Greenhouse Gas

What would cap and trade and Kyoto really accomplish?

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Kyoto
• greenhouse gas
• reduction
• obama
• cap and trade
• reduce
• green economy
• environment
• bio fuel
• nuclear power
• green energy
• global warming
• climate change
• carbon footprint
• carbon fuel
• carbon tax
• eco
• save the planet
• hope and change

[johndaddyo444]

Does ANYONE think it is worth risking the bankruptcy of the USA to chase after a reduction of 0.0076ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere? Really? Seriously? Please reconsider voting for ANYONE who embraces this pseudo-scientific nonsense called AGW, or the evil carbon credit trading scheme known as cap & trade! It is not possible (using today's most advanced technology) to measure a change in average atmospheric CO2 of 0.0076ppm (7.6ppb). Let's revisit this issue after we've emitted 1000X more CO2.

[johndaddyo444]

If 3.6% of GHG are from human emissions, then 0.036 x 0.02 = 0.0000072, or 7.2ppm were added to the atmosphere by mankind. AGW Warmists say the number is 80ppm. Science says it must be only about 8 ppm. It's very common for political activists to multiply their causes by a factor of 10 to work up emotions, but that's not science. Only 0.7% of human CO2 is from USA auto industry... that's 0.007 x 0.0000072 = 0.000000054, or 0.05ppm. A 15% reduction in auto use is 0.15 x 0.000000054 = 0.0076ppm!

[johndaddyo444]

Another look at the numbers: if atmosphere is 2% GHG. Then, non-water GHG is CO2, which is 395ppm, or 0.0395%, and the other GHGs are not measurable (trace constituents). That leaves 2% - 0.0395% = 1.9605% of GHG as water vapor. 0.0395/2 = 0.01975 = 1.975% of GHGs are CO2, and 98.025% of GHGs are water vapor. But that's not all: water vapor absorbs energy across wide range of UV, visible, and infrared spectrum. CO2 only absorbs a few peaks in infrared: water vapor is 99% more effective than CO2.

[johndaddyo444]

@geoclimatenerd quite right. I'd go further to recognize at least 40% of added CO2 came from ocean warming...I personally think it's more, but all scientists agree mankind did NOT cause the entire 114ppm increase in CO2. Therefore, if mankind is blamed for +70ppm, then we are only looking at +0.007%. Enacting 15% reduction is 0.15 x 0.00007 = 0.0000105, or 0.001%. Of course, all of these numbers are political activist fiction, and not hard science. The Sun causes warming & cooling, not CO2.

[johndaddyo444]

@geoclimatenerd the video hits the point right on the head. The problem with your critique of it is that you assume CO2 has been proven to have caused 20th century warming. Not so fast, I'd like to see the data and the scientific theory that explains how a molecule which is present in the atmosphere at near optical saturation levels can produce even a tiny increase in temperature. I've run the numbers and determined the total impact by mankind is less than 0.001C. Negative feedback limits change

[NightStalker321a]

Well, I think the question really comes down to is the global temperature changing in such a way that it will affect the quality (or survivability) of human life? If so, something has to be done.

[geoclimatenerd]

Conclusion: The problem with the video is that it misses the point. The question should be whether or not the increases in CO2 concentrations will negatively impact our economy and quality of life. Increases is global temperatures are a concern because of potential impacts on food supplies and disruptions associated with sea level rise. Perhaps it would be better to weigh the potential costs and benefits of transitioning off carbon intensive energy sources?

[geoclimatenerd]

Are the ‘facts’ cited in this video correct?

3) 3.4% of 3.6% the CO2 is attributed to human activity which is 0.2% of the atmosphere..

No, the video is wrong. All CO2 is only 0.0392% of the atmosphere. Pre-industrial C02 is estimated to be 278 ppm based on measurements from ice cores. The amount of CO2 attributed to human activity is 392 - 278 / 1,000,000 = 0.00014 or 0.014%. CO2 resulting from human activity has increased 41% i.e. (392 - 278) / 278 = 0.41 or 41%.

[geoclimatenerd]

Are the ‘facts’ cited in this video correct?

2) 3.6% of the 2% of greenhouse gases is CO2

This equates to 0.036 * 0.02 = 0.00072

Or 0.072%

Answer no, the video overstates the amount of CO2 currently in the atmosphere.

Actual CO2 is currently 392 ppm

This equates to 392/1,000,000 = 0.000392

Or 0.0392%

[geoclimatenerd]

Are the ‘facts’ cited in this video correct?

1) 2% of the atmosphere is made up of greenhouse gases.

Answer no, the video is not accurate. If you include water vapor, then greenhouse gases are over 4% of the atmosphere.

Nitrogen 78%

Oxygen 21%

Water vapor 4%

Argon 1%