Global warming? Do the math

National Post ^ | 2007-04-09 | Lorne Gunter

[Clive]

"UN Report Proves Canada Must Act Now On Climate Change," trumpeted the headline of a Liberal party press release on Friday, timed to correspond with the release of yet another alarmist UN summary on climate change.

"Canada must act aggressively now to avert the destructive consequences of climate change," the Liberals insisted.

"Canada must be ready for a carbon-constrained future," said party leader Stephane Dion. "Human beings can't continue to use the atmosphere as an unlimited and free dump ? It is within our power to prevent the worst of the effects of climate change."

This, of course, marks the second alarmist release by the UN this year, both coming before its own scientific report on global warming is even out.

Just why would the UN release these teaser summaries before its actual scientific findings are available? It could it be that the science is becoming less alarming as scientists learn more, so the UN wants to maximize the public hysteria before its catastrophic forecasts for the future can be checked against the more moderate scientific truth.

We already know that the coming report -- the fourth by the UN in 15 years -- will say that maximum projected temperatures over the next century will not be nearly as high as projected in the last report in 2001; that man has contributed less to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than originally thought; and that sea level rise will be only a few inches, rather than the several feet once thought.

Yet the so-called "summaries for policy makers" are becoming more shrill each time: Species will be wiped out, crime will rise, starvation will kill hundreds of millions, disease will become rampant, islands will disappear beneath the waves, deserts will consume entire continents.

Science goes down, UN hysteria goes up. Curious, isn't it, how that plays into the UN's desire to be at the centre of a global effort to plan human activity?

But let's look at just what the global-warming theory implies and at Mr. Dion's charge that humans, Canadians included, are dumping massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Think of the atmosphere as 100 cases of 24 one-litre bottles of water -- 2,400 litres in all.

According to the global warming theory, rising levels of human-produced carbon dioxide are trapping more of the sun's reflected heat in the atmosphere and dangerously warming the planet.

But 99 of our cases would be nitrogen (78%) and oxygen (21%), neither of which are greenhouse gases. Only one case -- just 24 bottles out of 2,400 -- would contain greenhouse gases.

Of the bottles in the greenhouse gas case, 23 would be water vapour.

Water vapour is the most abundant greenhouse gas, yet scientists will admit they understand very little about its impact on global warming. (It may actually help cool the planet: As the earth heats up, water vapour may form into more clouds and reflect solar radiation before it reaches the surface. Maybe. We don't know.)

The very last bottle in that very last case would be carbon dioxide, one bottle out of 2,400.

Carbon dioxide makes up just 0.04% of the entire atmosphere, and most of that -- at least 95% -- is naturally occurring (decaying plants, forest fires, volcanoes, releases from the oceans).

At most, 5% of the carbon dioxide in the air comes from human sources such as power plants, cars, oilsands, etc.

So in our single bottle of carbon dioxide, just 50 ml is man-made carbon dioxide. Out of our model atmosphere of 2,400 litres of water, just about a shot glassful is carbon dioxide put their by humans. And of that miniscule amount, Canada's contribution is just 2% --about 1 ml.

If, as Mr. Dion demands, we honoured our Kyoto commitments and reduced our current CO2 emissions by one-third -- which would involve shutting down all the coal-fired power generating plants in Canada (and living with constant brownouts and blackouts); or taking all the cars or all the commercial vehicles off the roads; or shutting down the oilsands; or some combination of all these -- we would be saving one-third of 1 ml-- the tip of an eyedropper.

And somehow, that is supposed to save the planet from warming; the tip of one eyedropper out of 2,400 bottles of water.

That might be true if carbon dioxide were the most toxic substance ever discovered by man. But it is not. We each expel it every time we exhale.

It's hard to imagine how such a tiny amount of a benign substance could cause the end of the planet. Maybe Mr. Dion could explain that in his next press release.

[polymuser]

Yeah, I’m sticking with 1975’s GLOBAL COOLING science!
http://www.glennbeck.com/2006news/newsweek-coolingworld.pdf

[Ditto]

It's hard to imagine how such a tiny amount of a benign substance could cause the end of the planet.

And it takes blind faith to believe it.

[Yo-Yo]

Water Vapor Rules the Greenhouse System

Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?

It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.

This point is so crucial to the debate over global warming that how water vapor is or isn't factored into an analysis of Earth's greenhouse gases makes the difference between describing a significant human contribution to the greenhouse effect, or a negligible one.

Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.

[myuhaul]

Can anyone answer these basic questions?

How many locations around the globe provide these temperature readings?

What is the exact frequency of these measurements? (Hourly, daily, etc)

How long have the measurement devices been located in the exact same spots?

What is the exact altitude(s) of the air measurements?

What is the exact depth(s) of the soil measurements?

What is the exact depth(s) of the water measurements?

[NonLinear]

---

** Bookmark **

---

[Nathan Zachary]

"Isn’t the accepted rate of Global Warming a whopping 1 degree Celsius per 1000 yrs?"

That's the theory. But we will never know until the earth warms back up to what is normal. "Normal" was no ice at the north pole, with lush tropical forrests within the entire artic circle, forrests teaming with elephants, rhino's hippo's tigers etc. that were there only 4,500 years ago.

Of course the atmosphere was much more humid than it is now, which kept the earth's temperature regulated as well as blocking much more of solar radiation than it does now.

Dima, the Baby Mammoth

[Clint N. Suhks]

[myuhaul]

Gorebal Warning strikes again

[Don Corleone]

Want some fun and laughs? Google “Carbon Offsets” and look at the new left wing GROWTH industry.

[Bryan24]

Here’s a simple way to look at it....

Imagine all of the earth’s atmosphere fits into a box that is 1 mile square. That is 1 mile wide, 1 mile deep and 1 mile high.

ALL (naturally occuring and man-made) of the CO2 in the atmosphere would be in a box that is only 190 feet square.

BUT, all of the man-made CO2 would be in a box that is only 9 1/2 feet square.

So, you have a box that is 5280 feet square (high, wide and deep). Inside that box, the BAAAAAD, man-made CO2 is a box that is 9.5 feet square.

Now, let’s go to the absurd and make a 25% reduction in man-made CO2. You cut the box from a 9.5 square box to a 7.125 foot square box.

Still don’t see it?

Try getting a 1 foot ruler and imagine a 1 square foot box representing all of the earth’s atmosphere. The man-made CO2 would fit into a box that would be hidden by the dot between these parentheses(.).

Now, try reducing that by 25%.

[myuhaul]

I am willing to sell the carbon offsets produced by the trees in my yard. Any bidders?

[OK]

Link to the BBC documentary on Google video.

The Great Global Warming Swindle

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=The+Great+Global+Warming+Swindle&hl=en

[polymuser]

They’re actually ‘Guilt Offsets’.

[TexasCajun]

Looter-Guy is so Cool! ..even more than Vacation-Guy.

[3catsanadog]

Kill the cows too! Have we forgotten how much methane they flatulate into the atmosphere?

Ah nuts. Now we'll have PETA in an uproar.

What a quagmire when 2 liberal special interest groups butt heads.

[GeorgefromGeorgia]

“We already know that the coming report — the fourth by the UN in 15 years — will say that maximum projected temperatures over the next century will not be nearly as high as projected in the last report in 2001; that man has contributed less to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than originally thought; and that sea level rise will be only a few inches, rather than the several feet once thought.”

If this is true, why isn’t it getting the press in the MSM?

[Nathan Zachary]

I’ve planted over 15,000 trees over the last 15 years.
I would like someone to calculate what that’s worth in carbon offset credits, and help me sell them to carbon spewing hypocrates like Oprah.

[thinking]

Canada would have to remove every car and truck from their roads to almost make their Kyoto commitments.....

And all of them move to Florida, for the winter...leave the Mounties behind to stop looting....

[driftless2]

It would have been one thing if all the gw doomists had merely stated that increased warming MIGHT!!! lead to potential problems. But of course not, the only prediction they could make was one of IMMINENT CATASTROPHE, WE’RE ALL GOING TO DIE HORRIBLE DEATHS!!!! Whenever I read or hear dire predictions like the ones the doomists are currently making, (especially after having lived through the “Population Bomb” hysteria generated in the late sixties by that super-fraud Paul Ehrlich) my bull—— detector starts beeping.

[cookcounty]

Hey, what's to prevent us from starting a Re-forestation Carbon-Offset corporation to get guilt-ridden Hollywood people to pay for our new landscaping? We could provide swell tree certificates and everything.

You think I could retroactively get cash for the lawn I put in last year?