Global Warming

[mrjimboalaska]

ok, now you are saying that your good "data" is NOT manipulated.....other's "bad" data is.......
data is only as good as the process(s) used to gather that data......oh, of course I know nothing about data, as I am just a Manufacturing Engineer and not a SCIENTIST......
as far as the population of the planet, what do you suggest to curb that? The Chinese Model?
Manmade or not, there is not much more that I can do as an individual to help solve the problem, I have and will support nuke power, the clean "energy" of our day. We are minimalists when it comes to driving, recycle when possible, etc.
What it will take to bring about the best change would be to talk CONSERVATION of our resourses and our environment. NOT the DOOM AND GLOOM talk, it turns most people off.

[Thalassamania]

ok, now you are saying that your good "data" is NOT manipulated.....other's "bad" data is.......
data is only as good as the process(s) used to gather that data......oh, of course I know nothing about data, as I am just a Manufacturing Engineer and not a SCIENTIST......
as far as the population of the planet, what do you suggest to curb that? The Chinese Model?
Manmade or not, there is not much more that I can do as an individual to help solve the problem, I have and will support nuke power, the clean "energy" of our day. We are minimalists when it comes to driving, recycle when possible, etc.
What it will take to bring about the best change would be to talk CONSERVATION of our resourses and our environment. NOT the DOOM AND GLOOM talk, it turns most people off.

I never talked about good data and bad data, that's your construct so please do not get it on me. As far as the difference between Engineers and Scientists, that's an argument that goes back a long way is, perhaps, suitable for a different thread, I've always liked something I read a while back that said, "Scientists want to understand the theories behind something and they're willing to use tools when necessary to get to the core of why/how. Engineers want to build things and they're willing to use theory when it will help the construction."

As far as population control is concerned, I don't have to propose anything, either we find a way to reduce population growth or density dependent phenomena will destroy us as a species, and if that turns you off ... well nature doesn't really care if your turned on or off.

It's all very nice that you claim to be a good little minimalist, I feel that "minimalists" find a way to get by with motorcycles that are 125 cc or under. I hate to tell you, being a minimalist, whilst better than nothing, is way too little, way to late. Any sophomore biologist could show you how all the recycling and all the conservation just puts off the inevitable crash by a tiny bit, while significant population reduction has a real and lasting effect.

BTW:

[Tomeck]

Not being a scientist, just a guy interested in science, I can not help but wonder why I almost never hear about the added planet population as a significant source of CO2. Is the population factor that insignificant?

The population in the USA is 300 millions (4.6% of world population), but it emits 25% of CO2 in the world.

[Warthaug]

Byran,

Your wasting your time.

Not really. I firmly believe that if we (scientists) do not explain our results to the broadest possible audience - including our critics - we've wasted our time. Results are meaningless if people don't know about them. They may not like what I'm pointing out, but at least they can no longer claim ignorance of those data and concepts.

Bryan

[Thalassamania]

Not really. I firmly believe that if we (scientists) do not explain our results to the broadest possible audience - including our critics - we've wasted our time. Results are meaningless if people don't know about them. They may not like what I'm pointing out, but at least they can no longer claim ignorance of those data and concepts.

Bryan

I agree, I just do see the sense in wasting our time (which could be better spent working with those who are curious and unconvinced) with those who hold doctrinaire views that are grounded in religion, politics or economic interest.

[Teamcasa]

... I am speaking specifically about how the population growth mirrors the rising CO2 levels and why the climatologist don’t see or speak of the correlation between the two.

Human respiration is a pretty small source of CO2 on the level of human activity. We consume about 0.83kg of O2 and correspondingly exhale about 1.15kg of CO2 per day. That works out to:

My math: 6.5 billion * 1.15kg = 2,480,200. US tons. Every day.

So the impact of the average persons metabolism is pretty small compared to the average persons CO2 emissions from other sources. Even in the poorest of nations the metabolic CO2 is only 20-30% the persons annual total.

Bryan

The population in the USA is 300 millions (4.6% of world population), but it emits 25% of CO2 in the world.

That's not what I questioned. My question is the world daily output of CO2 is approximately 82,287,539 US Tons. How much of that number, if any is the 2.5 mil tons is just human respiration?

My question is:
With all of the CO2 numbers bandied about I was wondering if they included the human respiration in the numbers or just the industrial outputs of those populations.

[Warthaug]

My question is:
With all of the CO2 numbers bandied about I was wondering if they included the human respiration in the numbers or just the industrial outputs of those populations.

I'm not sure. I believe most studies look at emissions, meaning from our technology and not our biology. That usually includes non-technological sources such as farming, wood burning, and so forth. But since I don't know the source of your numbers I cannot say whether they include biological sources or just tech.

Although if you work it out, using your numbers, you've got either:

83MT-2.5MT = 80.5 from tech (assuming total includes biology)
83MT+2.5MT = 85.5MT total (assuming total does not include biology)

Either way, you're looking at 2.92% to 3.01% of total human CO2 being a due to our biology (assuming your numbers are correct). So overall the biological output isn't exactly a major source. And given the numbers I pointed out before, the proportion which is biology shouldn't change much as the population grows, as all of the technological numbers grow at the same rate - if not faster.

Bryan

[Kim]

More stuff about carbon:
'Carbon sinks' lose ability to soak up emissions - Independent Online Edition > Climate Change

[Warthaug]

ON an unrelated note, has anyone else noticed that th page count on this thread (and by the looks of it, this thread alone) is screwed? I'm looking at page 19, but there is a page 20 link on the page counts. Click on 20 and I get directed back to 19.

Odd, maybe something to do with posts being deleted?

Bryan

[hd2o.tv]

I must say there are respectable professionals in this discussion with real expertise. I'm just a video guy. Who can disagree with what they've presented? The earth is warming, humans consume way more than we have the right, waste more, want more, and don't consider the consequence. No other animal is inefficient only man, the so-called smart one. But how do we reverse the human impact? That's the tougher question someone asked earlier. What would be the impact if everyone just slowed down 5MPH? How many cars do you see with only a driver? Turn off a few lights around the house? Reuse a few things in this disposable era. We can all do a little, unfortunately that's not hip, and we're not teaching our kids very well. That has to change. Education is always the first step. Thank you to the scientists and all the data and links.
Regards,