Man made Global Warming

[john9001]

"Fires unleash huge amounts of CO2 greenhouse gas

According to the story in Nature, the fires in Indonesia released upwards of 2.57 gigatonnes of carbon, 40 percent of the mean carbon emissions released annually from fossil fuels, and "contributing greatly to the largest annual increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration detected since records began in 1957."

The study highlights that tropical peat stores huge amounts of carbon that will continue to be released to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide during future forest fires and land conversion from forest to agriculture. Carbon dioxide, one of the so-called “greenhouse gases," is responsible for global warming of the Earth’s atmosphere. Recurrent fires have the threatening potential of making a very significant contribution to this warming, particularly during an El Nino.

"The data presented in Nature are as relevant as ever because the forests in Indonesia have again been burning during this year’s extended dry season, caused by a weak El Ni'�o weather event," commented Dr. Florian Siegert, managing director of Remote Sensing Solutions (RSS) GmbH, a Munich-based consultancy and applications developer of Earth observation solutions. "Unfortunately the world does not pay attention to that."

some how we must find a way to blame this on the evil USA

[Angus]

So, dear Lazs, please help out here:
1: Where do the other 97% come from?
2: how did they rise to such an extent that the global CO2 PPm is somewhat double what it used to be before the industrial revolution??

BTW, don't "local" events sum up to become global, once you are referring to chemicals and exhausts released into the atmosphere? For instance, the "Lake deaths" in Scandinavia were from Sulphur emissions from the continent of Europe (Notably UK and Germany), - that was through the atmosphere. Same goes to CO2, - actually, greenhouse farmers up here USE CO2 to increase plant growth (photosyntetics at maximum bind C as fructose in the herbs grown), - but they can put that usage aside once we have the winds blowing from Europe. (drastic change of CO2% when the "industrial" air mixex with the air from the arctic)

Then here:
"angus.. you said..

"It still brings up some clear stats, and some go along with many things I have been posting, such as forests being burned down being a pretty naughty thing (30% of CO2 emissions only due to forest-burndowns), etc etc"

Maybe I read you and your scientist algore wrong but you seem to be saying that 30% of Co2 is because of burning forests... I think that is wrong but...

lazs"

30% of human caused release of CO2 to state it accurately, and AFAIK.
You clinging onto the interpretion of this makes me think you're out of ammo, - strawman.....

[FastFwd]

It's funny how all these global warming threads are started by people who don't believe it's happening, or that it's not man's fault.

* We had luckster claiming it wasn't happening, because his region of TX had had a cold winter.

* We had shuckins suggesting it wasn't happening because it's been cold in AR.

* Now we've got steve!

Why the denialists would bother to start these threads is a mystery to me. It's like a total atheist starting thread after thread about the nonexistence of God/gods.

And why do the denialists always ask for proof here in the o club? There's a welter of data out there on the web, on sites dedicated to the subject. Why come here asking for it? Can you say "troll"?

At least some progress has been made. The denialists are now split into two camps - those who still don't believe that warming is happening, and those who concede that it is, but is not being caused by man.

In luckster's thread, Mace2004 claimed that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was too small to play a part in the warming. It isn't.The CO2 in earth's atmosphere is essential. It plays a vital part in keeping the earth's temperature stable. Without it, the average temperature on earth would be about 18°C less than what it is now. But the converse is true - too much, and the earth becomes too warm. Some countries would not survive, but it will be the "insignificant" countries (eg. Bangladesh) that will suffer first, and may become submerged under sea water.

Mace2004 didn't believe that man's CO2 output was significant, but I was able to prove mathematically, using Mace2004's own figures for atmospheric CO2 concentrations together with CO2 data from the US Department of Energy, that within 60 years, man will release as much CO2 into the atmosphere as the amount that's currently out there. In fact because CO2 output is set to increase rapidly in the next few decades, it may only take 30 years.

Given that the tiny proportion of CO2 currently in the atmosphere is responsible for maintaining temperatures at current levels, can someone please explain to me that a man-made doubling of this amount in the next 30-60 years will have "no effect" on average temperatures.

cpxxx - how many airports are there in Antarctica or the Arctic, where all the ice is melting?

(Iceland might become an orchyard, while Texas will be unbearable).

Some people think it already is! LOL - just kidding...

[AWMac]

Here's the main cause of Global Warming...

Hot Air.

Mac

[sgt203]

Originally posted by AWMac

Here's the main cause of Global Warming...

Hot Air.

Mac

LOL..... Is that an Armani suit Chicken Little is wearing

[Angus]

Look at the "small and insignificant and local" areas of ice in the North

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by Curval

Pray tell...can you please elaborate on "due to many things" in relation to erosion patters that are causing the ice caps to melt.  

I didn`t realize that erosion "pattered". At least it didn`t on the farm where I was raised before we fixed it. It was real quiet.

I'm not a scientist and these techical terms confuse me sometimes.  

No doubt.

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by AWMac

Here's the main cause of Global Warming...

Hot Air.

Mac

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by Angus
Don't get lost here. Deforestation is IMHO one of the factor behind warming, while the warming causes the melting.
 

That`s like saying the highway caused a wreck  to happen when two passed out drunks met head on.

then calculate the effect of the ground emitting some methane while being worked and cropped untill the topsoil is milked dry

Not to mention all those cow farts.

[Angus]

Silly.
1: The deforestation parallel should be like it was the drivers and not the cars...
2: Before cow farts there was cow farts, and in America, before all the Buffaloes got shot (Some indian alarmists warned that their numbers were getting dangerously low), there was...BUFFALO FARTS!

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by Angus
Silly.
1: The deforestation parallel should be like it was the drivers and not the cars...
 

Yep. You can mix and match and scramble on just about anything to find and label a cause  for anything. If the highway hadn`t been there , there would be no wreck. Man causes all the total wrecks around the world by his building of highways.

2: Before cow farts there was cow farts, and in America, before all the Buffaloes got shot (Some indian alarmists warned that their numbers were getting dangerously low), there was...BUFFALO FARTS

And before that there were dinosaur farts.
And still the world survived.
Forest fires were caused by storms and lightning.
The storms in those times must have been the onslaught of global warming.

[Curval]

Wow Jackal.....you've got this quoting thing down pat and now you are a spell checking expert.  Amazing stuff.

You didn't answer any of my questions though.

I'll repeat them (and ensure accurate spelling):

Pray tell...can you please elaborate on "due to many things" in relation to erosion patterns that are causing the ice caps to melt. I'm not a scientist and these techical terms confuse me sometimes.

Population and agricultural increases and changes....chemicals? These things are driven by man..no? I mean, are you suggesting that man actually IS causing the polar caps to melt? I'm confused, because I've read so many times that it is a natural cyclical occurance that has happened for millions of years. Please expand on this for me.

Changes in current? Caused by what? Is this a natural occurence or did man do this too. Please clarify.

I look foward to very detailed and scientific explanations and clarifications.  Don't worry I can google all the scientific stuff I don't understand.  Maybe I'll learn something along the way.

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by Curval

I'll repeat them (and ensure accurate spelling):

Pray tell...can you please elaborate on "due to many things" in relation to erosion patterns that are causing the ice caps to melt. I'm not a scientist and these techical terms confuse me sometimes.  

If

techical

terms confuse you.....I can see why. Your googling the wrong stuff.

As said before it can be caused by many things. Local weather pattern changes. Chemicals.....or perhaps changes in the sun, undersea volcanic actions. Many things.

Google many.

I mean, are you suggesting that man actually IS causing the polar caps to melt?

Nope. What I am saying is there is not evidence one way or the other. Some are jumping on a wagon that has no wheels. The caps melting is proof of nothing in relation to global warming. Ice has been known to melt before.

Changes in current? Caused by what? Is this a natural occurence or did man do this too. Please clarify.

See above.............or use the google that you mentioned.

Don't worry I can google all the scientific stuff I don't understand.  

Feel free. Please.

[lazs2]

fastfwd..  the chicken littles of the planet are bombarding us with this scare every day... are you afraid of debate?    Perhaps you can tell us what is causing the warming...  do you agree with algore?   Do you think the sun has anything to do with it?

angus...

http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

this site has the numbers...  what is means is that if greenhouse gas is causing global warming that... we are contributing 0.28% if water vapor is taken into account... if we discount water vapor our contribution is more like 5% total.

Of that...  nature contributes 6

[indy007]

Originally posted by Angus
Indy: Ice core samples are just about the only samples of ancient air that we have.  They also contain the particles that came with the snow.
As for our "share" of the CO2, man's impact is also on the disposal side. Fling the numbers as you like, but please also look at CO2 ppm vs what used to be. What is it, - double, heading for triple?

Multiple studies on this so far have thrown out any high number (700ppm+) shown by the cores as erroneous. They keep the small numbers that fit their conclusion. Seems backwards to me considering in their processes to study it you actually lose co2 instead of gain it. It's a bad case of showing up with a conclusion in mind, and hunting data to fit it... instead of finding data and then drawing a conclusion. If you use the high numbers that didn't fit their conclusion, historically, co2 levels were much higher than they are now.

Your points about deforestation are valid.. however I think we'll have some radically different conclusions about how to fix it... I know you've mentioned your support for alternative fuels like Ethanol.... well, the demand for corn is now much higher. Shortages have hit the 3rd world, and deforestation is accelerating rapidly because of it. This is the exact opposite of progress. It's political gains for those that push for it, with a by-product of heavy environmental damage. The only boon from it is reducing dependence on oil from people that really don't like us... but again, that's political and not environmental.