Greenhouse gas punchline

The American Institute of Physics ^ | 2001 | Spencer Weart

[EdZ]

...Recognizing the threat to fossil fuels, a scientist working for Shell International Chemical Company publicly denied that "our furnaces and motor car engines will have any large effect on the CO2 balance."...

Through the 1960s a modest level of official interest was sustained by new scientific findings. Most telling was C.D. Keeling's measurements of the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, a curve that dramatically rose year after year. The idea that the government should actually do something about this—if only to sponsor climate research more systematically—first arose in 1963, when Keeling and a few other experts met in a conference sponsored by the private Conservation Foundation. Their report warned that the doubling of CO2 projected for the next century could raise the world's temperature some 4°C (over 6°F), bringing serious coastal flooding and other harm. The government should give the subject more consistent attention, they believed, and more money. The group recommended that Keeling's program for monitoring CO2 levels (whose funding was threatened) be continued, they decried the lack of continuity in greenhouse gas research, and they called on the National Academy of Sciences to create a committee to look into the whole question of atmospheric change.(22)

[EdZ]

Now you see the first industry denial of rising concentrations greenhouse gases in 1957, by Shell International, and the harsh rebuke when the first systemmatic measurements of CO2 were made soon after the stunningly accurate theoretical predictions of 1957.

It is interesting that nearly half of the respondents to my last post either denied that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are accumulating in the atmosphere, or ridiculed the scientists' 1957 prediction that CO2 would increase by 25% by the year 2000 (a prediction that was accurate to within 20%).

CO2 concentration data: http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/06.htm

All of you who posted nonsense about volcanoes and about how human CO2 output is insignificant compared with natural sources - you should take this as a harsh rebuke.

[klute]

I imagine that, since the sky is falling, these gases would be found in greater quantities closer to the ground.

[Balding_Eagle]

you should take this as a harsh rebuke.

You joined today just to rebuke us? I'm honored.

[Dog Gone]

Thanks for showing up today to post this bullshit.

[aruanan]

Trolling as ZOT! bait again, I see.

As I said earlier

What do you think? Most people would find it shocking to think that we could permanently change the composition of our atmosphere. If you follow the links, you will find all sorts of fascinating information.

Go to The Science & Environmental Policy Project for information that is more up-to-date than an essay in 1959. Of all the so-called greenhouse gases produced, only about 9.86 E-6 is anthropogenic:

"I went to the trouble of adding up all the greenhouse gases, as provided in Gregg Easterbrook’s excellent book, A Moment on the Earth, and then converted the total volume to a linear scale. That’s so you can get a better sense of mankind’s total annual contribution. That is, I wondered if there were one mile of greenhouse gas, how much of that would be the result of all of man’s doing. I found that out of 5,280 feet, mankind contributes five-eighths of an inch."

24 posted on 04/24/2003 4:20 AM PDT by aruanan

[Bobber58]

recent studies suggest that rising CO2 levels are an effect of rising temps, not a cause....

[Texas Eagle]

Nobody has ever explained to me what the big deal with CO2 is anyways. CO2 (carbon dioxide) is plant food. Plants convert that CO2 into oxygen which is basically people food. What's wrong with that?

[aruanan]

It is interesting that nearly half of the respondents to my last post either denied that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are accumulating in the atmosphere, or ridiculed the scientists' 1957 prediction that CO2 would increase by 25% by the year 2000 (a prediction that was accurate to within 20%).

Son, the beginning of the current sharp increase in atmospheric CO2 antedated the Industrial Revolution. Anthropogenic CO2 accounts for only the tiniest portion of the increase. It's not yet known where the rest is coming from--except that it's not anthropogenic.

[MEG33]

Haven't we seen this same poster posting the same thing?

[norwaypinesavage]

Human CO2 output is, indeed, increasing, and the only long term solution is for you to stop breathing out CO2. Please hurry! NPS

[John Valentine]

And to you, Edz, an obvious poseur pretending to have information or intelligence way beyond that evident from your contribution here, I have a suggestion: take a hike.

[Bobber58]

oxygen releases free radicals, which can cause cancer...stop breathing now, for the children!!!

[Starrgaizr]

Humans are freeing carbon trapped uselessly inside rock and turning into life. Pretty cool.

[ancient_geezer]

and about how human CO2 output is insignificant compared with natural sources - you should take this as a harsh rebuke.

Reality Check:

 

Mankind's impact is only 0.28% of Total Greenhouse effect

" There is no dispute at all about the fact that even if punctiliously observed, (the Kyoto Protocol) would have an imperceptible effect on future temperatures -- one-twentieth of a degree by 2050. "

Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist
Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia,
and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service;
in a Sept. 10, 2001 Letter to Editor, Wall Street Journal

 

Water vapor overwhelms
all other natural and man-made
greenhouse contributions.

 

3. Table 3, shows what happens when the effect of water vapor is factored in, and together with all other greenhouse gases expressed as a relative % of the total greenhouse effect.

 

TABLE 3.

Role of Atmospheric Greenhouse Gases
(man-made and natural) as a % of Relative
Contribution to the "Greenhouse Effect"

Based on concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics	Percent of Total	Percent of Total --adjusted for water vapor
Water vapor	-----	95.000%
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)	72.369%	3.618%
Methane (CH4)	7.100%	0.360%
Nitrous oxide (N2O)	19.000%	0.950%
CFC's (and other misc. gases)	1.432%	0.072%
Total	100.000%	100.000%

 

 

As illustrated in this chart of the data in Table 3, the combined greenhouse contributions of CO2, methane, N2O, and misc. gases are small compared to water vapor!

Total atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) -- both man-made and natural-- is only about 3.62% of the overall greenhouse effect-- a big difference from the 72.37% figure in Table 2, which ignored water!

Water vapor, the most significant greenhouse gas, comes from natural sources and is responsible for roughly 95% of the greenhouse effect (4). Among climatologists, this is common knowledge, but among special interests, certain governmental groups, and news reporters this fact is under-emphasized or just ignored altogether.

Conceding that it might be "a little misleading" to leave water vapor out, they nonetheless defend the practice by stating that it is "customary" to do so!

---

***

Putting it all together:
total human greenhouse gas contributions
add up to about 0.28% of the greenhouse effect.

 

5. To finish with the math, by calculating the product of the adjusted CO2 contribution to greenhouse gases (3.618%) and % of CO2 concentration from anthropogenic (man-made) sources (3.225%), we see that only (0.03618 X 0.03225) or 0.117% of the greenhouse effect is due to atmospheric CO2 from human activity. The other greenhouse gases are similarly calculated and are summarized below.

TABLE 4a.

Anthropogenic (man-made) Contribution to the "Greenhouse
Effect," expressed as % of Total (water vapor INCLUDED)

Based on concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics	% of All Greenhouse Gases	% Natural	% Man-made
Water vapor	95.000%	94.999%	0.001%
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)	3.618%	3.502%	0.117%
Methane (CH4)	0.360%	0.294%	0.066%
Nitrous Oxide (N2O)	0.950%	0.903%	0.047%
Misc. gases ( CFC's, etc.)	0.072%	0.025%	0.047%
Total	100.00%	99.72	0.28%

 

This is the statistically correct way to represent relative human contributions to the greenhouse effect.

From Table 4a, both natural and man-made greenhouse contributions are illustrated in this chart, in gray and green, respectively. For clarity, only the man-made (anthropogenic) contributions are labeled on the chart.

Water vapor, responsible for 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect, is 99.999% natural (some argue, 100%). Even if we wanted to, we can do nothing to change this.

Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions cause only about 0.117% of Earth's greenhouse effect, (factoring in water vapor). This is insignificant!

Adding up all anthropogenic greenhouse sources, the total human contribution to the greenhouse effect is around 0.28% (factoring in water vapor).

[Libertarianize the GOP]

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list

[MEG33]

I am feeling so rebuked..How is it possible to go on??

[aruanan]

Haven't we seen this same poster posting the same thing?

Yeah, earlier today. See the cool links in my first post above.

[Texas Eagle]

Amen.

[Aric2000]

Get a grip, the sky is NOT falling, the HUMAN race and it's industrial machinery is NOT creating global warming.

Your junk science has been refuted and refuted again, but since that wouldn't fit into your social engineering schemes, you have created GLOBAL warming, and all the other environmental whacko crap.

Hey, don't get me wrong, I am an environmentalist as well, if we cut down a tree, we should plant 2, that way in 30 years we will have TWICE as much wood as we had the first time, we should recycle, it just makes sense to reuse something that can be reused easily and cheaply, sure, it takes me some extra time to go through it and separate it, but I think that is just a decent thing to do.

You want to see something cool, and great for the environment? Go here http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/899090/posts

Otherwise, take your chicken little thing somewhere else, like that other whacko site full of socialists and american industrial might haters.

Yo, MOD, I think this deserves a ZOT!!!

Where's the Viking Kitty's when you need them?

[TLI]

EdZ

Since Apr 24, 2003

view home page, enter name:

~ About ~ Links ~ Contact ~ In Forum ~ Mail To ~

Return

EdZ hasn't created an about page.

EdZ hasn't created an about page, (he has not had time cause he signed on today) he has been busy delivering harsh rebukes?

Gee EdZ, to whom?