Global warming

[taichiliberal]

What do we really know about global warming? Is it happening? Yes. Is it part of a recurring natural cycle? Apparently, the historic evidence shows many cycles. Is it caused by man-made activity? Apparently not, most cycles occurred before man existed. Is it a necessary process, does it have some beneficial effect? We don't really know. Is the environment constantly and continually changing? Yes. Should we attempt to stop the change and lock the environment into stasis? Probably not, we don't really know.

Should we attempt to interfere with this cycle? Can we? Probably not, we don't really know. Are there other possible reasons for the clamor that we must do something? Yes, fame, vanity, grants, recognition, money, power, control. Is that the driving force in this instance? Possibly, we don't really know. Should we stop all man made damage to the environment? Probably not, since that would require our extinction as a species.

Should we accept that everything changes continuously, change is inevitable, stasis is death? Yes, but we won't. Should I continue this argument? Probably not, it won't change your opinions anyway. Peace, Love, and Faith. Pappadave.

Actually, we have a pretty damned good idea of how human action is exacerbating and altering the natural climatic changes on the planet. The "argument" is essentially between the folks who are profiting from "business as usual" and ignoring/justifying/excusing the negative aspects of such....and the people who are advocating for a change in how business is done and how the population has to change to maintain a healthy planet/population.

Right now you have an island of plastic garbage the size of an American state floating around in the ocean.....no country is willing to work together to clean it up (the old, "I'm not cleaning anything unless you can prove it's my mess). Something has got to change.

 

[Old Rocks]

Science (by that I mean the exact sciences not the hand waving of climatologists) has no idea what impact if any we are having. There have been predictions of apocalypse from the alarmists for the last 90 years and so far they have allways been wrong. In fact they have not even been close.

Hmmm...... So goes old Walleyes claim. Yet all the world's Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities say otherwise. Now who are we to believe, a blowhard on an internet message board, or the real scientists?

And what exactly has their "consensus" (well 74 unnamed scientists to be exact) and expenditure of 100 billion dollars accomplished?

Well, once again you are caught lying, Walleyes. First, it is not '74 unnamed scientists', it is all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities.

You claim to be a geologist, so why don't you show some of the scientific societies in geology that support your lies? You cannot, because all but one of the geological socieities has put out very strong statements concerning AGW. And that one had to change it's stance from stating that there was no proof of AGW to a non-commital statement because the membership was quitting the society because of what they considered to be a stance dictated by politics and economics, rather than science. And that society is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.

Now would you care to show your source concerning the '100 billion dollar' statement? For that too is a lie.

You challenge everybody to prove that you continually lie, and then tell two whoppers in one sentence.

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Academies of Science
[edit] Joint science academies' statements
Since 2001, 32 national science academies have come together to issue joint declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming, and urging the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The signatories of these statements have been the national science academies:

of Australia,
of Belgium,
of Brazil,
of Cameroon,
Royal Society of Canada,
of the Caribbean,
of China,
Institut de France,
of Ghana,
Leopoldina of Germany,
of Indonesia,
of Ireland,
Accademia nazionale delle scienze of Italy,
of India,
of Japan,
of Kenya,
of Madagascar,
of Malaysia,
of Mexico,
of Nigeria,
Royal Society of New Zealand,
Russian Academy of Sciences,
of Senegal,
of South Africa,
of Sudan,
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences,
of Tanzania,
of Turkey,
of Uganda,
The Royal Society of the United Kingdom,
of the United States,
of Zambia,
and of Zimbabwe.

 

[code1211]

We know for certain that GHGs do increase the heat that the atmosphere retains. We do know for certain that the speed at which the Arctic is warming is much faster than anyone's models predicted. We know for certain that the Arctic Ocean clathrates are beginning to outgas, far ahead of anyone's predictions. We know for certain that the permafrost in the Artic is melting and contributing both CO2 and CH4 to the atmosphere.

But you are correct. We don't know for certain when we will have reached a point where anthropogenic heating will have started a feedback that cannot be reversed. That point may be higher than now believed, or we may have already passed it.

So how hot is that point? The point we are at right now? The point that is one degree warmer than right now as it was 8000 years ago? The point that is 2 degrees warmer than now as it was at the peak of each interglacial for the last half million years?

Right now, we are in the middle of a two degree range of variation that we have enjoyed for the last 10,000 or so years. We have been one degree cooler and one degree warmer during that time and yet, we are still here.

What may we gleen from this?

 

[Old Rocks]

Nice little lie by misdirection there, Code. No, we are not in the middle of a two degree variation. That two degree variation has never been worldwide, as is the present rise. And the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere means that the rise will continue for at least another 30 to 50 years, even were humanity to simply disappear tomorrow.

Point is, we don't know where the tipping point is at. Kind of like driving in a fog at high speed, knowing that the road ends at a cliff, but not know where. By the time we see the cliff, it will already be far too late.

 

[asterism]

Iowa now produces 14% of it's electricity with wind. Wind accounted for 48 % of the new generation constructed on 2009. There are a number of manufactureres of solar that are selling their panels for less than a dollar a watt, wholesale. Occasionaly, even below a dollar a watt to the public.

Alternatives not only exist, they are starting to eat big coals lunch. Soon, as the cost to the consumer comes down, solar will be doing the same for oil companies and gasoline.

A dollar a watt just for the panels? That's pretty steep. How much does the maintenance and cleaning cost by your sources?

Maintenance? Virtually maintenance free if the intitial installation was done correctly.

I'm sorry, I seem to have gotten the impression you actually knew what you were talking about. Please provide me examples of installations done sufficient for running a house or a small business that is "virtually maintenance free." A case study on an existing install that is still functioning for 2 years or more would suffice.

Cleaning? How much does it cost you to clean your windows?

The ones on the top of the roof of my previous office building cost $5000 to clean. Since appearance was the only concern, it was done once a year. However, solar panels require cleaning every month to maintain adequate power output.

At a dollar a wat for the panels, your payback on the average house would be about five years.

That's simply not true. I average $300 per month in my larger than average house with a larger than average electric bill. Assuming I could get all of my power from solar (which I can't since we have this phenomenon called "night" here) that puts the payback time at 8 years. This of course assumes that your "1 dollar per watt" cost is accurate, which is not the case.

"This 5kW system would have an initial investment of approximately $38,000. "

http://sunbeltsolarenergy.com/solar-cost-savings/

Assuming federal and state subsidies of 30%, that's still $26,000 for a 5kw install which produces $1100 of electricity per year (well in the first year, to be accurate). That's a 24 year payback time and $5 per watt.

There is a difference between those who dream about facts and sneer at others for not doing that which they have never tried and those who have actually tried to do this and found out that it's not viable at this time.

 

[Missourian]

Man-made GHG only account for 5.5% of total greenhouse gas emissions, the other 94.5% is naturally occuring.

And that calculation excludes water vapor as a GHG.

Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?
It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.

Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers
​

​

Wikipedia has this

Natural sources of carbon dioxide are more than 20 times greater than sources due to human activity.

Greenhouse gas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
​

They cite this UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change page as a reference.

Vital Climate Graphics | UNEP/GRID-Arendal - Publications - Vital Climate Graphics
​

That corresponds with the 5.5% above...20 times greater equals 20 to 1 equals 100 to 5 equals 5%.



So if mankind gave up all fossil fuels, industry and livestock, built mud huts and returned to hunting and gathering, 94.5% of greenhouse gas emissions would remain because they are naturally occurring.


Is this true?

Yes, it is true, but the problem is that CO2 stays in the atmosphere a long time, and if you add 8 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year, year after year, and you cut down trees at the same time, you are going to increase atmospheric CO2 by 40% in 200 years.

Yes, each year we add a small percentage compared to what nature adds. Yet nature also takes out a very large amount of what is added. It removes, throught plant life, absorbtion in the ocean, more than it adds. But not enough more to make up for what we add. And that is how we end up with a 40% increase of CO2 over what that level was 150 years ago. Not only that, that represents a 30% increase over what it has been in at least 650,000 years, possibly in over a million years.

If you read the article on the Carbon 13 and 14 ratios, you will see how we can tell that the additional CO2 is from the burning of fossil fuels.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/81382-greenland-glacier-recedes-10-miles-in-8-years-4.html#post1341995


I'm adding this post to my blog page for future reference.

 

[westwall]

A dollar a watt just for the panels? That's pretty steep. How much does the maintenance and cleaning cost by your sources?

Maintenance? Virtually maintenance free if the intitial installation was done correctly.

I'm sorry, I seem to have gotten the impression you actually knew what you were talking about. Please provide me examples of installations done sufficient for running a house or a small business that is "virtually maintenance free." A case study on an existing install that is still functioning for 2 years or more would suffice.

Cleaning? How much does it cost you to clean your windows?

The ones on the top of the roof of my previous office building cost $5000 to clean. Since appearance was the only concern, it was done once a year. However, solar panels require cleaning every month to maintain adequate power output.

At a dollar a wat for the panels, your payback on the average house would be about five years.

That's simply not true. I average $300 per month in my larger than average house with a larger than average electric bill. Assuming I could get all of my power from solar (which I can't since we have this phenomenon called "night" here) that puts the payback time at 8 years. This of course assumes that your "1 dollar per watt" cost is accurate, which is not the case.

"This 5kW system would have an initial investment of approximately $38,000. "

http://sunbeltsolarenergy.com/solar-cost-savings/

Assuming federal and state subsidies of 30%, that's still $26,000 for a 5kw install which produces $1100 of electricity per year (well in the first year, to be accurate). That's a 24 year payback time and $5 per watt.

There is a difference between those who dream about facts and sneer at others for not doing that which they have never tried and those who have actually tried to do this and found out that it's not viable at this time.

How refreshing to find someone else who can understand how the real world works! Wind generation systems are even more maintenance intensive. If you drive through the Altamont Pass where there is a huge windfarm you see that roughly 30% of them are down at any one time. I was talking to one of the maintenance guys and he claimed that maintenance costs on the big windmills approached 30,000 per year. He said small windmills like those used by individuals would cost about 150 a year for the first few years then after 10 years would jump to around 500 per year to maintain. I have no idea if his numbers were accurate but it would be intersting to find out.

 

[code1211]

Nice little lie by misdirection there, Code. No, we are not in the middle of a two degree variation. That two degree variation has never been worldwide, as is the present rise. And the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere means that the rise will continue for at least another 30 to 50 years, even were humanity to simply disappear tomorrow.

Point is, we don't know where the tipping point is at. Kind of like driving in a fog at high speed, knowing that the road ends at a cliff, but not know where. By the time we see the cliff, it will already be far too late.

Another point is that we suimply don't know, period. The Proxy data suggest that parts of the world may have been much, much warmer than now and other parts not as warm. As I understand it, the entire globe is not as much warmer as the average would suggest.

Isn't that what has caused you to repeat that the thawing tundra and calthrates and so on are a great danger?

Aren't the polar regions and other places where nobody lives because they are so cold supposed to be the places where the most dramatic temperature increases have occurred? Also these are the places where the fewest ground stations exist, where the most temperature estimates are made and thinnest record of past temperature is recorded?

I seem to be a tad dense with the image posting thing. I've tried again. We'll see if i got lucky this time.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations_Rev_png

Oh, well. Here's the link.

 

[asterism]

Maintenance? Virtually maintenance free if the intitial installation was done correctly.

I'm sorry, I seem to have gotten the impression you actually knew what you were talking about. Please provide me examples of installations done sufficient for running a house or a small business that is "virtually maintenance free." A case study on an existing install that is still functioning for 2 years or more would suffice.



The ones on the top of the roof of my previous office building cost $5000 to clean. Since appearance was the only concern, it was done once a year. However, solar panels require cleaning every month to maintain adequate power output.

At a dollar a wat for the panels, your payback on the average house would be about five years.

That's simply not true. I average $300 per month in my larger than average house with a larger than average electric bill. Assuming I could get all of my power from solar (which I can't since we have this phenomenon called "night" here) that puts the payback time at 8 years. This of course assumes that your "1 dollar per watt" cost is accurate, which is not the case.

"This 5kW system would have an initial investment of approximately $38,000. "

http://sunbeltsolarenergy.com/solar-cost-savings/

Assuming federal and state subsidies of 30%, that's still $26,000 for a 5kw install which produces $1100 of electricity per year (well in the first year, to be accurate). That's a 24 year payback time and $5 per watt.

There is a difference between those who dream about facts and sneer at others for not doing that which they have never tried and those who have actually tried to do this and found out that it's not viable at this time.

How refreshing to find someone else who can understand how the real world works! Wind generation systems are even more maintenance intensive. If you drive through the Altamont Pass where there is a huge windfarm you see that roughly 30% of them are down at any one time. I was talking to one of the maintenance guys and he claimed that maintenance costs on the big windmills approached 30,000 per year. He said small windmills like those used by individuals would cost about 150 a year for the first few years then after 10 years would jump to around 500 per year to maintain. I have no idea if his numbers were accurate but it would be intersting to find out.

I've been on board with the idea that we should more efficiently harness the power of the sun directly instead of relying on third and fourth derivatives of extracting that energy. I am fully confident that doing so is well within our grasp. However, it can't be done in an unsustainable way and any initiative that tries to force innovation though effective monopolization of methods just doesn't work.

I had the interesting happenstance to have a conversation with Ed Begley Jr., and his perspective was quite enlightening. He agrees that the current state of technology isn't sufficient and he and I both agree that it is up to the early adopters with the means to do so to push innovation. It's not about cost benefit for those ahead of the curve, it's about those with means speculating that their action will pay dividends to society.

I completely agree with this, and I applaud Ed for his action. I also applaud his honesty.

But that doesn't mean we can all be multi-millionaires who can afford to "live off the grid" and have an independent power plant on their property which is separate from the infrastructure that had to exist for him to have money he can afford to invest. He agreed, and was decidedly non political when it came to that portion of our conversation. Solar and wind are still fringe and there is no forcing mechanism that the government can introduce to make it sustainable at this point.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I could just as easily propose that Democrat control of Congress causes manmade global warming.

Dems have had a virtual lock on Congress during the times we've experienced this imaginary "Global Warming"

Isn't is curious that the EXACT SAME TIME Phil Jones cannot statistically say man is causing Global Warming is when Newt and The Republicans control Congress?

If I get enough people to "peer review" this we'll surely come to a "Consensus" and can deem it "Settled science"

 

[westwall]

I could just as easily propose that Democrat control of Congress causes manmade global warming.

Dems have had a virtual lock on Congress during the times we've experienced this imaginary "Global Warming"

Isn't is curious that the EXACT SAME TIME Phil Jones cannot statistically say man is causing Global Warming is when Newt and The Republicans control Congress?

If I get enough people to "peer review" this we'll surely come to a "Consensus" and can deem it "Settled science"

I have peer reviewed this and find it 100% settled.

 

[konradv]

We know for certain that GHGs do increase the heat that the atmosphere retains. We do know for certain that the speed at which the Arctic is warming is much faster than anyone's models predicted. We know for certain that the Arctic Ocean clathrates are beginning to outgas, far ahead of anyone's predictions. We know for certain that the permafrost in the Artic is melting and contributing both CO2 and CH4 to the atmosphere.

But you are correct. We don't know for certain when we will have reached a point where anthropogenic heating will have started a feedback that cannot be reversed. That point may be higher than now believed, or we may have already passed it.

So how hot is that point? The point we are at right now? The point that is one degree warmer than right now as it was 8000 years ago? The point that is 2 degrees warmer than now as it was at the peak of each interglacial for the last half million years?

Right now, we are in the middle of a two degree range of variation that we have enjoyed for the last 10,000 or so years. We have been one degree cooler and one degree warmer during that time and yet, we are still here.

What may we gleen from this?

Not much, because it's not really the point. You don't really have to show ANY warming at all to be concerned. Temps are notoriously hard to measure and average consistently, anyway. It ALL about the gases. If GHGs keep rising, warming is inevitable. That's a simple application of the Laws of Chemistry and Physics. When you consider that at this time we're 25-30% above historical avearges, emit more CO2 in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a year and some of the most potent GHGs aren't even found in nature, if man isn't doing it, who or what is?

 

[code1211]

We know for certain that GHGs do increase the heat that the atmosphere retains. We do know for certain that the speed at which the Arctic is warming is much faster than anyone's models predicted. We know for certain that the Arctic Ocean clathrates are beginning to outgas, far ahead of anyone's predictions. We know for certain that the permafrost in the Artic is melting and contributing both CO2 and CH4 to the atmosphere.

But you are correct. We don't know for certain when we will have reached a point where anthropogenic heating will have started a feedback that cannot be reversed. That point may be higher than now believed, or we may have already passed it.

So how hot is that point? The point we are at right now? The point that is one degree warmer than right now as it was 8000 years ago? The point that is 2 degrees warmer than now as it was at the peak of each interglacial for the last half million years?

Right now, we are in the middle of a two degree range of variation that we have enjoyed for the last 10,000 or so years. We have been one degree cooler and one degree warmer during that time and yet, we are still here.

What may we gleen from this?

Not much, because it's not really the point. You don't really have to show ANY warming at all to be concerned. Temps are notoriously hard to measure and average consistently, anyway. It ALL about the gases. If GHGs keep rising, warming is inevitable. That's a simple application of the Laws of Chemistry and Physics. When you consider that at this time we're 25-30% above historical avearges, emit more CO2 in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a year and some of the most potent GHGs aren't even found in nature, if man isn't doing it, who or what is?

We can be concerned about the emission of CO2 and understand that nature is responsible for the Lion's share of the emission of CO2. By stating it as you have above, either you do not understand that the CO2 emissions are comparatively small reative to natural sources or you are trying to mislead. Either way, it is a disingenuous misrepresentation of the facts.

By ignoring what I said, you avoid the "point". The point is that the temperature was higher than today 8000 years ago. The temperature today is lower with the added CO2.

You state the theoretical causal relationship between CO2 and warming as if it was something that has been caused time and again when, in truth, it has not. It is a theory that has not been demonstrated and the predictions by Dr. Hansen of a a certain increase in temperature due to a predicted rise in CO2 have collapsed.

In nature, in every Interglacial during the last half million years, whenever CO2 reaches its peak, temperatures nose dive.

There may be a causal relationship as is indicated by the theory of the boys in the 1890's and, then again, that causal relationship may be wishful thinking by those who are slaves to thought and ignor demonstrated results.

Whatever is driving our climate, and "it" is probably 1000's of factors, CO2 is obviously one of many individually weak forcing agents which are all slaves to the cycles of the Sun.

Sorry for the length.

 

[Old Rocks]

So your claim is that 'nature' has increased the CO2 level from 280 ppm to 387 ppm in the last 150 years? What then is the mechanism by which nature has done this? What is your source for this information? Or is this more baseless yap-yap nonsense?

 

[westwall]

So your claim is that 'nature' has increased the CO2 level from 280 ppm to 387 ppm in the last 150 years? What then is the mechanism by which nature has done this? What is your source for this information? Or is this more baseless yap-yap nonsense?

Yes I AM saying that. Vostock Ice cores show a 800 year gap from the time warming begins to the increase in CO2 levels. 800 years ago the planet experienced the MWP and voila! 800 years has passed and the CO2 is increasing.

Seems a no brainer to me....so it should be right up your alley!

 

[konradv]

So your claim is that 'nature' has increased the CO2 level from 280 ppm to 387 ppm in the last 150 years? What then is the mechanism by which nature has done this? What is your source for this information? Or is this more baseless yap-yap nonsense?

Yes I AM saying that. Vostock Ice cores show a 800 year gap from the time warming begins to the increase in CO2 levels. 800 years ago the planet experienced the MWP and voila! 800 years has passed and the CO2 is increasing.

Seems a no brainer to me....so it should be right up your alley!

I ate a burger four days ago and voila today I burped. BIG DEAL!!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So your claim is that 'nature' has increased the CO2 level from 280 ppm to 387 ppm in the last 150 years? What then is the mechanism by which nature has done this? What is your source for this information? Or is this more baseless yap-yap nonsense?

Yes I AM saying that. Vostock Ice cores show a 800 year gap from the time warming begins to the increase in CO2 levels. 800 years ago the planet experienced the MWP and voila! 800 years has passed and the CO2 is increasing.

Seems a no brainer to me....so it should be right up your alley!

You're forgetting that modern CO2 is more sensitive that that Old Fashioned CO2

What else can account for the missing 800 year lag?

Also, I'm giving Old Rocks double the increase, a 200PPM increase and he still totally refuses to show me in a lab how that increase does all or any of the things he claims

 

[konradv]

So your claim is that 'nature' has increased the CO2 level from 280 ppm to 387 ppm in the last 150 years? What then is the mechanism by which nature has done this? What is your source for this information? Or is this more baseless yap-yap nonsense?

Yes I AM saying that. Vostock Ice cores show a 800 year gap from the time warming begins to the increase in CO2 levels. 800 years ago the planet experienced the MWP and voila! 800 years has passed and the CO2 is increasing.

Seems a no brainer to me....so it should be right up your alley!

You're forgetting that modern CO2 is more sensitive that that Old Fashioned CO2

What else can account for the missing 800 year lag?

Also, I'm giving Old Rocks double the increase, a 200PPM increase and he still totally refuses to show me in a lab how that increase does all or any of the things he claims

...and you've just become a TROLL. No one is refusing to show in a lab what you want. The truth is what you want can't be shown in a lab and you know it, hence the TROLL tag. Too much booty on your mind, Frank?

 

[westwall]

So your claim is that 'nature' has increased the CO2 level from 280 ppm to 387 ppm in the last 150 years? What then is the mechanism by which nature has done this? What is your source for this information? Or is this more baseless yap-yap nonsense?

Yes I AM saying that. Vostock Ice cores show a 800 year gap from the time warming begins to the increase in CO2 levels. 800 years ago the planet experienced the MWP and voila! 800 years has passed and the CO2 is increasing.

Seems a no brainer to me....so it should be right up your alley!

I ate a burger four days ago and voila today I burped. BIG DEAL!!!

konrad,

You disappoint me. I have presented a hypothesis. I have delivered corroborating evidence for said hypothesis (and you will note I didn't have to manipulate the data record, nor did I have to manufacture false data) now it is up to you to take my hypothesis and prove it wrong.

This is a demonstration of how the Scientific Method works BTW so have at it. Prove the hypothesis wrong.
And please lets leave the pithy responses in the kids drawer where they belong shall we?

 

[taichiliberal]

Here's a little exchange I had with Lord Monckton, the one time Science Advisor to the British Prime Minister and Queen, and now recognized climate denier wonk on the talk circuit. Note that his Lordship gets stymied at one point and to date does NOT have a logical response to my follow up in red.




Answers in bold face in the body of your email below. - M of B
----- Original Message -----
From: >taichiliberal<
To: [email protected]
Subject: questions on global warming
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 19:54:36 EST

Dear Lord Monckton,


A few decades ago in America, environmental scientist pointed out that a few hundred lakes in America were dying or dead due to acid rain......rain that was loaded with the chemical pollutants that can be found in the smoke stacks of manufacturing factories. To stop this, it was suggested that all industrial smokestacks be fitted with additional filtration systems that would greatly curtail the pollutants.

Rather than pay for the installation, many industries came up with this hair splitting defense, "If you can't prove that pollutants from my particular plant ended up in a particular lake that killed its wild life, then I'm not libel, and therefore I don't have to change".

In other words, the death by pollution of American lakes via acid rain wasn't exactly being denied....the buck was just being passed....and the corporations just kept making bucks regardless of the consequences.


Now I have consistently asked all those that deny global warming these specific questions, and to date have not gotten a straight answer. Maybe you could answer the following:



1 - are you saying that in the last 100 years, global exponentially increasing pollutants from industrial smokestacks and car exhausts have had NO NEGLIBLE effect on this planet's eco-system?

Pollution is damaging: but carbon dioxide, which is what the "global warming" theory is about, is not pollution. It is actually plant food and, in the past million years, concentrations have been at near-starvation levels for trees and plants. Carbon dioxide enrichment of the atmosphere is entirely beneficial to the biosphere, and - once the numerous errors in the IPCC's method of calculation are corrected - causes only a very small and generally beneficial warming.You are in effect saying that CO2 emissions from industrial smokestacks and car exhausts is beneficial to the environment&#8230;.which is perplexing given that you have a market decrease in the very natural system of turning that into oxygen&#8230;trees. All one has to do is live in an urban environment with heavy vehicle traffic and nearby industrial plant&#8217;s smokestack and very little to no forest area, and you get the point. Add to this the other various chemical effluents contained in these emissions, and your assertion of benefits becomes questionable at best.

2 - are you saying that in the last 100 years, global exponentially increasing deforestation of rainforests have had NO NEGLIBLE effect on this planet's eco-system?

Deforestation, too, is not caused by carbon dioxide enrichment of the atmosphere. It is caused by greed, bribery and governmental incompetence.

But you leave out the fact that deforestation releases the very carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that you base your article on, since trees are about 50% carbon. But in fact between 25 and 30 percent of the greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere each year &#8211; 1.6 billion tonnes &#8211; is caused by deforestation. According to FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations) figures, some 13 million ha of forests worldwide are lost every year, almost entirely in the tropics. Deforestation remains high in Africa, Latin America and Southeast Asia, of which the by products are sold in Europe and North America. But this is old news.
Tropical Deforestation And Global Warming: Smithsonian Scientist Challenges Results Of Recent Study

3 - are you saying that in the last 100 years, global exponentially increasing urbanization that have replaced fields, valleys and forests with concrete for housing, malls and high rises have had NO NEGLIBLE effect on this planet's eco-system?

Urbanization is accompanied by increases in greenhouse-gas emissions and is, accordingly, relevant to the "global warming" debate, unlike your previous two questions. But the temperature globally would not rise very much even if we quadrupled the pre-industrial concentration of atmospheric CO2. In order to quadruple urbanization, you would have to quadruple deforestation in various spots around the globe&#8230;.less trees, grass, plants means a lot more CO2 without nature&#8217;s ability to convert it to oxygen. And that is not good for all air breathing. And as you know, it wouldn&#8217;t take much of a global temperature rise to drastically change the landscape our various societies now enjoy. Just look at what &#8220;unseasonable&#8221; weather in the form of heavy rains, longer droughts, hurricanes, etc., can do. My other two questions are most pertinent, being that it focuses on all parts of an environment that interacts with human society, and cannot be isolated and separated as you do.


4 - are you saying that in the last 100 years, global exponentially increasing dumping of industrial waste into our oceans have had NO NEGLIBLE effect on this planet's eco-system?

Again, this question has no relevance to the "global warming" question. In fact, the volume of the oceans is so large that pollution has had a rather small effect. That is not to say that pollution is a good thing: but one should keep matters in perspective. Most countries of the West now have reasonable and generally-effective systems to control pollution of the oceans.

How can you say that ocean pollution has no relevance to global warming, since the ocean is a critical part of replenishing oxygen and absorbing CO2 to our atmosphere? The more CO2 pumped into the air, the more of a burden on our oceans which can affect the acidic balance. Add to this destroying the various organisms, plant and animal life, and you restrain the ocean&#8217;s ability to absorb CO2 release oxygen into the air. And our pollution control methods for industrial nations has a long way to go before being seen as generally effective&#8230;..just look at the current 2 term American President&#8217;s environmental record.
Carbon Dioxide Emissions Could Violate EPA Ocean-quality Standards Within Decades

5 - are you saying that in the last 100 years, global exponentially increasing trawl nets on the oceans have had NO NEGLIBLE effect on this planet's eco-system?
Over-fishing, particularly in consequence of the Communist Fisheries Policy of the EU, is most certainly a problem. But, again, this question has little or no bearing on the "global warming" issue, which was the subject of my article. If you damage the ocean&#8217;s ecology, you affect its ability to convert CO2 to oxygen. Acid rain has been confirmed to destroy lakes in America&#8230;.and all one has to do is a quick recent historical review of the pollution of shorelines for many cities to know this is no small problem (slimy waters, dead fish, and terrible odors). The Green Peace folk have been most accurate in documenting the effects of trawling and who is doing it.
GREENPEACE | Defending the Deep : Episode III : Esperanza / NORTH WEST ATLANTIC 2005: releases