Global Warming is Natural

[Magistrate]

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.

That is twice that you have said that. I'm sorry MsMojo, but I have included ALL greenhouse gases in my comments. I have NOT omitted the primary greenhouse gas from the formula, as your sources (which I read) DID. How is omitting the primary ingredient in the greenhouse gas picture, "painting a more complete picture", and inclusion of the primary ingredient, only providing "a very small piece of the total picture"???? You have me really confused now.
The last source that you gave, although simplistic, was PARTIALLY accurate. HOWEVER, you need to pay close attention to the slides my friend! Slide #3 says (I am quoting from the slide):
"About one percent of the Earth's atmosphere is composed of greenhouse gases, primarily water vapor, carbon dioxide, ozone, methane, and nitrous oxide."
YET, the only molecule it shows in the graphic is CO2! Why is that MsMojo? Then in slide #4, again no water molecules, ONLY CO2! Why would they not show water vapor in that graphic if it IS the "primary greenhouse gas"? Because WE CANNOT change the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, but we can CO2!
I do understand the difference between the "Greenhouse Effect" and "global warming". The link you provided states in slide #6 that the "Greenhouse Effect" has an impact on "global warming". I said in my post:
"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 does my statement conflict at all with the source that you provided?
The main factor that the advocates for CO2 emission reduction tend to leave out, is that the natural variations in the amount of the PRIMARY greenhouse gas (water vapor), is far greater than the total amounts of CO2, and the amount that we could realisitically reduce it is insignificant! So if the amount of water vapor can vary more than the amount of CO2, and has the largest effect (according to both YOUR sources and mine), how can CO2 possibly have as much impact as they say it does? It can't! Even if we could eliminate ALL manmade CO2 emissions, it would still (according to them) only reduce CO2 by 30% which is not even possible to obtain!
Now if CO2 was the primary gas (which it ISN'T), or (at least) was found in quantities that had a larger impact than the natural variations in the primary greenhouse gas (water vapor), then I would agree with you and them. I would support any efforts to eliminate manmade CO2 emissions. HOWEVER, all of the advocates for taking incredibly large and costly steps to reduce a statisically insignificant factor in the amount of "Greenhouse Gases" or "global warming", are the ones who fail to paint a complete picture, by omitting the largest impacting greenhouse gas from their picture! If they included water vapor in their reports, they would show the insignificance of CO2 when it is compared to water vapor, and even moreso the manmade portion of that, and would loose their valuable funding for their research. They would be seen as looking at something that is NOT worth the investment or effort (which IMO IT ISN'T! ). But if they can convince others that it has a larger impact than it TRULY does, then they get the MONEY! I find it equally interesting that the source cited for the graphic you linked to, is a political report, drafted by politicians from the UN, and NOT a report written by climatologists.  

So let's take the reports literally and eliminate EVERY possible way in which we contribute to the "Greenhouse Gas" problem. We would need to eliminate the following:
1. ALL vehicles (including horses, they are livestock and produce methane).
2. ALL coal mining, gas and oil wells (since they are fossil fuels).
3. ALL electrical powerplants (most burn fossil fuels to generate energy, and those that don't use fossil fuels to manufacture the parts for them).
4. ALL fireplaces and wood burners (they burn fossil fuels and reduce the number of trees to remove CO2).
5. ALL metal processing (they use fossil fuels to generate the heat used to refine the metals).
6. ALL livestock (the second largest source of our trouble, Methane).
7. ALL manufacturing (since they rely on fossil fuels to run the plants).
8. ALL fires (source of CO2)

As you can see, that would have a pretty extensive impact on us as a people. Our economy would be gone, as would employment, food, transportation and any ways to stay warm short of wrapping up in the skins of the livestock we kill to reduce Methane emissions). And even after ALL of that, we would have made less impact on the Earth than a cloudy day! Is it really worth it? To do any less would have even less impact, so we must do everything we can!

I know that all sounds rediculous, but that is what it would take to have any measurable impact. That IS the point I am trying to make. Why concentrate on a leaky faucet inside the house, when a firehose is spraying through the window? It would be no different than ignoring the firehose (water vapor), and fixing the leaky faucet (CO2). It won't change anything, but at least you might get the leak fixed!

Show me how their ignoring water vapor and it's impact, is painting a more complete picture than my including it, when they admit it for themsleves, that water vapor is a "Greenhouse Gas". I am and have been willing to listen. I have read all of your sources as well as others on the subject. All those who make a big deal out of CO2, only do so by omitting water vapor from their results. If they didn't, people would see just how little impact we really have on the planet!

You have not so much as acknowledged water vapor as a "Greenhouse Gas", and have apparently ignored that fact, so who really is painting an incomplete picture, my friend? If you refuse to even consider the affects and impact of water vapor, as compared to the other "Greenhouse Gases", then we have reached an impass in this discussion.

[Sandy Eggo]

I haven't ignored anything. I never said that WATER isn't part of the Greenhouse gas make up. However, we're talking about GLOBAL WARMING. Take another look.

The greenhouse house effect is natural, HOWEVER, the process has accelerated by mankind's use of the earth which has INCREASED the amount of greenhouse gases and damage. You seem to be hanging your entire hat on the fact that CO² is part of the greenhouse gas make up. It's not the total picture. I keep saying it because you refuse to acknowledge it.

1% is a very small percent to be diluted with other gases. While you're paying close attention, perhaps you should continue on through the slide show and take a look at the contributions to the problem of global warming.

[Sandy Eggo]

So let's take the reports literally and eliminate EVERY possible way in which we contribute to the "Greenhouse Gas" global warming problem. We would need to eliminate the following:
1. ALL vehicles (including horses, they are livestock and produce methane).
2. ALL coal mining, gas and oil wells (since they are fossil fuels).
3. ALL electrical powerplants (most burn fossil fuels to generate energy, and those that don't use fossil fuels to manufacture the parts for them).
4. ALL fireplaces and wood burners (they burn fossil fuels and reduce the number of trees to remove CO2).
5. ALL metal processing (they use fossil fuels to generate the heat used to refine the metals).
6. ALL livestock (the second largest source of our trouble, Methane).
7. ALL manufacturing (since they rely on fossil fuels to run the plants).
8. ALL fires (source of CO2)

BTW, This is simply ridiculous and spin that even Rush Limbaugh couldn't rival.

[Henry Hawk]

http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/02/critics_seek_to_deflate_hype_s.php

A spokesman for Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe says a much ballyhooed United Nations report on global warming was not approved by scientists but rather by politically motivated U.N. bureaucrats.

[Henry Hawk]

http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/02/hurricane_expert_says_global_w.php

A man who has been called "the world's foremost hurricane expert" is dismissing a new United Nations report on global warming that implies that fossil fuel emissions are to blame for the purported phenomenon.

A veteran meteorologist says a new United Nations report on global warming is "grossly exaggerated." The report from the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claims global warming is "very likely" caused by human-induced fossil fuel emissions and warns of dire weather conditions to come.

Dr. William Gray is a professor emeritus in the Department of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University in Fort Collins, and has been a meteorologist for 53 years. He strongly disagrees with the conclusions of the U.N. report.

"When they come out and say they're 99 percent sure, yeah -- putting out fossil fuels may be warming the globe a little bit," he concedes, "but there's many other natural processes that are altering the globe's temperature, and they don't consider those." Gray relates that approach to "sort of like putting on blinders" and seeing fossil fuels as the only cause for climate change "when there's many other processes doing it."

Gray, who heads the Tropical Meteorology Project at CSU, believes rising global temperatures over the last 30 years are due to deep ocean circulation pattern changes, and predicts that in five or ten years, temperatures will be slightly lower than they are now.

The meteorologist says proponents of human-induced global warming have been attempting to send the public into a panic. "The problem with these global models [is that] they're getting grant money and living off this," he states.

"See, if you scare people and this goes out to the general public, you can get research funds and so on to continue this," he continues. "And they've gradually painted themselves into a corner where they've got to claim worse and worse things to keep their funding going."

Dr. Gray, who is currently finalizing a report on Al Gore's global warming documentary An Inconvenient Truth, says the film is a "gross exaggeration" and contains may factual errors.

[Sandy Eggo]

The world's leading climate scientists on Friday swept away the last doubts surrounding global warming, saying they were certain human activities were altering the climate and warning severe effects were inevitable unless greenhouse gas emissions were curbed.

The evidence for climate change caused by fossil fuel combustion was "unequivocal", said the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a body comprising 2,500 climate experts convened by the UN.
Story continues below ↓ advertisement

Their report predicted severe heatwaves, droughts, storms and floods resulting from an expected rise of 3 degrees Celsius in average global temperatures by 2100. It will be difficult for governments to ignore because it was agreed by all UN members, including the US and China.

Six years in the making, the report is the most authoritative ever produced on climate change and will form the basis for negotiations on a possible successor to the Kyoto treaty, the main provisions of which expire in 2012.

Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, said: "You can see [from the report] what the costs of inaction are. Everything is [included in the report] by consensus, so the implication is that it has the stamp of acceptance by all governments in the world."

Yvo de Boer, secretary-general of the UN climate change secretariat, said work should now begin on a successor treaty to Kyoto that would include obligations on developed countries to cut carbon dioxide emissions and incentives for poor countries to limit theirs.

Stavros Dimas, the European Union's environment commissioner, called the IPCC's findings "a grim report" and urged governments to agree to the European Commission's proposal of reducing emissions by 30 per cent by 2020.

Jacques Chirac, French president, proposed a new worldwide environmental organisation under the UN, to spearhead action on emissions.

But the report met a cool reception from the US government. Sharon Hays, leader of the US delegation in Paris and deputy director of the White House office of science and technology policy, said: "This summary for policymakers captures and summarises the current state of climate science research and will serve as a valuable source of information for policymakers."

The US is the world's biggest emitter of greenhouse gases and has rejected the Kyoto treaty.

Achim Steiner, director-general of the UN Environment Programme, said in the light of the report's findings, it would be "irresponsible" to resist or seek to delay actions on mandatory emissions cuts.

MSN

[Sandy Eggo]

"Global warming deniers, prominently represented by Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), continue to twist the facts to serve their rhetorical needs. For example, yesterday, said senator charged that the media was covering up the fact that the IPCC summary to be released this week "was not approved by scientists but by politically motivated UN bureaucrats."

This is flat-out false. As my story from yesterday points out, the scientists have the right of refusal to any language changes in said summary that do not reflect the underlying science. And the document is largely being negotiatd by diplomats from the respective countries, not the UN at all.

The good senator also points to a supposed conspiracy that must be behind the decision to publish this summary three months before the first actual scientific document it is based on. Rather, that decision may be based on the tens of thousands of comments from various governments the authors of these consensus reports have received and must address. After all, the process to become an IPCC reviewer is not a difficult one. "

Global Warming Obstructionism

[Sandy Eggo]

National Oceanic and Atmosphere Association

[Sandy Eggo]

Carbon Dioxide:

Atmospheric carbon dioxide derives from multiple natural sources including volcanic outgassing, the combustion of organic matter, and the respiration processes of living aerobic organisms;

This is the natural part of the process and a small amount

man-made sources of carbon dioxide come mainly from the burning of various fossil fuels for heating, power generation and transport use. It is also produced by various microorganisms from fermentation and cellular respiration.

This is how man increases the level which increases the effect that CO²


Plants convert carbon dioxide to oxygen during a process called photosynthesis, using both the carbon and part of the oxygen to construct carbohydrates. The resulting gas, oxygen, is released into the atmosphere by plants, which is subsequently used for respiration by heterotrophic organisms, forming a cycle.

This is a process that is becoming increasingly fragile due to deforestation



As of January 2007, the earth's atmospheric CO2 concentration is is about 0.0383% by volume (383 ppmv) or 0.0582% by weight.[4] This represents about 2.996×1012 tonnes, and is estimated to be 105 ppm (37.77%) above the pre-industrial average.[5]

Because of the greater land area, and therefore greater plant life, in the northern hemisphere as compared to the southern hemisphere, there is an annual fluctuation of up to 6 ppmv (± 3 ppmv), peaking in May and reaching a minimum in October at the end of the northern hemisphere growing season, when the quantity of biomass on the planet is greatest.[citation needed]

Despite its small concentration, CO2 is a very important component of Earth's atmosphere, because it absorbs infrared radiation at wavelengths of 4.26 µm (asymmetric stretching vibrational mode) and 14.99 µm (bending vibrational mode) and enhances the greenhouse effect.[citation needed] See also "Carbon dioxide equivalent".

Natural CO² is in small concentrations and when it does it's job it increases the temperature of the Earth. Increased amounts have been proven to accelerate the process. Man through our processes has added to the increase in the amount of this gas. That is documented FACT.


The initial carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of the young Earth was produced by volcanic activity; this was essential for a warm and stable climate conducive to life. Volcanic activity now releases about 130 to 230 teragrams (145 million to 255 million short tons) of carbon dioxide each year.

Since the start of the Industrial Revolution, the atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased by approximately 110 µL/L or about 40%, most of it released since 1945. Monthly measurements taken at Mauna Loa[6] since 1958 show an increase from 316 µL/L in that year to 376 µL/L in 2003, an overall increase of 60 µL/L during the 44-year history of the measurements. Burning fossil fuels such as coal and petroleum is the leading cause of increased man-made CO2; deforestation is the second major cause. Around 24 billion tonnes of CO2 are released per year worldwide, equivalent to about 6 billion tonnes of carbon.

In 1997, Indonesian peat fires may have released 13%–40% as much carbon as fossil fuel burning does.[7][8] Various techniques have been proposed for removing excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in carbon dioxide sinks. Not all the emitted CO2 remains in the atmosphere; some is absorbed in the oceans or biosphere. The ratio of the emitted CO2 to the increase in atmospheric CO2 is known as the airborne fraction (Keeling et al., 1995); this varies for short-term averages but is typically 57% over longer (5 year) periods.

The Global Warming Theory (GWT) predicts that increased amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere tend to enhance the greenhouse effect and thus contribute to global warming. The effect of combustion-produced carbon dioxide on climate is called the Callendar effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#Pollution_and_toxicity

[Magistrate]

National Oceanic and Atmosphere Association

Where's the WATER VAPOR?

This from one source listed (Wikipedia):

Where's the WATER VAPOR?

Who's hanging their hat on CO2, my friend?? Has not my point been this entire time, the omission of WATER VAPOR (which IS the primary greenhouse gas) from all of those sources???? I noticed in your pie chart above, that the primary greenhouse gas of WATER VAPOR, seems to be missing! Why is that? Let's include it now and see what the pie chart SHOULD REALLY look like!


I'm sorry that it is not a pie chart, but a graph. I think it still makes the POINT more clear. Note the percentage of WATER VAPOR, COMPARED to CO2 and the other gases. 

Which constitutes 78% of ALL greenhouse gases (as shown in the above graph), yet man has the smallest impact on it at 0.001%!

Of the 3.618% of greenhouse gases that is CO2, man can only impact 3.2% of that!

Of the 0.36% of greenhouse gases that is Methane, man can only impact 18.3% of that!

Of the 0.95% of greenhouse gases that is Nitrous, man can only impact 4.933% of that!

And the largest which we can impact is CFCs! Of the 0.072% of greenhouse gases which is CFCs, man can impact 65.711% of that!
So after doing the math this is what it looks like:

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 ( CFC's, etc.)   0.072%                          0.025%            0.047% 
Total                                  100.00%                         99.72%            0.28% 

For the record, I hang my hat on WATER VAPOR (since it is 95% of the problem!).

source: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

[Sandy Eggo]

For the record, I hang my hat on WATER VAPOR (since it is 95% of the problem!).

For the record, I'm glad you at least recognize there is a problem. 

As for water vapor, you can be wrong about it's significance if you want to, I don't care. The other gases are emphasized due to the influence humans have on the levels. The levels of which are causing damage to the ozone and increasing the temperature of our earth. Perhaps there are high levels of water vapor, could that be due to the increased melting of the ice caps.  Global warming - that's not a good thing. 

Why Do Human-made Greenhouse Gases Matter When Water Vapor Is the Most Potent Greenhouse Gas?

" However, just because water vapor is the most important gas in creating the natural greenhouse effect does not mean that human- made greenhouse gases are unimportant. Over the past ten thousand years, the amounts of the various greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere remained relatively stable until a few centuries ago, when the concentrations of many of these gases began to increase due to industrialization, increasing demand for energy, rising population, and changing land use and human settlement patterns. Accumulations of most of the human-made greenhouse gases are expected to continue to increase, so that, over the next 50 to 100 years, without control measures, they will produce a heat-trapping effect equivalent to more than a doubling of the pre-industrial carbon dioxide level.

Increasing amounts of human-made greenhouse gases would lead to an increase in the globally averaged surface temperature. However, as the temperature increases, other aspects of the climate will alter, including the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. While human activities do not directly add significant amounts of water vapor to the atmosphere, warmer air contains more water vapor. Since water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas, global warming will be further enhanced by the increased amounts of water vapor. This sort of indirect effect is called a positive feedback. "

http://www.gcrio.org/ipcc/qa/09.html

Aside from all of this, I don't understand why anyone would be so adamant about not protecting the Earth. We should do everything we can to preserve the quality of our natural resources. The people who don't want to acknowledge the crisis are the ones that are ensuring that the scientific research and resulting information is clouded w/their economic ruin spin. Think about it, there's money to be made in preserving the earth. An industry can be built around researching and building alternatives. It's just not coal money, oil money, deforestation money. There are people who would sell Earth to the devil just for another barrel of oil. They want to believe that things can go on business as usual so they can continue to rape and damage the Earth.

[Magistrate]

Aside from all of this, I don't understand why anyone would be so adamant about not protecting the Earth.

Talk about SPIN! All I was doing was pointing out how LITTLE impact that we would have on the "problem", if we did EVERYTHING that we could to reduce man-made greenhouse gas emissions! Please provide ANY quote from me where I said that we should NOT protect the Earth. Just ONE will do! You say I am wrong about water vapor's significance, BUT, I'll bet that YOUR lights will still be on this evening, YOUR refrigerator will still be running, and YOUR car will still be used, even though they ALL contribute to the man-made greenhouse gas "problem". Seems pretty hypocritical to me! I am finished with this exchange.

[awol]

i'm just gonna say this.

citing 'water vapor' as responsible for the vast majority of global warming is like citing 'marriage' as responsible for the vast majority of divorce.

that's all.

carry on.

[Sandy Eggo]

Talk about SPIN! All I was doing was pointing out how LITTLE impact that we would have on the "problem", if we did EVERYTHING that we could to reduce man-made greenhouse gas emissions! Please provide ANY quote from me where I said that we should NOT protect the Earth.

To NOT use resources to find alternatives which reduce emissions and to discourage further research and understanding of the problem is is not being environmentally irresponsible. Granted you can't do the research yourself, but you support those that wouldn't take it seriously and that is evident in the SPIN of your posts.

You say I am wrong about water vapor's significance,

Not just me, but quoted scientific sources.

BUT, I'll bet that YOUR lights will still be on this evening, YOUR refrigerator will still be running, and YOUR car will still be used, even though they ALL contribute to the man-made greenhouse gas "problem". Seems pretty hypocritical to me! I am finished with this exchange.

Of course they will. However, I use energy efficient bulbs and I turn lights off when they're not needed. My car as many of the new models is equipped to reduce the amount of emissions. The point is to reduce as much as possible. To assume that it's all or nothing is ridiculous and yet more SPIN. So the only alternative is to sit in the dark and not breath? Puhleeeze.  Change comes with research and awareness. When you have people spreading propganda intended to indicate there isn't a problem then that tends to slow progress.

[Henry Hawk]

But when you got people spreading propaganda intended to indicate that the Earth is going to end, just to speed up something that could wreck the economy....then that is a spin