Comments on: Slicing the greenhouse gas pie: What gases? http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/04/26/slicing-the-greenhouse-gas-pie-what-gases/ Blogging the science and policy of global warming Mon, 16 Nov 2009 07:13:20 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5.2 hourly 1 By: Climate 411 » What is a Carbon Footprint? - Environmental Defense http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/04/26/slicing-the-greenhouse-gas-pie-what-gases/comment-page-1/#comment-168 Climate 411 » What is a Carbon Footprint? - Environmental Defense Thu, 10 May 2007 20:39:12 +0000 http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/04/26/slicing-the-greenhouse-gas-pie-what-gases/#comment-168 [...] Carbon dioxide (CO2), while not the only greenhouse gas, is the most abundant. CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere when we burn fossil fuels, and most of the energy in this country comes from burning fossil fuels. Thus, anything that requires energy to manufacture, transport, or operate causes the emission of CO2 (see my previous post, The Carbon Footprint of… Everything). [...] [...] Carbon dioxide (CO2), while not the only greenhouse gas, is the most abundant. CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere when we burn fossil fuels, and most of the energy in this country comes from burning fossil fuels. Thus, anything that requires energy to manufacture, transport, or operate causes the emission of CO2 (see my previous post, The Carbon Footprint of… Everything). [...]

]]> By: Bill Chameides http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/04/26/slicing-the-greenhouse-gas-pie-what-gases/comment-page-1/#comment-167 Bill Chameides Mon, 07 May 2007 16:17:08 +0000 http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/04/26/slicing-the-greenhouse-gas-pie-what-gases/#comment-167 bernd, Here are some links that address your questions. The second two are blog posts, so if you have questions about the specifics in these articles you can post comments to them. <a href="http://fightglobalwarming.com/page.cfm?tagID=273">The Basics of Global Warming</a> <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/03/07/tipping_point/">How Warm is Too Warm?</a> <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/02/28/water_vapor_fallacy/">The Water Vapor Fallacy</a> bernd,

Here are some links that address your questions. The second two are blog posts, so if you have questions about the specifics in these articles you can post comments to them.

The Basics of Global Warming
How Warm is Too Warm?
The Water Vapor Fallacy

]]> By: kolibri http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/04/26/slicing-the-greenhouse-gas-pie-what-gases/comment-page-1/#comment-166 kolibri Fri, 04 May 2007 15:21:57 +0000 http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/04/26/slicing-the-greenhouse-gas-pie-what-gases/#comment-166 Dear Sir, I have yet to see the scientific evidence that shows a mechanism by which it is possible for such a minute amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to be the cause of global warming. Factors in the generating of heat (mainly though radiation) often ignores the effects of convection in the atmosphere. CO2 emission is regulated by the oceans and increases with an increase in temperature not the other way around. Water and water vapor have a much greater impact on the heat level than does CO2. The oceans release a much higher amount of CO2 than humans do. Satellite and balloon measurements of the earth temperatures show there has been no significant "warming" nor is it taking place to the degree that we are urged to believe. Computer models based on incorrect logic and science can not be a reliable source of projection. There are about 160,000 glaciers on Earth, some are expanding, some are decreasing and no more than 100 have been observed over a long period of time. CO2 increases due to increase in temperatures, not the other way around. It is significant to me that the scientific data on which the UN commission based its findings will not be available until about 10 months from now. Add to that the inappropriate term "greenhouse" gases and understanding how a greenhouse actually functions and that the atmosphere is not a greenhouse adds to my suspicions. Best regards, bernd D Gruner, Germany Dear Sir,

I have yet to see the scientific evidence that shows a mechanism by which it is possible for such a minute amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to be the cause of global warming. Factors in the generating of heat (mainly though radiation) often ignores the effects of convection in the atmosphere. CO2 emission is regulated by the oceans and increases with an increase in temperature not the other way around. Water and water vapor have a much greater impact on the heat level than does CO2. The oceans release a much higher amount of CO2 than humans do. Satellite and balloon measurements of the earth temperatures show there has been no significant "warming" nor is it taking place to the degree that we are urged to believe. Computer models based on incorrect logic and science can not be a reliable source of projection.
There are about 160,000 glaciers on Earth, some are expanding, some are decreasing and no more than 100 have been observed over a long period of time. CO2 increases due to increase in temperatures, not the other way around. It is significant to me that the scientific data on which the UN commission based its findings will not be available until about 10 months from now. Add to that the inappropriate term "greenhouse" gases and understanding how a greenhouse actually functions and that the atmosphere is not a greenhouse adds to my suspicions.

Best regards,

bernd D Gruner, Germany

]]> By: Bill Chameides http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/04/26/slicing-the-greenhouse-gas-pie-what-gases/comment-page-1/#comment-165 Bill Chameides Tue, 01 May 2007 16:09:32 +0000 http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/04/26/slicing-the-greenhouse-gas-pie-what-gases/#comment-165 Hi dwalk, In the <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/04/05/geo-engineering">article I posted about geo-engineering</a>, I said that some ideas have "technical merit" (that is, they do result in cooling), but "it's premature to contemplate such drastic measures" and "geo-engineering is a risky proposition". That's far short of an endorsement! As I pointed out, geo-engineering ignores other damaging effects of greenhouse gases such as <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/04/05/acidic_oceans/">ocean acidification</a>. The best way to fight global warming is to decrease our greenhouse gas emissions, so kudos to you and your family for doing your part. You can pick up more tips on how to cut emissions (and save money) at www.fightglobalwarming.com. Hi dwalk,

In the article I posted about geo-engineering, I said that some ideas have "technical merit" (that is, they do result in cooling), but "it's premature to contemplate such drastic measures" and "geo-engineering is a risky proposition". That's far short of an endorsement! As I pointed out, geo-engineering ignores other damaging effects of greenhouse gases such as ocean acidification.

The best way to fight global warming is to decrease our greenhouse gas emissions, so kudos to you and your family for doing your part. You can pick up more tips on how to cut emissions (and save money) at http://www.fightglobalwarming.com.

]]> By: donwalkee http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/04/26/slicing-the-greenhouse-gas-pie-what-gases/comment-page-1/#comment-164 donwalkee Sat, 28 Apr 2007 19:45:41 +0000 http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/04/26/slicing-the-greenhouse-gas-pie-what-gases/#comment-164 Dear Sir, I’m just an average guy trying to look at both sides of the global warming issue. My family tries to do our part by recycling and I carpool to work, but when I read your blog about flying airplanes into the upper atmosphere and releasing what amounts to be mirrors to reflect the suns energy as serious alternative seems not only far fetched and just down right silly. Who is going to pay for this? Is the science sound? It seems to me that if you want to be taken seriously you might stay with the basics. Global warming 0. Non believers 1. Still trying to believe! dwalk Dear Sir,
I’m just an average guy trying to look at both sides of the global warming issue. My family tries to do our part by recycling and I carpool to work, but when I read your blog about flying airplanes into the upper atmosphere and releasing what amounts to be mirrors to reflect the suns energy as serious alternative seems not only far fetched and just down right silly. Who is going to pay for this? Is the science sound? It seems to me that if you want to be taken seriously you might stay with the basics. Global warming 0. Non believers 1.
Still trying to believe!
dwalk

]]> By: Climate 411 &#187; Slicing the greenhouse gas pie: Where from? - Environmental Defense http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/04/26/slicing-the-greenhouse-gas-pie-what-gases/comment-page-1/#comment-163 Climate 411 &#187; Slicing the greenhouse gas pie: Where from? - Environmental Defense Thu, 26 Apr 2007 21:07:38 +0000 http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/04/26/slicing-the-greenhouse-gas-pie-what-gases/#comment-163 [...] Slicing the Greenhouse Gas Pie: What Gases? [...] [...] Slicing the Greenhouse Gas Pie: What Gases? [...]

]]>