Printable View
Conformation of this?~:confused:Quote:
The way to truly "pwn" man-made global warming, is just a look at the numbers. Including water vapor (the most significant greenhouse gas), human contributions account for something like less than .5% So, if we were to magically halve our gas emissions (go back to living in caves?), the total effect on greenhouse gas would still be virtually insignificant.
Here's a link
Very interesting indeed. Though, that does make me want to look a little closer, I find some flaws.
1)Last revised: January 10, 2003
2) Is it a reliable source? This is unknown really...
Good find though:bow:
The link tries to assert that in the global warming model it does not include water.
I used Wiki, IPCC is hard to chew on:
Also CO2 has increased by about 30% since the Industrial Revolution (1750), Methane 150% and Nitrous Oxide some 15%.Quote:
Water vapor is a definite part of the greenhouse gas equation even though not under direct human control: IPCC TAR chapter lead author (Michael Mann) considers citing "the role of water vapor as a greenhouse gas" to be "extremely misleading" as water vapor can not be controlled by humans [6]; see also [7].
The IPCC discuss the water vapor feedback [8].
The 1990 IPCC report says "If H2O were the only GHG present, then the GHE of a clear-sky midlatitude atmosphere... would be about 60-70% of the value with all gases included; by contrast, if CO2 alone was present, the corresponding value would be about 25%".
Duration of stay and warming capability of the different greenhouse gases can be compared:
Quote:
CO2 duration stay is variable (approximately 200-450 years) and its global warming potential (GWP) is defined as 1.
Methane duration stay is 12 +/- 3 years and a GWP of 22 (meaning that it has 22 times the warming ability of carbon dioxide)
Nitrous oxide has a duration stay of 120 years and a GWP of 310
CFC-12 has a duration stay of 102 years and a GWP between 6200 and 7100
HCFC-22 has a duration stay of 12.1 years and a GWP between 1300 and 1400
Tetrafluoromethane has a duration stay of 50,000 years and a GWP of 6500
Sulfur hexafluoride has a duration stay of 3,200 years and a GWP of 23900.
I think Mann's study has been critiqued enough to cast his credibility somewhat into doubt. Further, just because water vapor is beyond human control, we can't dismiss it, as it is apparently the single largest contributor. Mann saying it's "misleading" because humans don't control it smacks of a bias. To me, dismissing it would be "misleading" since it overstates human contribution.
Further, increases in CO2 levels, in itself, arent particularly compelling to me either, as they've occurred historically in the past without any human intervention.
I agree water has to be included in the equation. It has to be, and it makes the impact of added gasses more significant not less.
Why? Because water vapour is potentially part of a runaway feedback loop.
More warmth, more water vapour, more water vapour, more greenhouse effect, more warmth. The good thing is that each type of gas has a certain window in which it blocks light. So even if we have 100% humidity of water, heat can still escape.
This is where the other greenhouse gasses, particularly the CFCs have a role to play. Not only do they work better as light blockers in their zone, they have a different zone that they block to water. So now the ways to get out apart from water are getting blocked up.
It is like the water is the walls of the house, we are now closing the doors with carbon dioxide and methane and the windows with CFCs while turning up the heat with land clearance.
Net effect will be? No Idea. Some people are going to do very well out of the changes if they turn out to be significant. That is the crux of the situation we really don't know how significant it could be. We only have 3 rocky planets in the solar system to make any comparison to, and none of them are earth size, in earths orbit... so we do need to study things a bit more thoroughly.
I can give you one example of many thousands. We're currently extincting most animals that we can eat except cows, sheep, goats and chickens, pretty much. The cows, sheep, goats and chickens we keep are all mostly of the same race, with little genetic variation. Diseases that can kill an entire species occur randomly. The fewer species we have left to eat, the greater the chances we'll soon lose one of these species. Losing one of them would be a severe blow, and there's no way to create new species and genetical variation once we've removed it. Face a future where everyone has to be vegetarian... And when we start eating vegetables only, we'll be in trouble because vegetables lose most of their nutritional value when heated, so if we want vitamins and minerals we need to eat the raw, which increases the risks of disease spreading. Add to that how we're causing erosion of soil, more and more losing the ability to grow things on the soils, getting problems with the fresh water going poisonous, among other things because of nerve poison filled algae. Also consider how we're increasing our populations, meaning that we have to grow more food to survive, on less and less soil. There's only one way of fixing the soils, and that's to use energy in huge quantities. Unfortunately, another energy crisis is on it's way. We've already found solar energe to not be as perfect as we thought - the materials needed for solar cells are rare and very, very dirty. The close to surface depots of these elements are small, and if we need to dig deeper it costs more energy than we get out of it. And even if we did manage to take it all up, we'd still not have enough solar cells. Nuclear power is also in trouble, we're running short of uranium. Any of the other fuels would either increase CO2 in the atmosphere, and further damage the soils and reduce the ability to grow food, or be too weak to have any effect. The amount of energy needed for repairing the soil damages through artificial methods is beyond comprehension, and the current system of growing food is in constant need of energy just to keep going. That's just ONE example of bad developments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
After all, when it comes to preserving nature we aren't in a power position to think "well, we could be nice and let all those little animals and plants live", but rather in a position where we're depending on nature for our very own survival. We need fresh air, fresh water, food, temperature to be within a very small interval, atmosphere to protect us from ultra-violet radiation and many other things that nature can only provide if we don't deliberately try to sabotage it's ability to do so. The effects of this wonderful wellfare society is starting to show up around the world - Rita and Katrina kills people and destroys property in the USA, more flash floods in Bangladesh and other locations. But also simple fun things like bathing and sun bathing is made impossible, so even richer conservatives who want to live a life in luxury are struck - poisonous algae in the Baltic makes it impossible to bathe, ozone layer damaged in Australia so you can't be in the sun without developing skin cancer unless you're dressed in all-covering clothes, etc. etc.
And we are also maintaining populations of animals that would otherwise be extinct. Man is just as much a part of nature as any other animal. A beaver builds a dam is a beautiful work of nature. Man builds a dam hes messing with the enviorment. Every animal on the face of the earth does harm and good to the enviorment. Animals went extenct long before the first man set foot on the earth and probably will contunue to do so after the last man is gone. We are better at controlling our enviorment than any other animal is all. Again certainly we should try to keep our air and water safe. But we have gone to far in many areas.Quote:
I can give you one example of many thousands. We're currently extincting most animals that we can eat except cows, sheep, goats and chickens, pretty much.
The species we "save" are species that would otherwise have been extinct due to our impact on environment. If we hadn't hurt environment, they wouldn't have died. Therefore, that "saving" is not a compensation, but a slight slow down of, our mass-extinction actions. Besides, we extinct a thousand times more (not an exaggeration) species than we save.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
A beaver has limited impact. A team of thousand men with tools have huge impact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
They still live today because they did limited harm to environment. Humans have existed for too short a period to extinct themselves, because the effects of their actions have so far not been that great. Every lifestyle up to the 19th century was comparatively harmless to ecosystems. But the increase is exponential over time. An animal can do limited damage without doing long term damage because nature has systems for repairing smaller damage. Actually the causality is the opposite - the animals exist because the damage they do is damage that nature's systems repair. An animal that does too extensive damage extincts itself, or at least breeds itself until all or most of the environment-destroyers are dead. If the environment-destroyers fight their environmentalist fellows of the same species, they extinct the entire species. There's been several mass deaths during evolution, so just because we exist today doesn't mean we're immune to having instincts or rationality-induced behavior that leads to destruction of ourselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Yes, but not at the same rate humans are doing it. Extinction is a part of the evolution. Of course, every species tries as hard as it can to survive, except humans apparently.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
We're only better at CHANGING it. And most of us know how our changes is hurting the environment. Still we do it - that's not a very survival-strong behavior, which makes us a weak species. Ironically, a weak species that thinks it's so strong that it doesn't matter if it removes it's basic necessities for survival. An animal that doesn't know a thing about it's environment but doesn't hurt it has a greater chance of surviving than an intelligent species that still, despite all facts, likes to destroy itself. Insects have been the kings in evolution so far. The only way for larger, more complex species to survive is to use their STRENGTHS, which is intelligence and ability to adapt to changing environments, as well as flock cooperation. However, there's a limit to how much the environment can be changed, and changing the environment itself on a larger scale has never been good for any species. Also, we're not competing with other animals as much as we're cooperating with them. In most ecosystems, a single species has at least hundred times more cooperating friends than it has enemies and competitors. That's something people who like to extinct other species forget.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
But there's of course room during a limited time for species that change environment in a way that kills them in the long run, especially if their other qualities are greater than or comparable to those of other animals competing for the same niche. The early bacteria that created the current (well, up to the 19th century) atmosphere of course got worse living conditions after altering the atmosphere. Pure lack happened to give birth to organisms that reversed their effects, and so a balance was created. Many similar events have taken place during development, and this stabile circulation has created an environment with limited changes on the surface, although it's in constant change through opposite processes. That is a very sound stabile system because organisms living in it survive best if they don't change the system. Their niche is guaranteed.
As for political opinions, I respect if anyone thinks economical instability and competition with other countries being hampered by too environmentalistic politics is a greater threat than the environmental problems itself. But I get somewhat annoyed when people just deny empirical proof that what we're doing is harmful. I haven't got any solution for how to reach the economical goals the anti-environmentalists want and still be able to reach the goals of the environmentalists, but if at least anti-environmentalists admit what threats there are, then they can help in figuring out good solutions, just as any environmentalist should admit the problems that could be caused by economical instability so they could help in figuring out solutions that solve both groups of problems simultaneously. I'm mainly here debating the proof or lack thereof in the environment matter, not trying to argue for any political position. I generally try to avoid discussions about political opinions, and concentrate on defining the problems and evaluating the strength of scientific proofs and theses used as a basis for opinions. The political discussions should, if the problems are well defined, only be puzzle. I still don't understand how you can say the environmental problems are nothing to worry about, but hopefully this post has explained some more of the facts/theses I'm judging from.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Please your smarter than that. So animals and planrts only go extinct because of man LOL. Where are the dinosaurs? Did we kill them?Quote:
The species we "save" are species that would otherwise have been extinct due to our impact on environment.
And a few million beavers? Again i said we are the best at controling the enviorment. Other animals dont even think about their impact on it.Quote:
A beaver has limited impact. A team of thousand men with tools have huge impact.
More BS. We could have exterminated ourselves with nukes for the last 50 years or more. We also do a limited amount of harm to the enviorment. Again we are the only animals with sense enough to even know there is such a thing.Quote:
They still live today because they did limited harm to environment. Humans have existed for too short a period to extinct themselves,
Is there anyone here who doubts we will oneday be extinct no matter what we do?Quote:
There's been several mass deaths during evolution, so just because we exist today doesn't mean we're immune to having instincts or rationality-induced behavior that leads to destruction of ourselves.
Because in nature its survival of the fittest. We are so far and away the fittest is why this is happening. No other creature was ever so far advanced of the other species on the planet.Quote:
Yes, but not at the same rate humans are doing it. Extinction is a part of the evolution. Of course, every species tries as hard as it can to survive, except humans apparently.
No were also better at maintaning it.Quote:
We're only better at CHANGING it
Quote:
I still don't understand how you can say the environmental problems are nothing to worry about
Well maybe thats because I never said that. There worry and theres also a thing called paranoia. Worrying about it is good but again people seem to be going into hysterics and making regulations that just have no real scientific proof to back them up. Again many a time man has tried to fix the enviorment and in reality made things worse.
I think you also should be smarter than that, Gawain - you claimed that we saved animals from extinction. Legio countered that we only save those who we ourselves brought close to extinction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Do you have examples of animals that were saved by humanity from natural extinction? The dinosaurs certainly do not fall into this category (unless you hide a couple in your basement, that is)
No need to understand a danger if it doesn't exist. An insect doesn't need to understand if it would hurt nature if it behaved like humans, because it doesn't behave like humans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
So, are we such a clever animal after all if we invent things that can make us all extinct in a couple of minutes?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
You can cease to exist as a species in several million years because you evolved into something else, or die immediately and result in nothing. Not that it matters for those living today, since we'll all die when sol invictus dies. It's only a matter of whether you think this society is good enough to be the place where you want to spend your last time before destruction in. But it takes a million times longer before the sun dies, than it takes for us to destroy ourselves in a less than worthy way. Dying in your own extrement and garbage is not very nice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
We're in nature and depend on it as much as other animals. If we kill ourselves we're unfit, it's as simple as that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
An ecosystem with plants producing CO2 and animals producing O2 is better at maintaining environment than any human is. The animal eats the plants, dies, and the corpse gives nutrition for new plants, the plants grow, they're eaten, and the circle continues. The plant binds coal and produces O2 for the animals to breathe, the animals produce CO2 for the plant to bind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
The "fixing" of environment you're talking about were made by capitalistic industry, mostly. For instance, when people in London died from smog in the early 19th century, they invented longer chimneys. Those chimneys meant global warming could happen, without anyone noticing until now. There are many examples of such "fixing" that has lead to problems becoming:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
1. more difficult to understand for laymen
2. their effects come later
3. laymen and politicians fail to see how severe the problems are until it's too late
Nobody is hysterical here, I'm not even worrying about the problem. I'm simply scientifically aware of it's existance and trying to spread that information. The more that know about the problem, the more'll be able to take part in devising counter-measures that aren't against the politics people want in other fields. Most people today don't want to live like cavemen, and like computers and other items. The thing is, the more luxury and items we want, the more important is it for us to take actions in this matter. It's quite ironical that the extremist environmentalists are vegetarians and have no technology, as those who are vegetarians and have no technology have a lifestyle that they will be able to carry on with for much longer than technology and luxury seeking people can. The first things we'll lose are things like technology and our ability to eat meat, pretty much. I like meat, and I like computers.
The comment about the percentage of contributions...*sigh* The point is that we contribute, not how much. If we release more greenhouse gases, then it will get warmer, as simple. A few degrees is enough to cause a great change in weather systems, melting down the poles and so on. The amount doesn`t matter at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
The link you posted is very doubtful, the writers of the article is using a free web host; and mentions the Kyoto protocol. What the heck does it have to do with any science? it`s just a beginning, a reminder that we should be careful with what we do with our climate. It looks like a typical excuse for not joining the protocol.
That`s also something to worry about, the methane. Methane has more than 20 times the heating effect of CO2. I don`t think humans can do anything to reduce this, other than reduce ourselves in numbers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Look what you've done Adrian...
:dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by ichi
~:cheers: