Apolitical Staples

I am saying that is the stupidest thing I’ve heard in relation to Climate Change.

Amen.

Greg, have you read The Weather Makers? I’m not sure if you’re a climate-change sceptic, but that book is pretty convincing.

Then again, I’d love to hear a rebuttal of it, because it’s so full of scientific jargon of which I am totally unfamiliar I can’t help but buy it.

Good read, anyways.

Stupid argument yes. But at the same time I guess maybe some people feel that if the intelligent and obvious arguments don’t work with skeptics then maybe the stupid ones.

Bottom line -

Even George W. Bush has stated that climate change is real and man made.

Now today at the press conference this:

Reporter - Do emissions cause global warming?

Rona - When we refer to air emmisions we are referring to air pollution and greenhouse gases. Of course they do.

Holly crap, even Rona has finally admitted the obvious that man made emissions are fueling climate change. But the skeptics will continue to deny of course.

The book that Olaf recommends is likely good. But you don’t need to buy a book. www.realclimate.org is the best on the net.

So glad to learn that the wise and intelligent understand how this human generated GHG problems is going to kill us all. Gladder still am I to learn that the brilliant Liberals with all their wisdom and scientific brilliance were able to accomplish two wonderful things in their Kyoto-signed war against GHG. All of this in less than two whole decades.

1.) Though they tried, unsuccessfully, to make GHG go away, they did succeed, with no real apparent effort, to give Canada the world-acclaimed honour of increasing our GHG output by more than 30% OVER target. Can’t begin to imagine what they woulde have accomplished had they, like the more-successful USA, NOT signed the Kyoto agreement. de jure supporters — de facto enviroment killers — your LPC.

2.) But scoring big time in their acknowledge fields of expertise, the LPC has apparently convinced most citizens and media outlets, that atheir productivity on this file is exemplary. In the process, this very file has been another LPC boondoggle-sinkhole that has relieved CDN taxpayers of more than $6 BILLION. Poof. All gone. No trace of where, how nor why. But their NUMBERS sound so good, and their friends are looking so happy and smug.

Always a pleasure being a Canadian: We get mugged, time after time; time after time, we praise the muggers for their wisdom. Their handling the GHG file “so magnificently and so successfully” should brinmg a tear to most eyes. And it does — for all the wrong reasons. The enviro-killers in the LPC are the reason we’re going to die.

But that’s just another couple of reasons why the voters are obligated to return the LPC to power. Because, as we all know, the Conservatives of the ‘hidden agenda’ fame are the dangerous and S C A R Y fanatics.

Greg, I thought Chantal Hebert was right on, once again. This “plan” is nothing but a stall job and the government is obviously not interested in global warming. The only thing that might save the Tories is the fact that the Liberals are the main opposition.

if we are going to reduce the 3% of CO2 emissions that are man made, what are we going to do about the 97% that aren’t and what caused all the climate change before man came along?

People, cut your own GH gases. slow down to 80-100 kph…any body who drives knows that most Canadians like to drive at least 120…to get to the 30 minute traffic jam (going 100 not 120 saves 10-15% fuel…also 15% emissions) cut your grass with a push mower… complain to your Walmart manager that the heat is set too high (you gotta take your coat off in there)(or A/C too low…its freezing in there in summer) or for that matter any mall in your city… dry your clothes on a clothes line… quit asking the f’n’ government to do it add any of a hundered or so suggestions you all make me sick Pedro

“if we are going to reduce the 3% of CO2 emissions that are man made, what are we going to do about the 97% that aren’t and what caused all the climate change before man came along?”

Not quite “all the climate change”, either before or since the industrial revolution, as CO2 comprises roughly only slightly less than 5% of greenhouse gases overall by volume (water vapour is about 95%). In addition, the CO2 figure has to be adjusted for relative potency of greenhouse effect, which is less than some of the other gases, like CFC’s. Overall, human CO2 production represents about .2% of the greenhouse effect.

From Environment Canada:

“On a worldwide basis, the anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are known to be small. In comparison with the gross fluxes of carbon from natural systems they represent only a fraction (~2%) of total global emissions”

“While Canada contributes only about 2% of total global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, it is one of the highest per capita emitters, largely the result of our resource-based economy, our climate and our size. “

Canada could cripple its economy drastically reducing CO2 emissions and still have no statistically appreciable effect on global mean temperatures.

Loved Leno’s bit the other day:

“There’s been snowstorms back east. The snow is so deep in some areas that even Al Gore cancelled his speech on global warming…..”

If we’re causing global warming, why is Mars heating up as well?

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/marsice-age031208.html

“Virgil said: If we’re causing global warming, why is Mars heating up as well?”

It is not heating up. In fact Mars has actually been cooling significantly since the Viking first started making temperature measurements in the 1970s.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/global-warming-on-mars/

I posted the above anonymous post.

x2para said: “if we are going to reduce the 3% of CO2 emissions that are man made, what are we going to do about the 97% that aren’t and what caused all the climate change before man came along?”

This is just plain uninformed. Yes humans produce only about 4% of the global CO2 emissions. But the emissions are different. Nature produces emissions through a closed loop cycle of decay releasing CO2 (generally in the fall) and growth reabsorbing roughly the same amount of CO2 (generally in the spring and summer - I say roughly because for instance major volcanic blasts will often release large amounts of ghg and the oceans have the ability to absorb excess CO2 for a period of time, but as it does the ocean becomes more acidic which actually reduces its abilty to absorb CO2). That is why when you look at a graph of CO2 readings it looks jagged like a saw blade. If it were not for humans emitting CO2 then the CO2 graph would still be jagged but the overall trend would be basically level, not rising and rising at an increasing rate as is currently the case.

Think of it this way: Lets say there is a fountain in a park. That fountain takes water in its pool and pumps it out the top making a fountain. The level of water remains the same despite the fact that there is a lot of water being pumped (lets say 96 liters a minute). No if someone was to add an additional 4 liters a minute the level of the pool would rise. Eventually it would overflow. If someone was to say “that pool is going to overflow because you are adding water to it” would you honestly say “But I am only adding 4 liters a minutes to the pool, the fountain is pumping 96 liters a minute, so what good would it do for me to reduce the piddly 4 liters I am adding?”

Occam’s Carbuncle said: “Not quite “all the climate change”, either before or since the industrial revolution, as CO2 comprises roughly only slightly less than 5% of greenhouse gases overall by volume (water vapour is about 95%).”

This is true, sort of. Any climate scientist will tell you that Water vapour is the main ghg - with clouds and water vapour being responsible for between 66% and 85%, CO2 between 9% and 26% and the rest of the ghgs 6% to 8%. The reason for the big range is due to location - ie the poles are very different from the equatorial rain forests.

So that leads the question why are climate scientists concentrating on CO2 levels and not water vapour levels? Well because CO2 is a forcing factor and water vapour is a feedback factor. That means that as CO2 levels rise causing climate change it will also “force” the water vapour levels to increase potentiating the degree of climate change. Increased water vapour levels are a reaction to climate change, whereas increased CO2 levels are a cause of climate change.

The other reason for the greater concern about CO2 levels is that Water vapour stays in the air for about 10 days then it falls to the ground. Whereas excess CO2 has to be absorbed by the oceans taking decades to centuries (the other ghgs are generally removed from the atmosphere in a decade or less).

Occam’s Carbuncle said: “In addition, the CO2 figure has to be adjusted for relative potency of greenhouse effect, which is less than some of the other gases, like CFC’s. Overall, human CO2 production represents about .2% of the greenhouse effect.”

This is misleading. Greenhouse effect is the concentration of greenhouse gases in the planetary atmosphere. The atmosphere of Venus is very rich in CO2 and that causes surface temperatures which are hot enough to melt lead. The atmosphere of Mars is very thin and therefore causes minimal greenhouse effect. Without the greenhouse effect the temperature on earth would be at least 30 degrees colder than it is now.

The question should not be what percentage of greenhouse effect is contributed by human caused emissions (very little), but what percentage of “change” in greenhouse effect are human emissions responsible (almost all). It is the changes in the greenhouse effect, which need to present in a narrow range to support life which are all that matters.

“The question should not be what percentage of greenhouse effect is contributed by human caused emissions (very little), but what percentage of “change” in greenhouse effect are human emissions responsible (almost all).”

So but for human activity, there would be no increase in greenhouse gases? That seems not to fit so well with known natural processes and events, like the eruption of Mt. Pinataubo.

“So but for human activity, there would be no increase in greenhouse gases? That seems not to fit so well with known natural processes and events, like the eruption of Mt. Pinataubo.”

I didn’t say that there would be no increase in greenhouse gas. There would be periods of slow rise in ghg concentrations and periods of slow decline in ghg concentrations. There always has been. It is very unlikely that there would be a rise in CO2 any close to as rapid as humans have caused and very unlikely that CO2 levels would increase to the current level without human emissions being the main contributor.

I already mentioned volcanos a couple posts above when I wrote this: “Nature produces emissions through a closed loop cycle of decay releasing CO2 (generally in the fall) and growth reabsorbing roughly the same amount of CO2 (generally in the spring and summer - I say roughly because for instance major volcanic blasts will often release large amounts of ghg and the oceans have the ability to absorb excess CO2 for a period of time, but as it does the ocean becomes more acidic which actually reduces its abilty to absorb CO2).”

I should further mention that major volcanic eruptions such as Pinataubo generally cause a couple year decrease in global temperature even though they do release large amounts of CO2. That is because they release a massive amount of SO2 which combines with water to form sulphuric acid (H2SO4). That acid is a aerosol. Aerosols reflect the suns rays back into space and therefore cause some cooling which often occurs for 2 or 3 years after major eruptions. The atmosphere removes the sulphur much, much faster (acid rain) than it can remove the CO2. (the other gases and ash that are emitted in an eruption are generally removed from the atmosphere within days, Sulphur in less than 3 years, CO2 decades to centuries depending on if the Oceans and other carbon sinks are already taxed or not.)

Trevor:

I think your comments are the first example I’ve seen of someone taking on global warming skepticism in a firm, rational, dispassionate manner, without once resorting to the usual array of insults and nonsensical political references. Thanks for taking the time. You’ve given me some food for thought. Are you a climate scientist of some kind?