Global warming, facts pls

[Ryantology]

Energy companies are divesting themselves of green energy investments.

I'm sure you understand that there are elements of all those industries involved in the green energy business, and that there are vastly greater and more profitable elements of those same industries that have everything to lose by a shift towards sounder ecological practices and legislation. Sure, companies like (for example) BP fund green energy projects. It makes them a little bit of money and gets them some good publicity that the industry really needed after gas price sticker shock and the whole poisoning the Gulf of Mexico thing, and it does virtually nothing of substance to reduce our dependency on oil or to replace 20th century energy production and transportation with 21st century improvements.

[KichigaiNeko]

Yes, it is very confusing for the lay person

[ignoramus]

Watched a good doco on climate change.
Apparently it has a direct correlation with solar flare activity.
The graphs of solar flares vs temp from the beginning of records is almost identical.

Having said that, I heard on the radio the other day that NASA said the earth recently avoided an extinction level event by one week!

[Natachan]

So I did a bit of research and found that carbon dioxide is responsible for less than 25% of the total greenhouse effect, and human activity accounts for less than 25% of that.

Bullshit! Human activity accounts for nearly nearly ALL of the change in CO2 levels. Total CO2 is a combination of rather static levels of carbon in the atmosphere within the carbon cycle. Most of the land mass is covered in seasonal vegetation where plants extract co2 from the air to create plant products during the spring and summer months, but that carbon is released again with the vegetation die-off by decomposition and combustion. This is why the atmospheric CO2 levels have such a distinct seasonal pattern. There are more longterm patterns in the cycle as well matching with longer term plant die off. Some vegetation is buried before full decomposition and converts to fossil fuels over long periods of time. It is the extraction and burning of these fuels that brings new carbon into play and becomes a huge agent of change. The carbon stored in the perma-frost in the artic is the largest trigger event looming. If the typical fill-up at the pump of 15 gallons weighs about 6.4 lbs x 15 = 96 lbs and 85 % of that is carbon which gives us 81.5 lbs of carbon. When this is combined with oxygen from the air you get about 300 lbs of CO2 going into the air that already had a "normal" CO2 cycle balance. With one fill-up! Multiply that by the number of cars in our history and adding in all the coal and natural gas being burnt as well and only a madman would think it would have no adverse effect.

If you believe human actions have such a colossal effect above what my sources state please provide citation. Once again, I'm not stating there isn't a human effect on CO2 levels, I'm stating that the percentage that we contribute to the total greenhouse effect is much smaller than I had thought originally, and that I had grossly underestimated the total atmospheric volume in question.

I suppose that climate deniers would also support dumping trash in the grand canyon as it would take years for that to effect the globe as well..

Did you not read my post? Even if climate change is completely a farce I still am not sure I would say such since I believe that moving towards sustainable environmental practices is laudable. I love nuclear and solar power and think that reducing use of fossil fuels is the only viable option for long term sustainability.

[The Grand Nudger]

The Earth does go through natural cycles of warming and cooling, caused by factors such as changes in the sun or volcanic activity. This has been closely examined, and the warming we have seen in the past 50 years cannot be explained by natural factors alone. [5] This figure illustrates one piece of evidence that shows that recent global warming is primarily a result of greenhouse gas emissions from human activities.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basics/facts.html

The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.
The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.1

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

I think what I see here (on the forums), is that there's this idea that it has to be either one or the other, natural or man-made. What has folks worried, is the combination of the two. This rock doesn't need any help when it comes to giving us shit. Does this mean climate-apocalypse? Probably not. But it will be disruptive.
(try any of the sources in either link)

[Ravenshire]

So I did a bit of research and found that carbon dioxide is responsible for less than 25% of the total greenhouse effect, and human activity accounts for less than 25% of that.

Bullshit! Human activity accounts for nearly nearly ALL of the change in CO2 levels. Total CO2 is a combination of rather static levels of carbon in the atmosphere within the carbon cycle. Most of the land mass is covered in seasonal vegetation where plants extract co2 from the air to create plant products during the spring and summer months, but that carbon is released again with the vegetation die-off by decomposition and combustion. This is why the atmospheric CO2 levels have such a distinct seasonal pattern. There are more longterm patterns in the cycle as well matching with longer term plant die off. Some vegetation is buried before full decomposition and converts to fossil fuels over long periods of time. It is the extraction and burning of these fuels that brings new carbon into play and becomes a huge agent of change. The carbon stored in the perma-frost in the artic is the largest trigger event looming. If the typical fill-up at the pump of 15 gallons weighs about 6.4 lbs x 15 = 96 lbs and 85 % of that is carbon which gives us 81.5 lbs of carbon. When this is combined with oxygen from the air you get about 300 lbs of CO2 going into the air that already had a "normal" CO2 cycle balance. With one fill-up! Multiply that by the number of cars in our history and adding in all the coal and natural gas being burnt as well and only a madman would think it would have no adverse effect.

I suppose that climate deniers would also support dumping trash in the grand canyon as it would take years for that to effect the globe as well..

On top of this you have methane release. The largest currently is from the rotting of previously frozen vegetation in the arctic and sub-arctic. The second largest is from hydraulic fracturing. Not only does it release methane as a primary result (methane from frakked wells is almost always simply vented to to atmosphere) but during the refining of natural gases, methane is separated out and incompletely burned through "flaring" or, again, just vented to the atmosphere. Methane is 4 times more effective as a greenhouse gas than CO2. To say we're killing the planet is over-dramatic, but we are destroying the habitat on this planet that we depend on to survive. The worst part is, there are viable alternatives.

[Cato]

If you believe human actions have such a colossal effect above what my sources state please provide citation. Once again, I'm not stating there isn't a human effect on CO2 levels, I'm stating that the percentage that we contribute to the total greenhouse effect is much smaller than I had thought originally, and that I had grossly underestimated the total atmospheric volume in question.

Why the fuck do you demand citation when you have provided none for your claims even though you invoke 'my sources' as an argument. What sources? Where?

It's not just the fact that you alluded to undemonstrated sources, but you specifically invoked atmospheric volume as a criteria. You sound like a god botherer puking up the 'second law of thermodynamics' as an argument for god. Both of you are the same, fucking parrots that have the ability to mimic with absolutely no understanding.

Did you not read my post? Even if climate change is completely a farce I still am not sure I would say such since I believe that moving towards sustainable environmental practices is laudable. I love nuclear and solar power and think that reducing use of fossil fuels is the only viable option for long term sustainability.

Ignorant fucking dogooder. Never bothered to think about where the sun doesn't shine and the wind don't blow. Do you have any opinions regarding wind and solar power storage and distribution? I'm guessing not. You can scream wind and solar and make yourself feel good, the details are up to somebody else. Oh, we could do it but I doubt you would be happy with your energy bill. Put your money where your mouth is.

I was a nuclear trained electrician on submarines, so I'll temper myself regarding nuclear energy.

[Brakeman]

Bullshit! Human activity accounts for nearly nearly ALL of the change in CO2 levels. Total CO2 is a combination of rather static levels of carbon in the atmosphere within the carbon cycle. Most of the land mass is covered in seasonal vegetation where plants extract co2 from the air to create plant products during the spring and summer months, but that carbon is released again with the vegetation die-off by decomposition and combustion. This is why the atmospheric CO2 levels have such a distinct seasonal pattern. There are more longterm patterns in the cycle as well matching with longer term plant die off. Some vegetation is buried before full decomposition and converts to fossil fuels over long periods of time. It is the extraction and burning of these fuels that brings new carbon into play and becomes a huge agent of change. The carbon stored in the perma-frost in the arctic is the largest trigger event looming. If the typical fill-up at the pump of 15 gallons weighs about 6.4 lbs x 15 = 96 lbs and 85 % of that is carbon which gives us 81.5 lbs of carbon. When this is combined with oxygen from the air you get about 300 lbs of CO2 going into the air that already had a "normal" CO2 cycle balance. With one fill-up! Multiply that by the number of cars in our history and adding in all the coal and natural gas being burnt as well and only a madman would think it would have no adverse effect.

If you believe human actions have such a colossal effect above what my sources state please provide citation. Once again, I'm not stating there isn't a human effect on CO2 levels, I'm stating that the percentage that we contribute to the total greenhouse effect is much smaller than I had thought originally, and that I had grossly underestimated the total atmospheric volume in question.

Source? Here is a simple wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle

Your now defined term "percentage we (humans) contribute to the total greenhouse effect" is probably your problem. Why are you assuming that the "greenhouse effect" was not in relative balance? The GH effect has been around since earth had an atmosphere. Percentage of the total is un-important. Like a weight scale, it is the amount of unbalance that is important as it is the unbalanced part that causes change.

So tell us, in all of your reading, who else's thumb is on the scale?
What other source of CO2 in egressing into our atmosphere that wasn't egressing before the relative balance of the pre-industrial age??

[popeyespappy]

Ten lines of of evidence that the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is anthropogenic. 4 and 5 are pretty much game set match for the it isn't us crowd.

1. The start of the growth in CO2 concentration coincides with the start of the industrial revolution, hence anthropogenic;
2. Increase in CO2 concentration over the long term almost exactly correlates with cumulative anthropogenic emissions, hence anthropogenic;
3. Annual CO2 concentration growth is less than Annual CO2 emissions, hence anthropogenic;
4. Declining C14 ratio indicates the source is very old, hence fossil fuel or volcanic (ie, not oceanic outgassing or a recent biological source);
5. Declining C13 ratio indicates a biological source, hence not volcanic;
6. Declining O2 concentration indicate combustion, hence not volcanic;
7. Partial pressure of CO2 in the ocean is increasing, hence not oceanic outgassing;
8. Measured CO2 emissions from all (surface and beneath the sea) volcanoes are one-hundredth of anthropogenic CO2 emissions; hence not volcanic;
9. Known changes in biomass too small by a factor of 10, hence not deforestation; and
10. Known changes of CO2 concentration with temperature are too small by a factor of 10, hence not ocean outgassing.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/anthrocarbon-brief.html

[KichigaiNeko]

Percentages are important.

Consider that, "global warming" is also occurring on the rest of the planets in our solar system.

No excuse to not reduce our own CO2 "footprint" and clean up our own pollution but I would suspect more is going on here