Political Crossfire Forums

[perdidochas]

If global warming is truly being caused by human activities, it's already too late. Nothing we can do can stop it. All we can do is try to mitigate it's effects. The Kyoto Accords would be useless.

[Citizendave]

Until an entirely new energy technology emerges, mitigation is our only option. About 50 years from now, world population (mid level estimates) will be 9 billion. (it is 6 now).

Even things which fail can serve a purpose. America should sign on, deal with Kyoto's shortcomings and then try again.

In my opinion, our government is not fostering energy conservation as much as they should.

[perdidochas]

Citizendave wrote: Until an entirely new energy technology emerges, mitigation is our only option. About 50 years from now, world population (mid level estimates) will be 9 billion. (it is 6 now).

Even things which fail can serve a purpose. America should sign on, deal with Kyoto's shortcomings and then try again.

In my opinion, our government is not fostering energy conservation as much as they should.

It's still doing a pretty good job at fostering conservation overall. Our energy use per capita is down since the 1970s.

[Citizendave]

In 1970 the population of the USA was 203 million. It was estimated at 293 million in 2004.

[url] http://www.usapopulationmap.com/race_1970.html [/url]
[url] http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html[/url]

Obviously, if there's a per capita energy usage decrease, and an increase in the number of capitas running around, and the capitas are using more speedboats and snowmobiles and atv's, and having the next door capitas over for the barbeque and then they all smoke the pipe, we've gottum problum.

As for a campaign to conserve energy, I'm aware of Bush's voluntary programs for industry to cut back.

But the Bush administration
has yet to make a declaration
that the American population
is not the only nation in the whole wide world.

[perdidochas]

Citizendave wrote: In 1970 the population of the USA was 203 million. It was estimated at 293 million in 2004.

[url] http://www.usapopulationmap.com/race_1970.html [/url]
[url] http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html[/url]

Obviously, if there's a per capita energy usage decrease, and an increase in the number of capitas running around, and the capitas are using more speedboats and snowmobiles and atv's, and having the next door capitas over for the barbeque and then they all smoke the pipe, we've gottum problum.

That decreased per capita usage is including the use of speedboats and atvs and SUV's. Our energy usage per GDP is also lower than it has ever been before. Yes, we could do more, but environmentalists act as if nothing has been done.

Citizendave wrote: As for a campaign to conserve energy, I'm aware of Bush's voluntary programs for industry to cut back.

But the Bush administration
has yet to make a declaration
that the American population
is not the only nation in the whole wide world.

Why state the obvious?

[George W Bush]

in the end, if there be an end.

and if your still alive, you can go with comfort of being 'chosen' to witness the end.

thats about how i will be looking at such. because, nature is something we cant control apparently

[Citizendave]

perdidochas -

I'm just curious, do you believe human induced GW is happening, and have you always thought that and if not when did you convert over to believing.

[perdidochas]

Citizendave wrote: perdidochas -

I'm just curious, do you believe human induced GW is happening, and have you always thought that and if not when did you convert over to believing.

I believe GW is happening. I think it's part of the natural cycle. I was once convinced that anthropogenic GW was occurring, now I'm not. However, if anthropogenic GW is occurring, it's too late to stop it. Our only choice in that case is to mitigate, by doing things like building levees around coastal cities, etc. Kyoto would do nothing.

[Citizendave]

Regarding the natural cycles, you're probably aware that we are in a warm period between ice ages and the scientists who study GW know that as well. Just because we are in a warm period, that doesn't mean the scientists are being "tricked" and not understanding their data. The problem of fossil fuels heating up the planet is a separate issue within the context of the natural cycles.

Quote: if anthropogenic GW is occurring, it's too late to stop it. Our only choice in that case is to mitigate

I think most environmentalists understand that we will be working to mitigate. I think I read that the damage we have done already is going to be hanging around for the next 400 years.

I'm not sure if you're aware, the United Nations task force reported that the biosphere does consume vast majority (if I remember correctly) of the CO2 which we create. It's just the overage which is causing GW. If we can reduce C02 output to the level which is consumed, the earth will be in balance.

[perdidochas]

Citizendave wrote: Regarding the natural cycles, you're probably aware that we are in a warm period between ice ages and the scientists who study GW know that as well. Just because we are in a warm period, that doesn't mean the scientists are being "tricked" and not understanding their data. The problem of fossil fuels heating up the planet is a separate issue within the context of the natural cycles.

Quote: if anthropogenic GW is occurring, it's too late to stop it. Our only choice in that case is to mitigate

I think most environmentalists understand that we will be working to mitigate. I think I read that the damage we have done already is going to be hanging around for the next 400 years.

I'm not sure if you're aware, the United Nations task force reported that the biosphere does consume vast majority (if I remember correctly) of the CO2 which we create. It's just the overage which is causing GW. If we can reduce C02 output to the level which is consumed, the earth will be in balance.

Not necessarily, because the absorption rate may be related to the concentration. the higher the concentration, the higher the absorption rate.

[Citizendave]

Can you provide a link and clarification on that?

The concentration is a known factor. It's currently at 360 ppm, and it was 280 ppm before the industrial revolution. The level of concentration was stable for a long time before the industrial revolution came about, (as I recall for like thousands of years).

The world wide rate of annual absorbtion is a known variable as well, or so I thought.

If I'm wrong, I'll admit it, unlike so many children on this site.

[perdidochas]

Citizendave wrote: Can you provide a link and clarification on that?

The concentration is a known factor. It's currently at 360 ppm, and it was 280 ppm before the industrial revolution. The level of concentration was stable for a long time before the industrial revolution came about, (as I recall for like thousands of years).

The world wide rate of annual absorbtion is a known variable as well, or so I thought.

If I'm wrong, I'll admit it, unlike so many children on this site.

I don't know for sure, I'm just thinking about what I know about physical factors. For example, in scuba diving, the rate at which the human body absorbs gases is related to the concentration of each of the gases.

[Citizendave]

Are you just making stuff up?

[perdidochas]

Citizendave wrote: Are you just making stuff up?

No, I'm using what I know about physical science, and applying it. I may or may not be right. I just posted the original "Not necessarily, because the absorption rate may be related to the concentration. the higher the concentration, the higher the absorption rate." as a conjecture. I need to research it further.

There are a few facts that I do know. One is that the greater the CO2 level, the greater the amount of photosynthesis.

[Citizendave]

Quote: because the absorption rate may be related to the concentration.

Just clarifying here - you are telling me that you are going to go online, or read a textbook, and you are going to see an article written by a scientist about a subject (C02 absorption) and then you are going to read some GW research, and you are going to see that the GW researchers overlooked the thing you read about in the textbook. Is that a fair summary of your plan for clearing up your opinion of human induced GW?

Here's something I put up on this in May of 2005, the link doesn't work as of right now:

Quote:

From this link here [url] http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/environment/057302.pdf [/url]

Quote:

Total annual CO2 output from nature is
(Million Metric Tons of Gas). . . . . . . 770,000

Total annual CO2 output from man-made sources is
(Million Metric Tons of Gas). . . . . . . 23,100

adding those two together gets . . . . . 793,100

The earth Absorbs annually . . . . . . . . 781,400


Annual increase in CO2 due to human activities is 11,700 (Million Metric Tons of Gas).



Citizendave wrote:
The temptation to get out my calculator is irresistible: about 3% of total CO2 output per year is man made.

Of the total output, 1.5% is not being absorbed back into the carbon exchange system.

Sounds pretty small, but according to the chart at the link, this 1.5% increase would be an annual change.



It looks to me like as if the scientists have a pretty good grip on absorption and output of CO2 on the planet.

[perdidochas]

Citizendave wrote: Quote: because the absorption rate may be related to the concentration.

Just clarifying here - you are telling me that you are going to go online, or read a textbook, and you are going to see an article written by a scientist about a subject (C02 absorption) and then you are going to read some GW research, and you are going to see that the GW researchers overlooked the thing you read about in the textbook. Is that a fair summary of your plan for clearing up your opinion of human induced GW?

I have cleared up my opinion on human induced GW. I once thought it happened, now I'm unsure. I'm sure of GW, but I don't think that what is going on now is any worse than has ever occurred before. Also, I think a lot of this is confounded by the fact that the Industrial revolution (and increase in CO2) occurred as we were getting out of the "Little Ice age" that ended in the 1850s or so.

Citizendave wrote: Here's something I put up on this in May of 2005, the link doesn't work as of right now:

Quote:

From this link here [url] http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/environment/057302.pdf [/url]

Quote:

Total annual CO2 output from nature is
(Million Metric Tons of Gas). . . . . . . 770,000

Total annual CO2 output from man-made sources is
(Million Metric Tons of Gas). . . . . . . 23,100

adding those two together gets . . . . . 793,100

The earth Absorbs annually . . . . . . . . 781,400


Annual increase in CO2 due to human activities is 11,700 (Million Metric Tons of Gas).



Citizendave wrote:
The temptation to get out my calculator is irresistible: about 3% of total CO2 output per year is man made.

Of the total output, 1.5% is not being absorbed back into the carbon exchange system.

Sounds pretty small, but according to the chart at the link, this 1.5% increase would be an annual change.



It looks to me like as if the scientists have a pretty good grip on absorption and output of CO2 on the planet.

What's the source for the absorption and output?

Also, you trust sources, rather than using your knowledge of basic principles. I prefer to think in terms of basic principles first. There are some that argue that the increased CO2 level is DUE to global warming, not the other way around. This makes some sense, as it is a known physical fact, that warm water absorbs less CO2 (or any gas for that matter) than does cooler water.

[Citizendave]

Quote: What's the source for the absorption and output?


Uh, that would be nature, you'll have to look that up since I won't be explaining it to you. Anyone who could ask that question and then claim that they have already "cleared up" their opinion on human induced GW clearly just doesn't know what he doesn't konw.

Quote: you trust sources.....I prefer to think in terms of basic principles first

It is starting to dawn on me that you think in terms of basic pinciples, and yet you don't understand basic principles. Considering the large number of experts who have concluded that human induced GW is happening, and published peer reviewed research, I'm willing to assume that the experts understand the pinciples, both basic and complex.

Quote: There are some that argue that the increased CO2 level is DUE to global warming

Can you provide a link on that? I've been reading about GW for a long time, and I've also read material by skeptics and deniers. I've never seen that.

[perdidochas]

Citizendave wrote: Quote: What's the source for the absorption and output?


Uh, that would be nature, you'll have to look that up since I won't be explaining it to you. Anyone who could ask that question and then claim that they have already "cleared up" their opinion on human induced GW clearly just doesn't know what he doesn't konw.

I meant what is the source for those numbers for global CO2 inputs and outputs.

Citizendave wrote: Quote: you trust sources.....I prefer to think in terms of basic principles first

It is starting to dawn on me that you think in terms of basic pinciples, and yet you don't understand basic principles. Considering the large number of experts who have concluded that human induced GW is happening, and published peer reviewed research, I'm willing to assume that the experts understand the pinciples, both basic and complex.

You're assuming a lot.

I do understand the basic principles. I've read the literature. I've been reading the literature since the late 1980s. I'm not convinced that global warming is anthropogenic. I'm not denying global warming, but I don't think the pre-historical data is accurate enough to make some of the predictions I've read. In other words, I don't think we know what all of the cycles that cause global warming are. I think scientists are rash for their predictions.


Citizendave wrote: Quote: There are some that argue that the increased CO2 level is DUE to global warming

Can you provide a link on that? I've been reading about GW for a long time, and I've also read material by skeptics and deniers. I've never seen that.



www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V8/N48/EDIT.jsp

www.abd.org.uk/co2_cause_or_effect.htm

[Citizendave]

I read the article at CO2 org.com. I've exchanged e-mails with them in the past, and I might send them another over this article.

Well, they might be right on all of that. I wonder why it is that the oil and other interested industries (such as the global property insurance companies) haven't picked up on this theory?

I intend to send in an e-mail to some or other expert to see if any of this is possible.

Looks like you've put a cork in me regarding the science for the time being.

Nationally, the politics is clearly in favor of those who believe that human induced GW is happening. Government regs loom on the horizon. At this point America does not regulate CO2 at all. That will change in the next few years, and I support that.

When I am beaten in a debate, or a point, I make it my obligation to acknowlege this. I am at this time beaten. I hope if I ever send you a personal message asking you to join a thread, you will join the debate.

[Citizendave]

Just to clarify, if this is CO2org's current position, it is a change. Here is the e-mail I sent them in 2004.

Quote:

From Citizendave:
Sent: Saturday, July 10, 2004 1:17 PM
Subject: has the earth's air changed in the last 150 years?

> I'd like to know whether or not the air changed in the last 150
years due to the industrial revolution?
>
> I can't seem to find an answer anywhere on the net. Thanks.


The response from the President of CO2Org was:

"Yes, the air has changed. Its carbon dioxide concentration has
increased by about a third."

Dr. Sherwood B. Idso, President
Center for the Study of
Carbon Dioxide and Global Change




I have an e-mail in with a leading researcher of GW with whom I've exchanged e-mails before asking for his input. I'm going to do a follow up e-mail with CO2org since this involves a potential change in their position