POST SCRIPTS

I'll agree with the liberals (to a point), people do contribute to greenhouse gasses and we should do better because we are helping along global warming. However, science says we are just one factor in the big picture. Please read on:

Speaking as a lay person, but based upon what I know, it seems nature has cycles that span thousands of years that both warm and cool the global climate, depending on the cycle we're in. At this moment in Earth's history we happen to be acting in concert with nature as we head toward a warmer period.

How much our man-made gasses will accelerate natures plan remains to be seen becuase our scientific modeling has been less that accurate, although we're getting much better at it in just the past year.

Natural processes generate two of the most common greenhouse gasses, carbon dioxide and methane on a gigantic scale. Swamps, rice paddies, and decaying vegetation all contribute to greenhouse gasses. One study I just read said, volcanoes release about 43% of the total natural sulfur oxides in the atmosphere over the last 25 years. Another study proved naturally occurring methane is leaking from the ocean floor, in vast quantities too.

In a study completed this year, "green growth may produce 10 to 30 percent of Earth's annual methane", although the article admitted this is is a very rough estimate. In more precise terms, we know one full-grown dairy cow can emit some 100 to 130 gallons of methane each day. Now factor in all the grass eating animals in the world and you have a pretty significant contribution to greenhouse gasses! They don't make smog devices for animals, but I'm sure some liberal wackos have considered it.

Getting to what we do, outside of the control of the USA, burning of fossil fuels increased in Africa by 12%, Eastern Europe increased rates by 75% (from 1990-1995) and China and India was the leader at around 80% increase. Sorry, couldn't find anything more recent, but you know it must be more by now, especially for China and India.

A 1999 study showed that Australia, not the USA, contributes most to global warming per capita, bet you didn't know that one! The USA is constantly reducing it's share of greenhouse gasses through our improving technology that is the worlds standard of excellence and we have some of the most effective laws to encourage us do it too! So far, we're doing pretty good, but of course we can always do better and I see nothing wrong with this course, as long as we don't get all stupid about it (yes, you know exactly what I mean).

It's good that we all (that means all nations, not just the USA) work to lower emissions, recycle and live more efficient lives to conserve our natural resources. As Tina points out, who could argue against that? This is common sense and it's what we do with science. And I also agree with Tina's point that we all need to be aware of the facts, so we can vote responsibly on inviromental issues.

This is not supposed to be a political issue, but you know it's become one, (mostly it's coming from the far left) and this has caused a lot of disinformation and hysteria...they love to do that to us.

Prudence and common sense done with a calm resolve, not hysteria, not hype, not fanatical or tyrannical means is what is needed here. But, we're fighting our human nature because throughout the ages mankind has had all sorts of paranoid visions leading to an apocalyptic end. This global warming frenzy is just another extension of that, but that doesn't mean it isn't a serious subject. As I said earlier, we should manage our resources in the most efficient and least harmful way possible. But, lets remember, people throughout our history have had a tendency to sound the alarm that the end is near. Some clever people find that a very convenient political tool to use for their own agenda...so don't lose sight of that as this global warming issue gets debated. Always look for that hidden agenda and be a healthy skeptic.

I know it's a bummer. It would be so much easier to just call it "God's Will", and go along on our merry, wasteful, way. But, the unhappy fact is that all manner of things that were once God's Will ... these things are now our responsibility. Knowledge is a bitch. It's all that wicked woman's fault. (Even then, you couldn't take it up yerselves, could ya?)

This is actually my theory of where all this obnoxious fundamentalism is coming from. The human species has had to cope with an appalling rate of technological change over the last few hundred years, which has really laid on all manner of new personal responsibilities about how a person's life goes. Once upon a time you learned your father's trade, practiced it just the way he did and fathered some kids of your own, who did just the same. You got only occasional news of the doings in the village down the road, but had no idea what was going on in all the villages on the planet. You just hoped the soldiers didn't come through too often ... and that was about it ... for several thousand years.

Now, all manner of people have got to sort through astounding quantities of ... the only word is ... crap. They gotta make decisions about this stuff all by themselves. A hankering after divine intervention is perfectly understandable, but failing that, would you please start electing people who have got the brains to sort out what you can't. Wally Herger would not be on the short list.

CO2 is far from being the biggest greenhouse gas. Chloroflourocarbons (CFC's) commonly used as refrigerants as far worse.

Of naturally created GHG's, Methane is 23 times more effective at warming the atmosphere than CO2. Nitrous Oxide is even worse at 296. So far no emergency legislation has been authored to eliminate the effect of cows or dental surgeons.

Global Warming Potentials
(100 Year Time Horizon)
GAS GWP
========================
Carbon dioxide (CO2) 1
Methane (CH4) 23
Nitrous oxide (N2O) 296

Hydrofluorocarbons
HFC-23 12,000
HFC-125 3,400
HFC-134a 1,300
HFC-143a 4,300
HFC-152a 120
HFC-227ea 3,500
HFC-43-10mee 1,500

Fully Fluorinated Gases
SF6 22,200
CF4 5,700
C2F6 11,900
C4F10 8,600
C6F14 9,000

The concept of the global warming potential (GWP) was developed to compare the ability of each greenhouse gas to trap heat in the atmosphere relative to another gas. In this case, CO2 is the reference gas. Methane, for example, has a GWP of 23 over a 100-year period. This means that on a kilogram for kilogram basis, methane is 23 times more potent than CO2 over a 100-year period.

Just in case anyone is interested, this site was inadvertantly left out of the post:

Yadah,yadah, yadah.....opposing views please visit:

http://www.junkscience.com/

Anthony, The Danish scientists' work apparently demonstrates that the cause of global warming or "climate change" is the sun.The following quote from the reporter seems to suggest that the earth has been warming without man for a good long time so that blaming man is a little premature. Given what you have shared with us, can you explain, debunk or expand upon the following:

"CO2 accounts for less than 3% of greenhouse gases. 80% of such gases is water vapor, for which man is not responsible. Further, the earth has been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age in the mid-1800s, yet there was no appreciable increase in atmospheric CO2 until over a century later in the mid-1900s."

Factoids are lovely things. But context is much better.

Refrigerants are very bad, though they are not making warming, they are making the ozone holes ... (which I guess does make warming) and they have been splendiferously regulated. The really bad ones are banned.

If the moo-cows were spewing out their tail pipes at the rate your SUV is, we'd go after the cows too, but it's just not a consideration. Those odiferous heifers cannot come near the output of everything from power plants down to the dry cleaners, and including the HVAC system on every building in this town, county, state, nation and planet.

So, while Anthony's factoids are very interesting in their own right, they are useless to his argument.

"Anthony's factoids are very interesting in their own right, they are useless to his argument"

Actually they are germane Libby, because not all of the ones above on the list are regulated and there are a couple, such as a solvent used in making silicon chips that has a GWP up in the hundred thousands...and we are still using it down in Fremont.

Do the math; it only takes a small quantity of some of these to make a difference in IR retention and heating. That’s what the GWP measures.

Plus there are millions of tons of CFC's that are slowly escaping from old refrigerators; air conditioners etc in scrap yards and landfills. Yes many are regulated now, but the problem will continue for some time as they leak.

And a cow with a methane problem that is 23x CO2 on the GWP scale actually has a good chance of reaching an equivalent amount of CO2 put forth by a couple of trips in an average car during the day. And, Methane (CH4) doesn't break down so quickly in our atmosphere, it is also not processed by photosynthesis in our biomass like CO2 is, hence it has a much longer GW "half life". You can't just ignore it.

The point is, it’s not all about CO2, and I'm surprised you would just casually dismiss these other problematic gases, except maybe it’s because they don't get the same amount of press and attention that CO2 does.

Water vapor is still king as the number 1 Greenhouse Gas, and except for the deep south, no "ban humidity" issues seem to be making it to the top of the GW food chain.

Anybody who claims that CO2 by itself is the sole culprit for apparent GW doesn't understand complex dynamic systems, of which the earth and its atmosphere is a very big one.

Then there's temperature measurement; easy to think about, but actually hard to do accurately over a period of a hundred years without bias creeping in. And when climate study grant recipients are looking for a few tenths of degree trends, it is pretty hard to say conclusively that the data is accurate. It's that old garbage in, garbage out problem.

You can read about much of this here:
http://www.globalwarmingindex.com/gwi_essay1.htm

Surprisingly, Chico's temperature records don't quite follow the predicted GW trend:
http://www.globalwarmingindex.org/chico_mean_annual_temperature.htm

But who's to say conclusively that it’s not bias from local changes? There are hundreds of other 100 year + temperature records that don't follow the trends predicted. Even in the Arctic.

The sun is still the number 1 factor in our energy balance. No matter how much people argue about CO2, they can't successfully explain the pre industrial revolution 900-1300AD Medieval Warming Period or the cold 1645-1715 AD Maunder Sunspot Minimum that coincided with European crop failure, famine and disease while linking it with our modern day issues with CO2 to climate change. Yet sunspots and solar cycles can and do explain both.

I'm all for reducing ALL types of emissions on a gradual basis, and I'm all for alternate ways of producing storing, and transmitting energy.

I'm not for "Chicken Little" scenarios, except for when our sun is about to go red giant or nova, but that’s still a couple billion years out.

I'm not for "Chicken Little" scenarios, except for when our sun is about to go red giant or nova, but that’s still a couple billion years out.

Positively droll as usual...and quite disarming!