Global Warming Cont...

[DogtorEvil]

Total human contributions to greenhouse gases account for only about 0.28% of the "greenhouse effect" (Figure 2). Anthropogenic (man-made) carbon dioxide (CO2) comprises about 0.117% of this total, and man-made sources of other gases ( methane, nitrous oxide (NOX), other misc. gases) contributes another 0.163% .

[DogtorEvil]

You know, all those coal-fired power plants around the world and all those cars burning gasoline and diesel not to mention those fertilzer plants and those petro-chemical plants and those steel plants and coke plants.

CO2 emissions from "human" sources other than car and power generation have DECREASED

[saltydawg]

Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.

Dogtor, I think your post shows why you are having a hard time accepting gw. You are thinking that 6 billion tons of CO2 from human sources is insignificant compared to the 157 billion tons from all sources (not 186 billion tons).

The problem is that the 90 billion tons of CO2 from the oceans and the 60 billions tons from the biosphere that cycles through the atmosphere are contained within a "closed" carbon cycle system which was very finely balanced before mankind entered the picture 10,000 years ago. Our climate system WAS based on this closed carbon system and the orbitial controls. CO2 levels in the atmosphere was about 270 ppm 12500 years ago and if mankind had not started building his civilization it would currently be about 240 ppm. The fact is that the 6 billion tons of CO2 we dump into the atmosphere DOES make a large impact on our climate because the climate is sensitive to the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.

[saltydawg]

At 368 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth's atmosphere-- less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth's current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished.

The level of CO2 in the atmosphere is NOW 383 ppm. It goes up 3.5 ppm every year so if quote a source 7 years old the number is off by a good amount.

Yes, CO2 is a tiny part of the atmosphere. However, it is a VERY potent greenhouse gas. If we remove that tiny amount of CO2 from the atmosphere the average global temperature would be 12F. You would be freeezing your butt off!

Sure, in past geologic times the CO2 level in the atmosphere was a lot higher. But then, there was no ice sheet on the
south Pole and the sea level was 300 ft higher. And talk about tropical heat wave with no air conditioning you are talking about Sweat City.

[saltydawg]

Total human contributions to greenhouse gases account for only about 0.28% of the "greenhouse effect" (Figure 2). Anthropogenic (man-made) carbon dioxide (CO2) comprises about 0.117% of this total, and man-made sources of other gases ( methane, nitrous oxide (NOX), other misc. gases) contributes another 0.163% .

Not sure how you came up with these figures. Please explain.

[saltydawg]

CO2 emissions from "human" sources other than car and power generation have DECREASED

Which "other" sources are you referring to and how much have they decreased? Power generation and transportation are the main sources of human emission of CO2 and those emissions are INCREASING.

[Dirtydawg]

salty, just fyi. There may not be too much political board talking today. Today is the day when high school football players sent letters to schools saying they want to play for them. So, most of us will be paying more attention to who we get than staying up on politics.

[saltydawg]

salty, just fyi. There may not be too much political board talking today. Today is the day when high school football players sent letters to schools saying they want to play for them. So, most of us will be paying more attention to who we get than staying up on politics.

The sports section should be really humming today then.

[Dirtydawg]

The sports section should be really humming today then.

Actually, it looks like we got our information alot quicker than normal, so, this section might see the usual traffic.

[Guisslapp]

Total human contributions to greenhouse gases account for only about 0.28% of the "greenhouse effect" (Figure 2). Anthropogenic (man-made) carbon dioxide (CO2) comprises about 0.117% of this total, and man-made sources of other gases ( methane, nitrous oxide (NOX), other misc. gases) contributes another 0.163% .

Or even more significant (from the same article)

"Total atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) -- both man-made and natural-- is only about 3.62% of the overall greenhouse effect-- a big difference from the 72.37% figure in Table 2, which ignored water!"

Thus man-made C02 = .117% of ALL CO2 AND ALL CO2 makes up only 3.62 percent of overall greenhouse effect

[Bill Pup60]

My math isn't that good. If you have 2000 scientists say increasing levels of CO2 are increasong our average global temperature, and you have 6 who say that it isn't what percentage do you come up with?

Just where did you get the 2000 for and 6 against????? Your numbers are absurd!!!

There are a hell of lot more than 6 who disagree. Hell, a lot of the true scientists in IPCC disagree but none of thier concerns ever get past the political hacks who cherry pick the study results to produce the "final report". Further,many of thoses in the huge numbers of those "scientists" supporting GW as man made are not really scientists at all. Many are political hacks masquerading behind PHD's in decidedly non-scientific fields. Many others who may have legitimate credentials have jobs that depend on the GW bandwagon and do what they have to to keep their jobs.

Conversely, many of those outside the IPCC who disagree are continually derided by the leftist media, but that same media will not print their side of the debate. It's sort of like having a trial where only one side gets to present any evidence.

[saltydawg]

Just where did you get the 2000 for and 6 against????? Your numbers are absurd!!!

There are a hell of lot more than 6 who disagree. Hell, a lot of the true scientists in IPCC disagree but none of thier concerns ever get past the political hacks who cherry pick the study results to produce the "final report". Further,many of thoses in the huge numbers of those "scientists" supporting GW as man made are not really scientists at all. Many are political hacks masquerading behind PHD's in decidedly non-scientific fields. Many others who may have legitimate credentials have jobs that depend on the GW bandwagon and do what they have to to keep their jobs.

Conversely, many of those outside the IPCC who disagree are continually derided by the leftist media, but that same media will not print their side of the debate. It's sort of like having a trial where only one side gets to present any evidence.

Bill, let me ask you this. Since we know that gw is taking place and is not due to orbital controls, increases in solar output, or cosmic rays, what in the world is causing it. Water vapor is not increasing. but just look at the increases in CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

[arkansasbob]

Bill, let me ask you this. Since we know that gw is taking place and is not due to orbital controls, increases in solar output, or cosmic rays, what in the world is causing it. Water vapor is not increasing. but just look at the increases in CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

first, we DON'T know that solar output is not the cause (or part of it). second, how do you know that water vapor is not increasing? the humidity on my front doorstep is different than it is a quarter mile away on the bank of chigger creek. and in 15 minutes, it will have changed in both places. there is no way you could get an accurate measure of atmospheric water vapor worldwide. another factor that has a HUGE impact on temperatures is cloud cover, which of course is greatly influenced by the amount of water vapor in the air. water vapor and clouds have a much, much bigger effect on surface temperatures than any of the small-time greenhouse gases.

the global climate models are bogus. your "12 degrees F without co2" is apparently based on those models (if not, then what?). scientists receiving government funding will have to find some other feild to research if they prove that global warming is bogus. therefore, what they say cannot be trusted. scientists that receive funding from "environmental organizations" obviously have an agenda and cannot be trusted. scientists receiving money from oil companies are tainted and thus cannot be trusted. the media thrive on junk science scares -- there's a new one every week -- they cannot be trusted. So there are two options:

1)just decide arbitrarily whom you will believe (with the news media controlling most of the information available, we know which side most uninformed people will fall on), or
2)really look at the research and decide which side is based in solid fact.

i've done #2, which have you done?

[saltydawg]

first, we DON'T know that solar output is not the cause (or part of it). second, how do you know that water vapor is not increasing? the humidity on my front doorstep is different than it is a quarter mile away on the bank of chigger creek. and in 15 minutes, it will have changed in both places. there is no way you could get an accurate measure of atmospheric water vapor worldwide. another factor that has a HUGE impact on temperatures is cloud cover, which of course is greatly influenced by the amount of water vapor in the air. water vapor and clouds have a much, much bigger effect on surface temperatures than any of the small-time greenhouse gases.

the global climate models are bogus. your "12 degrees F without co2" is apparently based on those models (if not, then what?). scientists receiving government funding will have to find some other feild to research if they prove that global warming is bogus. therefore, what they say cannot be trusted. scientists that receive funding from "environmental organizations" obviously have an agenda and cannot be trusted. scientists receiving money from oil companies are tainted and thus cannot be trusted. the media thrive on junk science scares -- there's a new one every week -- they cannot be trusted. So there are two options:

1)just decide arbitrarily whom you will believe (with the news media controlling most of the information available, we know which side most uninformed people will fall on), or
2)really look at the research and decide which side is based in solid fact.

i've done #2, which have you done?

Gee whiz, I've done #2 also. i get my information from science magazines. Where do you get your information?

The "12F without greenhouse gases which includes waer vapor" is based not on models but atmospheric physics.

To say that gw is a junk science scare is absurd.

Take a look at solar output,,,,doesn't change much in the short term.

[johnnylightnin]

i get my information from science magazines.

Which magazines? Are we talking about scientific (peer reviewed) journals or pop science mags?