Expert: We must act fast on warming

NobodyYouKnow wrote:

Yes he does. When he burns hydrocarbons (C+H) in oxygen(O2) he 'creates' CO2 molecules that were NOT there bofore the combustion.

True, but so does Nature.

NobodyYouKnow wrote:

Yes, but irrelevant. Man didn't CREATE the matter, but he certainly has a role moving matter about and has to consider the consequences.

You must also consider the consequences of where man would be now if he hadn't bothered to move the amount of matter he has to date?

NobodyYouKnow wrote:

There is no logic or reason to claiming that all carbon 'belongs' in the atmsophere as CO2.

There is no logic or reason pointing to the possibility that man will ever be able to use all the carbon that exists.

NobodyYouKnow wrote:

We could do it but only if we are willing to die off from toxic levels. And where is the reasoning for that?

Where is the reasoning that toxic levels could ever reach that density in the, "atmsophere?"

NobodyYouKnow wrote:

BG. Your posts are even more irratinal than usual.

"Irratinal?"

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

<quoted text>
I am sorry, but you say about the levels of gases in the atmosphere makes little sense to me. Further I think you are saying that global warming should be uniform throughout the world, and that since the US has cooled, that shows that global warming isn't happening. That does not make sense either. Weather patterns change from locality to locality and year to year. Since weather patterns can change several degrees and global warming is only a small fraction of a degree from year to year, local weather patterns can override the effects.
The ratio of what is natural and what is man made CO2 being introduced to the atmosphere is meaningless. The natural carbon cycle is dynamically balanced and has been so for millions of years. When we burn fossil fuels we introduce "new" CO2 into the atmosphere from coal and oil that was sequestered in past eons of the earth's history. This increases the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere today.

Let's clear it up for you.
Composition of the Atmosphere


Composition of Earth's atmosphere
The atmosphere is primarily composed of Nitrogen (N2, 78%), Oxygen (O2, 21%), and Argon (Ar, 1%). A myriad of other very influential components are also present which include the water (H2O, 0 - 7%), "greenhouse" gases or Ozone (O, 0 - 0.01%), and Carbon Dioxide (CO2, 0.01-0.1%).
Litesongs impressive 3 thousand thousand, blah blah blah number is exactly part of the .01-0.1 of the earths atmosphere.
So your side is saying that mans part of the total CO2 is causing the earths downfall. Thats 1/2 of .01 of the earths atmosphere(give or take .01-.002.25)
http://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/9-12...

"I think you are saying that global warming should be uniform throughout the world"
No, I asked you, if AGW is the cause of tempature change please explain the following;
C02 emmissions, may have decreased in this country, China has surpassed our highest per capita, and India has not slowed it's output, so how can sea ice increase at all in the Arctic?
How can the US see one of lowest Octobers EVER recorded?
You eluded to wind drift, is that your position?

"is dynamically balanced and has been so for millions of years"

Really!? Then why was the earth hotter 2000 years ago?

How long does CO2 remain in the atmosphere?

Earthling wrote:

<quoted text>True, but so does Nature.

Nature did not push CO2 levels from 280 ppm to 390 ppm. And as we DID, we have to accept the consequences.

Earthling wrote:

<quoted text>
<quoted text>You must also consider the consequences of where man would be now if he hadn't bothered to move the amount of matter he has to date?

I have no problem with the industrial revolution or the ignorance of pollution back in the old days when we didn't know any better. However we now DO know better.

Earthling wrote:

<quoted text>
<quoted text>There is no logic or reason pointing to the possibility that man will ever be able to use all the carbon that exists.

We already have emitted about 2/3rds of the 'hopefully safe' levels. We have NO reason to expect that we can continue in ignorance without consequences. That means that 'if it hurts when you do this, DON'T DO THIS'.

Earthling wrote:

<quoted text>
<quoted text>Where is the reasoning that toxic levels could ever reach that density in the, "atmsophere?"
<quoted text>"Irratinal?"

You seem to be seriously irrational as are many other posters. The Y2K bug, for example was ignored since it was discovered in 1958 until it was a full blown crisis with no time to fix. And fixing things AFTER they reach crisis is almost always more expensive. A bug that is found in the design phase of a software project typically costs around $1000 to fix. The SAME bug found in quality control testing typically takes $25,000 to fix.

So 'irrational' would certainly be a good description of the 'denialists' who think they can escape this 'bug' by ignoring it.

Jon24 wrote:

<quoted text>
Let's clear it up for you.
Composition of the Atmosphere

You don't understand the atmsophere well enough to even comment. For example, your 'the atmsophere' is actually the 'standard atmsophere' which is defined as the typical composition of the air excluding water vapor and at STP.

Real world atmsphere is totally different as it has pressure and moisture variations.

Jon24 wrote:

<quoted text>
So your side is saying that mans part of the total CO2 is causing the earths downfall. How long does CO2 remain in the atmosphere?

The earth has nothing to do with it. The climate change affects man and that is the impact we want to avoid.

As to the 'persistance' of additional CO2, that is uncertain but estimates of the 'half life' run to centuries to milleniad depending on level reached and other parameters.

Once we pass a threshold though, we are STUCK with it for a VERY long time so you want to be sure it isn't going to be a BIG problem before you rush in..

NobodyYouKnow wrote:

<quoted text>
You don't understand the atmsophere well enough to even comment. For example, your 'the atmsophere' is actually the 'standard atmsophere' which is defined as the typical composition of the air excluding water vapor and at STP.
Real world atmsphere is totally different as it has pressure and moisture variations.

HEY what part of
"A myriad of other very influential components are also present which include the water (H2O, 0 - 7%), "greenhouse" gases or Ozone (O, 0 - 0.01%), and Carbon Dioxide (CO2, 0.01-0.1%)." don't you get?

NobodyYouKnow wrote:

<quoted text>
The earth has nothing to do with it. The climate change affects man and that is the impact we want to avoid.
As to the 'persistance' of additional CO2, that is uncertain but estimates of the 'half life' run to centuries to milleniad depending on level reached and other parameters.
Once we pass a threshold though, we are STUCK with it for a VERY long time so you want to be sure it isn't going to be a BIG problem before you rush in..

"The earth has nothing to do with it. The climate change affects man and that is the impact we want to avoid"
estimates of that are total proff that mans CO2 does not effect climate. 100 to 1000 years is so bogus. That means that every once of CO2 emmitted over the LAST 60 YEARS IS STILL FLOATING AROUND! It would change the % of CO2 so fast that it would make up oh, 3% of the earths atmosphere right now. That is total BS

Jon24 wrote:

<quoted text>
HEY what part of
"A myriad of other very influential components are also present which include the water (H2O, 0 - 7%), "greenhouse" gases or Ozone (O, 0 - 0.01%), and Carbon Dioxide (CO2, 0.01-0.1%)." don't you get?

The part where you start talking about real world atmsopheres and the real effects of their constituents.

Do you know the 'black body equilibrium' temperature for the Earth at 1au?

How does it compare to the surface temperature?

What is the effect of the earths albedo?

Jon24 wrote:

<quoted text>
"The earth has nothing to do with it. The climate change affe3cts man and that is the impact we want to avoid"
estimates of that are total proff that mans CO2 does not effect climate. 100 to 1000 years is so bogus. That means that every once of CO2 emmitted over the LAST 60 YEARS IS STILL FLOATING AROUND! It would change the % of CO2 so fast that it would make up oh, 3% of the earths atmosphere right now. That is total BS

Your math is off a bit.
http://www.hydrogen.co.uk/h2_now/journal/arti...
A bit short of the three percent that you projected for the past 60 years.

We should build more Casinos for the Tribes, increase Welfare from 400 billion to 800 billion, build a big statue of Barney Franks, freeze Ted Kennedy's head,
Make more love not war, feel sorry for radical muslims that kill US troops,
and above all pledge allegence to Obama.

Double blind studies have shown that this will reduce negative emission by
87.2236%.

Party on Wayne

Gunship wrote:

We should build more Casinos for the Tribes, increase Welfare from 400 billion to 800 billion, build a big statue of Barney Franks, freeze Ted Kennedy's head,
Make more love not war, feel sorry for radical muslims that kill US troops,
and above all pledge allegence to Obama.
Double blind studies have shown that this will reduce negative emission by
87.2236%.
Party on Wayne

You are about as wacko as your hero, Glenn Beck.

Jon24 wrote:

While I have asked, and will ask you as well, we in the states may have lowered our CO2. China has surpassed us and india is putting out as much as ever. How is it the any gain in sea ice is possible?

I & several AGW advocates have reported the answer to your question 20 or 30 times.........

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/06/...

Earthling wrote:

"If you'd like more links that SUPPORT my claim........

.......that dirtling is a pukey proud racist pig denier, here are the pukey proud racist pig denier words of dirtling, earthling has no brain, eart hling (an alien has no affinity to Earth),'injun killer'(has no love for humans):
He no like transplanted euro injun killers. Lightsout have problem, jealous of mememine69, lightsout not get enough sex, maybe needs Bi-Lateral Orchiectomy, that solve problem, but may give him high pitched voice, can join tribal choir as soprano. Lightsout envious of Brian_G, lightsout not invited to belong to anyone's gang, lightsout sad person. Lightsout think Exxon bad medicine, he no understand way of world or how some of his tribe managed to learn to use internet. Lightsout very sad person. Lightsout have problem with humour, he no understand it. Lightsout think all world against him. Lightsout believe euro bad people, he no understand accident of birth theory. Lightsout put wrong baccy in peace pipe, drink bad firewater, make head fuzzy. Lightsong need visit medicine man, drive out evil spirits. Lightsong, him not religious man, he no understand forgiveness, only fear and hate.

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

Your math is off a bit.
http://www.hydrogen.co.uk/h2_now/journal/arti...

Your article is close to what I've been saying on numerous occasions in AGW topix forums. Deniers have been saying that infra-red energy absorbing CO2 is such a small amount in our atmosphere. With man-made additions to Earth's atmosphere, 2100 could see that infra-red absorbing CO2 will constitute 0.1% of the atmosphere, by weight, by 2100. Considering that nitrogen & oxygen (99+% of the atmosphere) have little to do with GHG warming, infra-red energy absorbing CO2 will have 100 times GHG warming effect than just the consideration of his mass quantity in the atmosphere. Also, with the real potential that other GHG's are on the verge of thawing & adding their mass tremendously to our atmosphere & multiplying CO2's warming factor.

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

<quoted text>
I think the term "ditto", referring to the religious followers of the RW propaganda pundits, to "echos". They repeat this stuff as if they know what they are repeating.

Oh professor Nemo please provide me so more enlightenment. The echos most-likely are the sounds of your neurons slouching from side to side. Try to remain focused on this thought...RW propaganda....RW propaganda....RW propaganda. They repeat this stuff as if they know what they are repeating. Were just pundits...believe in God...you know those awful Beck followers. Banjo lips...Oh I mean Bonjo.... nightly night.

NobodyYouKnow wrote:

Nature did not push CO2 levels from 280 ppm to 390 ppm. And as we DID, we have to accept the consequences.

Even the IPCC has admitted that not all GW is caused by AGW and say that some of it is natural, so it's unwise to blame AGW for all the warming, unless you disagree with the IPCC?

litesong wrote:

<quoted text>
Your article is close to what I've been saying on numerous occasions in AGW topix forums. Deniers have been saying that infra-red energy absorbing CO2 is such a small amount in our atmosphere. With man-made additions to Earth's atmosphere, 2100 could see that infra-red absorbing CO2 will constitute 0.1% of the atmosphere, by weight, by 2100. Considering that nitrogen & oxygen (99+% of the atmosphere) have little to do with GHG warming, infra-red energy absorbing CO2 will have 100 times GHG warming effect than just the consideration of his mass quantity in the atmosphere. Also, with the real potential that other GHG's are on the verge of thawing & adding their mass tremendously to our atmosphere & multiplying CO2's warming factor.

Don't you realize that the average atmospheric temperature is -20 deg C?

Don't you realize that the average Earth temperature is +15 deg C?

Place some water at +15 deg next to a block of Ice at -20 deg C.
Will the water heat up or cool down?
--------
So, add more of the trace gas CO2 (380ppm)...how much will the atmosphere increase in temperature?
The answer is ZIP.

Even if it increased the temperature by a whopping one degree C the atmospheric temperature would only be -19 deg C.

Place some water at +15 deg next to a block of Ice at -19 deg C.
Will the water heat up or cool down?

-------
Of course, the AGW'ers believe that the water will heat up with the -20 deg ICE and heat up even more with the -19 deg ICE.

HAHAHA....How silly can you get?

Toni wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh professor Nemo please provide me so more enlightenment. The echos most-likely are the sounds of your neurons slouching from side to side. Try to remain focused on this thought...RW propaganda....RW propaganda....RW propaganda. They repeat this stuff as if they know what they are repeating. Were just pundits...believe in God...you know those awful Beck followers. Banjo lips...Oh I mean Bonjo.... nightly night.

Try to gather what few neurons you possess and look at the science instead of bringing sacrifices to the alter of Beck!

It is the right wing folks that have attempted to turn science into politics. By propagandizing they have turned scientific advances into liberalism in their camp. The reason is two fold, they wish to protect their capitalists buddies over the public good and second, by continual demonizing a complex subject like global warming, they can throw doubt on it and by association belittle the liberals. Neither is for the common good and the latest PEW report shows that it is not working. The report shows that 77% of the people believe global warming is happening, in spite of the radical RW propaganda, and that we need to limit CO2.

Earthling wrote:

<quoted text>Even the IPCC has admitted that not all GW is caused by AGW and say that some of it is natural, so it's unwise to blame AGW for all the warming, unless you disagree with the IPCC?

I think that you are building straw men again. Tell us who has stated that all the warming is from AGW?

Gord wrote:

Don't you realize that the average atmospheric temperature is -20 deg C?
Don't you realize that the average Earth temperature is +15 deg C?
Place some water at +15 deg next to a block of Ice at -20 deg C.
Will the water heat up or cool down?...

Gord, I see your point but you have to admit that if the air warms the ground's heat loss slows and climate warms. I appreciate what you are trying to say, that CO2 isn't causing dangerous warming.

I've discovered that CO2's greenhouse effect is measurable, now I'll focus my quest for experimental tests on feedback, instead of the greenhouse effect. Thank you for your continued arguments, the more I read, the clearer they sound.