What can we do about Climate Change?

[hoosierdaddy]

You go, binezman...

 

[supermanlives]

ahh the pollution will kill us long before climate change does anything significant.

 

[supermanlives]

i would like to eat tuna more than 2 times a week without getting mercury poisoning

 

[Pantalicious]

1st step: Get rid of the stupid ass government that runs your country.
2nd step: Start a Utopian socialism
3rd step: You don't like socialism? Then you're in the wrong thread.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Socialist utopia...aaa...similar to the one they enjoy in Greece?

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

The most important players on the greenhouse stage are water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide has been increased to about 0.038% of the atmosphere (possibly from about 0.028% pre-Industrial Revolution) while water in its various forms ranges from 0% to 4% of the atmosphere and its properties vary by what form it is in and even at what altitude it is found in the atmosphere.

In simple terms the bulk of Earth's greenhouse effect is due to water vapor by virtue of its abundance. Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect -- perhaps 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets), some estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth's total tropospheric greenhouse effect (e.g., Freidenreich and Ramaswamy, “Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,” Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264).

The remaining portion comes from carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, ozone and miscellaneous other "minor greenhouse gases." As an example of the relative importance of water it should be noted that changes in the relative humidity on the order of 1.3-4% are equivalent to the effect of doubling CO2.

Pretty good at that number throwing thing? I would like you to actually use the numbers, instead of just your superior logic.

First off, Yes water is a greenhouse and there is more of it in the atmosphere.
Water accounts for 90% of the greenhouse gasses, but nowhere near 90% of the greenhouse effect. A molecule of water has a fraction of the capacity for absorption/re-radiation as a molecule of CO2. The concentration of water in the atmosphere fluctuates greatly, but the concentration of CO2 is steadily rising with very little fluctuation. Depending on the concentration of water in the atmosphere at any given moment CO2 contributes from 9% to 30% of the total 'greenhouse effect'.

The below abstract links to a PDF of the entire paper.

ABSTRACT
Earth’s Annual Global Mean Energy Budget
J. T. Kiehl and Kevin E. Trenberth National Center for Atmospheric Research,* Boulder, Colorado
The purpose of this paper is to put forward a new estimate, in the context of previous assessments, of the annual global mean energy budget. A description is provided of the source of each component to this budget. The top-of- atmosphere shortwave and longwave flux of energy is constrained by satellite observations. Partitioning of the radia- tive energy throughout the atmosphere is achieved through the use of detailed radiation models for both the longwave and shortwave spectral regions. Spectral features of shortwave and longwave fluxes at both the top and surface of the earth’s system are presented. The longwave radiative forcing of the climate system for both clear (125 W m−2) and cloudy (155 W m−2) conditions are discussed. The authors find that for the clear sky case the contribution due to water vapor to the total longwave radiative forcing is 75 W m−2, while for carbon dioxide it is 32 W m−2. Clouds alter these values, and the effects of clouds on both the longwave and shortwave budget are addressed. In particular, the shielding effect by clouds on absorption and emission by water vapor is as large as the direct cloud forcing. Because the net surface heat budget must balance, the radiative fluxes constrain the sum of the sensible and latent heat fluxes, which can also be estimated independently.

The following is excerpted from the textbook "Chemistry of Atmospheres" by Richard Wayne

p45. Section 2.2.4 Trapping in real atmospheres

A real atmosphere may contain several species with IR active
modes and a full model will include their contributions to
radiation trapping produced by clouds and aerosols. Partly
because the IR bands of the various components overlap, the
contributions of the individuals absorbers DO NOT ADD LINEARLY
<my emphasis>. Table 2.2 shows the percentage of trapping
that would remain if particular absorbers were removed from
the atmosphere. We see that the clouds on contribute 14% to
the trapping with all other species present, but would trap
50% if the other absorbers were removed.

Table 2.2 Contributions of atmospheric ratiation absorbers
to thermal trapping

Species removed % trapped radiation remaining
All 0
H2O CO2 O3 50
H2O 64
Clouds 86
CO2 88
O3 97
None 100
Data from Rev. Geophys. & Space Sci. 16 (1978) 465


Carbon dioxide adds 12 % to the trapping of the present atmosphere,
that is, it is a less important trapping agent than water vapor
or clouds. On the other hand, on its own CO2 would trap three
times as much as it actually does in the Earth's atmosphere.


The point is of importance in seeing how far increases in the
Greenhouse effect could provoke climatic response to changed
CO2 concentrations. In this context, it is interesting to note
that, since the upper layers of the atmosphere leak relatively
more radiation to space than they trap, additional CO2 leads
to atmospheric cooling rather than warming for atmospheric
layers above about 20 km.


Many of the trace atmospheric gases, such as CH4, N2O and NH3
have infra-red modes active in the trapping region. These
gases may therefore have a direct effect on global
temperatures quite distinct from that exercised through
their possible modification of concentrations of major
absorbers.

The influence of minor constituents is particularly marked
if they absorb where there is otherwise an atmospheric
window

This stopping up of windows shows itself in the Venusian
atmosphere. Over several years, doubt existed about
whether a greenhouse effect on Venus could plausibly
explain the high surface temperatures. The problem
was in part to know how much solar radiation penetrated
below the cloud tops and in part to find the IR active
molecules that possessed an optical depth CHI= (732/227)^4-1= 107

CO2 alone cannot provide the necessary depth over the
emitting spectral region. However, the Pioneer Venus and Venera 11/12 probed of 1978
have now shown that not only does enough sunlight reach the
surface to fuel the effect, but that also the small H2O
and SO2 concentrations are sufficient, together with
pressure induced transitions in CO2 to close the spectral window.

That first table shows that if you remove ALL of the H2O from the atmosphere, only 36% of the radiation currently trapped escapes. If you remove just the clouds only 14% escapes, which is only a little more than if you remove the ALL of the CO2(12%).

If .03% CO2 concentration accounts for 12% of the total greenhouse heat retained, what do you think is going to happen when it rises a few more hundredths of a percent to .06% or .08%?


Ever heard the phrase "a little dab will do"?

 

[Nor'Easter]

I admire you for trying Grat3fulh3ad, but it seems like you are talking to a brick!

 

[B. Friendly]

you people are funny, lets look at most historical graphs, they work in 10,000 year cycles. Unless a mile size bulder from space hits us we are ok. Stop playing on peoples emotions everybody

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

I'm going to invest in sunblock

 

[B. Friendly]

you people are funny, lets look at most historical graphs, they work in 10,000 year cycles. Unless a mile size bulder from space hits us we are ok. Stop playing on peoples emotions everybody

ya I am quoting myself

 

[Hovz]

The human race won't survive the next 1,000 years unless we expand to space.

 

[Nor'Easter]

Now there's something we can agree on, not that we won't survive but that we must expand to space! Cool, mindblowing illustration there!

 

[Nor'Easter]

I wish this heat wave would end, 10 days of unbearable heat and humidity, the kind of thing that will get more and more common if we do nothing.

 

[supermanlives]

we in cali are loving it. i like to think i brought the cooler weather we are feeling on the west with me when i moved back here,

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

This one seems viable as an idea... and won't raise anyone's taxes...

continue using the same fuels (gasoline, Diesel, etc) but acquire the fuels from the atmospheric greenhouse gasses already present, instead of adding CO2 back into the atmospheric system which mother nature had sequestered deep underground.

A Universal Replacement for Petroleum

The world is highly dependent on the existing transportation and fuel delivery infrastructure. Automobiles, trucks, trains, ships and planes powered by liquid fuels are crucial to our way of life. Other alternative technologies under consideration to replace conventional liquid fuels such as biofuels, fuel cells, hydrogen and electric batteries, require substantial infrastructure changes in order to be useful on a meaningful scale.

Carbon Sciences' breakthrough technology transforms greenhouse gases into common fuels such as gasoline, diesel and jet fuel that can be used directly in existing infrastructures. By using CO2 and CH4 (methane gas) derived from natural and renewable sources such as natural gas fields, landfills, algae, switch grass, wood, human and animal waste, our technology can fundamentally replace petroleum as the feedstock for the production of liquid portable fuels to meet our transportation needs.

Wherever there are sources of greenhouse gases, countries, cities, and villages can use our CO2-GTL technology to produce liquid portable fuels in a sustainable and clean lifecycle. The following are just a few example applications of our breakthrough technology.

http://www.carbonsciences.com/01/applications.html[/QUOTE]

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

...

Last month’s combined global land and ocean surface temperature made it the warmest June on record and the warmest on record averaged for any April-June and January-June periods,” reports the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the most recent monthly analysis from their National Climatic Data Center.

 

[MoldyFrogToe]

Agriculture uses more water than ranching. Period.

You can argue about, protein per drop and all the other ways to classify it, but in the end.
Agriculture uses more water than ranching.

Ranching becomes a problem when you run out of space, you run out of space when there are tooo many humans....common theme. Tube tying and vasectomies for all children under 15 in the states.

No it doesn't, in terms of useful energy for human consumption per H2O.
Energy is hugely wasted as it transfers through trophic levels from plant to animal.
Meat is a waste in every sense of that, not to mention the enormous potency of methane as a greenhouse gas produced as a result.

 

[THC123]

Tube tying and vasectomies for all children under 15 in the states.

lol better would be around the world so we go back to 1 billion people

 

[SilverSage]

I think there are many simple ideas to reduce our carbon foot print.

1. Build all dwellings underground to minimize energy to heat/cool. Use the above ground areas for solar and wind to create electricity for home appliances and air circulation. Grow plants and trees above ground.

2. Replace all major highways with slim elevated rail systems powered by electricity. Change all vehicles to be able to merge onto rail systems and exit off with GPS controlled destination. Vehicle would then travel shorter distances with its' own electric power.

This would reduce width of highways and reduce traffic jams and auto accidents. There would be much less wear and tear on tires and engines/electric motors. The technology already exists and it would create millions of jobs and almost eliminate the need for petroleum based fuels.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

post by Stephan Lewandowsky

If your Doctor presented you with the choice between laser surgery and likely blindness, would you have surgery to re-attach your retina? Probably yes.

Would you jump out of an airplane without a parachute? Hopefully not.

Those examples may sound trivial, but they are philosophically challenging and raise some deep questions about the nature of human knowledge.

Of course we all know that gravity exists. We know that if we jump without a parachute, gravity will swiftly and mercilessly determine our fate. Likewise, we know that laser surgery can prevent blindness, even if we don’t personally understand the details of how a laser actually does its magic.

But how complete is this knowledge? Does science know all there is to know about gravity? Does science fully understand the physics underlying lasers? No.

Science has a good understanding of gravity but it is only partial. In fact, there is much about gravity that eludes us! For example, our theories of gravity predict the existence of gravity waves, analogous to the electromagnetic waves that allow you to listen to the radio right now. However, despite hunting them for about a decade, we have yet to observe gravity waves.

We simply don’t know for sure how gravity works. Nonetheless we don’t jump out of airplanes.

Likewise, we don’t understand all aspects of the quantum mechanics that underlie laser technology. We nonetheless use lasers in daily life, ranging from laser pointers to laser surgery.

The message is clear: All scientific knowledge is partial.

But that doesn’t mean we are ignorant.

Far from it; our partial scientific knowledge is vastly preferable to ignorance because even with partial knowledge of retroviruses we can control AIDS, and with partial knowledge of nanotechnology we can develop cheaper solar cells to deliver more clean energy at an affordable price.

And for precisely the same reason, the fact that our knowledge of climate change is partial must not deter us from acting on that knowledge.

Although our knowledge of climate change may be partial, we can be certain that our climate is changing and that human CO2 emissions are responsible. The US National Academy of Sciences issued a clear statement just a month ago which reads: “Some scientific conclusions ... have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations ... that their likelihood of ... being ... wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions ... are ... regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusion that the Earth ... is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.”

So anyone who says that we shouldn’t act on climate change because our knowledge is partial or uncertain isn’t saying that for scientific reasons. They either don’t understand how science works or they are being deliberately misleading.