US Proposes Kyoto Alternative (sort of)

#29
#29
TennTradition said:
Do you mean convincing or compelling to you or a rational human being? Water vapor is in equilibrium proportions (subject to ocean temperatures), and is thus not a greenhouse concern outside of rising ocean temperatures.
Click to expand...

Please explain what you mean by equilibrium proportions. I hope you are not saying what I think you are saying.

And besides that, what does rising ocean temperatures have to do with anything? Everybody knows temperature increases means increased evaporation/cloud cover. Still don't see what you are driving at with the equilibrium proportions statement.
 
#34
#34
BigPapaVol said:
how can hocus, pocus style smoke and mirrors be called science.
Click to expand...

Because there is real science ... and it isn't smoke or mirrors. The issue has been politicized, and that has accounted for a lot of smoke and mirrors by both sides of the argument. Some scientists even engage in some smoke and mirrors deception, though - so one has to be careful. But, the bottom line is that there is science that can be trusted - especially when the uncertainty is specified.
 
#35
#35
timmy said:
QFT


Any 'science' that says we need to stop eating meat, so there will be less cows, therfore, less methane expulsion, is ludacris.
Click to expand...

That would be an interpretation of the science - see the smoke and mirrors discussion above. Everyone engages in it. Don't get me wrong, the fact that grazing animals' belching accounts for a fairly significant methane emission is a fact, and is discussed. However, I have never heard a serious discussion about how we should stop eating them as a result. I do hear discussion about how changing the ratio of the feed we give those animals could help .... but stop eating them...that's another story.
 
#36
#36
Rasputin_Vol said:
Please explain what you mean by equilibrium proportions. I hope you are not saying what I think you are saying.

And besides that, what does rising ocean temperatures have to do with anything? Everybody knows temperature increases means increased evaporation/cloud cover. Still don't see what you are driving at with the equilibrium proportions statement.
Click to expand...

I mean that given the current temperature of the earth's atmosphere, we can't really add all that much more water vapor without it condensing as clouds and making its way back to the oceans. The oceans account for a sufficiently large proportion of our land area that the lower levels near the ocean are essentially 100% humidity...and because of the elevations where water vapor condense, we can't really expect to get any more water vapor into the air unless atmospheric (and thus ocean) temperatures increase. That is why I meant by equilibrium proportions.

Increasing water vapor in the atmosphere is actually a hard on to quantify, though. While water vapor is a greenhouse gas and will cause the greenhouse effect, increased water vapor generally means more clouds. Clouds can also provide additional albedo, reflecting some sunlight back to space. However, the calculations and studies point to increased water vapor being a net positive radiative forcing, or in other words, they will lead to an increase in global average atmospheric temperature (given a constant input of radiation from the sun).

The reason that phrase "equilibrium proportions" has everything to do with this discussion is because water vapor shouldn't be considered a human-contributed greenhouse gas. Because of all of the earth's ocean cover, we can't really make any significant impact on water vapor content. Sure, we could try to seed more clouds - but that would probably just end up doing more harm that good (on the large scale that would be necessary). So, while CO2 concentration is much less that water vapor concentration - the greenhouse effect that keeps us alive (and not freezing to death) is fueled by that water vapor. It was there before humans industrialized and it will remain there as long as the oceans are present. CO2 is a slightly different story. It has all been in the atmosphere at some point in the earth's history. But, it was in a fairly stable input/output equilibrium during periods of stable climate. We are now emitting CO2 at a pretty fast rate, concentrations are obviously rising to levels we haven't seen before since the last ice age (which is far back as our ice core records can go). We are obviously emitting CO2 faster than it can be re-adsorbed by the earth - thus we are at disequilibrium. Disequilibrium or imbalances are what drive climate changes. More CO2 causes more greenhouse effect, which will raise the temperature of the earth until its global average temperature is sufficiently high that it is radiating as much energy back to space (in whole) as it is receiving. Water vapor can't significantly force climate CHANGES because it is too close to its equilibrium concentration in the atmosphere (close - not equal...but closer than any other gas, that is why there are large oceans of it). That is not to say that water vapor cannot CAUSE climate, because it obviously does...more so that CO2 ever will.

Edit: On reflection, I think that it might be more illustrative to say saturation point. The two (equilibrium and saturation point) are tied together, but I think that the argument is made more clearly by saying water vapor is pretty close to its saturation point in the atmosphere and CO2 is far from it. We would die of CO2 poisoning long before it reached its equilibrium vapor pressure and actually began condensing out as a liquid (i.e., saturation).
 
#37
#37
It is worth noting that solar radiative forcing will cause more climate change than CO2 ever will. Obviously, the sun is the primary climate driver. But, this doesn't mean that CO2 isn't also a factor in climate (or any other greenhouse gas). By saying that CO2 causes climate change, I am not implying that the sun cannot drive climate change - because obviously there is no climate without it.
 
#38
#38
timmy said:
I want to know how 'global warming' is really a problem, when the current high temperature records for this area were all set in the late 1800's-1930's?
Click to expand...

I'm going to need a little more data before I can respond with any sort of certainty...but I can say:

Individual highs are not a metric one should use in a climate discussion. If it is 105 tomorrow in East Tennessee, global warming cannot be blamed for that. Furthermore, the fact that it was 105 on October 2, 1875 (for example) is not evidence of the fact that global warming must not be occuring.

Average global atmospheric temperatures are the more accurate metric, really. The weird part is that if climate change occurs, some areas may actually see a lower average temperature because of increased cloud cover through greater parts of the year. However, the average global atmospheric temperature will increase. Local conditions on given days is a weather phenomenon - completely independent of climate, particularly global climate.

----------------------------------------

If I misunderstood what you were trying to say, then I apologize. However, it seemed like you were saying how could we be seeing global warming if the temperature in East Tennessee was consistently the hottest back in the 50s (which is true...that is when a ton of records were set). Global temperature are another story....

Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png


That image is from wikipedia (my apologies..but it was easy to get..and I've seen similar data in other places that I consider to be more reliable). Average global temperatures are increasing. It is important to note that I do not know where the measurements for these temperatures are taken. If they are all taken in areas that have been urbanized since data was first taken, then the increase since the 50s wouldn't be a true increase...however I do know that these are combined (air over) ocean and land temperatures...so that effect should be lessened. My guess is that they try to use data points that would reflect true temperature trends not generated by local climate like urban heat traps. I know that I have heard this is usually a problem that must be culled out of data.

Now, as for the record highs in the 1950s in East Tennessee, I think that you probably have to consider what the prevailing weather patterns of the day were. I know that prior to the 1950s, there weren't that many coal-fired plants in the East Tennessee area ... and then in the 50s, they took off like crazy. They put a lot of soot and sulfur in the air that certainly decreased land temperature under them. I'm not saying that this is all of the explanation, because I highly doubt it is. But, it is interesting to examine the fact that so many records were set then against global atmospheric temperature change data.

Again, though, I do want to stress it is global climate change...not local climate change.
 
#39
#39
TennTradition said:
Edit: On reflection, I think that it might be more illustrative to say saturation point. The two (equilibrium and saturation point) are tied together, but I think that the argument is made more clearly by saying water vapor is pretty close to its saturation point in the atmosphere and CO2 is far from it. We would die of CO2 poisoning long before it reached its equilibrium vapor pressure and actually began condensing out as a liquid (i.e., saturation).
Click to expand...

You are correct about CO2 being far away from it's saturation point. It would take us probably another 4000 years of fossil fuel burning to even reach the saturation point (or longer). It only makes up less than 1% of the atmosphere right now. I'm sure that by that time, humans would have developed a more efficient means of producing energy. But right now, fossil fuels are the most energy dense way of powering our economy (outside of nuclear power, of course).
 
#40
#40
Rasputin_Vol said:
You are correct about CO2 being far away from it's saturation point. It would take us probably another 4000 years of fossil fuel burning to even reach the saturation point (or longer). It only makes up less than 1% of the atmosphere right now. I'm sure that by that time, humans would have developed a more efficient means of producing energy. But right now, fossil fuels are the most energy dense way of powering our economy (outside of nuclear power, of course).
Click to expand...

We don't need to worry about reaching the saturation point of CO2. My favorite example is: stick your head in a plastic bag, tie it off, and have a friend see which happens first: you die or CO2 condenses. The only reason discussion of saturation points and equilibrium vapor pressures is useful in this discussion is in relation to the fact that water vapor (while it is the most significant greenhouse gas) should not be considered a human generated greenhouse gas causing climate change. It should only be viewed as a greenhouse gas that essentially sets (along with the sun) our baseline climate.

What were you so worried about when you said I hope you are not saying what I think you are saying in your original post?
 
#41
#41
TennTradition said:
That would be an interpretation of the science - see the smoke and mirrors discussion above. Everyone engages in it. Don't get me wrong, the fact that grazing animals' belching accounts for a fairly significant methane emission is a fact, and is discussed. However, I have never heard a serious discussion about how we should stop eating them as a result. I do hear discussion about how changing the ratio of the feed we give those animals could help .... but stop eating them...that's another story.
Click to expand...

Sorry for posting a full article, but I found this on another forum, that never includes links.

Eating less meat may slow climate change


LONDON - Eating less meat could help slow global warming by reducing the number of livestock and thereby decreasing the amount of methane flatulence from the animals, scientists said on Thursday.


In a special energy and health series of the medical journal The Lancet, experts said people should eat fewer steaks and hamburgers. Reducing global red meat consumption by 10 percent, they said, would cut the gases emitted by cows, sheep and goats that contribute to global warming.

"We are at a significant tipping point," said Geri Brewster, a nutritionist at Northern Westchester Hospital in New York, who was not connected to the study.

"If people knew that they were threatening the environment by eating more meat, they might think twice before ordering a burger," Brewster said.

Other ways of reducing greenhouse gases from farming practices, like feeding animals higher-quality grains, would only have a limited impact on cutting emissions. Gases from animals destined for dinner plates account for nearly a quarter of all emissions worldwide.

"That leaves reducing demand for meat as the only real option," said Dr. John Powles, a public health expert at Cambridge University, one of the study's authors.

The amount of meat eaten varies considerably worldwide. In developed countries, people typically eat about 224 grams per day. But in Africa, most people only get about 31 grams a day.

With demand for meat increasing worldwide, experts worry that this increased livestock production will mean more gases like methane and nitrous oxide heating up the atmosphere. In China, for instance, people are eating double the amount of meat they used to a decade ago.

Powles said that if the global average were 90 grams per day, that would prevent the levels of gases from speeding up climate change.

Eating less red meat would also improve health in general. Powles and his co-authors estimate that reducing meat consumption would reduce the numbers of people with heart disease and cancer. One study has estimated that the risk of colorectal cancer drops by about a third for every 100 grams of red meat that is cut out of your diet.

"As a society, we are overconsuming protein," Brewster said. "If we ate less red meat, it would also help stop the obesity epidemic."

Experts said that it would probably take decades to wane the public off of its meat-eating tendency. "We need to better understand the implications of our diet," said Dr. Maria Neira, director of director of the World Health Organization's department of public health and the environment.

"It is an interesting theory that needs to be further examined," she said. "But eating less meat could definitely be one way to reduce gas emissions and climate change."
 
#42
#42
This is a perfect example of what I mean by "interpretation of science" and smoke and mirrors. These are health professionals and nutritionists urging the world to decrease red meat consumption because....it hurts the environment? Please, they are using scientific findings - which have been reported as I noted, that animal belching is a pretty big contributor of methane to meet their (albeit noble) ulterior motive. They want you to stop eating red meat because it is bad for you in the amount that the average person eats it. They see these findings about greenhouse gases and decide to get on the global warming band wagon to promote less red meat consumption.

I have heard legitimate climate scientists bring the point of animal belch emissions as being appreciable, so don't get me wrong. It is an issue. But, most of them feel that controlling animal feed would be a more effective (that is, politically viable) strategy - the point that the article makes about this not being good enough is news to me. I'm not saying it is incorrect, but I haven't heard or read that before.

I am a bit suspect of some the science behind the article anyway since they cite flatulence as the problem - when it is (as I understand it) belch that is the major contributor...with the stomach versus the digestive track being the difference in the source.
 
#43
#43
One could also throw in liberal economists as another example of those who INTERPRET global warming SCIENCE to suggest that developed nations must revert back to "third-world" consumption...with an obvious ulterior motive of brining the developing world closer to the developed world in national wealth.
 
#45
#45
BigPapaVol said:
this is a much better thread when it's funny
Click to expand...

Well...I didn't start the thread to make jokes...but I'll try to intersperse funny little comments amidst my future posts on the subject. Hey - did you hear about the guy in North Carolina who is suing the man who "bought" his amputated leg when he bought the amputee's smoker. The amputee wants his leg back, but the guy who got it in the smoker wants to keep it because he has been making money off of it. Check the story out on BBC. Anyway, global warming issues are important to me because I feel they are very misunderstood. I've avoided starting a GW thread for a while now...but with GW back in the news a lot because of the recent UN talks - and the US announcement, I thought that it was about time for another one. The Gore jokes just basically make my point that he is a huge detractor from global warming science and issues (while at the same time advocating strongly for them).
 
#46
#46
TennTradition said:
Well...I didn't start the thread to make jokes...but I'll try to intersperse funny little comments amidst my future posts on the subject. Hey - did you hear about the guy in North Carolina who is suing the man who "bought" his amputated leg when he bought the amputee's smoker. The amputee wants his leg back, but the guy who got it in the smoker wants to keep it because he has been making money off of it. Check the story out on BBC. Anyway, global warming issues are important to me because I feel they are very misunderstood. I've avoided starting a GW thread for a while now...but with GW back in the news a lot because of the recent UN talks - and the US announcement, I thought that it was about time for another one. The Gore jokes just basically make my point that he is a huge detractor from global warming science and issues (while at the same time advocating strongly for them).
Click to expand...
please know that I'm just ribbing you a bit.
 
#48
#48
TennTradition said:
What were you so worried about when you said I hope you are not saying what I think you are saying in your original post?
Click to expand...

I was hoping you weren't stating that the percentage of water in the atmosphere would be equal as temperature rises. When I see "proportional equilibium", that looks like you are saying that water will be 1% of the atmosphere at 85 degrees and remain 1% of the atmosphere (or have the same proportion) as global temperature increases.

In a sense, content will increase by a negigible amount, but you will ceratinly see more cloud cover because the soluablity (for lack of a better phrase) of water in air will obviously increase as temperature increases.

That is why I was asking what you meant by "proportional equilibrium".
 
#49
#49
Rasputin_Vol said:
I was hoping you weren't stating that the percentage of water in the atmosphere would be equal as temperature rises. When I see "proportional equilibium", that looks like you are saying that water will be 1% of the atmosphere at 85% and remain 1% of the atmosphere (or have the same proportion) as global temperature increases.

In a sense, content will increase by a negigible amount, but you will ceratinly see more cloud cover because the soluablity (for lack of a better phrase) of water in air will obviously increase as temperature increases.

That is why I was asking what you meant by "proportional equilibrium".
Click to expand...

Well, if you thought that I meant that water vapor would remain in a constant percentage, then I can see why you were worried. The solubility point doesn't quite make sense to me, because if the "solubility" (as I think you are referring to it) of water in air will only increase with temperature...and cloud formation is water actually not being "soluble" in air and condensing out as a colloid. But, you are right, higher ocean and atmospheric temperatures will most likely result in increased (global) cloud formation as the conveyor belt of water ocean to atmosphere will be churning more and more. With more water vapor in the air, it will eventually reach cold temperatures, condense out, form clouds, and rain back down. So - I agree in principle.

However, the solubility issue you raise is an interesting one in another way...for the oceans. The solubility of CO2 in the oceans will decrease with increasing temperature, causing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere to increase with increased temperature (positive feedback in the greenhouse effect).
 
#50
#50
TennTradition said:
However, the solubility issue you raise is an interesting one in another way...for the oceans. The solubility of CO2 in the oceans will decrease with increasing temperature, causing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere to increase with increased temperature (positive feedback in the greenhouse effect).
Click to expand...

That is true, however, do you really think that it will be enough CO2 released into the atmosphere from both man and oceans in this doomsday scenario that it would actually make more of a difference in temperature than increased cloud cover (water vapor) would? I mean, CO2 is already a fractional portion of the atmosphere right now. How much more of a percentage of the atmosphere would it have to be for it to make a dent? And has anybody even discussed at what level would CO2 reach its maximum? All I hear about are all of these doomsday scenarios, yet nobody seems to even be approaching the level of discussion that we are now.

There has to be a relatively simple way of taking the average earth temp and calculating at what point CO2 reaches saturation if the earth's avg temp is say 85 degrees... or 75 degrees... or whatever. Then come up with a reasonable, approximation of how long it would take for man made CO2 to reach that saturation level and what effects it would cause. I mean, seems like people are saying that CO2 levels are rising (which they may be), but aren't adding in a level of reason and proportionality. If CO2 levels are increasing from .05% of the atmosphere to .07% (as a hypothetical example), is that enough of a rise to be really concerned about? And most importantly, is it enough of a rise that should cause us to de-stabilize the American economy (or world economy) by going away from fossil fuels? My argument is that as of right now, fossil fuels are the best thing we have going (outside of nuke power). But I am fairly certain that within the next 50-100 years, we could continue at the current pace and eventually find a solution that is better or equal to fossil fuels and the overall CO2 increase would be negligible without much (if any) effects on global climate.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top