Anthropogenic Global Warming?

Main Page | Report this Page

Science Forum Index » Environment Forum » Anthropogenic Global Warming?

Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next

Author

Message

Quito Quito

Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2003 3:38 pm

Guest

A Question:

Land, vegetation, ocean and volcanism all play parts in determining
the atmospheric CO2. Have we quantified all the SOURCES and SINKS of
atmospheric CO2 for the past 150 years to such an accuracy and
confidence that we can say that anthropogenic CO2 significantly
contributed to the atmospheric CO2 increase since 1840's or so?

Could it be possible that the CO2 SOURCES and SINKS attributable to
above spheres overwhelmed the anthropogenic release?

Are we so confident that we think that it is worth the astronomical
price to curb the anthropogenic release of CO2 as proposed in the
Kyoto Protocol?

James Acker

Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2003 3:38 pm

Guest

Quito Quito <qquito@hotmail.com> wrote:
: A Question:

: Land, vegetation, ocean and volcanism all play parts in determining
: the atmospheric CO2. Have we quantified all the SOURCES and SINKS of
: atmospheric CO2 for the past 150 years to such an accuracy and
: confidence that we can say that anthropogenic CO2 significantly
: contributed to the atmospheric CO2 increase since 1840's or so?

Yes.

: Could it be possible that the CO2 SOURCES and SINKS attributable to
: above spheres overwhelmed the anthropogenic release?

No.

: Are we so confident that we think that it is worth the astronomical
: price to curb the anthropogenic release of CO2 as proposed in the
: Kyoto Protocol?

That's an entirely different issue. To the extent that
certainty is achievable in science, the atmospheric CO2 increase since
the mid-1800s is certainly due to anthropogenic causes; land-use change and
energy production from fossil fuels. Whether or not the implementation
of the Kyoto Protocol would be an "astronomical" price to the global
economy and that of individual nations, and whether
or not its implementation (and subsequent actions by the world
community) would/will have a significant effect on climate change due
to greenhouse gas emissions, are issues that are only partially
within the province of science to address.

Jim Acker

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
Jim Acker
jacker1@gl.umbc.edu
"Since we are assured that an all-wise Creator has observed the
most exact proportions, of number, weight, and measure, in the
make of all things, the most likely way therefore, to get any
insight into the nature of those parts of the creation, which
come within our observation, must in all reason be to number,
weigh, and measure." - Stephen Hales

Dr. Convection

Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2003 7:59 pm

Guest

"Quito Quito" <qquito@hotmail.com> wrote

Quote:

From:
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=10648868&BRD=1817&PAG=461&dept_id=
222076&rfi=6

Last gasps of the Kyoto Protocol

By JOSEPH PERKINS, Newspaper Enterprise Assn. December 11, 2003

Oh dear. What are the global warming alarmists to do now?

They were counting on Russia to ratify the so-called Kyoto Protocol,
an international treaty forcing major industrialized countries to
sharply reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse
gases.

But a senior Kremlin official suggested this week that Russian
President Vladimir Putin just might decline to sign the treaty because
it runs counter to Russia's national interests.

"A number of questions have been raised about the link between carbon
dioxide and climate change," Andrei Illarionov, Putin's senior
economic adviser, told The New York Times. He added that the Kyoto
Protocol "sets very serious brakes on economic growth which do not
look justified."

The treaty, the product of a 1997 United Nations convention in Kyoto,
Japan, cannot take effect without the approval of countries
responsible for 55 percent of the world's gas emissions as of 1990.

Some 120 nations, accounting for 44 percent of 1990 emissions, have
ratified the treaty over the past six years. So the treaty's
supporters need another 11 percent worth of emissions from another
major industrialized nation.

As the United States has rejected the Kyoto Protocol - and rightfully
so - Russia effectively controls the treaty's life or death.

That's why Illarionov's remarks provoked much sturm und drang this
week in Milan, Italy, where hundreds of international delegates happen
to be gathered for a two-week meeting on the global warming treaty.

Their remonstrations reached all the way to Moscow, apparently, where
yet another senior Kremlin official, Deputy Economy Minister Muhamed
Tsikhanov, assured "there are no decisions about ratification." He
added that the Kyoto Protocol will be submitted to Russia's parliament
for approval next year.

But even if the global warming treaty is, indeed, put before the
Russian parliament, that hardly means it will be approved.

The global warming community thought that the U.S. Senate would
approve the Kyoto Protocol after Bill Clinton accepted it in 1997.
However, Democrat and Republican lawmakers bipartisanly rejected the
treaty 95-to-zip.

And the prediction here is that the Russian parliament will similarly
reject the Kyoto Protocol, no matter what Tsikhanov might have said to
assuage the global warming delegates in Milan.

Because, as his colleague Illarionov detailed at a world climate
change conference in Moscow two months ago, the treaty is hopelessly
flawed.

First of all, it is based on the questionable premise that human
consumption of fossil fuels has raised carbon dioxide emissions to
dangerous levels, causing the planet to overheat.

Yet, the scientific literature indicates that human activity accounts
for a mere 8 percent of carbon dioxide emissions, Illarionov noted.
Natural factors make up 92 percent of the total. So human beings may
have some effect on the Earth's climate. But not even remotely as much
as Mother Nature.

Then there are the costs associated with meeting the Kyoto Protocol's
target, a reduction of the world's greenhouse gas emissions by 5.2
percent from 1990 levels between now and 2012.

Illarionov pointed out that the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change puts the price tag at as much as $18 quadrillion by the
end of the century. That amounts to 600 times the entire world's gross
domestic product in 2002, as estimated by the World Bank.

And the burden, the expense of saving Mother Earth from global warming
- a putative planetary threat that ranks somewhere in the neighborhood
with alien invasion - would not be shared by the entire world. The
Kyoto Protocol exempts China, India, Brazil, Mexico and more than 100
other developing countries that will account for more than half the
world's greenhouse gas emissions by 2012.

So, then, even if the Kyoto Protocol were ratified, even if every
nation were to adhere to its terms - including the United States and
Russia - it would have a negligible effect on the Earth's climate.

The United States was justified in rejecting the global warming treaty
- and Russia ought to do the same.

Joseph Perkins is a columnist for The San Diego Union-Tribune and can
be reached at Joseph.Perkins@UnionTrib.com.

Quito Quito

Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2003 11:43 pm

Guest

Thanks for the answer. Could you please post the quantities of CO2
released or absorbed by land, marshes, forests, volcanos, oceans, and
humans with limits of errors, or provide a few references? Thanks.

James Acker <jacker1@linux1.gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message news:<brnuju$huo$1@news.umbc.edu>...

Quote:

Philip Felton

Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2003 2:16 am

Guest

Quito Quito wrote:

Quote:

There's a good book on the subject which does list the data you seek the title is "A Primer on
Greenhouse gases", I don't have a copy at present, it's quite a small monograph. Check for it at
your library.

Phil.

Roger Coppock

Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2003 2:39 am

Guest

Radio isotope analysis of carbon in atmospheric CO2 shows
that the increasing CO2 concentrations come from fossil fuel
origins. (The Seuss Effect) If one simply has to have all
the trivia, one can trace the carbon cycle. See:
http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html
or: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/095.htm

--

"One who joyfully guards his mind
And fears his own confusion
Can not fall.
He has found his way to peace."

-- Buddha, in the "Pali Dhammapada,"
~5th century BCE

-.-. --.- Roger Coppock (rcoppock@adnc.com)

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Alastair McDonald

Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2003 5:07 am

Guest

"Quito Quito" <qquito@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:98d60386.0312162043.33bd7db1@posting.google.com...

Quote:

You are not asking much are you? But what you are asking for is
details of the Carbon Cycle. Searching google for 'carbon cycle'
will bring you more information than you want, but you could start
with this link;
http://www.whrc.org/science/carbon/carbon.htm

Wood Hole, who published it, is one of the leading scientific centres
in the world investigating climate change.

HTH,

Cheers, Alastair.

Quote:

James Acker <jacker1@linux1.gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:<brnuju$huo$1@news.umbc.edu>...
Quito Quito <qquito@hotmail.com> wrote:
: A Question:

: Land, vegetation, ocean and volcanism all play parts in determining
: the atmospheric CO2. Have we quantified all the SOURCES and SINKS of
: atmospheric CO2 for the past 150 years to such an accuracy and
: confidence that we can say that anthropogenic CO2 significantly
: contributed to the atmospheric CO2 increase since 1840's or so?

Yes.

: Could it be possible that the CO2 SOURCES and SINKS attributable to
: above spheres overwhelmed the anthropogenic release?

No.

Thomas Palm

Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2003 5:13 am

Guest

qquito@hotmail.com (Quito Quito) wrote in
news:98d60386.0312162043.33bd7db1@posting.google.com:

Quote:

As usual the IPCC report is a good place to start. For the carbon budget
you might want to have a look at:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig3-1.htm

As you see there are lots of carbon circulating, and if you just look at
the numbers the human contribution doesn't seem so large compared to
natural fluxes. Most of these fluxes just circulate the same carbon between
ocean, atmosphere and biosphere however, so they don't change the CO2
ratio. Fossil fuels (and to a much smaller extent volcanoes) add new CO2.
That is why CO2 levels have started to rise rapidly after beeing almost
constant since the last ide age.

James Acker

Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2003 5:51 am

Guest

Quito Quito <qquito@hotmail.com> wrote:
: Thanks for the answer. Could you please post the quantities of CO2
: released or absorbed by land, marshes, forests, volcanos, oceans, and
: humans with limits of errors, or provide a few references? Thanks.

Others have already provided some nice responses. Below I've provided
a link to an article (which I happened to have authored) which features
an illustrative figure on the carbon cycle you can examine (I did not produce
the figure, though; the source is referenced). It should help answer
your question.

http://daac.gsfc.nasa.gov/oceancolor/warming.shtml

This is a three-Web page article; the figure you should examine
is on this page:

http://daac.gsfc.nasa.gov/oceancolor/warming2.shtml

Jim Acker

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
Jim Acker
jacker1@gl.umbc.edu
"Since we are assured that an all-wise Creator has observed the
most exact proportions, of number, weight, and measure, in the
make of all things, the most likely way therefore, to get any
insight into the nature of those parts of the creation, which
come within our observation, must in all reason be to number,
weigh, and measure." - Stephen Hales

David Ball

Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2003 8:27 am

Guest

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 00:59:23 GMT, "Dr. Convection"
<Convection@convection.net> wrote:

Quote:

"Quito Quito" <qquito@hotmail.com> wrote

A Question:

Land, vegetation, ocean and volcanism all play parts in determining
the atmospheric CO2. Have we quantified all the SOURCES and SINKS of
atmospheric CO2 for the past 150 years to such an accuracy and
confidence that we can say that anthropogenic CO2 significantly
contributed to the atmospheric CO2 increase since 1840's or so?

Could it be possible that the CO2 SOURCES and SINKS attributable to
above spheres overwhelmed the anthropogenic release?

Are we so confident that we think that it is worth the astronomical
price to curb the anthropogenic release of CO2 as proposed in the
Kyoto Protocol?

Typical. Everyone posts real references. You post a newspaper

story.

Parallax

Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2003 9:28 am

Guest

Roger Coppock <rcoppock@adnc.com> wrote in message news:<3FE0081E.E8EDBA0A@adnc.com>...

Quote:

The isotopic ratios of carbon in the air could be partially produced
by natural processes involving geologic carbon that has been held for
millenia sufficient to produce such ratios. For example, CO2 released
from volcanic processes should easily mimic the ratios the fossil
fuels. Carbon released naturally (coal seam gas, methane hydrates,
etc.) in the form of geologic methane would also fit this ratio. The
observed ratio does not necessarily point to fossil fuels but does
seem to point to a geologic origin of this carbon (by geologic, I mean
carbon that has been sequestered long enough for the heavier isotopes
to decay).
The bottom line is that the isotopic ratio does not really point to
fossil fuels but to fossil origin.

Alastair McDonald

Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2003 10:12 am

Guest

"Parallax" <dbohara@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:792abaf9.0312170628.7724ef38@posting.google.com...

Quote:

Roger Coppock <rcoppock@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:<3FE0081E.E8EDBA0A@adnc.com>...
Radio isotope analysis of carbon in atmospheric CO2 shows
that the increasing CO2 concentrations come from fossil fuel
origins. (The Seuss Effect) If one simply has to have all
the trivia, one can trace the carbon cycle. See:
http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html
or: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/095.htm

--

"One who joyfully guards his mind
And fears his own confusion
Can not fall.
He has found his way to peace."

-- Buddha, in the "Pali Dhammapada,"
~5th century BCE

-.-. --.- Roger Coppock (rcoppock@adnc.com)

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

The isotopic ratios of carbon in the air could be partially produced
by natural processes involving geologic carbon that has been held for
millenia sufficient to produce such ratios. For example, CO2 released
from volcanic processes should easily mimic the ratios the fossil
fuels. Carbon released naturally (coal seam gas, methane hydrates,
etc.) in the form of geologic methane would also fit this ratio. The
observed ratio does not necessarily point to fossil fuels but does
seem to point to a geologic origin of this carbon (by geologic, I mean
carbon that has been sequestered long enough for the heavier isotopes
to decay).
The bottom line is that the isotopic ratio does not really point to
fossil fuels but to fossil origin.

But we know that the main source of carbon with a fossil origin is from
the burning of fossil fuels. That was a specious argument.

Cheers, Alastair.

Ian St. John

Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2003 12:16 pm

Guest

"Quito Quito" <qquito@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:98d60386.0312161238.75de679b@posting.google.com...

Quote:

No. The increase in the atmosphereic CO2 is a consequence of fossil fuel
emissions. This has been verified by isotope composition studies. The size
of the normal CO2 fluxes is immaterial to the amount being held in the
atmosphere ( over the short term ) The fluxes react weakly to the increase
in atmospheric CO2. So far changes in the sinks have *removed* about half
the yearly increase but the remainder is clearly from fossil fuels.

To understand this proof, you have to realise that cosmic rays tend to
convert carbon and oxygen to radioactive species. This is the basis for
'carbon dating' of wood fragments. The atmosphere has a fairly constant
percentage of these generated radioactive species and they are incorporated
into the wood during life. On death of the tree this exchange stops keeping
the wood in equilibrium with the air concentration and the decay of these
atoms can give us a measure of the time since the tree died. The fewer C14
atoms, the older the wood.

Now, let us call this depleted carbon 'old' carbon and similarly with oxygen
we can have 'old oxygen', depleted in O18 isotope. Geological deposits tend
to be very very depleted in these species. Carbonates ( released by volcanic
activity or weathering ) have CO2 made up of "old carbon' and "old oxygen"
since both are present and have been decaying for millions of years. Fossil
fuels have depleted carbon, but no oxygen so when burned they tend to have
depleted carbon but 'modern' oxygen ratios ( since combustions combines them
with current atmospheric oxygen having a high O18 ratio ). CO2 sinks tends
to do little to change the situtation since it is in active circulation.

Now they have done analysis of the isotopic composition of the modern CO2
levels and determined that the input that is changing the total
concentration consists of old carbon with new oxygen, thus proving beyond
reasonalbe double that it is from fossil fuel combustions. The fact that it
is less than the fossil fuel emissions also supports the conclusion. You
cannot 'wish away' the fact that CO2 increase in the atmosphere comes from
the known cause of fossil fuel emissions. Do you somehow think that the CO2
from fossil fuel use disappears cause you want it to? The effect of
increasing atmospheric levels of CO2 can easily be shown to be from the
cause of releasing more CO2 to the atmosophere. Are you surprised when
adding more whisky to your drink makes your glass fill up?

Quote:

Are we so confident that we think that it is worth the astronomical
price to curb the anthropogenic release of CO2 as proposed in the
Kyoto Protocol?

What would convince you is beyond my knowledge. I suspect you would be
easier to convince if you did not have a fear of the consequences of
admitting (widely shared) responsibility.

The kyoto protocol costs nothing. It is merely a goal that has been set. The
costs will be determined by HOW we reach the goal. For example, modernising
the current 40 to 50 year old coal power plants could reduce the 27% of
emissions that they contribute by half, making for a reduction in emission
by 13.5% ( about double target ). This woudl pay back just in fuel saving,
because the halfing of the emission is due to halving the fuel requried for
the same *useful* energy output. Similarly for insulation, higher
efficiency motors, etc. Many early steps can be done on a cost effective
manner. It is up to you how to implement this to prevent people 'taking
advantage' of the regulation to skim off money for their own benefit, but
there is no evidence that it cannot be done for low cost or even an overall
profit.

Ian St. John

Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2003 12:23 pm

Guest

"Parallax" <dbohara@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:792abaf9.0312170628.7724ef38@posting.google.com...

Quote:

The bottom line is that the isotopic ratio does not really point to
fossil fuels but to fossil origin.

It points to fossil origin of carbon alone, i.e. fossil fuels, since the
isotope analysis also notes that it is combined with 'modern' oxygen. That
is the key point in the isotope analysis. Fossil CO2 from limestone, for
example, has fossil carbon AND fossil oxygen ( depleted in O18 ) Only
fossil carbon sources without oxygen ( CnHn+2 typically ) can produce this
result.

The idea that fossil fuel combustion products disappear ( for some reason )
but that we get a similar increase in CO2 due to 'natural releases of fossil
fuels' that combust on their own is just not rational, much less reasonable.

But then "parallax' is anonymous basically because he likes to post
unreasonable garbage.

Guest

Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2003 5:16 pm

Quito Quito <qquito@hotmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

Could it be possible that the CO2 SOURCES and SINKS attributable to
above spheres overwhelmed the anthropogenic release?

No. Apart from all other arguments, we know the fossil fuel releases
(these are fairly well measured) and we know that the accumulation of
CO2 in the atmos is about 1/2 of this.

If you look at CO2 levels over the last 100kyr, and more recently
(e.g. http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/wmc/misc/scibe/co2.gif.html)
you see a highly unnatural looking spike. If you want to believe that
the spike is natural, you have to also believe that some weird process
kicked in just recently to suddenly absorb all that extra CO2 we
emitted.

-W.

--
William M Connolley | wmc@bas.ac.uk | http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/wmc/
Climate Modeller, British Antarctic Survey | Disclaimer: I speak for myself
I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file & help me spread!

Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next All times are GMT - 5 Hours The time now is Fri Dec 05, 2008 6:00 am Science Forum Index