Global Warming is Natural

[Henry Hawk]

Okay, let me give this analogy thing a try....

Let's say a family of four live in a nice home, and they are expecting twins.  To boot mother-in-law is moving in to help with the kids.  Uncle Al and Aunt Martha are coming up to spend the summer and they have 3 kids.  When they all get there, things begin to get a little crazy.  Uncle Al announces to all the kids that if the house does not get cleaned up in the next 2 hours that some of the walls will start collapsing and risk great danger in being smashed by a wall.  He then goes to the neighbors house and tells them to not get too many people in their house or wall collapsing will be imminent.  Uncle Al decides to travel the neighborhood and shout at the top of his lungs about how dirty houses will collapse walls.  Meanwhile back at the ranch, Mom and Dad and the kids all decide to pitch in and try to tidy up and keep things under control.  Do a little each day to reduce the "craziness"....Uncle Al now has a movie distributed throughout the town, warning people that if EVERYBODY cannot clean up their house with in a 2 hour period....well, first the paint well start chipping off of the walls and then a chunk of drywall, then ....yes the whole wall will come down...and some of the people in the town decide that Al needs an Academy Award for this proclamation.  Then a committee is formed called KYWUTAS (Keep Your Walls Up To Al's Standards) and decide that everybody in the town must vacuum twice a day, and do dishes 6 times a day or do laundry every 4 hours, unless you have a family under 4 then you can sell some of your points to a larger family so they can relax on dish duty....and then and only then can walls stay strong and last forever......the end.


Whatcha think?

[Sandy Eggo]

I made an analogy to illustrate my point, you went off the deep end. The Earth in my analogy is represented by our individual homes. We're not talking about outer space at this point or even your neighbors house. It's common sense to understand that if we don't conserve our resources they'll run out. It's also common sense to know that the people on the planet have done some damage, simply by surviving. For many years, no on knew the damage that was taking place. Now, we do and it's imperative that we continue to learn about ways to prevent that from happening and to find alternatives to the way that we've been doing things. Otherwise, our home will be destroyed.

[Henry Hawk]

I made an analogy to illustrate my point, you went off the deep end. The Earth in my analogy is represented by our individual homes. We're not talking about outer space at this point or even your neighbors house. It's common sense to understand that if we don't conserve our resources they'll run out. It's also common sense to know that the people on the planet have done some damage, simply by surviving. For many years, no on knew the damage that was taking place. Now, we do and it's imperative that we continue to learn about ways to prevent that from happening and to find alternatives to the way that we've been doing things. Otherwise, our home will be destroyed.

Okay, I may have went off the deep end a little... ....

In all fairness, your point was very well taken....and I really do agree with you about conserving our resources and I know it is imperative to continue to learn more and more about it....................I think, we got to be carefull....and not act too harshly too quickly...I think, it takes a balance of thinking to logicaly work our way through this...

[IYT]

I'm just saying that it is not the AL GORE doomsday crap

Don't listen to what Al Gore says about human's effect on climate change or any other politician (or Hollywood type) for that matter, if you believe this is a political issue.  I believe humans are accelerating climate change, but not because Al Gore told me so. 

[Henry Hawk]

Don't listen to what Al Gore says about human's effect on climate change or any other politician (or Hollywood type) for that matter, if you believe this is a political issue.  I believe humans are accelerating climate change, but not because Al Gore told me so. 

believe me, I do not listen to ANY thing Al Gore has to say.....

[Magistrate]

1. "Much" of the greenhouse gases that increase global warming is caused by man-made processes. Left alone, with no inhabitants, the process would still occur, but not at a "Much" slower rate.

2. I'm still not following how conservation and preservation of the Earth is damaging the economy. If you want to talk about damage to the economy then lets start another thread and discuss the damage Bush and Co. has done. That's logically more sound.

3. It is doomsday if not treated seriously and quickly.

Let's take it to a very small scale. Our homes. When you and your wife are home alone, chances are that your home is tidy and clean. Everything is in it's place. The food in the fridge is orderly and there's plenty to eat. Certainly maintaining the house is very easy w/just the two of you.  Enter children, guests, etc. No one intends to "trash" the house, but the more people you have "living" in it...the bigger the mess, the consumption and the more difficult it becomes to maintain.  What do you do? You establish rules, hand out chores, take preventative measures to keep your home nice, clean and maintained. How does that adversely impact the economy of your home? In actuality, by taking preventative measures, you boost the economy of your home, because you have less waste and less to replace. 

See how that analogy could tie in w/the treatment of our planet?

Hmmmm, MsMojo, I believe that YOUR facts are woefully inaccurate. As I had posted in another thread, I will share again to help get the facts straight:

1. "One thing that I have noticed that is almost always overlooked by environmentalists and the media, is the largest quantity of greenhouse gas, water vapor! Water vapor has 78% of the impact on "global warming", yet they always fail to mention that fact.  Probably because we have no measurable impact on the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, and it would show that we are actually insignificant on the impact. We do have an impact on CO2 and other greenhouse gases (even if it is only 3% of that contribution!). BUT, when water vapor is considered into the mix (since it has the largest impact on the environment), the contribution to the global greenhouse effect by humans, is only 0.28% of the problem!
With that in mind, even if the Kyoto Protocols were to be followed to the strictest sense, and we forced a 30% reduction in greenhouse emissions on EVERYONE on the planet (which is not possible unless you are willing to go to war for it), the impact on the global environment would only improve the conditions by 0.008%! And if you assume that we are so bad in that respect that we cause half of the human impact, that makes it even less at 0.004%! When all of the natural variations in greenhouse gas emission conditions are considered, as well as variations in the sun's environment, the largest amount we could impact the environment, is far less than the natural fluctuations in the causes of greenhouse gases! In other words, it would cost us ALOT of jobs, ALOT of businesses, and LOTS and LOTS of money, but would have NO impact whatsoever on the problem! Is it really worth that? Let's face the facts, we are NOT as important to this planet as we think we are!

2. How is keeping our country clean while letting the Arab and South American nations rape their resources for our use "conservation and preservation of the Earth "?

3. The evidence in "1." says otherwise, my friend.

That being said: let's look at your analogy of "our homes". We work hard and get our house clean so we can be proud of our accomplishments and how clean our house is. But in our desire to keep OUR house clean, we commissioned the next door neighbor to provide us with our food. They go purchase the food from the local store, cook it in their kitchen and mess up alot of their dishes to provide us with our meals at a slightly lower price than it would have cost us. This makes it easy to keep our kitchen clean. But the reason it costs less, is because they don't bother to pay for cleaning or trash removal and they begin piling the trash up in their yard as they now cook the meals for us and them as well. We get rid of our cookware since they are doing all of our cooking and we don;t want to be tempted to dirty up the kitchen. One day they come to us and say that they can't make our meals at that price anymore and then raise the price for making the meals considerably. We get upset at the increase, but since we no longer have any cookware, if we want to eat, we are forced to accept their terms. All the while the pile gets higher in their yard. We could go buy more cookware and do the cooking ourselves, but in doing that, it would mean a larger expense for new cookware, as well as having to deal with cleaning our cookware and kitchen again, not to mention getting the trash properly disposed of after the meals. Now the rest of the neighborhood sees how pretty our yard is, but they also see how trashed the neighbor's yard is. They know that the trash in that yard is half ours, but that's OK to us, because we have our yard clean and that is what we are responsible for. The neighbors are responsible for their yard. Now we know that if we did our own cooking, we would have to pay for trash removal and work harder to keep our yard and house clean. It may be a little more work and a little more expensive to restock the cookware, but at least we aren't contributing to the large pile in the neighbor's yard anymore. Which is really better for the entire neighborhood, letting the neighbor continue to pile up the trash in their yard, or do what we can to prevent adding to their pile? Something to Consider!

[Bo D]

I keep seeing wator vapor mentioned here. This is another viewpoint....

"the atmosphere contains variable amounts of water vapour. Water vapour behaves differently from the greenhouse gases in that water is a liquid, with some vapour associated with it. Depending on the conditions, H₂O(l) and H₂O(g) are readily interconverted. If human activities such as burning fossil fuels puts H₂O(g) into the atmosphere, most of it will condense to H₂O(l) and eventually return to Earth as precipitation. So, from this point of view, water is not as much of a greenhouse problem as CO₂(g).


http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A197499

[Magistrate]

This is the statement from the BBC article you referenced BoD:

"However, one needs to consider what will happen as the Earth continues to warm. Firstly, H2O(g) will evaporate from the oceans, thus accelerating the global warming. On the other hand, droplets of H2O(l) in clouds will tend to block out the Sun, thus causing global cooling. This sort of contradictory effect is one reason why it is so difficult to create an accurate mathematical climate model."

That is a large part of the point I was making before, my friend. The natural variations which occur in atmospheric water vapor, are much larger than any quantities of greenhouse gases other than water vapor. CO2 contributions made by man, is only 0.28% of the total greenhouse gas problem when water vapor is factored in (as it should be since it has more than 3/4 of the impact on global temperatures). Atmospheric water vapor has natural variations in quantity which are much larger than the total impact of CO2. By taking the largest single factor out of consideration, is the only way that CO2 can look like it matters at all, but in doing that, it is ignoring the largest factor which is outside of our control. How can concentrating on one thing that is statistically insignificant going to have any real impact on the "problem"? That's like trying to bail out a lake with a coffee cup. The natural effects acting on the lake, will have considerably more impact on the lake's level, and the lake will never be emptied by your greatest efforts to empty it with that coffee cup. To attempt to eliminate a "problem" that has such little impact, would be considerably expensive, yet would have NO real impact. If the end result statistically will not change, why spend the money on something that will reap no benefit, when there are alot more things that money could be used for, that WOULD be impacted with the investment. Buy food for the children, or give good teachers the paychecks they deserve. Don't throw it away on something we really cannot change through our greatest efforts. NASA Earth System Science and Data Services has alot of good data on greenhouse gases and their sources.

[Sandy Eggo]

No Magistrate, my facts are not inaccurate. You've failed to paint a complete picture.

"Greenhouse gases are a natural part of the atmosphere. It is the increase in the amounts of these gases through human activity that causes global warming. Human activity such as land clearing and burning fossil fuels have increased the concentration of these gases. Humans have had most impact on the enhanced greenhouse effect through increases in the amounts of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide."

"The difference between the greenhouse effect and ozone depletion is often a source of confusion.

Both are important environmental issues. They are related, but different. Both result from chemicals released into the atmosphere by humans.

The greenhouse effect refers to the ability of some gases, known as the greenhouse gases, to trap heat within the atmosphere. These gases include water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide. Without it, life on Earth as we know it would not be possible. The problem is that we are increasing the greenhouse effect, and this is likely to change the earth's climate.

Ozone depletion refers to the destruction of the ozone layer, the commonly used name for a part of the atmosphere about 20 to 30 kilometres above the earth. The ozone layer prevents the sun's harmful ultraviolet radiation reaching the Earth's surface. Exposure to this radiation can cause skin cancer, eye damage and other health problems.

Ozone depletion is caused by chlorofluorocarbons (known as CFCs, and which are also powerful greenhouse gases) and halons. These chemicals destroy atmospheric ozone. Ozone depletion has occurred since the late 1970s and in many parts of the planet more ultraviolet radiation reaches the Earth's surface than in the past.

Ozone depletion in the stratosphere is believed to have caused the upper part of the atmosphere to become cooler. At the Earth's surface, however, pollution has increased the amount of ozone, which is believed to have caused some warming."

This is from the Australian government, but an excellent fact sheet re: Global warming. Co² is only a portion of the story and even then you're not considering the entire picture.

Human influences on climate

Anthropogenic factors are acts by humans that change the environment and influence climate. The biggest factor of present concern is the increase in CO2 levels due to emissions from fossil fuel combustion, followed by aerosols (particulate matter in the atmosphere) which exerts a cooling effect. Other factors, including land use, ozone depletion, animal agriculture [1] and deforestation also impact climate.

Fossil fuels
Carbon dioxide variations over the last 400,000 years, showing a rise since the industrial revolution.

Beginning with the industrial revolution in the 1850s and accelerating ever since, the human consumption of fossil fuels has elevated CO2 levels from a concentration of ~280 ppm to more than 370 ppm today. These increases are projected to reach more than 560 ppm before the end of the 21st century. Along with rising methane levels, these changes are anticipated to cause an increase of 1.4–5.6 °C between 1990 and 2100 (see global warming).

Aerosols

Anthropogenic aerosols, particularly sulphate aerosols from fossil fuel combustion, are believed to exert a cooling influence; see graph.[2] This, together with natural variability, is believed to account for the relative "plateau" in the graph of 20th century temperatures in the middle of the century.

Land use

Prior to widespread fossil fuel use, humanity's largest impact on local climate is likely to have resulted from land use. Irrigation, deforestation, and agriculture fundamentally change the environment. For example, they change the amount of water going into and out of a given locale. They also may change the local albedo by influencing the ground cover and altering the amount of sunlight that is absorbed. For example, there is evidence to suggest that the climate of Greece and other Mediterranean countries was permanently changed by widespread deforestation between 700 BC and 0 BC (the wood being used for ship-building, construction and fuel), with the result that the modern climate in the region is significantly hotter and drier, and the species of trees that were used for ship-building in the ancient world can no longer be found in the area.

A controversial hypothesis by William Ruddiman called the early anthropocene hypothesis [2] suggests that the rise of agriculture and the accompanying deforestation led to the increases in carbon dioxide and methane during the period 5000–8000 years ago. These increases, which reversed previous declines, may have been responsible for delaying the onset of the next glacial period, according to Ruddimann's overdue-glaciation hypothesis.

Animal agriculture

According to a 2006 United Nations report, animal agriculture is responsible for 18% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalents. By comparison, all transportation emits 13.5% of the CO2. In addition to increased CO2 emissions, animal agriculture produces 65% percent of human-related nitrous oxide (which has 296 times the global warming potential of CO2) and 37% of all human-induced methane (which is 23 times as warming as CO2)[3].



Some greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide occur naturally and are emitted to the atmosphere through natural processes and human activities. Other greenhouse gases (e.g., fluorinated gases) are created and emitted solely through human activities. The principal greenhouse gases that enter the atmosphere because of human activities are:

    * Carbon Dioxide (CO2): Carbon dioxide enters the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal), solid waste, trees and wood products, and also as a result of other chemical reactions (e.g., manufacture of cement). Carbon dioxide is also removed from the atmosphere (or "sequestered") when it is absorbed by plants as part of the biological carbon cycle.

I'd like to interject here that this is becoming increasingly difficult since more of our plants are being destroyed in favor of $$- see "deforestation"

    * Methane (CH4): Methane is emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil. Methane emissions also result from livestock and other agricultural practices and by the decay of organic waste in municipal solid waste landfills.
    * Nitrous Oxide (N2O): Nitrous oxide is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities, as well as during combustion of fossil fuels and solid waste.
    * Fluorinated Gases: Hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride are synthetic, powerful greenhouse gases that are emitted from a variety of industrial processes. Fluorinated gases are often used as substitutes for ozone-depleting substances (i.e., CFCs, HCFCs, and halons). These gases are typically emitted in smaller quantities, but because they are potent greenhouse gases, they are sometimes referred to as High Global Warming Potential gases ("High GWP gases").

[url=http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/index.html#ggo]http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/index.html#ggo

[IYT]

Global Warming...I mean Climate Change is natural.  Fire is natural, fossil fuels come from the earth, some humans are natural born pyromaniacs, it's natural to want to burn things sometimes. 

But...there are ways to find renewable energy resources (besides the ones we already know about), implement them, and not bankrupt the economy.

[Henry Hawk]

Global Warming...I mean Climate Change is natural.  Fire is natural, fossil fuels come from the earth, some humans are natural born pyromaniacs, it's natural to want to burn things sometimes. 

But...there are ways to find renewable energy resources (besides the ones we already know about), implement them, and not bankrupt the economy.

well said IYT....I agree!!

[Magistrate]

No Magistrate, my facts are not inaccurate. You've failed to paint a complete picture.

How so, my friend? Isn't water vapor a "greenhouse gas"? YES, it is! What is the impact of water vapor on global temperature change, as compared to the other "greenhouse gasses"? According to information from the US Department of Energy, the EPA, and the US Energy Information Administration, water vapor has far and above, the largest impact on global warming. How is the addition of this largest impacting "greenhouse gas" into the formula, a less complete picture than it's convenient omission by your sources?

[Sandy Eggo]

How so, my friend? Isn't water vapor a "greenhouse gas"? YES, it is! What is the impact of water vapor on global temperature change, as compared to the other "greenhouse gasses"? According to information from the US Department of Energy, the EPA, and the US Energy Information Administration, water vapor has far and above, the largest impact on global warming. How is the addition of this largest impacting "greenhouse gas" into the formula, a less complete picture than it's convenient omission by your sources?

Did you even look at the links I provided? One of which is the EPA? My information is accurate. You only provided a very small piece of the total picture.

[Sandy Eggo]

Perhaps you should take a look a this. Very basic, but accurate. It may help you understand the difference between the green house effect and global warming.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6662932/

[Locutus]

Here's something else that's worth a read:

WASHINGTON - Two federal agencies are investigating whether the Bush administration tried to block government scientists from speaking freely about global warming and censor their research, a senator said Wednesday.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15519947/