Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Yes those are carbon sinks, they have been looked at, but mostly ignored. In the Kyoto protocols they were going to let countries 'trade' carbon sinks. Meaning if you were not producing a lot of CO2 but had a lot of vegitation you could 'loan' your sink 'credit' to some other country who was overproducing CO2. I forget how that was suppose to work out, and of course it wouldn't take into account increased plant growth, but the Kyoto system seemed silly, but the whole plan was stupid feelgood do nothing but pretend we are all working together legislation that even the global warming moonbats admit would have not made any impact.
As for the rest I'm not going to argue global warming with you, frankly its fruitless, most of you lack the backround to start the argument, and there is plenty of info out there if you are willing to educate yourself and not take the word of a politician.
I will leave you with this thought....
While its debatable I'll take it at face value.
2006 was the hottest summer on record since 1936.
In 1936 there were dire preditions about global warming.
Then things started to cool off and until 1980 there were dire preditions about global cooling.
Now again we have dire preditions about global warming.
And its still not as warm as it was before the little ice age durring the mideval period when Greenland was warm enough to farm.
But please, don't let history get in the way of thinking the sky is falling yet again.
Not learning from history is one of those great cliches but it applies quite aptly here. Humans always have a desire to do 'something' to fix a potential problem, but so often that something does nothing or is counter productive. Global warming is no different.
|
Is this the same Ustwo? I'd like debating with this one more often.
I do not have a degree in ecology, biology, or environmental science (though I plan on getting them), so bear with me, and point out any mistakes in my arguments.
First of all, the term "greenhouse effect" is an inaccurate, and somewhat misleading, name for those who are unfamiliar. Greenhouse gases do not reduce convection like most greenhouses do, but instead reduce the loss of radiation.
Anthropogenic greenhouse gases, mainly CO2, have risen considerably due to tropical deforestation, the burning of fossil fuels, and industries such as cement production. Seaver stated that...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Seaver
While you will point out the deforestation, I would like to point out that the ocean plankton convert vastly more CO2 to O2 than the forests of the world.
|
There is truth to this, however, the Amazon Rainforest alone produces 20% of the Earth's fresh water and oxygen, and is also estimated to be gone in eight decades. This kind of deforestation causes an increase in CO2 concentrations, and thus an increase in the global temperature mean.
Quote:
Annual Greenhouse Gas and Ozone Depleting Indices: New Products of NOAA Research
D.J. Hofmann
NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory, GMD, 325 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80305;
303-497-6966, Fax: 303-497-6975; E-mail: David.J.Hofmann@noaa.gov
In 2005, NOAA introduced the Annual Greenhouse Gas Index (AGGI). The AGGI is designed to enhance the connection between scientists and society by providing a normalized standard that can be easily understood and followed. The contribution of long-lived greenhouse gases to climate forcing is well understood by scientists and has been reported through international assessments. Nevertheless, the language of scientists often eludes policy makers, educators, and the general public. This index is designed to help bridge that gap. Measurements of the long-lived greenhouse gases – carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and halocarbons (mainly CFCs) have minimal scientific uncertainty, are independent of climate models, and thus provide a climate benchmark free of controversy. To provide the data required for the AGGI, continuous measurements from NOAA’s Baseline Observatories at Pt. Barrow, Alaska; Mauna Loa, Hawaii; American Samoa; and at the South Pole are maintained. In addition, flask air samples are collected through several global networks, including a cooperative program for carbon-containing and other greenhouse gases that provides samples from globally widespread clean air sites. All measurements are reported on World Calibration Scales, produced and maintained by NOAA/ESRL in Boulder. These data are used to calculate annual global average concentrations from which changes in radiative forcing of the global climate since the pre-industrial era (1750) are determined. This includes all major greenhouse gases and 10 minor halogenated gases. Results are normalized to radiative forcing in 1990 to produce the AGGI. This index will be updated for 2005. In addition, a new index, the Ozone Depleting Gas Index (ODGI), will be introduced. It is determined from the global measurements of chlorine and bromine compounds.
|
Quote:
RADIATIVE CLIMATE FORCING BY LONG-LIVED GREENHOUSE GASES:
THE NOAA ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS INDEX (AGGI)
The perturbation to radiative climate forcing which has the largest magnitude and the least scientific uncertainty is the forcing related to changes in long-lived and well mixed greenhouse gases, in particular carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and the halocarbons (mainly CFCs). Greenhouse gas concentrations are analyzed in terms of the changes in radiative forcing since 1750 for the period beginning in 1979. The change in annual total radiative forcing by all the long-lived greenhouse gases since the pre-industrial era (1750) is used to define the NOAA Annual Greenhouse Gas Index (AGGI), which was introduced in 2005 (Hofmann et al., 2006). Full Page
|
You'll notice, in Figure 3, that the Kyoto Protocol had little impact on the AGGI.
You will also notice that though CFC's and methane concentrations are showing signs of recession, CO2 and Nitrous Oxide trends show no such indications.
Good point Blahblah. I still find it amazing that we so willingly polute the only planet available that's capable of supporting life.