Kyoto & the Provinces

[B. Max]

The vast majority of co2 is released natural. Mans contribution is minuscule.

70% of industrial greenhouse gas release is CO2, more than methane and nitrous oxide combined.

So what.

[geoffrey]

What if my self-interest is to make my climate warmer? Something people haven't really researched IMO. Perhaps Canada benefits from global warming (minus Vancouver).

[na85]

The vast majority of co2 is released natural. Mans contribution is minuscule.

70% of industrial greenhouse gas release is CO2, more than methane and nitrous oxide combined.

So what.

So you can't just neglect CO2 in environmental considerations. Someone tried to tell us earlier that CO2 is not a pollutant.

[B. Max]

So what.

So you can't just neglect CO2 in environmental considerations.

Well if you are so worried about it you should be concerned with natural c02 because that is where the greatest amout of co2 comes from.

Someone tried to tell us earlier that CO2 is not a pollutant.

It's not.

[na85]

Must we have this silly argument over semantics?

Fine, okay, it's not a "pollutant" per se, but it's a greenhouse gas.

[B. Max]

Must we have this silly argument over semantics?

Fine, okay, it's not a "pollutant" per se, but it's a greenhouse gas.

But it is a minor player. Whos effect is so small it can barely be measured.

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

[na85]

Actually your source does a pretty good job of measuring CO2's effect.

Despite this fact, CO2 remains the largest human-made contributor to the greenhouse effect. Water vapour is indeed the largest. However, human activity does not have much of an effect on global concentrations of water vapour in the atmosphere.

The water vapour acts as a positive feedback element. When CO2 and other GH gases cause temperatures to rise, the moisture content in the air also rises which contributes futher to the greenhouse effect and then a further increase in moisture content. So on and so forth.

I see nowhere in your linked article that states that CO2 is so small it can barely be measured.

[B. Max]

Actually your source does a pretty good job of measuring CO2's effect.

Despite this fact, CO2 remains the largest human-made contributor to the greenhouse effect. Water vapour is indeed the largest. However, human activity does not have much of an effect on global concentrations of water vapour in the atmosphere.

The water vapour acts as a positive feedback element. When CO2 and other GH gases cause temperatures to rise, the moisture content in the air also rises which contributes futher to the greenhouse effect and then a further increase in moisture content. So on and so forth.

I see nowhere in your linked article that states that CO2 is so small it can barely be measured.

Natural co2 is far larger than man made. One only has to look at the numbers to see it can barely be measured and has no great effect. The proxy records show that co2 does not cause temperature to rise, but follow temperature increases.

Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.

Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).

Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.

[na85]

What the article fails to mention is that water vapour acts as a positive feedback element, as I stated previously.

CO2 is the largest of the non-water vapour contributors.

Water vapour is not something we can do anything about.

What should we do, then, if not work on reducing CO2 emissions?

[B. Max]

What the article fails to mention is that water vapour acts as a positive feedback element, as I stated previously.

CO2 is the largest of the non-water vapour contributors.

Water vapour is not something we can do anything about.

What should we do, then, if not work on reducing CO2 emissions?

We can't do anything about natural co2 nor do we need to.