How will Canada keep warm now?!?

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Oerdin


That's wrong. See the figure I posted above and you will see the third world already produces more then the US and EU combined and they will double output in ten years.

First, I've seen other stats that contradict you.

Second, OECD+America is what portion of the world's population?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Oerdin
That's wrong. See the figure I posted above and you will see the third world already produces more then the US and EU combined and they will double output in ten years.

You means, the guys who are about 9 times more numerous than us?

[Dinner]

http://www.manicore.com/anglais/documentation_a/greenhouse/greenhouse_gas.html

This is a very informative link which details not just CO2 but all the green house gases. Water vapor is important but humans don't really effect that so here are the other results:

CO2 - 55% come from human activities.

Methane - 15% comes from human activities.

Halocarbons - 15% from human activites.

N2O - 5% Human activity.

O3 - 15% human activity.

Do you see why some people only want to talk about CO2 instead of total green house gases produced?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Spiffor

You means, the guys who are about 9 times more numerous than us?

I agree that is right. Boris made the claim that the 1st world produces most of the world's green house gases and that is totally wrong. Sure, rich people produce more per capita since they consume more but the unwashed masses still produce more over all.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Do you see why some people only want to talk about CO2 instead of total green house gases produced?

Because CO2 is actually pretty easy to reduce? I mean, it's fairly doable to build nuclear plants, to have smaller cars that consume less, to increase public transportation, to have better standards for factories etc.

It's much more difficult to bio-engineer cattle that doesn't fart.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
First, I've seen other stats that contradict you.

Link them.

Second, OECD+America is what portion of the world's population?

That doesn't matter. Your claim was that the US the EU prodice most of the world's green house gases so that they should be forced to pay for them. You have been shown to be wrong.

[Dinner]

BTW that link I listed above is very informative.

If CO2 is considered to trap 1 unit of heat then Methane traps 23 times as much, N2O captures 298 times as much, Perfluorocarbonstrap 6500-8700 times as much, Hydrofluorocarbons trap 140 to 11,700 times as much, Sulfur hexafluoride traps 23,900 times as much.

Do you see why we can't just look at CO2 but must look at total green house gases? The ones humans hardly produce at all do most of the green house effect. Sure we can still reduce outputs but CO2 is not the place to strike. The other ones are.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Because CO2 is actually pretty easy to reduce? I mean, it's fairly doable to build nuclear plants, to have smaller cars that consume less, to increase public transportation, to have better standards for factories etc.

It's much more difficult to bio-engineer cattle that doesn't fart.

N2O, Hydrofluorocarbons, Perflourocarbons, and Sulfurhexafloride are far more efficient green house gases which humans produce 5% - 15% of total output. It seems like these would give us more bang for the buck.

[Spiffor]

Yeah, but how much of Hydrofluorocarbons or Sulfur hexafluoride are being produced, in comparison to CO2? If the production of these greenhouse gases is negligible in comparison to CO2, maybe CO2 should remian the priority.

And aren't Hydrofluorocarbons the (now banned) product used in aerosols? If so, I think there have been quite some political action against them already.

[Dinner]

You are thinking of CFC or cloroflourocarbons.

BTW he's a nice picture of the carbon cycle from http://www.ecology.com/archived-links/greenhouse-gases/

It shows that most of the carbon has natural instead of man made sources.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Oerdin
You are thinking of CFC or cloroflourocarbons.

It shows that most of the carbon has natural instead of man made sources.

Err, yeah, but all of that natural carbon (and even a little more) goes back to the surface. The reason why carbon increases in the atnosphere, according to that chart, is clearly mankind.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Because CO2 is actually pretty easy to reduce? I mean, it's fairly doable to build nuclear plants, to have smaller cars that consume less, to increase public transportation, to have better standards for factories etc.

It's much more difficult to bio-engineer cattle that doesn't fart.

CO2 accounts for 80% of green house gases by volume but by actual impact upon global warming it is only 25%-33% of total. That means human produced CO2 is 12.5%-16.5% of total green house impact.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Err, yeah, but all of that natural carbon (and even a little more) goes back to the surface. The reason why carbon increases in the atnosphere, according to that chart, is clearly mankind.

Well, yes. I don't see any way to put that to zero though. We can cut back but our efforts will be more then cancelled out unless we get the world's largest producers (the third world) to do the same. In the mean time we can likely get better results by going after the other five green house gases since removing one kg of those is worth several thousand kg of Carbon.

[Dinner]

What happened to all the moral outrage? You post a few facts about global warming and everyone runs for the hills.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Asmodean


I honestly, really resent that. Really...no kidding. Have I insulted you in any way?

I am no zealot, and certainly no tree-hugger, or anything like that. I just take the point of view, that there is a risk that we know little about, and therefore it is far better to play safe. Since the potential risk involves the whole world, then the whole world has to play ball. That's all I'm saying.

Asmodean

Then get the whole world to play ball. Just don't expect major industrialised countries to line up for economic dislocations while others skate due to trends that predate the negotiations of the accord.