Activism Discussion: Global Warming-->Worse Forest Fires-->More CO2 -->More Global Warming

Global Warming-->Worse Forest Fires-->More CO2 -->More Global Warming
Posts: 11

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)

I*@economicdemocracy.org
2005-03-10 14:57:44 EST
"Over the last 30 years the area burned in Canadian forest fires has
almost tripled," says Mike Flannigan, a researcher at CFS. Increased
temperatures, drier conditions and more lightning have also been
observed over the same time period..."This increase is due to
human-cause climate change," Flannigan added.

Eric Kasischke, a fire ecologist at the University of Maryland, agrees
that the size of the fires and their intensity has dramatically
increased in North America's northern forests.

"Fires in recent years have been two or three times as large as
anything ever seen," Kasischke, who has been studying Alaska
wildfires for more than 20 years, told IPS.

= = = =

Climate Change Dealt a New Wild Card

IPS, 8 March 2005 - New Canadian research shows that forest fires are
becoming larger and more intense due to the effects of climate change
and are adding enormous amounts of greenhouse gases into the
atmosphere.

Fires in the northern hemisphere's boreal forest and peatlands are of
particular concern because the region holds 40 percent of the planet's
terrestrial carbon. That's almost twice the amount in the world's
tropical forests.

The boreal region forms a circumpolar band throughout the northern
hemisphere, extending through Russia, Northern Europe, Canada, and
Alaska. It is already warmer due to climate change and parts are also
getting drier, researchers report.

Significant burning of the boreal forest and peat could produce a
positive feedback loop leading to hotter and drier conditions and more
area burned, says Brian Stocks, a senior fire research scientist at the
Canadian Forest Service (CFS).

"Forests are a wild card" about how fast and how far global
temperatures will rise, Stocks said in an interview. "There could be
a big disaster ahead."

Fires in Indonesia that raged for months in the late 1990s released an
estimated 2.6 billion tonnes of greenhouse gases, or the equivalent of
about 40 percent of world industrial emissions in a year.

As trees grow, they absorb carbon dioxide, the primary greenhouse gas.
When a tree rots or burns, the absorbed carbon is released. In the
pre-industrial era, there was a rough balance between the carbon
released from burning forests and that taken up by new forest growth.

However, burning fossil fuels has liberated large amounts of additional
carbon that had been locked away for millions of years in oil, coal and
natural gas. This is expected to double the amount of carbon dioxide in
the atmosphere in the next 20 to 30 years.

Forest fires could speed that up and lead to a tripling of burned
areas, which many scientists believe would be calamitous for many parts
of the world.

"Over the last 30 years the area burned in Canadian forest fires has
almost tripled," says Mike Flannigan, a researcher at CFS. Increased
temperatures, drier conditions and more lightning have also been
observed over the same time period. In Canada, fires caused by
lightning are responsible for 80 percent of the forest area burned.

"This increase is due to human-cause climate change," Flannigan
added.

Eric Kasischke, a fire ecologist at the University of Maryland, agrees
that the size of the fires and their intensity has dramatically
increased in North America's northern forests.

"Fires in recent years have been two or three times as large as
anything ever seen," Kasischke, who has been studying Alaska
wildfires for more than 20 years, told IPS.

The fires are outpacing regrowth, and their intensity means that not
only the trees are burning but also the understory vegetation and, most
importantly of all, the organic matter in the soil.

There is nearly ten times more carbon in the boreal region soil than in
the plants and trees above. By contrast, tropical forest soils have
one-third the amount of carbon.

"Bad fires in the boreal area consume everything right down to the
underlying rock," the ecologist said.

Normally wet peatlands burn when dry conditions lower the water table.
Much of Western Canada and parts of Alaska are experiencing
increasingly dry conditions, he says. Peat fires can smolder for weeks
or even months, releasing large amounts of carbon.

Canada had been counting on its 418 million hectares of forest, 10
percent of the world total, to help meet promises to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions under the Kyoto Protocol on climate change.

Whether forests are overall carbon emitters or carbon sinks has been
the subject of much debate during the Kyoto negotiations. Many factors
are involved, including the age of the forest, growth rates, and
composition.

However, there will be more and more fires in the boreal, Kasischke
predicts.

"Under current conditions North America's boreal region is no longer
a carbon sink," he warned.

A couple of bad fire years, and Canada will be in a big carbon deficit
when it comes to making its Kyoto obligations, he says.

Forest fires are not just a problem in Canada, where an average of 2.5
million hectares of forest burn every year. Kasischke and colleagues
estimate that more than 12 million hectares of Russian boreal forests
burn annually, with 25 million hectares going up in smoke in 2004
alone.

The taiga, as it is known in Russia, represents 80 percent of the
world's boreal forest, covering some 12 million square kilometres.

Climate change has increased the average temperatures in the taiga but
poor data on past fires makes it impossible to know if the area burned
is increasing. Nor is it possible to know how much carbon is being
lost. Fortunately, most of the taiga is wetter than its North American
counterpart.

Roughly one third of North America's boreal region is becoming more
vulnerable to fire, researchers found. Several billion tonnes of carbon
will go up in smoke each decade and there is little that can be done to
stop fires in these remote regions, Kasischke says.

This net increase on carbon from the boreal has not yet been fully
integrated into the current climate models, he notes.

The next full assessment of this and other new data by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is not due until 2007.
Some scientists acknowledge that the new data means that large rises in
temperatures approaching 11 degrees C, once thought impossible, cannot
be ruled out.

"This puts enormous emphasis on the need to reduce industrial
emissions of carbon," Kasischke says.

This article is reproduced with the kind permission of the
Inter Press Service News Agency (IPS).

http://www.sustain-online.org/plugins/DocSearch/details.asp?MenuId=1&ClickMenu=&doOpen=1&type=DocDet&ObjectId=MTM1MTI


Wm James
2005-03-11 03:15:05 EST
On 10 Mar 2005 11:57:44 -0800, info@economicdemocracy.org wrote:

>"Over the last 30 years the area burned in Canadian forest fires has
>almost tripled," says Mike Flannigan, a researcher at CFS. Increased
>temperatures, drier conditions and more lightning have also been
>observed over the same time period..."This increase is due to
>human-cause climate change," Flannigan added.

Flannigan is ignorant of science and reality. And so are you.

>Eric Kasischke, a fire ecologist at the University of Maryland, agrees
>that the size of the fires and their intensity has dramatically
>increased in North America's northern forests.

Ah, a testimonial makes it so, huh?

>"Fires in recent years have been two or three times as large as
>anything ever seen," Kasischke, who has been studying Alaska
>wildfires for more than 20 years, told IPS.

Another testimonial. Never mind the facts, forget the data, just
follow your heart! Yeah, sure...



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
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 99.438%
Methane (CH4) 0.471%
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 0.084%
Misc. gases ( CFC's, etc.) 0.007%
Total 100.000%


Here's the reality you don't understand and the chicken little
peddlers don't want you to know:

Anthropogenic (man-made) Contribution to the "Greenhouse
Effect," expressed as % of Total (water vapor INCLUDED) Based on
concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics

% of All Greenhouse Gases % Natural % Man-made
Water vapor 95.000% 94.999% 0.001%
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 3.618% 3.502% 0.117%
Methane (CH4) 0.360% 0.294% 0.066%
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 0.950% 0.903% 0.047%
Misc. gases 0.072% 0.025% 0.047%
Total 100.000% 99.72% 0.28%



William R. James


Bill Smith
2005-03-11 12:25:56 EST
On 10 Mar 2005 11:57:44 -0800, info@economicdemocracy.org wrote:

>"Over the last 30 years the area burned in Canadian forest fires has
>almost tripled," says Mike Flannigan, a researcher at CFS. Increased
>temperatures, drier conditions and more lightning have also been
>observed over the same time period..."This increase is due to
>human-cause climate change," Flannigan added.
>
>Eric Kasischke, a fire ecologist at the University of Maryland, agrees
>that the size of the fires and their intensity has dramatically
>increased in North America's northern forests.
>
>"Fires in recent years have been two or three times as large as
>anything ever seen," Kasischke, who has been studying Alaska
>wildfires for more than 20 years, told IPS.
>
>= = = =
>
>Climate Change Dealt a New Wild Card
>
>IPS, 8 March 2005 - New Canadian research shows that forest fires are
>becoming larger and more intense due to the effects of climate change
>and are adding enormous amounts of greenhouse gases into the
>atmosphere.
>
>Fires in the northern hemisphere's boreal forest and peatlands are of
>particular concern because the region holds 40 percent of the planet's
>terrestrial carbon. That's almost twice the amount in the world's
>tropical forests.
>
>The boreal region forms a circumpolar band throughout the northern
>hemisphere, extending through Russia, Northern Europe, Canada, and
>Alaska. It is already warmer due to climate change and parts are also
>getting drier, researchers report.
>
>Significant burning of the boreal forest and peat could produce a
>positive feedback loop leading to hotter and drier conditions and more
>area burned, says Brian Stocks, a senior fire research scientist at the
>Canadian Forest Service (CFS).
>
>"Forests are a wild card" about how fast and how far global
>temperatures will rise, Stocks said in an interview. "There could be
>a big disaster ahead."
>
>Fires in Indonesia that raged for months in the late 1990s released an
>estimated 2.6 billion tonnes of greenhouse gases, or the equivalent of
>about 40 percent of world industrial emissions in a year.
>
>As trees grow, they absorb carbon dioxide, the primary greenhouse gas.
>When a tree rots or burns, the absorbed carbon is released. In the
>pre-industrial era, there was a rough balance between the carbon
>released from burning forests and that taken up by new forest growth.
>
>However, burning fossil fuels has liberated large amounts of additional
>carbon that had been locked away for millions of years in oil, coal and
>natural gas. This is expected to double the amount of carbon dioxide in
>the atmosphere in the next 20 to 30 years.
>
>Forest fires could speed that up and lead to a tripling of burned
>areas, which many scientists believe would be calamitous for many parts
>of the world.
>
>"Over the last 30 years the area burned in Canadian forest fires has
>almost tripled," says Mike Flannigan, a researcher at CFS. Increased
>temperatures, drier conditions and more lightning have also been
>observed over the same time period. In Canada, fires caused by
>lightning are responsible for 80 percent of the forest area burned.
>
>"This increase is due to human-cause climate change," Flannigan
>added.
>
>Eric Kasischke, a fire ecologist at the University of Maryland, agrees
>that the size of the fires and their intensity has dramatically
>increased in North America's northern forests.
>
>"Fires in recent years have been two or three times as large as
>anything ever seen," Kasischke, who has been studying Alaska
>wildfires for more than 20 years, told IPS.
>
>The fires are outpacing regrowth, and their intensity means that not
>only the trees are burning but also the understory vegetation and, most
>importantly of all, the organic matter in the soil.
>
>There is nearly ten times more carbon in the boreal region soil than in
>the plants and trees above. By contrast, tropical forest soils have
>one-third the amount of carbon.
>
>"Bad fires in the boreal area consume everything right down to the
>underlying rock," the ecologist said.
>
>Normally wet peatlands burn when dry conditions lower the water table.
>Much of Western Canada and parts of Alaska are experiencing
>increasingly dry conditions, he says. Peat fires can smolder for weeks
>or even months, releasing large amounts of carbon.
>
>Canada had been counting on its 418 million hectares of forest, 10
>percent of the world total, to help meet promises to reduce greenhouse
>gas emissions under the Kyoto Protocol on climate change.
>
>Whether forests are overall carbon emitters or carbon sinks has been
>the subject of much debate during the Kyoto negotiations. Many factors
>are involved, including the age of the forest, growth rates, and
>composition.
>
>However, there will be more and more fires in the boreal, Kasischke
>predicts.
>
>"Under current conditions North America's boreal region is no longer
>a carbon sink," he warned.
>
>A couple of bad fire years, and Canada will be in a big carbon deficit
>when it comes to making its Kyoto obligations, he says.
>
>Forest fires are not just a problem in Canada, where an average of 2.5
>million hectares of forest burn every year. Kasischke and colleagues
>estimate that more than 12 million hectares of Russian boreal forests
>burn annually, with 25 million hectares going up in smoke in 2004
>alone.
>
>The taiga, as it is known in Russia, represents 80 percent of the
>world's boreal forest, covering some 12 million square kilometres.
>
>Climate change has increased the average temperatures in the taiga but
>poor data on past fires makes it impossible to know if the area burned
>is increasing. Nor is it possible to know how much carbon is being
>lost. Fortunately, most of the taiga is wetter than its North American
>counterpart.
>
>Roughly one third of North America's boreal region is becoming more
>vulnerable to fire, researchers found. Several billion tonnes of carbon
>will go up in smoke each decade and there is little that can be done to
>stop fires in these remote regions, Kasischke says.
>
>This net increase on carbon from the boreal has not yet been fully
>integrated into the current climate models, he notes.
>
>The next full assessment of this and other new data by the
>Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is not due until 2007.
>Some scientists acknowledge that the new data means that large rises in
>temperatures approaching 11 degrees C, once thought impossible, cannot
>be ruled out.
>
>"This puts enormous emphasis on the need to reduce industrial
>emissions of carbon," Kasischke says.
>
>This article is reproduced with the kind permission of the
>Inter Press Service News Agency (IPS).
>
>http://www.sustain-online.org/plugins/DocSearch/details.asp?MenuId=1&ClickMenu=&doOpen=1&type=DocDet&ObjectId=MTM1MTI


CO2 concentration has risen, over the last 150 years or so, from .026%
of the atmosphere to .036%. Water vapor is, by far, the largest
greenhouse gas, CO2 is miniscule by comparison, but is much larger
than the others, put together. The biggest CO2 sink is, by far, the
ocean. When it's temperature is higher, it absorbs less.

Is the increase in CO2 an effect or the cause of global warming? Has
the CO2 concentration risen enough to cause global warming? No one
seems to be able to answer these questions.

Bill Smith





Wm James
2005-03-15 19:13:03 EST
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 09:25:56 -0800, Bill Smith <quandary@newsguy.com>
wrote:

>CO2 concentration has risen, over the last 150 years or so, from .026%
>of the atmosphere to .036%. Water vapor is, by far, the largest
>greenhouse gas, CO2 is miniscule by comparison, but is much larger
>than the others, put together. The biggest CO2 sink is, by far, the
>ocean. When it's temperature is higher, it absorbs less.
>
>Is the increase in CO2 an effect or the cause of global warming? Has
>the CO2 concentration risen enough to cause global warming? No one
>seems to be able to answer these questions.
>
> Bill Smith


Well put. Cold water hold more gasses than hot water just like hot air
hold more water than cold air.

Throughout history, there is a bit of corelation between CO2 levels
and temperature, but the CO2 increases always follow the warming, not
the other way around.

Given the other effects of water besides the vapor's greenhouse
characteristic, there is absolutely no way anyone remotely familiar
with a science class could possibly think CO2 has any affect on the
earth's temperature at all. Show me someone with legitimate scientific
credentials peddling the global warming hoax, and I'll show you a
fraud.

William R. James


R Philip Dowds
2005-03-16 12:55:13 EST
Holy Cow, who would have thunk it? So, atmospheric concentrations of
carbon dioxide are the result, not the cause, of global warming! At
last, we've found an explanation for how CO2 causes SUVs. And, this
must be why archeologists, when excavating Ice Age settlements, find so
few of such vehicles!

RPD / Cambridge
Knowledge grows by leaps and bounds.

Wm James wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 09:25:56 -0800, Bill Smith <quandary@newsguy.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>CO2 concentration has risen, over the last 150 years or so, from .026%
>>of the atmosphere to .036%. Water vapor is, by far, the largest
>>greenhouse gas, CO2 is miniscule by comparison, but is much larger
>>than the others, put together. The biggest CO2 sink is, by far, the
>>ocean. When it's temperature is higher, it absorbs less.
>>
>>Is the increase in CO2 an effect or the cause of global warming? Has
>>the CO2 concentration risen enough to cause global warming? No one
>>seems to be able to answer these questions.
>>
>> Bill Smith
>
>
>
> Well put. Cold water hold more gasses than hot water just like hot air
> hold more water than cold air.
>
> Throughout history, there is a bit of corelation between CO2 levels
> and temperature, but the CO2 increases always follow the warming, not
> the other way around.
>
> Given the other effects of water besides the vapor's greenhouse
> characteristic, there is absolutely no way anyone remotely familiar
> with a science class could possibly think CO2 has any affect on the
> earth's temperature at all. Show me someone with legitimate scientific
> credentials peddling the global warming hoax, and I'll show you a
> fraud.
>
> William R. James
>


Wm James
2005-03-17 20:53:09 EST
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 17:55:13 GMT, R Philip Dowds
<*s@earthlink.net> wrote:

>Holy Cow, who would have thunk it? So, atmospheric concentrations of
>carbon dioxide are the result, not the cause, of global warming! At
>last, we've found an explanation for how CO2 causes SUVs. And, this
>must be why archeologists, when excavating Ice Age settlements, find so
>few of such vehicles!
>
>RPD / Cambridge
>Knowledge grows by leaps and bounds.

Learn a little science before attempting to discuss it next time.

William R. James


R Philip Dowds
2005-03-18 06:40:22 EST
And so OK: While I am familiar with many assertions (often by people or
commissions who claim to be, and perhaps are, internationally recognized
scientists) that human activity is re-concentrating CO2 in the
atmosphere, which in turn is enhancing the "greenhouse effect", I am
less familiar with the assertions that CO2 concentrations are the result
of a general warming caused by other factors. Could you direct my
attention to the studies I've missed?

RPD / Cambridge
Facts can be your friends if you treat them right.

Wm James wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 17:55:13 GMT, R Philip Dowds
> <rpdowds@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Holy Cow, who would have thunk it? So, atmospheric concentrations of
>>carbon dioxide are the result, not the cause, of global warming! At
>>last, we've found an explanation for how CO2 causes SUVs. And, this
>>must be why archeologists, when excavating Ice Age settlements, find so
>>few of such vehicles!
>>
>>RPD / Cambridge
>>Knowledge grows by leaps and bounds.
>
>
> Learn a little science before attempting to discuss it next time.
>
> William R. James
>


Wm James
2005-03-18 23:16:02 EST
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 11:40:22 GMT, R Philip Dowds
<*s@earthlink.net> wrote:

>And so OK: While I am familiar with many assertions (often by people or
>commissions who claim to be, and perhaps are, internationally recognized
>scientists) that human activity is re-concentrating CO2 in the
>atmosphere, which in turn is enhancing the "greenhouse effect", I am
>less familiar with the assertions that CO2 concentrations are the result
>of a general warming caused by other factors. Could you direct my
>attention to the studies I've missed?

Start with Science 101. No one disputes the claim that humans have
increased CO2 concentrations over the last 100 years. That's a given
even though the specific amounts could be argued more or less. The
issue is regarding the "global warmng" hoax which hasn't a shred of
science to support it. CO2 is not a relavant greenhouse gas here on
this planet. It is on Mars, but not on earth where water vapor is 95%
of the greenhouse gasses and manmade CO2 is mere 0.117% and the ratio
ow liquid water to water vapor varies with solar output regulating the
temperature by acting as greenhouse gas one one hand and by (making
cloud) replecting light and transporting energy from the surface to
the atmoshphere on the other. Read up on the energy involved in
changing states for another free clue.

The reference earlier to CO2 increases following warming was not a
reference to today. There is currently no evidence that the earth is
warming in spite of what the pseudoscience peddling frauds are
claiming. Is it warmer now that 50 years ago? Yes, apparently. But
it's cooler than 100 years ago, and slightly cooler than 20 years ago.
Climate is a long term phenomonom, any claims based on a decade are
totally meaningless. The sun's cycle is 11 years, and there are too
many variables to determine anything is such a short meaningless
sample anyway.

>RPD / Cambridge
>Facts can be your friends if you treat them right.

Here's some facts for you:

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
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 99.438%
Methane (CH4) 0.471%
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 0.084%
Misc. gases ( CFC's, etc.) 0.007%
Total 100.000%


Here's the reality you don't understand and the chicken little
peddlers don't want you to know:

Anthropogenic (man-made) Contribution to the "Greenhouse
Effect," expressed as % of Total (water vapor INCLUDED) Based on
concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics

% of All Greenhouse Gases % Natural % Man-made
Water vapor 95.000% 94.999% 0.001%
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 3.618% 3.502% 0.117%
Methane (CH4) 0.360% 0.294% 0.066%
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 0.950% 0.903% 0.047%
Misc. gases 0.072% 0.025% 0.047%
Total 100.000% 99.72% 0.28%

Keep in mind that even that totally ignores the regulatory effects of
water on global temperature.

William R. James


R Philip Dowds
2005-03-19 19:36:16 EST
OK, I'll work on this.

Wm James wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 11:40:22 GMT, R Philip Dowds
> <rpdowds@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>>And so OK: While I am familiar with many assertions (often by people or
>>commissions who claim to be, and perhaps are, internationally recognized
>>scientists) that human activity is re-concentrating CO2 in the
>>atmosphere, which in turn is enhancing the "greenhouse effect", I am
>>less familiar with the assertions that CO2 concentrations are the result
>>of a general warming caused by other factors. Could you direct my
>>attention to the studies I've missed?
>
>
> Start with Science 101. No one disputes the claim that humans have
> increased CO2 concentrations over the last 100 years. That's a given
> even though the specific amounts could be argued more or less. The
> issue is regarding the "global warmng" hoax which hasn't a shred of
> science to support it. CO2 is not a relavant greenhouse gas here on
> this planet. It is on Mars, but not on earth where water vapor is 95%
> of the greenhouse gasses and manmade CO2 is mere 0.117% and the ratio
> ow liquid water to water vapor varies with solar output regulating the
> temperature by acting as greenhouse gas one one hand and by (making
> cloud) replecting light and transporting energy from the surface to
> the atmoshphere on the other. Read up on the energy involved in
> changing states for another free clue.

We're not in disagreement here, although I think you may underestimate
the contribution of existing CO2 relative to existing water vapor. In
any event, the greenhouse effect has indeed been long alive and well on
Earth: Existing CO2 and water vapor, naturally occuring in the
atmosphere, absorb infrared and re-radiate it to the Earth, raising the
Earth's temperature by an average of about 33°C. Good for life as we
know it.

>
> The reference earlier to CO2 increases following warming was not a
> reference to today. There is currently no evidence that the earth is
> warming in spite of what the pseudoscience peddling frauds are
> claiming. Is it warmer now that 50 years ago? Yes, apparently. But
> it's cooler than 100 years ago, and slightly cooler than 20 years ago.
> Climate is a long term phenomonom, any claims based on a decade are
> totally meaningless. The sun's cycle is 11 years, and there are too
> many variables to determine anything is such a short meaningless
> sample anyway.

Nor may we be in disagreement here. Big picture of climatology is that
in recent bio-geologic history (let's stipulate the late Holocene) the
Earth has cycled through a number of significant warming / cooling
cycles, where cold spells have lasted about 100,000 years, and warm
spells, about 20,000. Analysis of ice cores at the polar caps show a
strong correlation between CO2 in the atmosphere and temperature
increases. Temperature swings have been about 5° to 8°C.
Right now, we appear to be somewhere in a natural warming cycle,
analogous, perhaps, to letting gravity freewheel our car down a hill.
But in addition to the slow cycles of geo-time, we now also have some
new news: CO2 concentrations are today 30% greater than they were at
the start of the industrial revolution, and most thinking folks think
this is due to re-carbonization of the atmosphere by human-combusted
fossil fuels. So instead of freewheeling downhill, we've stepped on the
gas. Accordingly, the current warming cycle could be quite different
from ones in the past.

>
>
>>RPD / Cambridge
>>Facts can be your friends if you treat them right.
>
>
> Here's some facts for you:
>
> 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
> Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 99.438%
> Methane (CH4) 0.471%
> Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 0.084%
> Misc. gases ( CFC's, etc.) 0.007%
> Total 100.000%
>
>
> Here's the reality you don't understand and the chicken little
> peddlers don't want you to know:
>
> Anthropogenic (man-made) Contribution to the "Greenhouse
> Effect," expressed as % of Total (water vapor INCLUDED) Based on
> concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics
>
> % of All Greenhouse Gases % Natural % Man-made
> Water vapor 95.000% 94.999% 0.001%
> Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 3.618% 3.502% 0.117%
> Methane (CH4) 0.360% 0.294% 0.066%
> Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 0.950% 0.903% 0.047%
> Misc. gases 0.072% 0.025% 0.047%
> Total 100.000% 99.72% 0.28%
>
> Keep in mind that even that totally ignores the regulatory effects of
> water on global temperature.
>
> William R. James
>

Not sure what all these numbers are supposed to be telling me, but
offhand, they don't seem to match up with my 30% increase number (from T
A Boden et al, eds, TRENDS '93: A COMPENDIUM OF DATA OF GLOBAL CHANGE,
referencing the ice core sampling work of Neftel, Keeling, et al, as
cited by Prof R Wolfson of Middlebury College). You're also ignoring
the wild increase in concentrations of CFCs — an infinite increase of a
profoundly effective greenhouse gas, because CFCs do not occur naturally
in the atmosphere.
In any event, the thing to keep in mind is that small variations in
CO2 and average temp may be correlated to what we coast-dwelling humans
would regard as very extreme consequences for our property and our
lifestyles.

Aha! What was that word I used? May? May??? We don't know for
absolute certain sure??? Well, does that mean that evasive maneuvers
are premature? When it came time to defend Americans from Iraqi
terrorists, Bush didn't think so: Any level of risk was to big for Bush
— because the consequences of apathy and being wrong were too great —
and he acted. Well, OK, but why doesn't this apply to climatology as
well? If we can stomp Iraqis based on thin evidence of potential
catastrophe, why are we not equally well justified in weaning ourselves
from fossil fuel combustion?

RPD / Cambridge
Facts can be your friends if you treat them right.


Wm James
2005-03-22 11:30:04 EST
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 00:36:16 GMT, R Philip Dowds
<*s@earthlink.net> wrote:

>OK, I'll work on this.
>
>Wm James wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 11:40:22 GMT, R Philip Dowds
>> <rpdowds@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>And so OK: While I am familiar with many assertions (often by people or
>>>commissions who claim to be, and perhaps are, internationally recognized
>>>scientists) that human activity is re-concentrating CO2 in the
>>>atmosphere, which in turn is enhancing the "greenhouse effect", I am
>>>less familiar with the assertions that CO2 concentrations are the result
>>>of a general warming caused by other factors. Could you direct my
>>>attention to the studies I've missed?
>>
>>
>> Start with Science 101. No one disputes the claim that humans have
>> increased CO2 concentrations over the last 100 years. That's a given
>> even though the specific amounts could be argued more or less. The
>> issue is regarding the "global warmng" hoax which hasn't a shred of
>> science to support it. CO2 is not a relavant greenhouse gas here on
>> this planet. It is on Mars, but not on earth where water vapor is 95%
>> of the greenhouse gasses and manmade CO2 is mere 0.117% and the ratio
>> ow liquid water to water vapor varies with solar output regulating the
>> temperature by acting as greenhouse gas one one hand and by (making
>> cloud) replecting light and transporting energy from the surface to
>> the atmoshphere on the other. Read up on the energy involved in
>> changing states for another free clue.
>
>We're not in disagreement here, although I think you may underestimate
>the contribution of existing CO2 relative to existing water vapor. In
>any event, the greenhouse effect has indeed been long alive and well on
>Earth: Existing CO2 and water vapor, naturally occuring in the
>atmosphere, absorb infrared and re-radiate it to the Earth, raising the
>Earth's temperature by an average of about 33°C. Good for life as we
>know it.

True, but the CO2 on this planet is not the controlling factor at all.
It has a slight affect on the amout of water in the atmosphere,
indirectly, sure. But it's the water that regulates the temperature.
The only other factor is the energy output of the sun. If you
increase the CO2 dramatically (many times the current level) it would
increase the total greenhouse gasses enough to matter, but then what?
Do you think nothing else would change, that nohing would respond to
it? What happens when the air get's warmer? It holds more water,
that's what. But oops, that's more greenhouse gasses, right? Yes, but
more water in the air means more clouds which meand more reflectivity,
which means less energy reaching earth. Oddly enough, it also means
more precipitation and so might actually contribute to glaciers and
lowering of sea level, exactly opposite of the predictions of the
pseudoscience peddlers. They ignore the fact that glaciers are
actualy rivers and their source isn't cold weather but precipitation.
Retreating glaciers can be causes by warm temperatures or by drier air
caused by colder temperatures.

>> The reference earlier to CO2 increases following warming was not a
>> reference to today. There is currently no evidence that the earth is
>> warming in spite of what the pseudoscience peddling frauds are
>> claiming. Is it warmer now that 50 years ago? Yes, apparently. But
>> it's cooler than 100 years ago, and slightly cooler than 20 years ago.
>> Climate is a long term phenomonom, any claims based on a decade are
>> totally meaningless. The sun's cycle is 11 years, and there are too
>> many variables to determine anything is such a short meaningless
>> sample anyway.
>
>Nor may we be in disagreement here. Big picture of climatology is that
>in recent bio-geologic history (let's stipulate the late Holocene) the
>Earth has cycled through a number of significant warming / cooling
>cycles, where cold spells have lasted about 100,000 years, and warm
>spells, about 20,000. Analysis of ice cores at the polar caps show a
>strong correlation between CO2 in the atmosphere and temperature
>increases. Temperature swings have been about 5° to 8°C.

That's the theory, yes. We can't really be sure how localized
ancients estimates were, however. My pint above was simply that the
CO2 increases followed the warming. Today, that's not necessarily the
case, but could be if you consider that the current warm cycle started
about 10,000 years ago and only recently has the CO2 increased
significantly. But I don't think anyone seriously doubts that most of
the CO2 increase in the last century is manmade.

> Right now, we appear to be somewhere in a natural warming cycle,
>analogous, perhaps, to letting gravity freewheel our car down a hill.
>But in addition to the slow cycles of geo-time, we now also have some
>new news: CO2 concentrations are today 30% greater than they were at
>the start of the industrial revolution, and most thinking folks think
>this is due to re-carbonization of the atmosphere by human-combusted
>fossil fuels. So instead of freewheeling downhill, we've stepped on the
>gas. Accordingly, the current warming cycle could be quite different
>from ones in the past.

The CO2 doesn't matter. Water regulates the earth's temperature.

>>>RPD / Cambridge
>>>Facts can be your friends if you treat them right.
>>
>>
>> Here's some facts for you:
>>
>> 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
>> Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 99.438%
>> Methane (CH4) 0.471%
>> Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 0.084%
>> Misc. gases ( CFC's, etc.) 0.007%
>> Total 100.000%
>>
>>
>> Here's the reality you don't understand and the chicken little
>> peddlers don't want you to know:
>>
>> Anthropogenic (man-made) Contribution to the "Greenhouse
>> Effect," expressed as % of Total (water vapor INCLUDED) Based on
>> concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics
>>
>> % of All Greenhouse Gases % Natural % Man-made
>> Water vapor 95.000% 94.999% 0.001%
>> Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 3.618% 3.502% 0.117%
>> Methane (CH4) 0.360% 0.294% 0.066%
>> Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 0.950% 0.903% 0.047%
>> Misc. gases 0.072% 0.025% 0.047%
>> Total 100.000% 99.72% 0.28%
>>
>> Keep in mind that even that totally ignores the regulatory effects of
>> water on global temperature.
>>
>> William R. James
>>
>
>Not sure what all these numbers are supposed to be telling me, but
>offhand, they don't seem to match up with my 30% increase number (from T
>A Boden et al, eds, TRENDS '93: A COMPENDIUM OF DATA OF GLOBAL CHANGE,
>referencing the ice core sampling work of Neftel, Keeling, et al, as
>cited by Prof R Wolfson of Middlebury College).

Without looking at it, I bet it's another one of those pseudoscience
"studies" which intentionally mine data to support a pre-formed
conclusion.

>You're also ignoring
>the wild increase in concentrations of CFCs — an infinite increase of a
>profoundly effective greenhouse gas, because CFCs do not occur naturally
>in the atmosphere.

CFCs are significan greenhouse gasses in characteristic, but their
concentrations in the atmosphere aren't anywhere near enough to have
even the slightest impact. Tey fall under the "Misc. gases" above.

> In any event, the thing to keep in mind is that small variations in
>CO2 and average temp may be correlated to what we coast-dwelling humans
>would regard as very extreme consequences for our property and our
>lifestyles.

Until someone actually finds some evidence of global warming, it
belongs in the file with all the other unsuported pseudoscince claims,
right betwen "creationism" and "remote viewing".

>Aha! What was that word I used? May? May??? We don't know for
>absolute certain sure??? Well, does that mean that evasive maneuvers
>are premature?

Without evidence, it's just another in a long history of kooks
claiming the world is ending.

>When it came time to defend Americans from Iraqi
>terrorists, Bush didn't think so: Any level of risk was to big for Bush
>— because the consequences of apathy and being wrong were too great —
>and he acted.

Unlike the global warming scam, there was hard evidence and absolute
proof that Saddam was willing to murder people. He had inveded several
of his neighbors, he had used WMDs even on his own people, he openly
supported and funded terrorists, and repeatedly violated but the UN
resolutions and the cease fire agreement he signed. The USA was the
target of repeated terrorist attacks for decades. 9-11 was just the
latest one but a big one, but was the second time the WTC was
attacked. It's high time the US took care of the problem. And you
don't protect your neighborhood from malaria by trying to figure out
which mosquitoes represent the greatest risk and swatting only those.
You drain the swamp and exterminate the mosquitoes.

>Well, OK, but why doesn't this apply to climatology as
>well? If we can stomp Iraqis based on thin evidence of potential
>catastrophe, why are we not equally well justified in weaning ourselves
>from fossil fuel combustion?

No. No more than turn all the worls aluminum suppy into foil hats and
force everyone to wear them on the basis of some other unsupported
kook theory. If someone has evidence to support the claim that the
earth is warming and that humans can prevent it, then the correct
actions is to:
A) Try and figure out if it's a problem. It may not be, after all. A
few degrees higher temperature would make Greenland green again and
make canadian farmers wealthy, and contrary to pop mythology would
mean a wetter world. There were no deserts in the jurassic, after all.
And might sibly redistripute the ice into thicker ice covering less
land for the reasons mentioned earlier and might actually lower sea
levels or not alter it at all. Melting greenland doesn't mean all
that ice goes into the sea. Some would enter the atmosphere and more
precipitation means more snow and ice as well as more rain.

and
B) Take actual real measures to address the problem. Not transfer
money to third world dictators as if that makes any difference. Kyoto
is just a wealth transfer scam. Even if you but the nonsense that CO2
makes a difference and the human released CO2 is the culptit, there's
absolutely nothing in Kyoto that has even the slightest impact on
reducing CO2 emmissions. And even if it did, it would still ignore the
fact that much of the CO2 emmissions in places like the USA is used to
make food eaten by people under those third world dictatorships, not
to mention other things the rest of the world needs and uses including
the US military.

William R. James

Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)


2021 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron