Global Warming/Climate Change 2

[STEVE G]

....as the world warms because of greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas, he said.

So we agree that the world is warming due to greenhouse gases.

[charlesh]

No Steve that's one of the experts disagreeing with another expert and suggesting that he had not taken into account melting in the Rockies the year before. I'd like to see them get a big enough bung for the volcanoes which as we KNOW spew out more SOx's, NOX's and CO/CO2 than cars!

[Bristolian]

....as the world warms because of greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas, he said.

So we agree that the world is warming due to greenhouse gases.

No Steve that's one of the experts disagreeing with another expert and suggesting that he had not taken into account melting in the Rockies the year before. I'd like to see them get a big enough bung for the volcanoes which as we KNOW spew out more SOx's, NOX's and CO/CO2 than cars!

Are you not saying the same? If SOx's, NOx's and CO/CO2 are the cause of warming and these same gasses are known to cause warming???

What you are actually discussing is where do these gasses come from and the answer is clear, both natural and man made causes. To ignore the human influence in producing these gasses is somehow not realistic!

[sargeant]

quote bristolian

To ignore the human influence in producing these gasses is somehow not realistic!

And to ignore deforestation that reduces the ammount of co2 and urbanisation that reflects and refracts heat makes that even more unrealistic

[Bristolian]

quote bristolian

To ignore the human influence in producing these gasses is somehow not realistic!

And to ignore deforestation that reduces the ammount of co2 and urbanisation that reflects and refracts heat makes that even more unrealistic

There can be no question that these are two of the root causes and shoukd be added generally to population expansion and thereby increased use of resources

[STEVE G]

I'd like to see them get a big enough bung for the volcanoes which as we KNOW spew out more SOx's, NOX's and CO/CO2 than cars!

KNOW?

"The published estimates of the global CO2 emission rate for all degassing subaerial (on land) and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 0.13 gigaton to 0.44 gigaton per year (Gerlach, 1991; Varekamp et al., 1992; Allard, 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998). The preferred global estimates of the authors of these studies range from about 0.15 to 0.26 gigaton per year. The 35-gigaton projected anthropogenic CO2 emission for 2010 is about 80 to 270 times larger than the respective maximum and minimum annual global volcanic CO2 emission estimates. It is 135 times larger than the highest preferred global volcanic CO2 estimate of 0.26 gigaton per year (Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998)."
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php

[sargeant]

Steve you are good at that
any chance you could find something along the lines of

How much co2 is taken up by forests per annum
how many acres of forest are lost each year
How much co2 is not taken up by forests per acre lost
how much more co2 is produced by man over/under the ammount taken up by forests each year

I could not get figures when i did my research all i got was opposite sites stating it was thought to or not and most of them i disgarded as biased

[STEVE G]

How much co2 is taken up by forests per annum

What you have to understand about forests is that they only have a net effect on C02 levels whilst they actually growing into a mature state and are basically absorbing C02, releasing Oxygen and storing up carbon in biomass. A mature forest has no net effect as the amount of C02 in the atmosphere as the amount absorbed will be exactly balanced out by the C02 released by rotting biomass recombining Carbon with Oxygen as plant matter dies off, the forest can only support so much plant life and will reach a balanced state.
The problem with deforestation is that it's releasing C02 prematurely and not balancing it out with new growth. If you replanted all the lost rain forests, they would have a negative effect on C02 levels up until they reached a mature state and then you would be back to square one.

[sargeant]

back to square one.

you were fine up till then but that only applies if man made emissions keep on going however

if the forests were replanted they would remove a large ammount of the co2 that is there already that would slow the warming from man

all we hear from the believers is solar wind wave none of which will reduce the co2 in the atmosphere already even renewables wont do that to any extent they will just be nuetral

I could not get figures when i did my research

seems like i still cant

[STEVE G]

seems like i still cant

I don't have enough free time to get the figures you refer to but the technical term is carbon sequestration so if you use that in any internet search with something like deforestation, you should get results that are more research based rather than political. ( Too many big words for politicians!)

[sargeant]

Thanks steve i will have a try

Try this one
I am (and for MrPs info this is a scientific trial on c02 the residue of this experiment will be disposed of by my Father in Law) at this moment watching a demijohn of sugar pineapple juice water and yeast in a purely chemical experiment producing copious ammounts of c02

questions how much co2 is produced per gallon
how much c02 from breweries wineries and distllaries world wide per annum
why have the (using a fellow posters term) warmies not demanded the stopping or extra taxing for beer wine and spirits advocate

the reason i ask is because as i have continually said just coal and oil are NOT the only large producers of c02 emissions and for the co2 argument to be totally credible it must cover all c02 emissions

[Bristolian]

Thanks steve i will have a try

Try this one
I am (and for MrPs info this is a scientific trial on c02 the residue of this experiment will be disposed of by my Father in Law) at this moment watching a demijohn of sugar pineapple juice water and yeast in a purely chemical experiment producing copious ammounts of c02

questions how much co2 is produced per gallon
how much c02 from breweries wineries and distllaries world wide per annum
why have the (using a fellow posters term) warmies not demanded the stopping or extra taxing for beer wine and spirits advocate

Now that is what I call a good scientific experiment
The problem might be collecting the data after sampling the fiinished product
Happy Songkran

[sargeant]

Actually Bristolian the last (Purely experimental of course ) batch

Would NOT FREEZE in the freezer compartment of my fridge

I only have a smidgin of an idea what chemical could have caused that

[charlesh]

Very good Sarg there must have been something (read chemical) that depressed the freezing point of your experiment OR your freezer compartment does not work all that well
PS CO2 emissions are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to climate! And that is perhaps a reason why this discussion is so circular and closely synchronised to the famous "fuckarawe" bird of Africa which despite reports of its' demise evidence suggests the reverse.

[sargeant]

Yes charles it wasn't my experiment though my good lady put them in to chill and forgot 5 days later her dad was employed to dispose of them
quote Bristolian

The problem might be collecting the data after sampling the finished product

I questioned my father in law on global warming and could not understand a word he slurred
a bit like trying to understand dyed in the wool septics