Opposition forces Kyoto bill,

[Canuck E Stan]

You're talking temperature, I want to know about natural vs manmade greenhouse gases......how much for each?

Canuck, I suggest you take a look at Figure 2 in the following EIA web site. (The data comes from the IPCC 2001.)

It shows that it is correct to say that, excluding water vapour, humans contribute about 5% of gross CO2 emissions (and natural sources the remaining 95%). However, this ignores that nature (oceans and plantlife) absorbs about 95% of atmospheric CO2. So, humans contribute to almost all net additions.

Incidentally, this web site details the claim that humans only contribute 0.28% of GHG emissions (if water is included) or 5.53% (if water vapour is excluded). These percentages are based on gross emissions and not net emissions. They ignore the fact that oceans and plant life also absorb CO2.

From the EIA site

Given the natural variability of the Earth’s climate, it is difficult to determine the extent of change that humans cause. In computer-based models, rising concentrations of greenhouse gases generally produce an increase in the average temperature of the Earth. Rising temperatures may, in turn, produce changes in weather, sea levels, and land use patterns, commonly referred to as “climate change.”

Assessments generally suggest that the Earth’s climate has warmed over the past century and that human activity affecting the atmosphere is likely an important driving factor. A National Research Council study dated May 2001 stated, “Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and sub-surface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability.”

However, there is uncertainty in how the climate system varies naturally and reacts to emissions of greenhouse gases. Making progress in reducing uncertainties in projections of future climate will require better awareness and understanding of the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the behavior of the climate system.

With less than 5% being manmade and 95% being natural and a bunch of uncertainty and inability to rule out some significant part of these changes being reflected by natural variability,basing the conclusion that less than 5% affecting 100% without knowing what effect the other 95% has, seems extremely unscientific to a conclusion that is supposed to have scientific merit.Or in not giving another explaination beyond the greenhouse gases theory as a cause to why the temperatures may be rising.

So much for comprehensive science coming from the IPCC.

[stevoh]

With less than 5% being manmade and 95% being natural and a bunch of uncertainty and inability to rule out some significant part of these changes being reflected by natural variability,basing the conclusion that less than 5% affecting 100% without knowing what effect the other 95% has, seems extremely unscientific to a conclusion that is supposed to have scientific merit.Or in not giving another explaination beyond the greenhouse gases theory as a cause to why the temperatures may be rising.

So much for comprehensive science coming from the IPCC.

You overplay the degree of uncertainty. While precise estimates may be impossible, trends and analysis are very possible, and that is what the report points out.

Just on a logical level, knowing that plants for millions (or thousands if you are creationists) of years have been able to successfully maintain a carbon balance, then reducing the amount of plant life while increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is going to have an effect on the overall concentation of CO2. And that effect is clearly observed in the undenied higher concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere right now.

So, even if you doubt the science that says that all this CO2 being added to the atmosphere is increasing our temperature, that concentration increasing is still a major cause for concern. Regardless of the specific effects, it is going to have an effect, why wait to see what potential damage greatly increasing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere has when we can change it now? Why wait for indisputable examples of human suffering and problems before we do something about it?

We have seen on a smaller local level the effects of increasing pollution in various environments. We have even seen examples of localized climate change occuring from increasing carbon in the atmosphere (see London smogs as one). Why anyone can't see that releasing enough CO2 into the atmosphere to change its concentration significantly is also going to have a detrimental effect on a global level is beyond me.

[B. Max]

We have seen on a smaller local level the effects of increasing pollution in various environments. We have even seen examples of localized climate change occuring from increasing carbon in the atmosphere (see London smogs as one). Why anyone can't see that releasing enough CO2 into the atmosphere to change its concentration significantly is also going to have a detrimental effect on a global level is beyond me.

Total bull.

[White Doors]

reducing the amount of plant life

huh? where did you get the idea that the amount of plant life has been reduced in the world overall?

500 years ago there were almost no forests left in Europe. That is not the case now.

There were less trees in Canada and the USA in the 1800's than there are now..

you have to examine your assumptions more carefully.

We have seen on a smaller local level the effects of increasing pollution in various environments. We have even seen examples of localized climate change occuring from increasing carbon in the atmosphere (see London smogs as one). Why anyone can't see that releasing enough CO2 into the atmosphere to change its concentration significantly is also going to have a detrimental effect on a global level is beyond me.

huh? CO2 does not cause smog. Do some research. Co2 is not a pollutant - it is plant food.

[Argus]

Forget about the DOE.

How about this from the IPCC.

A Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change representation of the natural carbon cycle and human perturbation.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig3-1.htm

3.4% of carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere annually, the rest of it is all natural.

Now that you have shot the messenger from my first link,how about shooting this one too,the IPCC.

How much better peer review do you want than when the IPCC says the same thing?

And if you don't like either,I suggest you give me a credible link to percentages of natural vs. manmade greenhouse gases.

Here's the summary of the report you just gave. I'll let it speak for itself.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/005.htm

You forget that the summaries "for policy makers" are not written by the David Suzuki's of the world, they're written by the Jean Chretien's and Jean Carle's of the world. That is why the current report on global warming had to be held back by several months - so the "policy makers" could write a summary, and then the scientists could adjust their "report" to match what the policy makers decided it should say.

BTW, even this one has all sorts of "maybe", "could be", "very well may be" and other temporizing statements. It might be warmer than at any point in a thousand years - but what made it warmer a thousand years ago? Well, don't ask.

[Canuck E Stan]

With less than 5% being manmade and 95% being natural and a bunch of uncertainty and inability to rule out some significant part of these changes being reflected by natural variability,basing the conclusion that less than 5% affecting 100% without knowing what effect the other 95% has, seems extremely unscientific to a conclusion that is supposed to have scientific merit.Or in not giving another explaination beyond the greenhouse gases theory as a cause to why the temperatures may be rising.

So much for comprehensive science coming from the IPCC.

You overplay the degree of uncertainty. While precise estimates may be impossible, trends and analysis are very possible, and that is what the report points out.

Why anyone can't see that releasing enough CO2 into the atmosphere to change its concentration significantly is also going to have a detrimental effect on a global level is beyond me.

inability to rule out some significant part of these changes being reflected by natural variability

But still the IPCC manages to make a conclusion without the significant part of these changes reflected by natural variablity, an amout that involves 95% of greenhouse gases.

Nor do they even give any other possible theories for this temperature change except the less than 5% caused by man.This is science?

[weaponeer]

Here's a solution, lets ban water...

[B. Max]

Here's a solution, lets ban water...

I'll bet there are a few on this board that would sign that.

[August1991]

You forget that the summaries "for policy makers" are not written by the David Suzuki's of the world, they're written by the Jean Chretien's and Jean Carle's of the world. That is why the current report on global warming had to be held back by several months - so the "policy makers" could write a summary, and then the scientists could adjust their "report" to match what the policy makers decided it should say.

That's misleading. The summary has the support of several thousand scientists. You make it seem as if Jean Carle (or someone like him) wrote the summary all alone sitting at his computer. That's false.

But still the IPCC manages to make a conclusion without the significant part of these changes reflected by natural variablity, an amout that involves 95% of greenhouse gases.

Nor do they even give any other possible theories for this temperature change except the less than 5% caused by man.This is science?

Canuck you still to fail to understand the difference between net emissions and gross emissions.

The 5% number you throw around is based on gross emissions. The earth (oceans and plantlife) absorb most naturally occurring CO2 emissions and hence the natural net emissions are close to zero.

Man-made emissions are large in terms of net additions.

Lake Ontario has water naturally flowing in and naturally flowing out. If we were to divert water to Lake Ontario, even a small amount as a percentage (say 5%) of the current intake, this would possibly upset the lake's water level.

----

I started a thread questioning the way the IPCC has been presented to us. The scientific method leaves room for intelligent skepticism.

The evidence is strong however that man-made GHG emissions are overwhelming the earth's natural ability to have a stable equilibrium.

Incidentally, I approach this problem from a different angle. IMV, if something appears to be free, people will abuse it or overuse it. The world's oceans and the world's atmosphere are essentially free for anyone to use. When the world's population was a 100 million or so, this was not a problem. Now, it is a problem.

In the Albertan context, it's as if anyone could drill a hole wherever and whenever they wanted to extract oil. Or if any cottager could dump raw sewage into a lake. A few cottagers wouldn't matter but once a lake has many cottagers, it becomes a problem.

A person pays royalties to extract oil and must own mineral rights. This prevents someone from abusing this natural resource. We must have a similar scheme for the world's atmosphere and the world's oceans.

[jdobbin]

You forget that the summaries "for policy makers" are not written by the David Suzuki's of the world, they're written by the Jean Chretien's and Jean Carle's of the world. That is why the current report on global warming had to be held back by several months - so the "policy makers" could write a summary, and then the scientists could adjust their "report" to match what the policy makers decided it should say.

BTW, even this one has all sorts of "maybe", "could be", "very well may be" and other temporizing statements. It might be warmer than at any point in a thousand years - but what made it warmer a thousand years ago? Well, don't ask.

It is the politicians who shade the language rather than the scientists.

If you have a problem with Canada acting on global warming, speak to Stephen Harper. He now says he accepts the science. You can vote for someone else next election.

[Argus]

You forget that the summaries "for policy makers" are not written by the David Suzuki's of the world, they're written by the Jean Chretien's and Jean Carle's of the world. That is why the current report on global warming had to be held back by several months - so the "policy makers" could write a summary, and then the scientists could adjust their "report" to match what the policy makers decided it should say.

That's misleading. The summary has the support of several thousand scientists. You make it seem as if Jean Carle (or someone like him) wrote the summary all alone sitting at his computer. That's false.

It has the support of thousands of scientists? And how many of them have seen the actual data in the real report? And how many actually support the summary as opposed to being too afraid to say anything about it? We've now heard from some of the scientists asked to "review" the last summary, and several have said "I disagreed completely with it but they ignored my disagreement".

The fact you can't deny is that the summary was not written by scientists and does not accurately reflect the contents of the actual report. That is why they need to take several months to "adjust" the actual report to bring it into line with the summary. That is not science. That is politics.

[stevoh]

500 years ago there were almost no forests left in Europe. That is not the case now.

There were less trees in Canada and the USA in the 1800's than there are now..

you have to examine your assumptions more carefully.

Interesting, I would love to see a link that shows how world forest density, North American, Europe, South America, etc, has increased over the last 200 years. Can you supply one?

All I have found is some recent statistics indicating quite the opposite.

From http://www.fao.org/forestry/site/28679/en/

-Each year about 13 million hectares of the world's forests are lost due to deforestation, but the rate of net forest loss is slowing down, thanks to new planting and natural expansion of existing forests.

-From 1990 to 2000, the net forest loss was 8.9 million hectares per year.

-From 2000 to 2005, the net forest loss was 7.3 million hectares per year - an area the size of Sierra Leone or Panama and equivalent to 200 km2 per day.

huh? CO2 does not cause smog. Do some research. Co2 is not a pollutant - it is plant food.

Smog is composed of:

Smoke particles, Carbon Dioxide, hydrochloric acid, flourine, and sulphur dioxide (which converts into sulphuric acid, acid rain) and other less abundant trace elements.

CO2 = Carbon dioxide.

Isn't "plant food" a nice way of putting it? Its also a poison that we expell from our bodies every exhale, and one that can kill us. Depending on context, it can be good (plants need it) and bad (we die from it). But in either case, increasing its concentration, with no mind to the effects of that increase, is foolish.

[geoffrey]

Interesting, I would love to see a link that shows how world forest density, North American, Europe, South America, etc, has increased over the last 200 years. Can you supply one?

I don't have any studies so I'm not saying this as factual evidence, just unfounded gossip.

I have heard that the reason forest fires are more intense now is that we've over protected our forests from fire in the past and they've grown too dense with old growth. Now I might be crazy, but the concept adds up to me.

[White Doors]

500 years ago there were almost no forests left in Europe. That is not the case now.

There were less trees in Canada and the USA in the 1800's than there are now..

you have to examine your assumptions more carefully.

Interesting, I would love to see a link that shows how world forest density, North American, Europe, South America, etc, has increased over the last 200 years. Can you supply one?

All I have found is some recent statistics indicating quite the opposite.

From http://www.fao.org/forestry/site/28679/en/

-Each year about 13 million hectares of the world's forests are lost due to deforestation, but the rate of net forest loss is slowing down, thanks to new planting and natural expansion of existing forests.

-From 1990 to 2000, the net forest loss was 8.9 million hectares per year.

-From 2000 to 2005, the net forest loss was 7.3 million hectares per year - an area the size of Sierra Leone or Panama and equivalent to 200 km2 per day.

huh? CO2 does not cause smog. Do some research. Co2 is not a pollutant - it is plant food.

Smog is composed of:

Smoke particles, Carbon Dioxide, hydrochloric acid, flourine, and sulphur dioxide (which converts into sulphuric acid, acid rain) and other less abundant trace elements.

CO2 = Carbon dioxide.

Isn't "plant food" a nice way of putting it? Its also a poison that we expell from our bodies every exhale, and one that can kill us. Depending on context, it can be good (plants need it) and bad (we die from it). But in either case, increasing its concentration, with no mind to the effects of that increase, is foolish.

First off. Smog is composed of this:

nitrogen oxides, such as nitrogen dioxide

tropospheric ozone

volatile organic compounds (VOCs)

peroxyacyl nitrates (PAN)

aldehydes (R'O)

Co2 has nothing to do with smog wether or not it is found in it. And again, Co2 is NOT a pollutant.

As far as too much can kill you, too much oxygen can kill you too. Doesn't make it a pollutant does it?

Second of all, forests are expanding in Europe and North America. (which is what I stated) The only places where they are receding is in poor countries where peasants are forced to slash and burn for their livestock and for agriculture. Coincidentally, none of these countries are bound by the kyoto protocal:0 Countries that have modern sawmills and forestry companies all have expanding woodlands coverage or at the very least are stable.

You want to improve forest cover? Encourage globalization and the wealth that brings to the developing world. The best hope for the Brazilian rainforest is Brazil's recent GDP surge.

[stevoh]

Co2 has nothing to do with smog wether or not it is found in it.

Smog is an example of human created climate change on a local level. Regardless of its individual components. One of which, yes, is CO2.

Second of all, forests are expanding in Europe and North America. (which is what I stated) The only places where they are receding is in poor countries where peasants are forced to slash and burn for their livestock and for agriculture. Coincidentally, none of these countries are bound by the kyoto protocal:0 Countries that have modern sawmills and forestry companies all have expanding woodlands coverage or at the very least are stable.

You actually stated:

where did you get the idea that the amount of plant life has been reduced in the world overall?

That would indicate, in no uncertain language, that you were referring to the whole world, not just europe and north america. Yes, you went on to define those as instances, but your initial statement implies those are merely two examples of an increase in the "world overall".

So, in answer to your original question, where did you get the idea that the amount of plant life is reduced in the world overall, the answer is:

The facts. It IS reduced every year in the world overall.

[White Doors]

Smog is an example of human created climate change on a local level. Regardless of its individual components. One of which, yes, is CO2.

No Smog is POLLUTION. You NEED to get this straight in your head. They are NOT directly related.

If you removed 100% of man-made CO2 there will still be smog. It is NOT a 'localized' global warming effect. Smog has been around for over 100 years - well before any global warming came to the table.

That would indicate, in no uncertain language, that you were referring to the whole world, not just europe and north america. Yes, you went on to define those as instances, but your initial statement implies those are merely two examples of an increase in the "world overall".

So, in answer to your original question, where did you get the idea that the amount of plant life is reduced in the world overall, the answer is:

The facts. It IS reduced every year in the world overall.

Ok, true enough. I was thinking about Europe and N.A. I mis-spoke. Ironic that the countries that don't have to sign Kyoto are the one's that are losing their forest cover don't you think?

Increasing the prosperity of the developing world through liberalised trade and pressure on corrupt governments through the world bank will do much more to alleviate this problem than Kyoto will.

It's also heartenign to see that the rade of reduction has slowed and improved in the past decade.

Hopefully this will continue and the rest of the world will have forestry practises that work as well as ours do.