Do we really think that reducing human greenhouse gases will do anything?

Question

Alexander Cockburn, a liberal and a democrat, suggested in an article from several months ago that reducing anthropologic greenhouse gasses would amount to basicly a fart in a hurricane. what do you think? here is the article http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/2/2007/1534

Answer 1

I tell people this, including a democratic PAC that's attacking the theory of Global warming. Even if Global warming is a lie, it would help the world to reduce CO2 emmission. I live in L.A.. Reducing CO2 would have the side benefits of reducing other pollutants. When we use more fossil fuel, we also have more Sulfuric acid, Ozone, particulate and nitrogenous compounds. I remember how much smog LA had and I am beginning to see those days returning. There is a huge haze hoverin in Asia. If we can cut back CO2 emmission there that yellow cloud would start to shrink. Also we are running out of fossil fuel. It would be good if the US reduce its dependence on foeign oil.

My thought is even if CO2 has nothing to do with global warming, we still win by reducing our use of fossil fuel.

Answer 2

I'm sorry, but does being a liberal and a Democrat (assuming that's the case) make Cockburn an expert on global warming? I suppose I'll go through and debunk the article.

"The greenhouse fearmongers rely on unverified, crudely oversimplified models to finger mankind's sinful contribution."

That's simply a stupid statement. How are the models crudely oversimplified? How convenient that Cockburn doesn't say. They fit the warming data very accurately, so clearly this isn't the case.

"The two lines on that graph proclaim that a whopping 30 percent cut in manmade CO2 emissions didn't even cause a 1 ppm drop in the atmosphere's CO2. It is thus impossible to assert that the increase in atmospheric CO2 stems from people burning fossil fuels."

Logically flawed statement. He's looking at 2 lines (atmospheric CO2 concentration vs. human CO2 emissions) over 5 years to make this conclusion. 5 years! The conclusion you can draw is that it takes more than a 5 year reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to reduce atmospheric concentrations (which we know is true, it takes on the order of 20 years), NOT that this is proof that fossil fuels can't be responsible for CO2 increases. That's frankly a stupid conclusion to come to.

Then he goes and talks to this guy Hertzberg, who's a meteorologist with zero background in climatology. Oh boy, here we go.

" As Hertzberg says, water in the form of oceans, snow, ice cover, clouds and vapor "is overwhelming in the radiative and energy balance between the earth and the sun. … Carbon dioxide and the greenhouse gases are, by comparison, the equivalent of a few farts in a hurricane." And water is exactly that component of the earth's heat balance that the global warming computer models fail to account for. "

Aha, so here is your fart in a hurricane comment. Bit of a flaw though - what exactly do these guys claim caused the increase in atmospheric water vapor concentration? Oh, they think it's because we're still warming up from the Little Ice Age. But how does that explain the massive spike in recent decades? Ummmmmmm....well, they don't seem to explain that. How convenient.

Fortunately I know the explanation. It is because of the planet heating up, as they claim. The recent spike in water vapor concentrations is due to the recent spike in global temperatures, which is due to human greenhouse gas emissions. Water vapor is simply an indicator and amplifier of the human-forced global warming, not the cause!

So the answer to your question is yes, reducing human greenhouse gases will slow global warming, contrary to the claims of this extremely poor article.

Answer 3

Cockburn may be a liberal and a Democrat, but he's no scientist.

It has been proven beyond a doubt that we are the cause of increasing CO2.

There are a great many natural sources and sinks for carbon dioxide. But the present global warming is (mostly) the result of man made CO2 from burning fossil fuels.

There is a natural "carbon cycle" that recycles CO2. But it's a delicate balance and we're messing it up.

Look at this graph.

http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/graphics_gallery/mauna_loa_record/mlo_record.html

The little squiggles are nature doing its' thing. CO2 falls a bit during summer when plants are active, and rises during the winter. The huge increase is us, burning fossil fuels (in addition to the shape of the graph, the increase numerically matches the increase in fossil fuel use). The scientists can actually show that the increased CO2 in the air comes from burning fossil fuels by using "isotopic ratios" to identify that CO2. The natural carbon cycle buried carbon in fossil fuels over a very long time, little bit by little bit. We dig them up and burn them, real fast. That's a problem.

Man is upsetting the balance of nature. We need to fix that.

Answer 4

Actually that is a good analogy. Environmentalists keep shrieking about "greenhouse gases" (carbon dioxide, etc.) causing global warming, and there is little factual evidence of that actually happening.

The Earth goes through cycles of heating and cooling that is based on sun's radiant output cycles, ocean temperatures, the slow changes in the axial tilt of the Earth and so on.

But what environmentalists ignore is that rising temps will cause accelerated glacial meltwater to pour into the oceans which are major temperature regulators. This cold water will cool the oceans which will cool the atmosphere, cooling the planet.

There is a lot more involved, but I think this should answer your question. :)

Fox_fire_07

Answer 5

ONCE AGAIN... Here is why the CO2 is ours, Man-made

------------------------------
So now for the people not believing WE put the CO2 in the atmosphere:

Global atmospheric mass around the earth:
5.148*10^18 kg
=5.148*10^15 t
=5.148*10^12 kt
=5.148*10^9 Mt
=5.148*10^6 Gt
=5,148,000 Gt

Global man-made CO2 (only... it accounts for 70% of all the man-made greenhouse gases):
=24Gt/year

CO2 density=1.98kg/m³
Air density=1.2Kg/m³
Ratio: the CO2 density is around 1.6x the density of air.
This means that for the same weight, CO2 has 1,6 times less molecules (parts)

Now what is the rate we increase CO2 in the atmosphere for sure (counted land use change/deforestation/use of fossil fuels, etc...):

5,148,000 / (24/1.6)=2.9*10^(-6)

Considered in PPM (parts per million) 1 million=10^6

change in PPM = 2.9 * 10^(-6) * 10^(6)
2.9 PPM (per year)

So during the average 1997-2017 period we should increase the PPM concentration by 29PPM

Now look at the measurements:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/image:mauna...

We see an increase of close to 20PPM in the last decade...

THIS IS TOTALLY CONSISTENT WITH MY CALCULATION PUTTING THE MAN MADE CO2 AS CAUSE FOR THE INCREASE IN THE EARTH ATMOSPHERE

If you are not sure of the accuracy of fossil fuel based calculations, check the GHG protocol from the WRI (World Resource Insitute): www.ghgprotocol.com

Answer 6

There are some single experts saying that global warming is either not true, not man-made or nothing we can change.

The overwhelming majority of scientists came to the conclusion that it happens, is man-made and can be diminished.

What des this say about that single expert?

A lonely genius or bribed by some lobbyists?

Answer 7

You know what I believe that this would help. If not you see how our pollution levels are rising. Our polar bears are losing there ice caps because the temperature keeps warming up and the ice is melting. States are seeing temperature and weather changes that they have never seen before. That is quite scary. We need to make a change in this world.

Answer 8

Is it just coincidence? The increase in methane/CO2 and other poisonous gases/greenhouse gases coincides with the industrial age. That's going back to the 1700's and even earlier in places.

Answer 9

I would imagine anything that has caused damage over time can only be improved by eliminating most of the source, in the same sense that the damage wasn't done overnight, it will take time to see the benefits

Answer 10

I agree with Alex. It is one thing to figure out that we are contributing to global warming (farting in the hurricane). It is a giant leap to think that we can CONTROL the outcome, even to reverse it.

Though I would think that swimming in a lake might be a better analogy. By swimming in the lake, you might be contributing to local flooding, but probably not controlling it.

Thanks for the link!