Poor Polar Bears!

[photon]

Originally Posted by krynski

From my classes, either way, the Green-House gases may not be producing a warming effect, but may be producing a cooling effect.

More details please.

Originally Posted by krynski

The CO2 causes a barrier. Whether this will be an insulative effect and keep the heat in, or a deflective effect by deterring suns rays, nobody knows.

You can easily measure that in a lab and they have. If CO2 had a deflective property rather thank keeping heat in, the earth would be below freezing.

I would be interested to hear the explanation of how CO2 in the atmosphere could have a deflective effect... A molecule of CO2 that absorbs longwave radiation and heats because of it doesn't care if that radiation came from up or down, and when it re-radiates it it will do it in a random direction. Since most of the CO2 molecules exist inside the atmosphere, most of the directions a CO2 molecule can radiate have other CO2 molecules in the way.

[Delthefunky]

What percentage do our CO2 emmisions add to the natural release of CO2 (Russian ice pocket, volcanoes, forest fires)?

Honest question...

[Pinner]

Originally Posted by Delthefunky

What percentage do our CO2 emmisions add to the natural release of CO2 (Russian ice pocket, volcanoes, forest fires)?

Honest question...

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

[photon]

Originally Posted by Pinner

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

That doesn't answer the question that was asked.

Plus the graph is easy to misunderstand without context. Water vapor is very easy to take out of the atmosphere, it happens all the time (rain, snow, condensation, etc). CO2 not so much, it'll stay there for years or even centuries if nothing else pulls it out.

Plus water vapor creates a positive feedback, magnifying the result of smaller things.. a little more CO2 results in warming, which results in more water vapor possible to be in the air, which results in more warming, etc.. positive feedback.

Originally Posted by Delthefunky

What percentage do our CO2 emmisions add to the natural release of CO2 (Russian ice pocket, volcanoes, forest fires)?

Honest question...

The total carbon cycle is something like 750 gigatons per year, human emissions are in the order of 30 gigatons per year. So it's smaller obviously but still significant because the CO2 from the plants and animals and the ocean also gets reabsorbed by the same, everything in a balance with feedbacks to keep it there (otherwise life would have CO2'd itself to death long long ago). The CO2 from fossil fuels gets put out, but there's no natural balance. 40% of the CO2 gets absorbed (the ocean has become more acid as a result), but the rest just sits there. So 30 gigatons is < 750 gigatons, but it's cumulative.

And we know it's from fossil fuels, since you can measure the isotopes of carbon in atmospheric CO2 and compare those to ratios of isotopes in various sources.

[MJK]

Just a quick note on the bears from the Inuit elders perspective.

Usually animals go through population fluctuations lasting about the lifetime of an elder. They will see the high's and low's, the peaks and vvalley's. Right now, Inuit elders and wildlife officers are seeing more bears than they have in a LONG time. Maybe this is just the high peak coming around again?

Two factors could be causing this to happen:

1. There are more bears.

2. The ice takes longer to freeze than even before and melts quicker...bears have to find food so they wonder into and around towns causing more people to see them.

In the new community I live in, the ice didn't freeze until November which is unheard of. No one remembers it EVER taking that long to freeze. If it takes that long to freeze the bears can't get out on it to feed, they stay close to garbage dumps and look for food caches.

I just wanted to post what I have seen and heard from the North.

[Pinner]

You moved to the big city MJ

[T@T]

This pic was taken 2 weeks ago at my sisters house in Cape Breton.



As a kid we played hockey in that inlet of the lake by late Oct every year and by the time Jan came along the lake was fully frozen and we drove our sleds across it.

My sister can't remember exactly the last time she saw ice on the lake but says probably about 10 years.

In a way it's nice but it's also very scary.

[Pinner]

No comfort to the poor folks just south of there experiencing the coldest/snowiest winter in a long time. water mains are freezing

-13 f = -25c

The following is a list of low temperatures for select locations across the Northeast Monday, Jan. 24, 2011:
-Watertown, N.Y.: -30° F
-Lebanon, N.H.: -28° F
-Burlington, Vt.: -13° F
-Poughkeepsie, N.Y.: -13° F
-Portland, Maine: -13° F

[photon]

Originally Posted by Pinner

No comfort to the poor folks just south of there experiencing the coldest/snowiest winter in a long time. water mains are freezing

-13 f = -25c

So some people are experiencing the coldest/snowiest winter in a long time.. how many other people are experiencing a normal winter? Or a moderate winter? or a warm winter? You read about the coldest ones in the news and put that in your mind as a data point about climate. But that flawed reasoning, because you aren't taking into account the other people with normal or warm winters. Or the summers on the other side of the planet.

The news filters so you only hear extraordinary circumstances, not all the ordinary ones.

If "Area X is having extremes in weather" is an argument that seems meaningful in the question of AGW being accurate or not, then that's a very big sign that the one who thinks its meaning needs to do a lot more learning before thinking they're in a position to be able to form a meaningful conclusion.

[kirant]

Originally Posted by Pinner

No comfort to the poor folks just south of there experiencing the coldest/snowiest winter in a long time. water mains are freezing

-13 f = -25c

From a thermodynamic point of view, are water mains really that bad? I mean, water has an extremely high heat capacity and the heat transferred from the ground to the water a few feet underground wouldn't be that bad...would it? I believe the material it is in should provide pretty good insulation.

As a reverse example, we have (or just used to have) plenty of snow on the ground after several days of positive degree weather.

[Pinner]

Take a pill dude, T@T said how warm it was at his Sister's place (how scary it was) and I thought it was ironic that just south of there they're froze hard. -25 in Portland Maine.

Originally Posted by photon

That doesn't answer the question that was asked.

Delthefunky asked what mans contribution to the total green house gas volume was...

I found a graph that shows what he wanted to know. You're just no fun Photon.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Pinner

Delthefunky asked what mans contribution to the total green house gas volume was...

I found a graph that shows what he wanted to know.

You found a graph that shows the contribution to the greenhouse effect of various greenhouse gases, not the greenhouse gas volume from man vs. natural sources

Originally Posted by Pinner

You're just no fun Photon.

Pedantic IS fun!

[Pinner]

Isn't that graph showing Man's contribution to the Geenhouse Effect ?

Man's contribution of CO2 = 0.117% of total CO2

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by Pinner

Isn't that graph showing Man's contribution to the Geenhouse Effect ?

Man's contribution of CO2 = 0.117% of total CO2

You're totally misunderstanding the graph. Please read the webpage. That graph you quoted doesn't give man's contribution of total CO2 output. The two sentences you wrote are two different things.

I will also add that the webpage you quoted is made by a mining engineer, and nobody associated with climatology, and nobody that has actually published anything scientific -- in fact, it's hosted on Hieb's fossil hobbyist website. Sort of like going to get advice from a dentist on how to remove your appendix. I hope you're not using it to "strengthen" your arguments. But I am sure that doesn't bother you to much.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Pinner

Take a pill dude, T@T said how warm it was at his Sister's place (how scary it was) and I thought it was ironic that just south of there they're froze hard. -25 in Portland Maine.

Nothing ironic about it. As of right now it's -2 with flurrys (waiting as we speak for her to send a new pic) In case you missed it my point was the difference between now and 30-35 years ago, everywhere gets a cold snap or even a bad winter with lots of snow but overall there are huge changes. when I was a kid I made a small fortune every winter shoveling snow for the old and lazy in my town, We use to slide on snow from the roof our barn in the backyard and the snow was not only a lot..it stayed the winter.

Here an updated pic after a dump of snow 3 days prior and during flurrys. End of January and the maple tree's haven't lost all the leafs yet.



In a week this snow will most likely be gone.

[Pinner]

Delthefunky asked a question, I made an effort to answer him, if you don't like my answer, you answer him.


Here's a pie chart (from a different site) with pretty much the same info, Human's contribute 0.28% of total Greenhouse gases, only a portion of that would be CO2.
(If I understand it)

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

You're totally misunderstanding the graph.

Feel free to explain it to me, what does the CO2 0.117% represent ?

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

Please read the webpage. That graph you quoted doesn't give man's contribution of total CO2 output. The two sentences you wrote are two different things.

What two sentences ?

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

I will also add that the webpage you quoted is made by a mining engineer, and nobody associated with climatology, and nobody that has actually published anything scientific -- in fact, it's hosted on Hieb's fossil hobbyist website. Sort of like going to get advice from a dentist on how to remove your appendix. I hope you're not using it to "strengthen" your arguments. But I am sure that doesn't bother you to much.

The guy put the web page together. Did you expect original content ?

Feel free to discredit his reference links.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by Pinner

Delthefunky asked a question, I made an effort to answer him, if you don't like my answer, you answer him.


Here's a pie chart (from a different site) with pretty much the same info, Human's contribute 0.28% of total Greenhouse gases, only a portion of that would be CO2.
(If I understand it)






Feel free to explain it to me, what does the CO2 0.117% represent ?



What two sentences ?



The guy put the web page together. Did you expect original content ?

Feel free to discredit his reference links.

What's with the rolly eyes? You didn't understand the question.

Original question:

What percentage do our CO2 emmisions add to the natural release of CO2 (Russian ice pocket, volcanoes, forest fires)?

The chart you showed does not show the percentage of man-made contributions of CO2 vs natural contributions (such as volcanoes, forest fires, etc.). Photon already explained it, however. Your chart shows an adjusted figure using a mathematic formula that tries to explain how much man-made CO2 (amongst other greenhouse gases) contributes to the overall greenhouse effect.

Your chart:



The chart is explained beneath it, including the mathematic formula he used to come to his adjusted figure, and it includes the actual requested figure. In fact, right above it there is a chart showing the close-to-actual (probably off by a bit, but I'm not sure by how much, give or take) percentage that was requested.



Basically, like photon said, humans add about 30 gigatons annually, while the carbon cycle is about 750 gigatons.

[Pinner]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

Basically, like photon said, humans add about 30 gigatons annually, while the carbon cycle is about 750 gigatons.

O.K. you're answer is absolutely what he asked for, and I apologize to both you and Photon

I had it in my mind he wanted man's CO2 contribution to total green house gases.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Pinner

Here's a pie chart (from a different site) with pretty much the same info, Human's contribute 0.28% of total Greenhouse gases, only a portion of that would be CO2.
(If I understand it)

I'd question how they got to their numbers, they say "concentrations adjusted for global warming potential", but I'll assume they're right for now. But it seems they just wanted to make a graph which implied a message that human CO2 is nothing compared to everything else. If one didn't know the context of that info, then they'd draw the wrong conclusion.

I already gave the answer for how much CO2 in the global cycle was man-made, so lets look at how much man made CO2 impacts the global mean energy budget.

Incoming solar radiation is 342 Wm-2 (W per square meter). Of that the "radiative flux" or greenhouse effect for water vapor is 72Wm-2, and CO2 accounts for 32Wm-2. This means that rather than being radiated back into space, that much gets kept back, either reflected back to earth, or heating the atmosphere itself.

http://coelho.mota.googlepages.com/RadiationBudget.pdf

So I'm not sure what the graph is trying to say, but the amount of energy being retained (greenhouse) due to water vapor and CO2 are in a 2:1 ratio, not 100:1.

Plus, water vapor isn't a greenhouse gas in the same way that CO2 is.. CO2 is an external forcing, CO2 is added to the atmosphere by external sources.. breathing, burning fossil fuels, living, etc. Water vapor in the atmosphere is added by evaporation constantly, depending on the air and water temperature. The water vapor isn't forced into the air like CO2, it's drawn in [b]or removed[b/] based on the conditions of the air itself. All things being equal, the amount of water vapor in the air will remain constant. More evaporates here, it's removed later by rain or snow. Air gets dry, more water is sucked up via evaporation. All things being equal, it stays in balance.

But not all things are equal, the balance can be upset.. if the air gets warmer, it will absorb more water vapor. That's why water vapor is a positive feedback mechanism, any warming factor is amplified because of the positive feedback of water vapor.

How much feedback? By itself, doubling CO2 would increase global temperatures by about 1 degree. With water vapor feedback, that doubles to 2 degrees. With the other feedbacks like albedo change, doubling CO2 would increase temperatures by 3 degrees.

So back to the original question, radiative forcing due to CO2 total is 32Wm-2, and man's component of that is something like 1.6Wm-2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ra...e-forcings.svg