Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US Study Projects How 'Unequivocal Warming' Will Change Americans ...

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 37 posts

Re: US Study Projects How 'Unequivocal Warming' Will Change Americans ...

#21

Post by adnam »

lilsis wrote: post #15
pragmatic wrote: post #8

Just in time for one of the coldest summers on record. It's hard for people to fathom the thought of global warming while their local weather is in fact colder. Jared Diamond's Collapse is a good reference. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_(book) What did the Easter Islander who cut down the last tree and doom the island think as he used his stone axe? While I remain skeptical about global climate change, I can…

I do not believe that human contribution to global warming is significant. Water vapor is responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect, yet somehow it is never brought up in global warming discussions. Why is this? We've raised CO2 concentrations 100 ppm to 370 ppm... a concentration that's tiny in comparison to the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere... after all, we're on a giant ball of water. I subscribe to t…

> Water vapor is responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect

"For clear skies, water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas, accounting for 60% of the total. The second most important greenhouse gas is CO2, which contributes 32 W m−2"

See "Earth’s Annual Global Mean Energy Budget", page 203 (7th page of PDF): http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/spring04/at...

Re: US Study Projects How 'Unequivocal Warming' Will Change Americans ...

#22

Post by Alex3917 »

randallsquared wrote: post #18
Alex3917 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Not sure why it would lower crop production." The conditions that crops need aren't based on average temperature, but rather they're based on the minimum temperature, the maximum temperature, and how long it takes to go from very cold to very warm and vice versa. With global warming the climate zones don't just shift north, but rather you get these situations where certain crops just won't grow at all. For example,…

For example, grape vines have certain mechanisms to protect the buds during winter, but these mechanisms get disabled as soon as you get the first warm snap. The problem is that if it then gets cold again you lose all the buds, so no grapes. But in fact, we know that grapes were grown at more northerly areas in the British Isles in warmer historical times. If it has been done, it's too late to suggest it's impossible…

"But in fact, we know that grapes were grown at more northerly areas in the British Isles in warmer historical times. If it has been done, it's too late to suggest it's impossible."

That's vitis labrusca, I was talking about vitis vinifera. I have no doubt it can be done to some extent, but there's a large difference between being able to do something in theory and having large quantities of good wine for relatively cheap.

Re: US Study Projects How 'Unequivocal Warming' Will Change Americans ...

#23

Post by TrevorJ »

I still haven't heard convincing arguments for global warming as fact. Climate change, yes, but warming as a result of human activity on a global scale no. Chief among my concerns is the fact that Mars seems to be warming as well. http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/06/nasa-study-shows-sun-resp...

Re: US Study Projects How 'Unequivocal Warming' Will Change Americans ...

#24

Post by lutorm »

lilsis wrote: post #15
pragmatic wrote: post #8

Just in time for one of the coldest summers on record. It's hard for people to fathom the thought of global warming while their local weather is in fact colder. Jared Diamond's Collapse is a good reference. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_(book) What did the Easter Islander who cut down the last tree and doom the island think as he used his stone axe? While I remain skeptical about global climate change, I can…

I do not believe that human contribution to global warming is significant. Water vapor is responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect, yet somehow it is never brought up in global warming discussions. Why is this? We've raised CO2 concentrations 100 ppm to 370 ppm... a concentration that's tiny in comparison to the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere... after all, we're on a giant ball of water. I subscribe to t…

It doesn't matter if 99.9% of greenhouse effect is not caused by humans, if the extra 0.1% is. The gross heat fluxes in and out are enormous, but because they precisely balance they're not noticeable. An extra 0.1%, while very small compared to the total heat flux, is a purely net flux because it's not canceled out (until the Earth has warmed). It's simple conservation of energy.

Think of it this way: If you have a gallon of water and you pour it back and forth between two containers, you will eventually run out of water even if you lose only a few drops each time.

Another example: If you trade your assets back and forth between different stocks (and they don't change value), it doesn't matter how much money you start with, if you do it for long enough you will eventually run out of money due to the transaction cost.

A small effect can have a big impact if it's allowed to accumulate over time, and that's precisely what's happening with the greenhouse effect.

Re: US Study Projects How 'Unequivocal Warming' Will Change Americans ...

#25

Post by lutorm »

lilsis wrote: post #15
pragmatic wrote: post #8

Just in time for one of the coldest summers on record. It's hard for people to fathom the thought of global warming while their local weather is in fact colder. Jared Diamond's Collapse is a good reference. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_(book) What did the Easter Islander who cut down the last tree and doom the island think as he used his stone axe? While I remain skeptical about global climate change, I can…

I do not believe that human contribution to global warming is significant. Water vapor is responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect, yet somehow it is never brought up in global warming discussions. Why is this? We've raised CO2 concentrations 100 ppm to 370 ppm... a concentration that's tiny in comparison to the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere... after all, we're on a giant ball of water. I subscribe to t…

Btw, the fact that the major greenhouse gas is water vapor does not make things better, it makes them worse. It means there's a feedback loop that amplifies the effect of increased CO2, because as the world warms, the atmospheric concentrations of H2O will increase, further increasing the warming.

Re: US Study Projects How 'Unequivocal Warming' Will Change Americans ...

#27

Post by pchristensen »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #6
pchristensen wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the American syrup tappers will lose their jobs to Canadians. 80% of syrup already comes from Canada.

Wouldn't that easily be offset by gains in citrus production? After all, more people drink orange juice that consume syrup. Heck, most of the syrup you get doesn't come from trees anyway.

Sure. I believe that global warming has the potential to be a big net positive because it will shake things up and create new markets and opportunities. I think the syrup thing is just an example of the straws that the "no changes anywhere ever" people have to grasp at to show how bad global warming will be.

Since artificial syrup > Canadian syrup > Vermont syrup, we're talking about economic damage to a small fraction of one product. But those workers have their very own senator or two.

Re: US Study Projects How 'Unequivocal Warming' Will Change Americans ...

#28

Post by lilsis »

adnam wrote: post #21
lilsis wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not believe that human contribution to global warming is significant. Water vapor is responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect, yet somehow it is never brought up in global warming discussions. Why is this? We've raised CO2 concentrations 100 ppm to 370 ppm... a concentration that's tiny in comparison to the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere... after all, we're on a giant ball of water. I subscribe to t…

> Water vapor is responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect "For clear skies, water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas, accounting for 60% of the total. The second most important greenhouse gas is CO2, which contributes 32 W m−2" See "Earth’s Annual Global Mean Energy Budget", page 203 (7th page of PDF): http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/spring04/at...

Good source, thanks for sharing.

From the DOE...

"Given the present composition of the atmosphere, the contribution to the total heating rate in the troposphere is around 5 percent from carbon dioxide and around 95 percent from water vapor."

It is important to note the next sentence, however:

"In the stratosphere, the contribution is about 80 percent from carbon dioxide and about 20 percent from water vapor."

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/environment/appd...

(end of last paragraph)

As is always the case in these matters, conflicting sources

Not being an atmospheric scientist I cannot be sure but I feel like the vast majority of the atmosphere's density being in the troposphere temperature effects from the stratosphere would be negligible.

Re: US Study Projects How 'Unequivocal Warming' Will Change Americans ...

#29

Post by lilsis »

lutorm wrote: post #24
lilsis wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not believe that human contribution to global warming is significant. Water vapor is responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect, yet somehow it is never brought up in global warming discussions. Why is this? We've raised CO2 concentrations 100 ppm to 370 ppm... a concentration that's tiny in comparison to the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere... after all, we're on a giant ball of water. I subscribe to t…

It doesn't matter if 99.9% of greenhouse effect is not caused by humans, if the extra 0.1% is. The gross heat fluxes in and out are enormous, but because they precisely balance they're not noticeable. An extra 0.1%, while very small compared to the total heat flux, is a purely net flux because it's not canceled out (until the Earth has warmed). It's simple conservation of energy. Think of it this way: If you have a g…

This is a good argument assuming that the Earth's heat fluxes are in balance, but I don't believe this to be the case, what with ice ages, etc.

Re: US Study Projects How 'Unequivocal Warming' Will Change Americans ...

#30

Post by jshen »

pj wrote: post #19
jshen wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wanting to avoid death, disease, and destruction is not the same as a general fear of change.

I read the post you are replying to as a jab at those who believe change leads to death and destruction. We could move the cities inland. We could optimize buildings to keep people cooler. We could find more efficient forms of energy to enable more indoor climate control. The current stress right now is to stop climate control. We humans believe we can stop climate control, but what if we can't? What if it actually i…

And if it is due primarily to carbon why not stop putting out so much carbon? I can't seem to find it right now, but I've seen a study that showed that the temperature changes we've seen do not coincide with sun activity. We can measure these things.

Also, global warming will cause death, disease, and destruction. This is clear from only one of it's effects, sea level rise.

Post reply on HN