Global Warming? are humans to blame?

[Jimbo1490]

That page really does answer all the questions, but I'll simply quote from it with the cited reseach refernces to prove it. I've attached some of the charts. The data is taken from the US Department of Energy Assesment the full text of which can be found here:

http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html

And from the US Environmental Protection agency's Asessment the full text of which can be found here:

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/SHSU5BUM9T/$File/ghg_gwp.pdf

The chart at left summarizes the % of greenhouse gas concentrations in Earth's atmosphere from Table 1. This is not a very meaningful view though because 1) the data has not been corrected for the actual Global Warming Potential (GWP) of each gas, and 2) water vapor is ignored.

But these are the numbers one would use if the goal is to exaggerate human greenhouse contributions:

Man-made and natural carbon dioxide (CO2) comprises 99.44% of all greenhouse gas concentrations (368,400 / 370,484 )--(ignoring water vapor).

Also, from Table 1 (but not shown on graph):

Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 additions comprise (11,880 / 370,484) or 3.207% of all greenhouse gas concentrations, (ignoring water vapor).

Total combined anthropogenic greenhouse gases comprise (12,217 / 370,484) or 3.298% of all greenhouse gas concentrations, (ignoring water vapor).

The various greenhouse gases are not equal in their heat-retention properties though, so to remain statistically relevant % concentrations must be changed to % contribution relative to CO2. This is done in Table 2, below, through the use of GWP multipliers for each gas, derived by various researchers.

To finish with the math, by calculating the product of the adjusted CO2 contribution to greenhouse gases (3.618%) and % of CO2 concentration from anthropogenic (man-made) sources (3.225%), we see that only (0.03618 X 0.03225) or 0.117% of the greenhouse effect is due to atmospheric CO2 from human activity. The other greenhouse gases are similarly calculated and are summarized below.
This is the statistically correct way to represent relative human contributions to the greenhouse effect.

From Table 4a, both natural and man-made greenhouse contributions are illustrated in this chart, in gray and green, respectively. For clarity, only the man-made (anthropogenic) contributions are labeled on the chart.

Water vapor, responsible for 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect, is 99.999% natural (some argue, 100%). Even if we wanted to, we can do nothing to change this.

Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions cause only about 0.117% of Earth's greenhouse effect, (factoring in water vapor). This is insignificant!

Adding up all anthropogenic greenhouse sources, the total human contribution to the greenhouse effect is around 0.28% (factoring in water vapor)

The Kyoto Protocol calls for mandatory carbon dioxide reductions of 30% from developed countries like the U.S. Reducing man-made CO2 emissions this much would have an undetectable effect on climate while having a devastating effect on the U.S. economy. Can you drive your car 30% less, reduce your winter heating 30%? Pay 20-50% more for everything from automobiles to zippers? And that is just a down payment, with more sacrifices to come later.

Such drastic measures, even if imposed equally on all countries around the world, would reduce total human greenhouse contributions from CO2 by about 0.035%.

This is much less than the natural variability of Earth's climate system!

While the greenhouse reductions would exact a high human price, in terms of sacrifices to our standard of living, they would yield statistically negligible results in terms of measurable impacts to climate change. There is no expectation that any statistically significant global warming reductions would come from the Kyoto Protocol.



" 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 Journa

CO2 in our atmosphere has been increasing steadily for the last 18,000 years-- long before humans invented smokestacks ( Figure 1). Unless you count campfires and intestinal gas, man played no role in the pre-industrial increases.

As illustrated in this chart of Ice Core data from the Soviet Station Vostok in Antarctica(http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees.../labs/vostok/), CO2 concentrations in earth's atmosphere move with temperature. Both temperatures and CO2 have been steadily increasing for 18,000 years. Ignoring these 18,000 years of data "global warming activists" contend recent increases in atmospheric CO2 are unnatural and are the result of only 200 years or so of human pollution causing a runaway greenhouse effect.

Incidentally, earth's temperature and CO2 levels today have reached levels similar to a previous interglacial cycle of 120,000 - 140,000 years ago. From beginning to end this cycle lasted about 20,000 years. This is known as the Eemian Interglacial Period and the earth returned to a full-fledged ice age immediately afterward.

Sorry for the lengthy post,
I hope you found it informative or at least entertaining

Jimbo

[bntii]

In fact Dr. Singer does nothing to answer my basic question of the relative human contribution to the NET gain in atmospheric co2. He does a rather good job of pretending to address this most basic and important issue in this area of the debate.

The line of reasoning he uses is well summarized here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...nhouse-effect/

Please allow that I use the term 'debate' in reference to our discussion only as I feel it would be overstating the matter under any other circumstances.

[marshmat]

Two words:
Credible sources.
Lately there's been very little of that here. The US-DOE for instance, is perhaps the world's least credible source on this issue.
If anyone wants to state an opinion, go right ahead- state whatever you like.
If anyone wants to state something as scientific fact, it has to be backed up by independent, credible studies- stuff from genuine peer-reviewed journals, that is not funded by anyone with a vested interest in a particular result. If you claim to have a scientific fact, and do not back it up with valid science, no educated person can possibly believe you. This goes for everyone, guys.

[marshmat]

Jimbo- Might I suggest you take a close look at that ice core data in your last post- that one is indeed correct. Now take that data set and add the 1950-2000 CO2 and temperature values on it. The results might surprise you.

[Jimbo1490]

The entire quote above is not attributable to Dr Singer, just the portion commenting on the efficacy of the Kyoto Protocol, if implemented. Nobody really knows the answer to your question since CO2 was increasing before the industrial releases began, and there is a lot of uncertainty of the lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere.

The mechanisms for the uptake of CO2 (fluxes) are quite variable and hard to quantify on a global scale. If humanns never did industrialize, would CO2 have increased anyway? Given the trend was already an increase, the answer would certainly be "yes". The only debate would be "how much?". Of course the climate alarmists will state the worst scenario possible to bolster their claims, but the simple answer is, we don't know. From the change in carbon radio isotopes, it is known that some of the increase is certainly from human activity. The amount and importance is still up for debate.

Even proponents of GHG warming like Jan Schloerer have to admit:

"The vexing thing is that, in the global carbon cycle, the rising level
of atmospheric CO2 and the human origin of this rise are about the only
two things that are known with high certainty. Natural CO2 fluxes
into and out of the atmosphere exceed the human contribution by more
than an order of magnitude. The sizes of the natural carbon fluxes
are only approximately known, because they are much harder to measure
than atmospheric CO2 and than the features pointing to a human origin
of the CO2 rise."

Cliff notes version:

We don't know.


Jimbo

[Mychael]

So, is anyone able to name any or all of the truly independent scientific oranisations? I think someone posted earlier about funding for research.
Sad but probably true that there may actually be very few fully independant reasearch groups.

Mychael

[Jimbo1490]

The US-DOE for instance, is perhaps the world's least credible source on this issue.

I'm puzzled by this remark since the DOE's figures look a lot like everyone else's. This was never a debate about the amount or quantity of this or that gas, just the relative signifcance of those quantities; the quantities are not in dispute.

Anyway the DOE's position is on the side of the global warming alarmists, so again I'm puzzled at your criticism. This just goes to show that people just look at the source first and then decide whether to bother to read the content The full text was cited; if you had bothered to read page one you would already know the DOE's position. So the DOE would be credible if you thought they were supporting the side of the debate that appeals to you, but not credible if on the other side? Same data, different attitude. And you probably insist you are objective!



Jimbo

[bntii]

Originally Posted by marshmat

Two words:
Credible sources.
Lately there's been very little of that here. The US-DOE for instance, is perhaps the world's least credible source on this issue.
If anyone wants to state an opinion, go right ahead- state whatever you like.
If anyone wants to state something as scientific fact, it has to be backed up by independent, credible studies- stuff from genuine peer-reviewed journals, that is not funded by anyone with a vested interest in a particular result. If you claim to have a scientific fact, and do not back it up with valid science, no educated person can possibly believe you. This goes for everyone, guys.

If this were to be adapted I would be much more interested in this informal discussion. It is a real pain to counter all the trash generated by the countless blogs.


The real interest to me and many lay persons is the science. This has been put on the table before here. As far as I can tell this thread is populated by lay persons. I am guilty as any other but I would like to see more honest citation of source: no cutting and pasting summaries from web pages as self authored. More use of lanquage such as 'What I think is true' , 'I just looked into this question and found such', If inference- state it as such and source actual peer reviewed research as a base/source of knowlege. If one wishes to dismiss whole areas of research Please document the point with references where the SCIENCE shows that another point of view is more valid.

*Stating conclusions which are true only if the science is ignored or misrepresented is academically dishonest*

It turns this discussion into a foolish exercise where the more convincing storyteller 'appears' to win a point of debate.

Once again language is important: Sweeping generalization, conclusions without supporting citation must be prefaced with 'I could find not research to suggest....' , the research fails to prove therefore....




I need more coffee.....

And its getting cold- damn global cooling

[hansp77]

bntii,
I couldn't agree more.

I started this damn thread and I am sick of what it has become (or what it became long long ago).
I like this forum over a lot of others for what I might say is a general predominence (I say general) of a higher level of 'integrity' in the way that issues are dealt with, and the general (again) way people deal with other people- as in we are all real people spending our valuable time and efforts here.
I don't want either side of this debate to drop out, as many have in exasperation and frustration already, but the way it is going on, I personally have just about had it with this thread.
This is a live issue and will no doubt stay so for a long long time yet.

There are enough places already on the net to flame each other and throw junk science around. Is this level of conversation really that far beyond us?

There are some members here who have a lot to contribute to this issue, combined with a desire to challenge their own views and pre-conceptions and learn in the process, and like it or- as in bellieve it or not -it is a real issue for all of us (even if global warming is bunk- it is still a real issue because at the moment so many people, scientists and institutions believe in it, and so much political and social shaping is evolving around it)

This is not about blame.

So,
What do you say people-
as the sorry b@st@rd who started this thread-
can I ask a favour?

How bout from now on, we try to go about things a bit differently.
Of course this is open to suggestion,
but my idea would be something liket...

Rather than trying to trash or prove the theory in one or two foul swoops from a dubious source or two making sweeping generalisations, maybe we can try to focus on more specific issues one or two at a time (as they are no doubt often interelated).
And like has been asked a heap of times already,

Credible sources MUST be used.


The members from either side of this discussion will probably have to try to self-regulate this. Sceptics, stop others sceptics from trashing junk-sciencing and flaming, and 'believers' (not that I like that word particularl) vice versa.

If there is any agreement on this, then,
As this request is coming from someone who has been labled a 'believer', I shall put it out there for those in opposition to pick any issue that we can start off with. First in best dressed.
for instance, it could be something like temperature tracking with CO2 levels, etc.
I don't want to pre-empt this, so lets say we won't start with that example.


What do you think?

agree?
want to suggest something else?
or business as usual?

If its the third option, personally I am out of this thread. It is not worth the time or effort.

[CDBarry]

SNAME has started a panel on ocean renewable or sustainable energy, ad hoc panel (AHP) 17. Global warming is one part of the reason for this panel, but the idea is to address the problem, even if the problem is only the large amount of money being sent overseas for oil, rather than debate the issue.

No matter what, a solution is better than an argument.

I'm also throwing out some ideas in my blog, for what it's worth. Thermodynamics For Dogs - http://thermofordogs.blogspot.com/index.html. I also hope to discuss non-marine sustainability and renewability issues here, since a lot of opportunities are not only feasible, but now very economical, again regardless of global warming.

If our esteemed host wants it, I have a PDF of the AHP 17 presentation from the annual meeting, though it's a bit off topic for boats.

[BillyDoc]

CDBarry,

I just checked out your blog link and would like to say that I enjoyed your essay (On Dogs and Ferries) very much. Thanks for the insights on the economics of ship building. And dogs, too!

BillyDoc

[yipster]

nasa news i read and also the new national geographics magazine
has an articles one ( forgot wich one ) of the giant gas planets
will in some years be orbiting closest to earth since a long time

[Jimbo1490]

Attention, 'Global Warming' alarmists: Watch this if you dare:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...65474899458831

It will prob'ly be overlooked by the Academy, but at least it's a REAL documentary and not a blatant propaganda film.


Jimbo

[hansp77]

attention Jimbo.

what exactly was it that lead you to believe this is "a REAL documentary and not a blatant propoganda film"?

was it that you searched out and found inadequate scientific critques of the films claims?

I hope so.

I do hope you didn't simply hear what you wanted to hear, and thus judged it as REAL.

Some of the views presented by Carl Wunsch (or in his words mis-represented in the film can viewed here in his response to this film.

a quote from this last link of Carl Wunsch

In the part of the "Swindle" film where I am describing the fact that the ocean tends to expel carbon dioxide where it is warm, and to absorb it where it is cold, my intent was to explain that warming the ocean could be dangerous---because it is such a gigantic reservoir of carbon. By its placement in the film, it appears that I am saying that since carbon dioxide exists in the ocean in such large quantities, human influence must not be very important --- diametrically opposite to the point I was making --- which is that global warming is both real and threatening in many different ways, some unexpected.

mmm...
lets see... REAL documentary?... or propaganda?....
What does the evidence point to?

Just a little research and self-criticism, before you present things like this, can really help in these situations.

P.S. I had read about this 'documentary' elsewhere recently, but had not yet had the chance to watch it.
Thank you for the link.

Hans.

[idlerboat]

Hottest march night since records where kept..........l know its just a normal cycle.................sigh......perhaps you should revisit "An inconvienient truth" again. Is it that you dont want to believe or that you love, what would have to be the greatest hoax ever perpetrated. And this acheived not by the most powerfull and wealthy organisations in the world oh no, the masters of this fraud are "GREENIES" !! Next you will explain that, enviromentaly the world is a better place than it was 200 years ago. Regardless, how can the measures that are being proposed to mitagate global warming be a bad thing, Unless of course you are one of the very few "haves" in a world of "have nots".....give it a rest.