(M) So much for consensus... (M)

[Kierland]

I was just pointing out the fact that the church of global warming and your clergy of scam artist are not out for your best interest.

But the church of big oil is? How dumb are you? Is oil clean or is it dirty? If it is dirty why not replace it?

[Dinsdale]

So my milk costs 349.5 cents not 349? That is alarmist? And leaving everything up to the free market isn't? I don't mind spending that .5 cents for the rewards I get. I like the dump outside of town being 40 acres not 150.

Why do you hate the environment?

Why do you love OPEC?

IT TAKES MORE PETROLEUM TO RECYCLE A MILK JUG THAN TO MAKE A NEW ONE.

Not sure which part of that you're struggling with?


Let's look at other scrap...

Aluminum -- scrap outfits pay you quite handsomely indeed for scrap aluminum. Why? BECAUSE IT USES LESS RESOURCES TO RECYCLE ALUMINUM THAN IT DOES TO MINE NEW ALUMINUM AND TRANSPORT IT.

Is the light coming on yet?

How about car batteries? The oldest recycled consumer good on the planet, and BY FAR the most commonly recycled. Why? Because it takes less resources to recycle lead than it does to mine and transport new raw materials.


Glass? Kind of a break-even deal these days, but not much doing.

Cardboard? It's profitable to recycle cardboard into paper pulp to create more paper products from. And take a big guess what?

People are willing to pay you by the pound for cardboard, and they have been for many, many years. Why?

Because someone figured out a niche in the market, and figured out it was cheaper to make paper pulp from cardboard than it was to make it in a woodpulp mill.


So what becomes of plastic milk jugs?

The government actually pays people to make sure that a sound, environmentally favorable use is never found for them. Too bad, since there's a lot of pwetroleum going to waste in the formof milk jugs, and subsidized recycling is wasting even more.


It's a shame when people can't think for themselves.

[Jerkovich]

The Alarmist Theory is that the added CO2 that Mankind produces is causing a clear warming trend.

And my theory that oil is dirty and should be replaced is what? I really don't get why you global climate change deniers are so afraid to admit this obvious fact. And if you really believe that oil is clean how can you be trusted to opine on a subject as complicated as global climate change?

Please wise one, tell us HOW we are going to replace all of that DIRTY oil.

Did you know that those keys you're banging you head on are made from DIRTY OIL?


QUICK! THROW THAT DIRTY KEY BOARD AWAY! YICKKKY.

[Dinsdale]

I really don't get why you global climate change deniers are so afraid to admit this obvious fact. And if you really believe that oil is clean how can you be trusted to opine on a subject as complicated as global climate change?

Ah, I see we've taken the "move the goalposts" approach.

I don't recall ever saying that oil or any other fossil fuels were particularly clean. Wanna help me out with a link?

OK, now that we've established that you're a liar who won't let facts stand in his way...



I'm all ears as to all the solutions you've got for dirty oil. I'm listening... fire away.

[Kierland]

IT TAKES MORE PETROLEUM TO RECYCLE A MILK JUG THAN TO MAKE A NEW ONE.

It may (Can you link me up?) take more energy but it sure does not take more oil ALL CAPS OR NOT. Hell some jugs these days are not even made of oil.

The government actually pays people to make sure that a sound, environmentally favorable use is never found for them. Too bad, since there's a lot of petroleum going to waste in the form of milk jugs, and subsidized recycling is wasting even more.

But they don’t do that for Al or cardboard. Yea right. And I’m the alarmist. Look tard oil sucks. It is an old answer to and age old problem. The sooner you pull your head out of your ass and comes to grips with that fact the sooner you won’t look like an idiot.

[Mikey]

That would CLEARLY tend to disprove the theory, whereas the continued warming would prove nothing.


[/i]

Uh, nice try but you obviously have a very limited and one dimensional understanding of what you call "science", and have completely misstated the theory.
I haven't heard of any scientists who would use a hypothetical event that is the opposite of what is actually occurring to disprove a theory of why it's happening. That proves only that my ignorant moron statement was accurate.

What you fail to realize, or at least consider, is that there are lot more forces acting on global temperature than CO2. As everybody on both sides of the issue knows there are natural fluctuations in global temperature, both long term and shorter term. And these depend on a multitude of forcing factors. The warming effect of man-made CO2 is one factor that reinforces any "natural" warming trend. It may not be enough to cancel out a "natural" cooling trend but would still have the effect of dampening it. In the long run the increased CO2 will result in an overall higher temperature than would have resulted without it.

The FACT is that we are in the midst of a warming trend. The theory is that CO2 (and other man-made greenhouse gases) are contributing to it. Nobody in their right mind ever claimed that CO2 is the only "cause" of the warming trend, only that it is reinforcing and strengthening it. Only if all other factors would have resulted in no net temperature change, or a decreasing temperature, could one claim that CO2 is the only cause. And there's no way to absolutely prove whether or not that woudl be the case.

So a period of decreasing temperature would CLEARLY disprove nothing. Besides, it's not happening now so that's not a way to "disprove" anything anyway.

[Kierland]

I don't recall ever saying that oil or any other fossil fuels were particularly clean.

So it is dirty and should be banished. Kinda makes your fear of global climate change 'alamist' moot doesn't it?

I'm all ears as to all the solutions you've got for dirty oil. I'm listening... fire away.

If you need a list you wouldn't take it seriously.

[Dinsdale]

Jeebus, Mikey....


When you're spouting that "a cooling trend doesn't mean there's a cooling trend -- it means that CO2 is still warming things up" (which is EXACTLY what you're suggesting, no matter how you try and veil it with double-speak)... it might be time to reevaluate.


Yes -- in fact, a protracted cooling trend would disprove any theory of a sustained warming trend, regardless of cause.


Pretty basic science, and most of us learned that by about age 6 -- that when the thermometer drops, it's pretty conclusive proof it's not getting warmer outside.


I'm not saying that's the case, although in your spin-job, that's certainly what you implied that I meant. What I said (and you either know this, or are a reeeealllly bad reader), was that "IF 'a' happens, it proves 'b' isn't happening."


And try and sound smart all you like -- just know that saying "a dropping thermometer proves it's warming" ain't going to make you sound any too smart.

[Kierland]

Did you know that those keys you're banging you head on are made from DIRTY OIL?

If you don't even think we should replace it why should I take the time to tell you how? As for my keys being made of oil. If plastic was the only use we had for oil I doubt it would be as big a problem as it is today. Nice try though.

[Mikey]

So, is the thermometer dropping?

[Mikey]

I just love it when 'intelligent' liberal elites resort to name calling and character assassination.


It just proves our point. :wink:

Sort of like your earlier characterization of me as a "lemming" and claiming that Algore is my "Pied Piper"?

I just love it when "intelligent" conservative knuckle-draggers smack themselves without even realizing it.

Ah Mikey, you're not going to dribble the "Media Matters" punch lines and think that they're fresh, are you?

I was just pointing out the fact that the church of global warming and your clergy of scam artist are not out for your best interest. All they want is to fleece the sheeple and profit from their declaration of doom.

Let me clear something up for you, I don't think that ANYONE in Washington is interested in the welfare of the people and they have ALL sold out to the all mighty buck. Even the folks I use to support. We are in dire times my friend, and this isn't a liberal/conservative issue. This is an issue of where our children are going to be in twenty years.

I think we both have the same concerns. We just have a slightly different understanding of what the problems and their sources are.

Dinsdale, on the other hand, could give half a shit what happens once he becomes worm food.

[Dinsdale]

Queerland -- I'm still waiting on the alternatives to oil.


Please include statistical data that shows that your alternatives are indeed any more "environmentally friendly" or "cleaner" than petroleum.


TIA.

[Kierland]

Please include statistical data that shows that your alternatives are indeed any more "environmentally friendly" or "cleaner" than petroleum.

Try getting job near your house and walking to work or do you think that shoes and the plant energy needed to run them are dirtier than an SUV?

Why don't you prove to me that 'they' (and we both know what 'they' are) are dirtier? I still don't understand, if you know oil is dirty, why you are not trying to get rid of it. There may be some things that look good now but have drawbacks like solar but why are you sucking big oil cock so hard? Do you really think sticking will the oil card is a good idea?

[Mikey]

So, is the thermometer dropping?

Still waiting for Dinsdale to answer this simple question.

[Dinsdale]

So, is the thermometer dropping?

Still waiting for Dinsdale to answer this simple question.

Why do you hate your own ass?


See if you can follow, dumbass...

BUT... if the whole basis of the manmade-warming theory is that increased atmosperic CO2 is causing the current warming trend, then a reversal of that trend during a period when atmosperic CO2 levels continue to rise, it's a pretty strong indication that the CO2 isn't driving the warming, nor is methane, or anything else that has similar/rising levels.


That would CLEARLY tend to disprove the theory, whereas the continued warming would prove nothing.

OK Mikey. We get it. Your standard MO is in practice...

You said something monumenatlly stupid (man-made global warming can't be disproved). I called you on it, and said that "IF" (a word you seem to struggle with) "X" happened, it would provide pretty conclusive proof that the theory isn't true.


But in Mikey's world, once his stupidity is pointed out, the goalposts get moved.


"Is the thermopmeter dropping?"


Hey tard -- I have no idea if the thermometer will be in a dropping trend 20 years from now. Neither do you. Neither does Al Gore or anyone else.


But since that has NOTHING to do with anything I said, let's move on, shall we?


Yes, Mikey -- if the bottom starts falling out of the average global temp, that the "manmade CO2 is driving the warming" sounds pretty fucking silly, and is all but debunked at that point.


That's all I said, which was only in response to your false statement. Try and attach all of the sideshow diversions you like, but you made a CLEARLY false statement, and I called you on it... period. Bottom line. Try and cover your ass with all the "but is the thermometer rising" rhetoric spin-jobs you like, but it still doesn't make your false statements that you got called out for any less false.


You said a theory couldn't be disproved. I said a certain set of FUTURE POSSIBILITIES could very clearly disprove it... yet now you're attributing statements to me that I never even insinuated. That should probably tell you all you need to know about your argument, when you've resorted to lies and nonsequiturs to try and change the subject, rather than going with either "I guess you're right on that particular scenario," or even a "I didn't type out my point clearly, and I wasn't suggesting what my post tends to indicate," which would have worked, as well.


But you decided to go with "if the earth begins cooling, it doesn't prove it's not warming."


Nice job, lying retard. Your Nobel Prize awaits.

[Mikey]

Then you've disproven nothing, and given me nothing at all that would allow the theory to be disproven.

EXCEPT A HYPOTHETICAL SET OF "FUTURE POSSIBILITIES" THAT IS NOT NOW HAPPENING.

Plus a huge load of typical Dinsdale crap that means absolutely nothing.

(Talk about moving the "goalposts" :roll: )

There is no way to disprove the theory "beyond debate" using any FACTUAL basis.

My contention that you have little if any understanding of what "science" actually entails not only stands but becomes more and more obvious.
Go to school for another 6 years or so. Study some science and then get back to me.

[Mikey]

I never said that I could prove it. I can't.

Information that I have read, from people whose ability in the field I respect (not Algore, BTW) convinces me that there is cause for concern. I don't agree with Kyoto. But the proponderance of evidence plus other factors (the price of oil enriching backward violent regimes, pollution, etc.) convinces me that we need to put a lot of effort into coming up with alternative energy sources.

My point was that while the theory of can't be proved "beyond debate" it also cannot be disproved.

Dinsdale came up with the argument that if this and that happens then it could be disproven. Well, this and that has not happened, so it cannot be disproven.
Given his argument, there is no way ever to prove it, even if the temperature rose exactly as predicted, but that if it does not then it is absolutely disproven.

Bullshit.

[Kierland]

What evidence?

You want evidence that oil is dirty? Suck a tailpipe.

[Mikey]

But the proponderance of evidence

What evidence? Seriously. Computer models are reflections of bias not evidence.

The computer models predict the magintude of the effect. There's a lot of room for disagreement (and bias) there.
That there is an effect is fairly well established.

[Kierland]

What evidence?

You want evidence that oil is dirty? Suck a tailpipe.

No.

Noted. So oil is dirty but you still want to use it. Noted. I'll be moving on in the 21st Century. Have fun choking on your own waste back there in the 20th Century.

[Mikey]

The computer models predict the magintude of the effect. There's a lot of room for disagreement (and bias) there.
That there is an effect is fairly well established.

I'm not sure how well established this alleged effect is. Garbage in...garbage out.

Like I said, there's a lot of room for disagreement. Even these guys are not certain of the implications of what they're finding.

"Until we understand how precipitation systems change with warming, I don't believe we can know how much of our current warming is manmade. Without that knowledge, we can't predict future climate change with any degree of certainty."

There's a guy in your area who is a pretty believeable expert, IMO (look up F Sherwood Rowland at UCI). He has gone as far as recommending increased use of nuclear power to offset fossil fuels, something I never thought I would hear from him (I've known his son since college).

Here's some evidence, if you're interested.

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?recor ... 139&page=1

[Kierland]

Here's some evidence, if you're interested.

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?recor ... 139&page=1

I couldn't help but notice the conspicuous absence of evidence or even relevance in your last post.

You are so stupid it is funny.

[Kierland]

Oil is an old idea for an age old problem.

... the debate is over.

Thank you.

[Mikey]

Like I said, there's a lot of room for disagreement. Even these guys are not certain of the implications of what they're finding.

"Until we understand how precipitation systems change with warming, I don't believe we can know how much of our current warming is manmade. Without that knowledge, we can't predict future climate change with any degree of certainty."

There's a guy in your area who is a pretty believeable expert, IMO (look up F Sherwood Rowland at UCI). He has gone as far as recommending increased use of nuclear power to offset fossil fuels, something I never thought I would hear from him (I've known his son since college).

Here's some evidence, if you're interested.

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?recor ... 139&page=1

According the alarmists, the debate is over. We're doomed unless we give algore and other hucksters billions of dollars immediately.

Frankly, I'm not convinced that nuclear has any advantages over the new, cleaner burning coal plants. I guess nukes would be better for generating electricity while coal could be used in the F-T process to create fuel for vehicles. That is, of course, if we were actually serious about energy independence.

There you go again. Starting to sound like Dinsdale now. Anybody who thinks there even *might* be a problem is an alarmist.

BTW, "cleaner" burning coal plants produce just as much CO2 as the "dirtier" coal plants, unless they're capturing and sequestering it. Which I don't think is on the near term horizon.

[Mikey]

Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise.

This is what is known as "assuming facts not in evidence." People who engage in such behavior are known as "idiots" or "grifters."

I hope this helps. I'm sure that one day, if you try really hard, you might be able to add a relevant comment to an ongoing discussion.

That's really good. Take the first sentence in the section titled "Summary" and assume that it encompasses all of the information in a 27 page paper.

You're not actually worth discussing this with.

[Kierland]

This is what is known as "assuming facts not in evidence."

Like when I say oil is dirty and you say "that assumes fact not in evidence." You are a wikipedia reading, self-hating, Bush apologist who can't see beyond your own stupid fears and ignorance to post anything that is even remotely bounded in reality. We get it. 15.11 times a day.

[Kierland]

You're not actually worth discussing this with.

True, but the spinning is fun to watch for a page or two.

[Mikey]

Here's your evidence (partial)

GREENHOUSE GASES
The most important greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), water vapor (H2O), ozone (O3), and the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs including CFC-12 (CCl2F2) and CFC-11 (CCl3F)). In addition to reflecting sunlight, clouds are also a major greenhouse substance. Water vapor and cloud droplets are in fact the dominant atmospheric absorbers, and how these substances respond to climate forcings is a principal determinant of climate sensitivity, as discussed in Section 1. The CO2, CH4, N2O and H2O are both produced and utilized in many biological processes, although the major source of gaseous water is evaporation from the oceans. Ozone is created in the atmosphere by reactions initiated by sunlight. The CFCs are synthetic compounds developed and released into the atmosphere by humankind. In addition, sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) and perfluorocarbon gases such as carbon tetrafluoride (CF4) are very potent and nearly inert greenhouse gases with atmospheric lifetimes much longer than 1000 years.

The natural atmosphere contained many greenhouse gases whose atmospheric concentrations were determined by the sum of the ongoing geophysical, biological, and chemical reactions that produce and destroy them. The specific effects of humankind's activities before the industrial era were immersed in all of the natural dynamics and became noticeable only in the immediate vicinity, as with the smoke from small fires. The theoretical realization that human activities could have a global discernible effect on the atmosphere came during the 19th century, and the first conclusive measurements of atmospheric change were made during the last half of the 20th century. The first greenhouse gas demonstrated to be increasing in atmospheric concentration was carbon dioxide, formed as a major end product in the extraction of energy from the burning of the fossil fuels—coal, oil, and natural gas—as well as in the burning of biomass.

The common characteristics of greenhouse gases are (1) an ability to absorb terrestrial infrared radiation and (2) a presence in Earth's atmosphere. The most important greenhouse gases listed above all contain three or more atoms per molecule. Literally thousands of gases have been identified as being present in the atmosphere at some place and at some time, and all but a few have the ability to absorb terrestrial infrared radiation. However, the great majority of these chemical compounds, both natural 1 and anthropogenic, are removed in hours, days, or weeks, and do not accumulate in significant concentrations. Some can have an indirect greenhouse effect, as with carbon monoxide (CO). 2 If the average survival time for a gas in the atmosphere is a year or longer, then the winds have time to spread it throughout the lower atmosphere, and its absorption of terrestrial infrared radiation occurs at all latitudes and longitudes. All the listed greenhouse gases except ozone are released to the atmosphere at Earth's surface and are spread globally throughout the lower atmosphere.

The lifetime of CH4 in the atmosphere is 10–12 years. Nitrous oxide and the CFCs have century-long lifetimes before they are destroyed in the stratosphere. Atmospheric CO2 is not destroyed chemically, and its removal from the atmosphere takes place through multiple processes that transiently store the carbon in the land and ocean reservoirs, and ultimately as mineral deposits. A major removal process depends on the transfer of the carbon content of near-surface waters to the deep ocean, which has a century time scale, but final removal stretches out over hundreds of thousands of years. Reductions in the atmospheric concentrations of these gases following possible lowered emission rates in the future will stretch out over decades for methane, and centuries and longer for carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide.

Methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone all have natural sources, but they can also be introduced into the atmosphere by the activities of humankind. These supplementary sources have contributed to the increasing concentrations of these gases during the 20th century.

Carbon Dioxide
While all of the major greenhouse gases have both natural and anthropogenic atmospheric sources, the nature of these processes varies widely among them. Carbon dioxide is naturally absorbed and released by the terrestrial biosphere as well as by the oceans. Carbon dioxide is also formed by the burning of wood, coal, oil, and natural gas, and these activities have increased steadily during the last two centuries since the Industrial Revolution. That the burning of fossil fuels is a major cause of the CO2 increase is evidenced by the concomitant decreases in the relative abundance of both the stable and radioactive carbon isotopes 3 and the decrease in atmospheric oxygen. Continuous high-precision measurements have been made of its atmospheric concentrations only since 1958, and by the year 2000 the concentrations had increased 17% from 315 parts per million by volume (ppmv) to 370 ppmv. While the year-to-year increase varies, the average annual increase of 1.5 ppmv/year over the past two decades is slightly greater than during the 1960s and 1970s. A marked seasonal oscillation of carbon dioxide concentration exists, especially in the northern hemisphere because of the extensive draw down of carbon dioxide every spring and summer as the green plants convert carbon dioxide into plant material, and the return in the rest of the year as decomposition exceeds photosynthesis. The seasonal effects are quite different north and south of the equator, with the variation much greater in the northern hemisphere where most of Earth's land surface and its vegetation and soils are found.

The atmospheric CO2 increase over the past few decades is less than the input from human activities because a fraction of the added CO2 is removed by oceanic and terrestrial processes. Until recently, the partitioning of the carbon sink between the land and sea has been highly uncertain, but recent high-precision measurements of the atmospheric oxygen:nitrogen (O2:N2) ratio have provided a crucial constraint: fossil fuel burning and terrestrial uptake processes have different O2:CO2 ratios, whereas the ocean CO2 sink has no significant impact on atmospheric O2. The atmospheric CO2 increase for the 1990s was about half the CO2 emission from fossil fuel combustion, with the oceans and land both serving as important repositories of the excess carbon, i.e., as carbon sinks.

Land gains and loses carbon by various processes: some natural-like photosynthesis and decomposition, some connected to land use and land management practices, and some responding to the increases of carbon dioxide or other nutrients necessary for plant growth. These gains or losses dominate the net land exchange of carbon dioxide with the atmosphere, but some riverine loss to oceans is also significant. Most quantifiable, as by forest and soil inventories, are the above- and below-ground carbon losses from land clearing and the gains in storage in trees from forest recovery and management. Changes in the frequency of forest fires, such as from fire suppression policies, and agricultural practices for soil conservation may modify the carbon stored by land. Climate variations, through their effects on plant growth and decomposition of soil detritus, also have large effects on terrestrial carbon fluxes and storage on a year-to-year basis. Land modifications, mainly in the middle latitudes of the northern hemisphere, may have been a net source of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere over much of the last century. However, quantitative estimates have only been possible over the last two decades, when forest clearing had shifted to the tropics. In the 1980s land became a small net sink for

1While the activities of mankind are part of the natural world, the convention exists in most discussions of the atmosphere that “natural processes” are those that would still exist without the presence of human beings; those processes that are significantly influenced by humans are called “anthropogenic”.

2Both carbon monoxide and methane are removed from the atmosphere by chemical reaction with hydroxyl (OH). An increase in the carbon monoxide uses up hydroxyl, slowing methane removal and allowing its concentration and greenhouse effect to increase.

3Fossil fuels are of biological origin and are depleted in both the stable isotope 13C and the radioactive isotope 14C, which has a half-life of 5600 years.
carbon, that is, the various processes storing carbon globally exceeded the loss due to tropical deforestation, which by itself was estimated to add 10–40% as much carbon dioxide to the atmosphere as burning of fossil fuels. In the 1990s the net storage on land became much larger, nearly as large as the ocean uptake. How land contributes, by location and processes, to exchanges of carbon with the atmosphere is still highly uncertain, as is the possibility that the substantial net removal will continue to occur very far into the future. 4

Methane
Methane is the major component of natural gas and it is also formed and released to the atmosphere by many biologic processes in low oxygen environments, such as those occurring in swamps, near the roots of rice plants, and the stomachs of cows. Such human activities as rice growing, the raising of cattle, coal mining, use of land-fills, and naturalgas handling have increased over the last 50 years, and direct and inadvertent emissions from these activities have been partially responsible for the increase in atmospheric methane. Its atmospheric concentration has been measured globally and continuously for only two decades, and the majority of the methane molecules are of recent biologic origin. The concentrations of methane increased rather smoothly from 1.52 ppmv in 1978 by about 1% per year until about 1990. The rate of increase slowed down to less than that rate during the 1990s, and also became more erratic; current values are around 1.77 ppmv. About two-thirds of the current emissions of methane are released by human activities. There is no definitive scientific basis for choosing among several possible explanations for these variations in the rates of change of global methane concentrations, making it very difficult to predict its future atmospheric concentrations.

Both carbon dioxide and methane were trapped long ago in air bubbles preserved in Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. These ice sheets are surviving relics of the series of ice ages that Earth experienced over the past 400,000 years. Concentrations of carbon dioxide extracted from ice cores have typically ranged between 190 ppmv during the ice ages to near 280 ppmv during the warmer “interglacial” periods like the present one that began around 10,000 years ago. Concentrations did not rise much above 280 ppmv until the Industrial Revolution. The methane concentrations have also varied during this 400,000 year period, with lowest values of 0.30 ppmv in the coldest times of the ice ages and 0.70 ppmv in the warmest, until a steady rise began about 200 years ago toward the present concentrations. Both carbon dioxide and methane are more abundant in Earth's atmosphere now than at any time during the past 400,000 years.

Other Greenhouse Gases
Nitrous oxide is formed by many microbial reactions in soils and waters, including those processes acting on the increasing amounts of nitrogen-containing fertilizers. Some synthetic chemical processes that release nitrous oxide have also been identified. Its concentration remained about 0.27 ppmv for at least 1,000 years until two centuries ago, when the rise to the current 0.31 ppmv began.

Ozone is created mainly by the action of solar ultraviolet radiation on molecular oxygen in the upper atmosphere, and most of it remains in the stratosphere. However, a fraction of such ozone descends naturally into the lower atmosphere where additional chemical processes can both form and destroy it. This “tropospheric ozone” has been supplemented during the 20th century by additional ozone—an important component of photochemical smog—created by the action of sunlight upon pollutant molecules containing carbon and nitrogen. The most important of the latter include compounds such as ethylene (C2H4), carbon monoxide (CO), and nitric oxide released in the exhaust of fossil-fuel-powered motor vehicles and power plants and during combustion of biomass. The lifetime of ozone is short enough that the molecules do not mix throughout the lower atmosphere, but instead are found in broad plumes downwind from the cities of origin, which merge into regional effects, and into a latitude band of relatively high ozone extending from 30°N to 50°N that encircles Earth during Northern Hemisphere spring and summer. The presence of shorter-lived molecules, such as ozone, in the troposphere depends upon a steady supply of newly formed molecules, such as those created daily by traffic in the large cities of the world. The widespread practice of clearing forests and agricultural wastes (“biomass burning”), especially noticeable in the tropics and the Southern Hemisphere, contributes to tropospheric ozone.

The chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are different from the gases considered above in that they have no significant natural source but were synthesized for their technological utility. Essentially all of the major uses of the CFCs—as refrigerants, aerosol propellants, plastic foaming agents, cleaning solvents, and so on—result in their release, chemically unaltered, into the atmosphere. The atmospheric concentrations of the CFCs rose, slowly at first, from zero before first synthesis in 1928, and then more rapidly in the 1960s and 1970s with the development of a widening range of technological applications. The concentrations were rising in the 1980s at a rate of about 18 parts per trillion by volume (pptv) per year for CFC-12, 9 pptv/year for CFC-11, and 6 pptv/year for CFC-113 (CCl2FCClF2). Because these molecules were

4The variations and uncertainties in the land carbon balance are important not only in the contemporary carbon budget. While the terrestrial carbon reservoirs are small compared to the oceans, the possibility of destabilizing land ecosystems and releasing the stored carbon, e.g. from the tundra soils, has been hypothesized.

identified as agents causing the destruction of stratospheric ozone, 5 their production was banned in the industrial countries as of January 1996 under the terms of the 1992 revision of the Montreal Protocol, and further emissions have almost stopped. The atmospheric concentrations of CFC-11 and CFC-113 are now slowly decreasing, and that of CFC-12 has been essentially level for the past several years. However, because of the century-long lifetimes of these CFC molecules, appreciable atmospheric concentrations of each will survive well into the 22nd century.

Many other fluorinated compounds (such as carbon tetrafluoride, CF4, and sulfur hexafluoride, SF6), also have technological utility, and significant greenhouse gas capabilities. Their very long atmospheric lifetimes are a source of concern even though their atmospheric concentrations have not yet produced large radiative forcings. Members of the class of compounds called hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) also have a greenhouse effect from the fluorine, but the hydrogen in the molecule allows reaction in the troposphere, reducing both its atmospheric lifetime and the possible greenhouse effect. The atmospheric concentrations of all these gases, which to date are only very minor greenhouse contributors, need to be continuously monitored to ensure that no major sources have developed. The sensitivity and generality of modern analytic systems make it unlikely that any additional greenhouse gas will be discovered that is already a significant contributor to the current total greenhouse effect.

AEROSOLS
Sulfate and carbon-bearing compounds associated with particles (i.e., carbonaceous aerosols) are two classes of aerosols that impact radiative balances, and therefore influence climate.

Black Carbon (soot)
The study of the role of black carbon in the atmosphere is relatively new. As a result it is characterized poorly as to its composition, emission source strengths, and influence on radiation. Black carbon is an end product of the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels and biomass, the latter resulting from both natural and human-influenced processes. Most of the black carbon is associated with fine particles (radius <0.2 µm) that have global residence times of about one week. These lifetimes are considerably shorter than those of most greenhouse gases, and thus the spatial distribution of black carbon aerosol is highly variable, with the greatest concentrations near the production regions. Because of the scientific uncertainties associated with the sources and composition of carbonaceous aerosols, projections of future impacts on climate are difficult. However, the increased burning of fossil fuels and the increased burning of biomass for land clearing may result in increased black carbon concentration globally.

Sulfate
The precursor to sulfate is sulfur dioxide gas, which has two primary natural sources: emissions from marine biota and volcanic emissions. During periods of low volcanic activity, the primary source of sulfur dioxide in regions downwind from continents is the combustion of sulfur-rich coals; less is contributed by other fossil fuels. In oceanic regions far removed from continental regions, the biologic source should dominate. However, model analyses, accounting for the ubiquitous presence of ships, indicate that even in these remote regions combustion is a major source of the sulfur dioxide. Some of the sulfur dioxide attaches to sea-salt aerosol where it is oxidized to sulfate. The sea salt has a residence time in the atmosphere on the order of hours to days, and it is transported in the lower troposphere. Most sulfate aerosol is associated with small aerosols (radius <1µm) and is transported in the upper troposphere with an atmospheric lifetime on the order of one week. Recent “clean coal technologies” and the use of low sulfur fossil fuels have resulted in decreasing sulfate concentrations, especially in North America and regions downwind. Future atmospheric concentrations of sulfate aerosols will be determined by the extent of non-clean coal burning techniques, especially in developing nations.

CLIMATE FORCINGS IN THE INDUSTRIAL ERA
Figure 1 summarizes climate forcings that have been introduced during the period of industrial development, between 1750 and 2000, as estimated by the IPCC. Some of these forcings, mainly greenhouse gases, are known quite accurately, while others are poorly measured. A range of uncertainty has been estimated for each forcing, represented by an uncertainty bar or “whisker.” However, these estimates are partly subjective, and it is possible that the true forcing falls outside the indicated range in some cases.

Greenhouse Gases
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is probably the most important climate forcing agent today, causing an increased forcing of about 1.4W/m2. CO2 climate forcing is likely to become more dominant in the future as fossil fuel use continues. If fossil fuels continue to be used at the current rate, the added

5Eighty-five percent of the mass of the atmosphere lies in the troposphere, the region between the surface and an altitude of about 10 miles. About 90% of Earth's ozone is found in the stratosphere, and the rest is in the troposphere.




FIGURE 1 The global mean radiative forcing of the climate system for the year 2000, relative to 1750, and the associated confidence levels with which they are known. (From IPCC, 2001; reprinted with permission of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.)





CO2 forcing in 50 years will be about 1W/m2. If fossil fuel use increases by 1–1.5% per year for 50 years, the added CO2 forcing instead will be about 2W/m2. These estimates account for the non-linearity caused by partial saturation in some greenhouse gas infrared absorption bands, yet they are only approximate because of uncertainty about how efficiently the ocean and terrestrial biosphere will sequester atmospheric CO2. The estimates also presume that during the next 50 years humans will not, on a large scale, capture and sequester the CO2 released during fossil-fuel burning.



Other greenhouse gases together cause a climate forcing approximately equal to that of CO2. Any increase in CH4 also indirectly causes further climate forcing by increasing stratospheric H2O (about 7% of the CH4 is oxidized in the upper atmosphere), as well as by increasing tropospheric O3 through reactions involving OH and nitrogen oxides. The total climate forcing by CH4 is at least a third as large as the CO2 forcing, and it could be half as large as the CO2 forcing when the indirect effects are included.

Methane is an example of a forcing whose growth could be slowed or even stopped entirely or reversed. The common scenarios for future climate change assume that methane will continue to increase. If instead its amount were to remain constant or decrease, the net climate forcing could be significantly reduced. The growth rate of atmospheric methane has slowed by more than half in the past two decades for reasons that are not well understood. With a better understanding of the sources and sinks of methane, it may be possible to encourage practices (for example, reduced leakage during fossil-fuel mining and transport, capture of land-fill emissions, and more efficient agricultural practices) that lead to a decrease in atmospheric methane and significantly reduce future climate change. The atmospheric lifetime of methane is of the order of a decade, therefore, unlike CO2, emission changes will be reflected in changed forcing rather quickly.

Tropospheric ozone (ozone in the lower 5–10 miles of the atmosphere) has been estimated to cause a climate forcing of about 0.4W/m2. Some of this is linked to methane increases as discussed above, and attribution of the ozone forcing between chemical factors such as methane, carbon monoxide, and other factors is a challenging problem. One recent study, based in part on limited observations of ozone in the late 1800s, suggested that human-made ozone forcing could be as large as about 0.7–0.8W/m2. Surface level ozone is a major ingredient in air pollution with substantial impacts on human health and agricultural productivity. The potential human and economic gains from reduced ozone pollution and its importance as a climate forcing make it an attractive target for further study as well as possible actions that could lead to reduced ozone amounts or at least a halt in its further growth.

Aerosols
Climate forcing by anthropogenic aerosols is a large source of uncertainty about future climate change. On the basis of estimates of past climate forcings, it seems likely that aerosols, on a global average, have caused a negative climate forcing (cooling) that has tended to offset much of the positive forcing by greenhouse gases. Even though aerosol distributions tend to be regional in scale, the forced climate response is expected to occur on larger, even hemispheric and global, scales. The monitoring of aerosol properties has not been adequate to yield accurate knowledge of the aerosol climate influence.

Estimates of the current forcing by sulfates fall mainly in the range –0.3 to –1W/m2. However, the smaller values do not fully account for the fact that sulfate aerosols swell in size substantially in regions of high humidity. Thus, the sulfate forcing probably falls in the range –0.6 to –1W/m2. Further growth of sulfate aerosols is likely to be limited by concerns about their detrimental effects, especially acid rain, and it is possible that control of sulfur emissions from combustion will even cause the sulfate amount to decrease.

Black carbon (soot) aerosols absorb sunlight and, even though this can cause a local cooling of the surface in regions of heavy aerosol concentration, it warms the atmosphere and, for plausible atmospheric loadings, soot is expected to cause a global surface warming. IPCC reports have provided a best estimate for the soot forcing of 0.1–0.2W/ m2, but with large uncertainty. One recent study that accounts for the larger absorption that soot can cause when it is mixed internally with other aerosols suggests that its direct forcing

is at least 0.4W/m2. It also has been suggested that the indirect effects of black carbon—which include reducing low-level cloud cover (by heating of the layer), making clouds slightly “dirty” (darker), and lowering of the albedo of snow and sea ice—might double this forcing to 0.8W/m2. The conclusion is that the black carbon aerosol forcing is uncertain but may be substantial. Thus there is the possibility that decreasing black carbon emissions in the future could have a cooling effect that would at least partially compensate for the warming that might be caused by a decrease in sulfates.

Other aerosols are also significant. Organic carbon aerosols are produced naturally by vegetation and anthropogenically in the burning of fossil fuels and biomass. Organic carbon aerosols thus accompany and tend to be absorbed by soot aerosols, and they are believed to increase the toxicity of the aerosol mixture. It is expected that efforts to reduce emissions of black carbon would also reduce organic carbon emissions. Ammonium nitrate (not included in Figure 1) recently has been estimated to cause a forcing of –0.2W/m2.

Mineral dust, along with sea salt, sulfates, and organic aerosols, contributes a large fraction of the global aerosol mass. It is likely that human land-use activities have influenced the amount of mineral dust in the air, but trends are not well measured. Except for iron-rich soil, most mineral dust probably has a cooling effect, but this has not been determined well.

The greatest uncertainty about the aerosol climate forcing—indeed, the largest of all the uncertainties about global climate forcings—is probably the indirect effect of aerosols on clouds. Aerosols serve as condensation nuclei for cloud droplets. Thus, anthropogenic aerosols are believed to have two major effects on cloud properties: the increased number of nuclei results in a larger number of smaller cloud droplets, thus increasing the cloud brightness (the Twomey effect), and the smaller droplets tends to inhibit rainfall, thus increasing cloud lifetime and the average cloud cover on Earth. Both effects reduce the amount of sunlight absorbed by Earth and thus tend to cause global cooling. The existence of these effects has been verified in field studies, but it is extremely difficult to determine their global significance. Climate models that incorporate the aerosol-cloud physics suggest that these effects may produce a negative global forcing on the order of 1 W/m2 or larger. The great uncertainty about this indirect aerosol climate forcing presents a severe handicap both for the interpretation of past climate change and for future assessments of climate changes.

Other Forcings
Other potentially important climate forcings include volcanic aerosols, anthropogenic land use, and solar variability. Stratospheric aerosols produced by large volcanoes that eject gas and dust to altitudes of 12 miles or higher can cause a climate forcing as large as several watts per square meter on global average. However, the aerosols fall out after a year or two, so unless there is an unusual series of eruptions, they do not contribute to long-term climate change.

Land-use changes, especially the removal or growth of vegetation, can cause substantial regional climate forcing. One effect that has been evaluated in global climate models is the influence of deforestation. Because forests are dark and tend to mask underlying snow, the replacement of forests by crops or grass yields a higher albedo surface and thus a cooling effect. This effect has been estimated to yield a global cooling tendency in the industrial era equivalent to a forcing of –0.2W/m2. Land use changes have been an important contributor to past changes of atmospheric carbon dioxide. However, the impacts of such changes on climate may be much more significant on regional scales than globally, and largely act through changes of the hydrologic cycle. Such impacts are currently poorly characterized because they depend on complex modeling details that are still actively being improved.

Solar irradiance, the amount of solar energy striking Earth, has been monitored accurately only since the late 1970s. However, indirect measures of solar activity suggest that there has been a positive trend of solar irradiance over the industrial era, providing a forcing estimated at about 0.3 W/m2. Numerous possible indirect forcings associated with solar variability have been suggested. However, only one of these, ozone changes induced by solar ultraviolet irradiance variations, has convincing observational support. Some studies have estimated this indirect effect to enhance the direct solar forcing by 0.1 W/m2, but this value remains highly uncertain. Although the net solar forcing appears small in comparison with the sum of all greenhouse gases, it is perhaps more appropriate to compare the solar forcing with the net anthropogenic forcing. Solar forcing is very uncertain, but almost certainly much smaller than the greenhouse gas forcing. It is not implausible that solar irradiance has been a significant driver of climate during part of the industrial era, as suggested by several modeling studies. However, solar forcing has been measured to be very small since 1980, and greenhouse gas forcing has certainly been much larger in the past two decades. In any case, future changes in solar irradiance and greenhouse gases require careful monitoring to evaluate their future balance. In the future, if greenhouse gases continue to increase rapidly while aerosol forcing moderates, solar forcing may be relatively less important. Even in that case, however, the difference between an increasing and decreasing irradiance could be significant and affect interpretation of climate change, so it is important that solar variations be accurately monitored.

[Mikey]

Just let me know if you want me to C&P the rest.

[Mikey]

It wasn't a paper, and it had nothing to do with science.

[Kierland]

Get back to me when any of these effects are actually observed in action in the environment.

Suck that tailpipe yet wikical?

[Kierland]

Waterboarding smack from someone who is ten feet up Bush's ass. Nice work there wikical.

[Kierland]

Before 'admitting' that oil is... GREAT!
That is not going to happen.

[Jerkovich]

Before 'admitting' that oil is... GREAT!
That is not going to happen.

Oil IS GREAT, you fucking retard. I would like to take ALL of you oil based products away for 1 month and see if you could go without. You would have to grow your own food, and I hope there is a source of water near. BTW, I hope you have a love for animal skins, because that is all you would have to wear. Oh my, what would PETA say?

[Mikey]

There's at least a small difference between making things from petroleum and burning it.
Last time I looked polyester has a very low CO2 emission profile.

Thought you'd like to know that.

[Kierland]

Don't confuse them.

[Jerkovich]

There's at least a small difference between making things from petroleum and burning it.
Last time I looked polyester has a very low CO2 emission profile.

Thought you'd like to know that.

You and Kirkland are fucking dumb asses. He is decrying the evils of petroleum, and you're sticking up for him with shit science. Do you know how much petro it takes to make any sort of plastic. Lets discuss the energy and petro it takes to fuel and lubricate the machines. Very low huh?

You both are such dunces of the third order.

[Mikey]

Do you know how much petro it takes to make any sort of plastic. Lets discuss the energy and petro it takes to fuel and lubricate the machines.

Do you know? Why don't you illuminate us and tell us exactly how much.

I'll wait.

[Dinsdale]

There you go again. Starting to sound like Dinsdale now. Anybody who thinks there even *might* be a problem is an alarmist.

No.

Alarmists are Alarmists.

Hell, I've never even said that I don't think there might be a problem. It's entirely possible. Looking unlikely at this point, but certainly possible.

Alls I'm saying is that when the politics of the matter outpace the scince at such an alarming clip that someone says "you owe me money for spitting up carbon," it's time to back the truck right the fuck on up.


I'm also all about alternative fuels and all that jazz. Except just about all of the alternatives I've heard to date are fucking retarded.

I recycle milk jugs at a crazy clip, even though I know I'm hurting, not helping the problem... I just hate to see them go to the landfill (which the one around here will be full to the brim sometime in... two-thousand-never).

I'm all about change for the better. And once we get the fucking politicians and bureaucrats and their junk-science minions out of our way, we can do just that.

[Kierland]

Think about the children.

Why would you want to do that?