cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Highlighted
Veteran Advisor

Re: Global Warming Refresher

By the way, this winners and losers thing - it's only in reference to farming in North America.  Around the globe, we re going to have lots and lots of losers if we continue on the road we're on....

 

Jen

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Honored Advisor

Re: Global Warming Refresher

You forgot about what happens when the poles switch. BTW did you know they are due to do that too.

 

And yes they have found all kinds of tropical vegetation fossils in the northernmost reaches of Canada. (that's how the oil got there)

 

I am not anti global warming, I am not naive enough to think that going back to the stone age is going to change climate change. BTW how will all the people eat if we go back 100 years? Real Horse power consumes about 1/3 of everything produced on a farm. More on a bad year.

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Senior Advisor

Re: Global Warming Refresher


@jennys_mn wrote:

Notice, I have said nothing about humans in what I've been writing.  The long and the short - it's immaterial.  What's important - How much CO2 do we have, are there affects from it, and can we change it by todays technology?  

 

The greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere are increased by many means.  We are burning fuels that the sun produced and hid away eons ago, and doing so we are releasing once again all the greenhouse gasses that were locked away in those fuels.  Currently, man's activities produces about 10 billion metric tons of CO2 a year.  Roughly 1/4 is used by our plants, 1/4 is absorbed by the oceans, and the other 1/2 is put into the atmosphere.  

 

Many of the topics that look at global warming, again, only look at the world's temperature.  And that is what's misleading.  Without the discussion of what the sun is doing at the same time as the temperature is being looked at, it's useless information.  Combine those - long term - temps with the suns - long term - output, now, and only now, do you have a basis for discussion.  

 

Jen


What percent of the CO2 in the atmosphere is because of man's activities. CO2 is not a pollutant, without CO2 in the atmosphere we all perish.

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Honored Advisor

Re: Global Warming Refresher

The worst polution producer hands down is China. It is still in the air by the time their air gets here. Some of "our" air polution is really theirs. Now we also have Japan's nucluar water AND air polution to add to the totals. OH Joy  OH I know it's Bush's fault.

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Global Warming Refresher

China attitude on pollution needs to improve even aside from climate change.  that is affecting all of us. 

 

China and India add 1.5 coal power plants a WEEK.  that is scary.

 

Best solution appears to be nuclear; wind and solar are too insignficant. 

 

 

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Advisor

Re: Global Warming Refresher

I recall hearing Louis Thompson speak on the theory back in the early 80s when nobody much had heard of it. Being mostly interested in the agronomic impacts he theorized that if global warming took place we'd see an extension of the corn/soybean belt to the northwest, which we have in fact seen. That's not probative in itself but I've found it interesting as is has unfolded.

 

If anything, climate change has increased US corn and soybean output thus far trough extension of the acreage and higher yields in the NW belt.

 

I've thought about this long and hard but for my own purposes I've decided that concluding that production will be less next year on account of global warming is akin to saying, "it is hot, which proves AGW" or "it's cold, harharhar to Al Gore." That is conflating weather with climate.

 

So I'm going with the notion that a rising trend yield is still valid and the odds of htting a year with a national yield 5-7% above trend remains about what is has always been- probably 1 in 8 or 10 and the odds of 10% below trend, or more, is more like 1 in 5 or 7.

 

That's one reason why the concept of trend is misleading- it may be the most likely outcome for a given year  but total production, over time, does not match what cumulative trend would be over that period.

 

On an entirely different note, I think we're due for a big crop if for no other reason than the fact that nature has an uncanny way of making a mess of whatever policy choices the lobbyists and economists come up with.

 

 

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Veteran Advisor

Re: Global Warming Refresher

Want to get China and India's attention on pollution??

Put a "pollution" tariff on everything imported from those countries.

Now that is how to "stir the pot"!!

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Veteran Advisor

Re: Global Warming Refresher

When I spoke of how much CO2 is being pumped into the atmosphere, I was speaking only of man's activities - heating, electricity, transportation.   Here's something I'd like to add to the discussion:

 

Climate Myth...

Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
“The oceans contain 37,400 billion tons (GT) of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2000-3000 GT. The atpmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 GT additional load on this balance. The oceans, land and atpmosphere exchange CO2 continuously so the additional load by humans is incredibly small. A small shift in the balance between oceans and air would cause aCO2 much more severe rise than anything we could produce.” (Jeff Id)

 

Before the industrial revolution, the CO2 content in the air remained quite steady for thousands of years. Natural CO2 is not static, however. It is generated by natural processes, and absorbed by others.

As you can see in Figure 1, natural land and ocean carbon remains roughly in balance and have done so for a long time – and we know this because we can measure historic levels of CO2 in the atmosphere both directly (in ice cores) and indirectly (through proxies).

+

 

BUT HERE'S THE IMPORTANT PART:

 

Figure 1: Global carbon cycle. Numbers represent flux of carbon dioxide in gigatons (Source: Figure 7.3, IPCC AR4).

But consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle – by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years).

Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the pre-industrial era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures which is warming the planet. While fossil-fuel derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2.

The level of atmospheric CO2 is building up, the additional CO2 is being produced by burning fossil fuels, and that build up is accelerating.

 

Also, maybe someone can did up how much CO2 the Earth produces naturally each year, ie - volcanoes, release of methane, so we have that as a comparision to what mans' activitiies are adding.  I'm to busy to look it up.  (Trying to get electric window openers installed)

 

Jen

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Veteran Advisor

Re: Global Warming Refresher

Well, there we go.  I think our refresher on Global Warming is about complete, up to and including GW as the main cause.  And, I personally would like to thank everyone for their input.  This was a great discussion, without name calling or anything (except of course who to blame).  Nice job Guys!

 

Jen

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Honored Advisor

Re: Global Warming Refresher

You must have missed the liberal butcher my screen name? It's OK and doesn't count if a lib does it?

0 Kudos