give a false impression, by changing the concentration calculations to cover the reality.

Anyone who can't see our planet is in crisis, irrelevant as to the actual cause is an ideological idiot. The facts are the human race is destroying the life force of this planet and those too stupid to accept it and do decent things to turn it around, which in my mind is impossible until we rid the planet of huge cities and at least 60% of the human population. Then those sort of people deserve to be wiped out by nature as quickly as possible, to give the sane evolved of the planet, a change to save it from total destruction, atmospherically, biologically and environmentally.

[Captain Echidna Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Captain Echidna]

Re: Human Induced Global Warming - Fact or Fiction

Why are we devoting thread to the discussion around the findings of a fossil fuel funded scientist? What would we expect to find from the graph made by someone funded from fossil fuel? I dont think they would find that global warming is a problem we should deal with are they?

A scientist who is funded from fossil fuel is hardly gong to say we should use less fossil fuel. Anyone who cant see that its not a reliable source is not smart. Its like asking your bank should you go further into debt, your doctor is regular heath checks a good idea, a real estate agent is it a good time to buy a house. The bias is obvious. A bit like a joke, "I heard the secret of happyness is a large bowl of sourcraut daily, Who told you that? A cabbage farmer!"

The nice pie charts leave obvious holes. So the majority of CO2 is "natural" Where would it go normally? into rainforests, which humans are destroying at a great rate. So even if it got there naturally, its staying there unnaturally.

This "science" does not hold up to simple scrutiny. When I see a post that does, I may change my mind. So far I have only seen evidence to fossil fuel companies are trying to push their own agenda.

[Guest Close Marc1]

Re: Human Induced Global Warming - Fact or Fiction

Looking at the above graphs one would have to ask why the hell are they making such a fuss about a bit of CO2 when it is easy to see CFC's and other gasses are the bigger proportion followed by Methane, and Nitrous Oxide.

Well ... not really. When those gases are our responsibility in a higher proportion, you have to look it all into perspective.
Look at the bar graph in my previous post and you will see it all in relation to each other. CO2 is by far the highest from all greenhouse gases if you don't take water into account.
Once you see the whole picture you realize that CO2 just as the rest of the gases play a minuscule role. The proportion that can be attributed to human ctivity play an even smaller role and it makes no sense to devote any effort to "reduce" them, even is such would be possible at all.

Much better to devote money to alternative energy sources.

[Guest Close Marc1]

Re: Human Induced Global Warming - Fact or Fiction

Marc1, I find your graphs and whole post rather hard to understand, I'm not a scientist, bureaucrat nor academic, but do believe from my humble viewpoint it makes no sense at all. You state it's in parts per billion, yet within your entire post there are no figures given in PPB, just percentages. Plus I do believe atmospheric pollutants are in pars per million, not billion which would dramatically change any statistics.

Sorry Alga, but they are not "my" graphs. Taken from here
Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers

I tried to copy and paste the tables and they came up OK yet when submitted, they change format to a garble so I had to edit them by hand, so some of the info is lost.
See the original and the explanation. No need for any specialized education to understand it.

[Guest Close Marc1]

Re: Human Induced Global Warming - Fact or Fiction

Take the GLobal Warming test !!

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Gl...est/start.html

[Guest Close Marc1]

Re: Human Induced Global Warming - Fact or Fiction

Lets consider a few very simple facts once more:

CO2 accounts for 0.04% of the atmosphere.
CO2 contributes in 3.6% to the total of greenhouse effect (95% is due to water)
From that 3.6% only 0.117 is due to human activity

Can someone comment on the absurdity of attempting to reduce 0.117 by any percentage even 100% please?

[CHEVY Member Find all posts View Profile Close CHEVY]

Re: Human Induced Global Warming - Fact or Fiction

rainforests, which humans are destroying at a great rate

Captain Echidna, agreed there. We carnt blame the coal miners for that though.

[CHEVY Member Find all posts View Profile Close CHEVY]

Re: Human Induced Global Warming - Fact or Fiction

gsmiley, yes I have read about that (in Flannery - can I trust the info )
We would probably agree on many issues. My post re the Gordon river was more to mention that climate changes naturaly.

Whilst I am becoming more and more doubtful that human produced CO2 and methane have any impact on the global climate, I still wonder about the jungle/tree clearing impact.

[pangit Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close pangit]

Re: Human Induced Global Warming - Fact or Fiction

Marc please stop going on about water vapour. It is a red herring.

From The New Scientist Climate Myths article from last year (which BTW debunks just about all your arguements):

So why aren't climate scientists a lot more worried about water vapour than about CO2? The answer has to do with how long greenhouse gases persist in the atmosphere. For water, the average is just a few days.

More here: Climate myths: CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas.

[Guest Close Marc1]

Re: Human Induced Global Warming - Fact or Fiction

Water vapour and the greenhouse effect
Water vapour - A greenhouse gas

Climatic effects of water vapour
The climatic effects of water vapour - physicsworld.com

Wikipedia
Role of water vapor


Increasing water vapor at Boulder, Colorado.


Water vapor is a naturally occurring greenhouse gas and accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect, between 36% and 66%.[20] Water vapor concentrations fluctuate regionally, but human activity does not directly affect water vapor concentrations except at local scales (for example, near irrigated fields).

Water vapor is the most common greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, accounting for about 60 to 70 percent of the natural greenhouse effect. Humans do not have a significant direct impact on water vapor levels in the atmosphere.
Greenhouse Effect - MSN Encarta

Water vapor in the climate system
AGU Web Site: Water Vapor in the Climate System. A Special Report.

The real "inconvenient truth"
JunkScience.com -- The Real Inconvenient Truth: Greenhouse, global warming and some facts

[Guest Close Marc1]

Re: Human Induced Global Warming - Fact or Fiction

Marc please stop going on about water vapour. It is a red herring.
More here: Climate myths: CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas.

Red herring right?

From your own source:

A simplified summary is that about 50% of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapour, 25% due to clouds, 20% to CO2, with other gases accounting for the remainder.

The global warming CON is very strong and has thousands of supporters who are ready to massage the truth in order to keep their cushy jobs, large grants, generous funding and chauffeured limousine (fueled by biodiesel of course) Of course they will do anything in theri power to discredit the ever growing dissenting voices.

However this voices will soon become a roar. Time will tell.