Global warming

[quadrapod]

i have heard of albedo but only as the measurement of surface reflectivity. however I have never heard of it being applied to global warming.

 

as far as man prospering from it. it just doesn’t seem likely only roads were made from solar cells but that wouldn’t pay off nearly as much as it would cost.

 

if it is ignored for to long the water level will slowly rise. it wont happen instantly but there will be a substantial rise. there will be plenty of time to leave the hazard zones and nobody should be hurt should the ice caps entirely melt.

[emptyspaces]

What I'd like to know is how can anyone justify pouring tons and tons of pollution into the air and water every day? Doesn't it seem logical that this is a bad thing?

[InfiniteNow]

What I'd like to know is how can anyone justify pouring tons and tons of pollution into the air and water every day? Doesn't it seem logical that this is a bad thing?

 

While I disagree with it, the justification is in their bottom line. They put greater importance on profit than long-term health of the environment. It's money, avarice, and short-sighted ignorance.

[jackson33]

What I'd like to know is how can anyone justify pouring tons and tons of pollution into the air and water every day? Doesn't it seem logical that this is a bad thing?

 

you explain to me why plants die, animals breath and volcanoes erupt and then go to humans who also breath, let gas and produce 99% of the CO2 emissions, then i will explain why our 1% produced by factories and autos is so easily covered by natures natural reaction.

 

the actual productions of CO2 in the US, with its 300 million people is a very modest increase from the days of wagon trains, un-stoppable forest fires heads of animals, when a few million lived, no cars or industry...i won't even begin to mention the quantities of products now produce to feed the world and give comfort to so many.

 

take out NYC sewage treatment plants alone, let it rot and check the difference in air quality. give a little credit, when due and much is due...

 

poring stuff into the waters is an illegal act, should be reported and not to report an illegal act. i am not sure how this is done, but please advise where you think CO2 is being poured into water. metals do rust in water and some life thrives on this result. many long ago sunken ships are now homes to many species and billions of life forms.

[Boerseun]

you explain to me why plants die, animals breath and volcanoes erupt and then go to humans who also breath, let gas and produce 99% of the CO2 emissions, then i will explain why our 1% produced by factories and autos is so easily covered by natures natural reaction.

1%? You sure of that? Care to back that up?

the actual productions of CO2 in the US, with its 300 million people is a very modest increase from the days of wagon trains, un-stoppable forest fires heads of animals, when a few million lived, no cars or industry...

...care to back that up?

[TheBigDog]

What I'd like to know is how can anyone justify pouring tons and tons of pollution into the air and water every day? Doesn't it seem logical that this is a bad thing?

Some things look illogical at first glance, but operate in a counterintuitive fashion. Like lowering taxes to increase tax revenues. Not all of what is called pollution is bad for the environment. Different people have different ideas of what is good and bad. Who is right and who is wrong? Canyou be more specific in your objection to dumping in water and air? Then we can answer without being vague.

 

Where are all the straw man watch dogs? Oh, yeah, he is on the correct side of the argument, so there is no foul.

 

Bill

[jackson33]

1%? You sure of that? Care to back that up?

 

...care to back that up?

 

on average, nature contributes 94-95% of all CO2 contaminants to the atmosphere. mans activity 5-6% in total to the 100%. of mans efforts agriculture is the highest, with mining a distant second and just breathing is up there. think is 2 1/2 pounds per human per day. much of mankind uses animals for transporting goods and people, horse or ox the preferred (very heavy contributors). i have no idea how much comes from discharging waste from the human body, but it is considerable. i have seen figures above and below one percent but use one for total Auto/Manufacturing. you can google the subject, average out the various view and find i am being generous.

[jackson33]

only estimates are available on CO2, from the 1950's and before. even these show a less than one percent total change in CO2 over the past 100 years. they do infer a .5% increase over the past 30 years, but then people and their needs have increased 20%. also keep in mind Mt. St Helen's discharged a three years supply in two hours, which just happens to show no significant change in the total, only my driving to work seems to influence this chart....

 

additionally, if i question a view, documented or not and it is important to me, i will research this to my sources. i certainly would suggest every one do this since most i am interested in is subjective analysis general toward an extreme..plus if anyone gets a virus, its not going to come from me, i do not give attachments and am very careful in accessing one. my sources are from memory, occasionally checked through a google search or my Encarta. it would seem anti productive to give a specific, with any personal viewpoint. if an argument is suggested, i generally know the point and reason. your's for instance was based on 6% man made and the mis understanding Auto/manufacturing is the total....it is a very small part of mans contributions.

[Zythryn]

only estimates are available on CO2, from the 1950's and before. even these show a less than one percent total change in CO2 over the past 100 years.

 

Surely you jest. Take a look at any direct measurements of co2. It is increasing by about .5% to 1% each year, not each century.

 

 

... also keep in mind Mt. St Helen's discharged a three years supply in two hours, which just happens to show no significant change in the total, only my driving to work seems to influence this chart....

 

If lies are told often enough people will believe them?? Now, I am not accusing you of knowingly lying. It is just that I hear this information so often, and it is debunked so often and then repeated. I do not know if you ever mentioned this volcanoe fairy tale or not before or if it was debunked when you did so I will give you the benifit of the doubt.

I am sure a lot of people have begun to believe this as they have heard it so often.

 

"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, 1992). 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 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 1998) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon ©, rather than CO2.]. Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)!"

 

Here is another source if you want some cross checking: SpringerLink - Journal Article

 

This is from: Volcanic Hazards: Gases (sulfur dioxide, carbon dioxide, hyrdogen chloride, and hydrogen fluoride) (about 2/3 of the way down the page.)

 

So all the volcanoes in the world emitted about 1% of those contributed by man.

[Michaelangelica]

is it man, or is it nature?

Both

 

 

(Are they different?)

[Zythryn]

(Are they different?)

Agreed, both play a role.

And, they are very different.

We can more easily change our contribution than we can safely alter/correct for natures contribution.:)

[jackson33]

Surely you jest. Take a look at any direct measurements of co2. It is increasing by about .5% to 1% each year, not each century.

 

according to the CO2 estimate readings from ice cores, CO2 has gone up and down in over the past in a very systematic pattern. in part the high levels seen are attributed by some as aftermaths of volcano activity, which may have caused large amounts of plants decay and so on. humans have no doubt added some and the increased vegetation on the planet over the past 50-100 years would seem to reflect natures reactions as food is available to plant life.

 

 

If lies are told often enough people will believe them?? Now, I am not accusing you of knowingly lying. It is just that I hear this information so often, and it is debunked so often and then repeated. I do not know if you ever mentioned this volcano fairy tale or not before or if it was debunked when you did so I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

I am sure a lot of people have begun to believe this as they have heard it so often.

 

nor will i accuse you of anything. Gore and many scientist are convinced we will all be dead in ten years. i just happen to disagree, to it being mankind's fault. natures contributions to CO2 in the air are 95% of the total. most is from decaying plant and animal life. i would agree volcano activity is given to much mention as to effects on the planet over the history of life. one of my gripes is the extinction of the Dino's, which i do not feel was from a little rock hitting the Gulf of Mexico or any volcano activity. however it is represented in the 95% of CO2 that is from nature. i would also remind you to repeat can work both ways. maybe the wolf theory, but science repeated over and over for many years that earth was going into a Ice Age, which only ended when the cry became global heating. even then the cycles were known and neither the cold or heat is comparable to what has been in recent history.

 

"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, 1992). 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 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 1998) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon ©, rather than CO2.]. Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)!"

 

i did google this and found arguments both ways. what life died and decayed may be part of a chain reaction which would dwarf mans efforts. this is my view and maybe a couple of real scientist.

 

Here is another source if you want some cross checking: SpringerLink - Journal Article

 

This is from: Volcanic Hazards: Gases (sulfur dioxide, carbon dioxide, hyrdogen chloride, and hydrogen fluoride) (about 2/3 of the way down the page.)

 

what you are saying is total volcano activity on the planet contributes about one percent of the five percent and .005 of the total. thats fine, then tell science to quit worrying about Yellowstone. remember the lower atmosphere is 76% nitrogen-21% oxygen and all the other elements make up the 2. think Mars is 95% CO2 and my car has never been there.

 

So all the volcanoes in the world emitted about 1% of those contributed by man.[/quote

[InfiniteNow]

One can ignore the evidence all they want, but a report being released this week by a panel of over 2,000 climate scientists concludes with over90% certainty that the temperature change is human generated.

 

 

Compiled by scientists in 113 nations, the report says global warming is very likely caused by humans, meaning it is a 90 percent certainty. By the year 2100, temperatures are predicted to rise by about 3 to 7 degrees Fahrenheit and sea levels to go up 7 to 23 inches.

 

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

[HydrogenBond]

I heard about a global warming article written by an historian. I didn't get his name. What he found was that during the time period between 1000-1300 AD, the earth was about 1-3 degress warmer than today. This was at a time with greenhouse gas affects of human's was very low.

 

Part of the data was connected to accounts of England actually being a wine exporter during that time. Imagine vintage wine coming from England. If one recalls, the Vikings sailed to America during that time, maybe because the Northern Atlantic was calmer. There found iceland, greenland and kept going.

 

During that period the living conditions improved in most of Europe because of the longer growing season. There were less accounts of major famine, pestulence, plagues, etc.. He even had data that suggested that people grew taller due to being outside in the warmer climate, longer periods of time, i.e, maybe standing up moving around eating better food, insead of grouched near a fire, hungry.

[Zythryn]

Gore and many scientist are convinced we will all be dead in ten years.

 

Jackson, what purpose does wild exaggerations play in a debate. It only serves to make you look poorly informed or trying to purposely mislead readers.

 

Unfortunately I don't have much time to address the rest of your post. I will return later to do so if no one else has done so.

 

However I couldn't let this pass. Can you tell me when Gore, or ANY other scientist indicated they were convinced that all of mankind (that is what you meant by 'we all' right?) will be dead in ten years due to global warming?

[Cedars]

Sometime in the past I searched around for the Natural vs Man Carbon info. I finally found something regarding that here:

 

 

Why does atmospheric CO2 rise

 

Its kinda old info so some of it may have changed. Section 2 deals with the Carbon numbers. I havent found anything more current yet. Some of the other links in this site are pretty interesting also.

 

Sometime in the past it was asked about water vapor vs other greenhouse gasses. Here is a webpage that covers some of that. I am not able to find the sources for the graphs, but the table info seems accurate based on the links provided at the bottom of this page:

 

Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers

[jackson33]

One can ignore the evidence all they want, but a report being released this week by a panel of over 2,000 climate scientists concludes with over90% certainty that the temperature change is human generated.

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

 

 

and this would take it close to what was 1200 years ago. still a long way from the warmest periods all of which had no human industry.

 

do you suppose a couple of those 2000 climate scientist are looking for grant money or even purpose.

 

many others are still concerned this current warm spell is the extreme which usually precedes the opposite major change, which means a very cold spell or even a mini ice age.