Economic growth stalls in first quarter
Do you think we can keep running out of control trade debt and not worry about our economy?
MSNBC-WASHINGTON - The economy nearly stalled in the first quarter with growth slowing to a pace of just 0.6 percent. That was the worst three-month showing in over four years.
The new reading on the gross domestic product, released by the Commerce Department Thursday, showed that economic growth in the January-through-March quarter was much weaker. Government statisticians slashed by more than half their first estimate of a 1.3 percent growth rate for the quarter.
The main culprits for the downgrade: the bloated trade deficit and businesses cutting investment in supplies of the goods they hold in inventories.
May 31st, 2007 at 9:16 am
The boom in China goes on. We may find they keep us from recession with their purchases of what they still buy from us.
Our downturn may reduce consumption of imports and improve the trade balance. However, it is going to be a tricky balancing act. The downturn keeps the fed from raising rates but, that will mean inflation may continue higher than they desire. With global liquidity so high, prices are rising and we still import a lot.
I see the Canadian dollar is still trending up this morning and now is trading at 93.55 cents to the dollar. Just 5 years ago or less, it was 65 cents.
May 31st, 2007 at 9:38 am
You will see a further division of wealth distribution due to companies making plan by foreign outsourcing, increase in low wage immigration and foreign market growth.
The stock market no longer reflects (due to globalization) health of our economy to the average Joe!
May 31st, 2007 at 10:28 am
Do you ever post positive economic news i.e. the CPI increasing beyond expectation, stock market breaking records, real wages rising?
May 31st, 2007 at 10:48 am
Bart
Nice Spin!
May 31st, 2007 at 10:48 am
Men in their 30s lag behind fathers in pay
May 28th, 2007 by JohnKonop
Our trade and immigration policy is selling out future generations in America. Do you think Americans are waking up to this race to the bottom economic policy that is driven by cheap wages that help Multi-national Corporation at the expense of the middle class?
By The Wall Street Journal
American men in their 30s today are worse off than their fathers’ generation, a reversal from just a decade ago, when sons generally were better off than their fathers, a new study says.
The study, the first in a series on economic mobility undertaken by several prominent think tanks, also says the typical American family’s income has lagged far behind productivity growth since 2000, a departure from most of the post-World War II period.
The findings suggest “the up escalator that has historically ensured that each generation would do better than the last may not be working very well,” says the study, which is scheduled for release today.
READ MORE
May 31st, 2007 at 10:49 am
Do you ever post positive economic news…simple but rhetorical question?
May 31st, 2007 at 10:53 am
Bart
I try to post what is real not Rove talking points!
May 31st, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Previously you said GDP was not a good indicator for the economy (of course this was when GDP was at 3-4%). Now it slows a bit and it becomes the end all stat to prove your doom and gloom outlook.
Two years you have wished for a recession and Americans just keep on being successful. I told you so.
May 31st, 2007 at 1:59 pm
I don’t know. The market since 1980 has weathered some downright horrible events.
In my lifetime though, only a Democratic President has managed to balance the budget, pay down debt, while the market jammed out gains that doubled today’s.
I think a lot of this would get straightened out if Al Gore were elected. If another Republican wins in 2008, none of your concerns will be addressed John.
May 31st, 2007 at 2:41 pm
The market isn’t reflective of our economic health. Buying stocks in international companies that get most of their profits from imports and international sales to other nations isn’t a good indicator of our health.
We have been losing jobs in private sector to other nations at the same time we increase jobs in government employment, defense (government spending) and healthcare (again much of which is government spending).
We have a housing problem, mortgage problem, savings problem, deficit spending by consumers and government and yet some say this is great.
For those of us, and I include me, it is great. I am making money in stocks, have a great home, a new car and rising income.
Think about a depression when 15% are unemployed like we had. During that period, 85% of the people were employed. Millionaires were being made, homes were being built and bought, etc. Yet, nobody would have said our economy was good.
We have 4.5% or whatever it is for unemployment and that is good until you look at the details of how many of those “employed” are getting paid with tax dollars either directly or indirectly.
Heck, put 100% of the workers in government employ and you have zero unemployment but a terrible economy because it would all be based on deficit spending with no revenues to support it from private sector labor.
We can keep this going for years, but, it isn’t a healthy economy. A healthy economy is one that has tax revenues rising faster than debt and isn’t fueled by government spending. It is a healthy economy when standard of living is rising and ours is falling. It is a healthy economy when buying power is increasing. Ours is falling. It is a healthy economy when the dollar is stable. Ours is falling.
But, the biggest indicator is our entitlements. They are killing us at the state and federal level and we are going deeper and deeper in debt to fund them. However, because they are future obligations, we only see that debt as “unfunded liability.” $59 trillion or $400,000 per worker just for the Federal obligation and the states are in trouble too.
A healthy economy is one that is gaining on those obligations. We are rapidly getting worse. A healthy economy can maintain its own infrastructure, ours all have ratings of “C” and worse.
The Dow isn’t setting any record when you put it in terms adjusted for the decline of the dollar or our buying power. It is just at a “record high” and not a “record value.”
May 31st, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Al stated
only a Democratic President has managed to balance the budget, pay down debt
——————-
Congress and the President did much of that by cutting military spending, which we could do now. However, He never reduced debt. He had a surplus but that doesn’t necessarily reduce debt. I believe he did get it down to only a $50 billion rise in debt one year though.
We count planned borrowing as part of a “balanced budget” and thus, if we end up borrowing less but still borrowing, it is called a surplus.
Here is list of the debt for the 90’s
9/30/2005 ** ** 7,932,709,661,723.50 **** 6.98%
9/30/2004 ** ** 7,379,052,696,330.32 **** 8.07%
9/30/2003 ** ** 6,783,231,062,743.62 **** 8.18%
9/30/2002 ** ** 6,228,235,965,597.16 **** 6.76%
9/30/2001 ** ** 5,807,463,412,200.06 **** 2.30%
9/30/2000 ** ** 5,674,178,209,886.86 **** 0.32%
9/30/1999 ** ** 5,656,270,901,615.43 **** 2.30%
9/30/1998 ** ** 5,526,193,008,897.62 **** 2.05%
9/30/1997 ** ** 5,413,146,011,397.34 **** 3.48%
9/30/1996 ** ** 5,224,810,939,135.73 **** 4.80%
9/29/1995 ** ** 4,973,982,900,709.39 **** 5.65%
9/30/1994 ** ** 4,692,749,910,013.32 **** 5.99%
9/30/1993 ** ** 4,411,488,883,139.38 **** 7.86%
9/30/1992 ** ** 4,064,620,655,521.66 **** 9.82%
9/30/1991 ** ** 3,665,303,351,697.03 **** 11.79%
9/28/1990 ** ** 3,233,313,451,777.25 **** 11.63%
======================
As you can see, 2000 was the only year under 2% growth but it did still grow.
Remember too that that doesn’t include our unfunded liability either which was growing due to retirees living longer.
May 31st, 2007 at 3:10 pm
Al
The article is about trade debt killing our economy! And Al Gore was the Guy who helps create the problem NAFTA and WTO China!
May 31st, 2007 at 4:01 pm
I like that trade deficits are OK because it gives them more money to lend us and that is somehow a balance.
quote:
In and of itself, a trade deficit (or surplus) says very little about the health of the economy. The trade deficit simply shows that the U.S. economy is consuming more than it is producing and is funding the process with foreign capital. While the United States will have to pay these loans back in future, policy should not be aimed primarily at reducing the trade deficit.
http://www.ppionline.org/ndol/print.cfm?contentid=609
=========================
Old article but still how many think. It has a lot of information on the different types of trade deficits, the overall deficit and how they can affect the nation.
May 31st, 2007 at 4:10 pm
Jan Paul
Something is wrong when wages are falling faster than price gains. Adam Smith was clear labor had have rights to negotiate in a free market system!
That is why he coined the phrase Life, Liberty and pursuit of property!
May 31st, 2007 at 4:21 pm
And Al Gore did nothing to spur our economy’s leveraging of the internet? Does that matter, or are we just focusing on trade?
If Gore was elected in 2000, we’d have fiber optic wiring in most of the country as is the case in South Korea and Japan. An “industry friendly” regime stole that election, and we’re paying double for the same 1Mbs connection we’ve had since then!
May 31st, 2007 at 4:24 pm
You got that right John. And this idea of trade deficits to fuel loans is idiotic too.
Especially in a world booming economic scene. Increasing debt now? What happens during the next down turn or when 78 million start retiring?
They use the “average” wage which is deceptive. Some workers have 2 jobs to keep up and a spouse that is working too.
Yes, many middle class that lost jobs moved up and their higher pay is often high enough to offset those moving down the ladder. Another thing is some are losing home value at the same time they are losing buying power or wages.
Higher wages that aren’t keeping up with 14% increases in food do to ethanol demand for corn that is affecting Wheat, Soybeans, Oats, Cattle, Chickens, hogs, etc. and an even higher inflation of fuel prices mean many, including all seniors on social security without other income, are losing ground almost daily.
Kind of hard to acquire property when you are seeing more and more of your paycheck have to go for food and fuel, not to mention rising compliance costs.
May 31st, 2007 at 4:34 pm
I doubt Al Gore would have been a good President but, if he had encouraged more advances, like in the Social Security computers so they could find that 000-00-0000 is a bad number, that might have been a good thing.
Al is so nutty on things like Global Warming that his company sells “credits” for, I think he would have been a disaster for taxpayers looking for smaller government. Neither party is good on spending but, I think Al would have been even worse than what we ended up with.
May 31st, 2007 at 7:10 pm
Jan
You are right this is a post about the carbon credit scam!
Al Gore Is A Fraud But Global Warming Is For Real!
Al Gore’s carbon solution won’t stop climate change according to David Morris from AlterNet. Do you think Gore’s idea of trading carbon is a scam to make money while hurting the environment?
AN-The shortcomings of current carbon trading systems are clear. As a piece in Newsweek concluded, “So far, the real winners in emissions trading have been polluting factory owners who can sell menial cuts for massive profits and the brokers who pocket fees each time a company buys or sells the right to pollute.”
Currently, the link between the purchase of carbon offsets and the actual reduction of carbon emissions is highly controversial and almost impossible to verify. The process is easily manipulated. Measurement tools are remarkably primitive. Even the most basic calculations are subject to wide variations. The New Internationalist requested estimates from four reputable carbon trading companies for the number of credits a passenger would need to purchase to offset an around-the-world flight, starting and ending in London. The magazine received four answers: 4.3, 6, 8.68 and 11.63 tons.
I disagree. Carbon trading is not a promising strategy. Its costs outweigh its benefits. We don’t need carbon trading to reduce carbon emissions. Indeed, it is likely that we will reduce carbon emissions much more without carbon trading.
Unfortunately, policymakers and environmentalists have all but welded together the words, “cap” and “trade.” They talk as if a cap cannot exist without a trading mechanism. That’s not true. We can have caps without trade.
We should impose an immediate moratorium on carbon trading while imposing ever-more rigorous carbon caps. And stop the use of long-distance offsets. All offsets should be local or regional.
READ MORE
May 31st, 2007 at 8:04 pm
Al Gore Is A Fraud But Global Warming Is For Real!
==================
Yup. By the way, for any who care to read it, the causes of global warming are very diverse. It has been going on for 18,000 years with peaks and valleys, including the mini-ice ages. Man’s greenhouse gas contributions are less than 1/2 of one percent. Huge “leaking” from methane beds under the ocean, methane from termites, cows and other animals and of course, just the CO2 we exhale “normally” is much more of a source of CO2 than our factories.
Pollution, like NO2 and SO2 are things we should be focused on for other reasons than warming because they are insignificant for the warming part but devastating for rivers, fish, plants (acid rain), etc.
Here is a very good site on all the causes of global warming that includes the amount man contributes.
Al Gore Is A Fraud But Global Warming Is For Real!
Many don’t realize the role of methane completely, they know that it is a much better holder of warmth in but think that because it breaks down faster it isn’t as important as CO2.
Quote:
A molecule of methane traps 21 times as much heat as a molecule of CO2. Does this mean we should count each molecule of methane as equivalent to 21 molecules of CO2? A molecule of CO2 might last for a hundred years in the atmosphere, while a molecule of methane lasts for only ten. In a hundred years, the methane would be responsible for 210 units of warming, while the CO2 would be responsible for 100. In that case, perhaps a molecule of methane should be equated to about 2 molecules of CO2.
But, when a molecule of methane is removed from the atmosphere, that most likely happens because it has become oxidized; chemically, this means it would contribute its hydrogen atoms to two molecules of water, and its carbon atom to a new molecule of CO2. Then the methane should be weighted as equivalent to 3 CO2s - 2 for the warming it causes while it is methane, plus 1 for the carbon dioxide it will become.
http://home.earthlink.net/~almyatt/glo_warm.htm
=======================
Now, since that site is one that “blames” mankind and expects mankind to stop the global warming, they aren’t trying to use methane as a reason not to stop CO2 emissions. But, it is good to know what all the sources of CO2 are and this is one we have very little control over. There are huge natural sources of methane in and out of the oceans.
Should we kill all the cows and other livestock that emit CO2? Should we spray termite poison over all the earth?
Quote:
Bacteria that breakdown organic matter in wetlands and bacteria that are found in cows, sheep, goats, buffalo, termites, and camels produce methane naturally. Since 1750, methane has doubled, and could double again by 2050. Each year we add 350-500 million tons of methane to the air by raising livestock, coal mining, drilling for oil and natural gas, rice cultivation, and garbage sitting in landfills.(www.envirolink.org/orgs/edf/sitemap.html) It stays in the atmosphere for only 10 years, but traps 20 times more heat than carbon dioxide.
http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/greenhouse.htm
=========================
Some of that we can do better with but most can’t be changed. More and more people on the earth mean we need more and more food and more and more landfills.
However, one good burp from the earth could send us back into an ice age such as an eruption by a supervolcano like Yellowstone. Just a “minor burp” by one volcano cause the “year without a summer” because of the dust shielding the earth from the sun.
The majority of this scam is focused on international redistribution of wealth between nations that are wealthy and nations that aren’t.
May 31st, 2007 at 10:02 pm
Mr Konop,
Sorry to keep coming back to the original subject (the economy), rather than leaping onto other subjects (carbon credits) . . .
“Do you think we can keep running out of control trade debt and not worry about our economy?”
Change in GDP components, Q1-2006 to Q-1 2007 constant 2000 US$ billions
GDP _ _ _ _ +$215.3 billion
PCE _ _ _ _ +$280.2 billion = 130.1% of GDP rise
CAP _ _ _ _ –$123.6 billion = 57.4%
EXP _ _ _ _ +$33.5 billion = 72.1%
IMP _ _ _ _ +$47.3 billion = 22.0%
Private consumption (PCE) accounts for all of the increase, plus another 30% (because capital investment fell).
Capital investment (CAP) fell by $123.6 billion, whereas imports of goods and services (IMP) only increased by $47.3 billion (38.3% as much).
If you net out the rise in exports, the $24.8 billion difference is only 11.5% of the reason for the change in GDP from a year earlier, and just 20% of the impact of the decline in capital investment.
.
Whodunnit?
Key suspect: housing.
Investment in residential structures fell $103.4 billion, and that’s a whole heck of a lot more important that a rise in the net trade deficit of less that $25 bn.
Second suspect: Dubious.
Net government savings (a euphemism in this malAdministration) was $34 billion in the red.
More than the $25 billion rise in the net trade deficit.
But, it is so much more satisfying to blame it on foreigners, isn’t it?
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Jan Paul,
The debt payments on Reagan’s massive budget blow-out, and George the Sane’s continued fiscal follies more than make up that 2% rise in total US government debt under President Clinton.
Federal Debt as a percent of GDP—
1996 _ _ 67.3%
1997 _ _ 65.6
1998 _ _ 63.5
1999 _ _ 61.4
2000 _ _ 58.0 – lower than when Clinton entered office
2005 _ _ 64.4
2010 _ _ 66.0
Dubious: The legacy lives on, unfortunately.
See p. 127 at http://www.whitehouse.gov/ omb/budget/fy2008/pdf/hist.pdf
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
“Something is wrong when wages are falling faster than price gains.”
—That would be troubling.
Do you know of any place where there is hard statistical evidence of such a thing?
Or, did you just make it up?
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Al Swearengen:
Al Gore in ’08 !
Save Your Country!
Save the Planet!
A Two for One Deal !
May 31st, 2007 at 10:09 pm
David
GDP is gross not net!
Get a clue!
Our Debt is out of control!
June 1st, 2007 at 12:41 am
David, the comment
“Something is wrong when wages are falling faster than price gains.”
—That would be troubling.
Do you know of any place where there is hard statistical evidence of such a thing?
Or, did you just make it up?
==================
that he used is regarding the claim that many middle class that lost jobs have had to take jobs at lower wages.
For example, here in some areas of the west, drywallers used to get $17 an hour (I think that was the wage, it was over a year ago that I read the article) but were driven out with lower wage drywallers coming in either legally or illegally and working for $14 (again an estimate but I do know it was lower than what they had been getting paid). Now, when they went to work they had to either take the lower wage or seek some other type of work.
For many engineers, the wage has dropped due to H1B visas but usually they are laid off, replaced and when they seek a new job the wages are lower. I have read this stuff is going on but don’t have any proof at hand.
However, I believe that is what John may have been referring to when he posted it to me. John, do you have some more insight as to what you meant?
Or, you could say wages are dropping when you really mean buying power is falling. Your wage can even go up but buy less.
For GM and Ford workers that have gone to work for Toyota, doing the same job, their wages have certainly dropped as have their benefit packages. Again, the lower wages don’t usually occur in the job you have, but in the sector as a whole as the labor market changes with immigration or some other factor.
The Republican Congress and Clinton did many things right but, the Federal Reserve helped create a bubble and then capped it and then created another bubble after Clinton in housing. The rise and fall, boom and busts, have been more “fed engineered” than Congress engineered. The tax hikes and cuts combined may have magnified things but I think the Fed has to be labeled as the more dynamic force in both periods.
Much of the Clinton boom in tax revenues was due to the huge rise in tax revenues from the stock market and capital gains and investment income.
That recently has also been helping the current President I believe. They credit tax cuts and they helped some but the market and corporate profits have also helped a lot.
Too much blame and credit is put on Presidents anyway. It is Congress and the Federal Reserve that have the most influence on booms and busts and tax revenues vs. spending.
June 1st, 2007 at 12:43 am
Ref. Al Gore and save the Planet
You can’t stop Global Warming al. It has been going on for 18,000 years with peaks and valleys and man contributes less than 1/2 of one percent of Greenhouse gasses. At the most, even the Kyoto scientists have said we could slow it a few years in a hundred and that would be with China and other heavy polluters helping.
The sources of greenhouse gas from leaking methane fields, cows, volcanoes, our exhaling CO2, termites, etc. are just too great to be stopped or significantly slowed. Also, they may be a lagging, not leading factor. They may be a result of all the natural extra terrestrial sources of global warming.
quote:
(1) Astronomical Causes
* 11 year and 206 year cycles: Cycles of solar variability ( sunspot activity )
* 21,000 year cycle: Earth’s combined tilt and elliptical orbit around the Sun ( precession of the equinoxes )
* 41,000 year cycle: Cycle of the +/- 1.5° wobble in Earth’s orbit ( tilt )
* 100,000 year cycle: Variations in the shape of Earth’s elliptical orbit ( cycle of eccentricity )
(2) Atmospheric Causes
* Heat retention: Due to atmospheric gases, mostly gaseous water vapor (not droplets), also carbon dioxide, methane, and a few other miscellaneous gases– the “greenhouse effect”
* Solar reflectivity: Due to white clouds, volcanic dust, polar ice caps
(3) Tectonic Causes
* Landmass distribution: Shifting continents (continental drift) causing changes in circulatory patterns of ocean currents. It seems that whenever there is a large land mass at one of the Earth’s poles, either the north pole or south pole, there are ice ages.
* Undersea ridge activity: “Sea floor spreading” (associated with continental drift) causing variations in ocean displacement.
http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
======================
Not much we can do about that. Aren’t some other planets in our solar system experiencing global warming too? I thought I read that recently.
June 1st, 2007 at 3:40 am
Mr Konop,
“GDP is gross not net!
Get a clue!
Our Debt is out of control!”
Ah, “G” is for Gross, got it.
Exports minus imports (often known as the “trade balance”) is net.
As in “If you net out the rise in exports . . .”
Did you have point to make?
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Jan Paul,
Someone used to make $17/hr and now makes $14/hr.
Therefore, ipso facto, “wages are falling faster than price gains.”
Writing like that, absent the least little bit of evidence or even much understanding of the way statistics should be used, is nothing more than spin. So, I called Mr Konop on it.
All the available data from the BLS points to Mr Konop lying. So, I call him on it whenever I can.
He usually just refuses to answer a direct question, or if he’s feeling cornered, he’ll try to change the subject.
I count those as victories in our little running battle between honest truth and KonopWorld.
But Jan Paul, . . . “man contributes less than 1/2 of one percent of Greenhouse gasses.” ?
You drank the Kool-aid?
Oh, man, that’s terrible!
You’re one of the sane ones here!
June 1st, 2007 at 6:06 am
David
As GDP grew real wages went down for working class and national and personal debt went out of control!
Please do not let the facts get in the way!
June 1st, 2007 at 9:17 am
Quote:
But Jan Paul, . . . “man contributes less than 1/2 of one percent of Greenhouse gasses.” ?
You drank the Kool-aid?
Oh, man, that’s terrible!
You’re one of the sane ones here!
==========================
Like I pointed out. I have no personal ties to either party. I just get the facts and report them. The site I listed isn’t the only one I have see that uses scientific data to calculate what man can control (stopping breathing not a good option) and natural forces are the most heavy contributors. One volcano can emit more SO2 in days than all of man does in a year but, not all volcanoes emit the same quantities of gases.
We have to get the pollution under control. We can’t affect global warming. But, we can stop NO2, SO2, toxic wastes, etc. CO2 is not a pollutant. Plants have to have it and the more there is the more plant growth we get as long as we don’t kill them with acid rain.
However, we did get great news this morning. Job growth was better, ISM was up beetter than expected. and the market is climbing.
Many expect things to be good for the next two years simply because of the normal trends in election cycles. I saw a great article on this not too long ago about how the economy usually does better in the 3rd year and fourth year of election cycles.
Also, in Bernanke’s Testimony, he said we were in “the calm before the storm” and from other statements, I believe he too believes we will do well in employment and what manufacturing we still have and job growth, etc. for a couple of years.
That doesn’t mean the economy is strong or healthy but rather staying above water in spite of all the negatives (debt, trade deficit, gov. spending, illegal immigration flooding labor, etc.)
That is one thing I have questioned those who say illegals are killing us. Yes, they are keeping wages down but, we have employed millions of them and still have 4.5% unemployment rate. Congress views sending them home as “instant wage inflation” and prices rising rapidly.
Are we really prepared to do that? Not send them home, but rather suffer the effects of inflation from sending them home.
A gradual elimination of them by going after business the hires them would help keep from having negative effects. I want them to go home but, I do realize that for everyone that goes home, Congress plans to bring them back legally plus another 67 to 100 million.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:50 pm
David,
Jan drank the cherry favored Kool Aid.
Can he tell us how many pounds of CO2 are produced from burning a gallon of gasoline?
MD
June 1st, 2007 at 8:52 pm
Well, about 20 pounds a gallon. But, what about the people in those cars? In California, people exhale, about 1,963 lbs of CO2 per year*, just by breathing. When multiplied by the 33,000,000 residents, this comes to 32,389,500 tons of CO2 per year. Human respiration accounts for roughly 11% of all CO2 emissions in the state, and even more if animals and pets are included.
http://www.mine-engineer.com/commentary/california-co2-folly.htm
The article carries it out to global “exhaling” of CO2 which is 26,000,000,000 tons.
Now add the CO2 from cows directly and indirectly from the methane they produce, the methane from termites, the methane from ocean methane beds, all the volcanoes, etc. and you have a small fraction being produced by man’s cars and factories and most of which will never be reduced significantly because of growing demand for autos and factories around the world. It is absolutely impossible to reduce CO2 from growing due to growth in population (exhaling) and the cars they are buying in double digit growth rates in India and China. However, nature does deal with it. It grows more plants especially in the areas that are growing warmer. For each additional month of growing season, also, the plants consume that much more CO2 and convert it to oxygen. Yet, there is another natural problem.
Quote:
Global Warming Supercharged by Water Vapor?
Arianne Appel
for National Geographic News
November 10, 2005
Related Photos: A Warming World >>
The latest villain on global warming’s most-wanted list is all wet—and a little surprising. Water vapor, experts say, is the culprit behind Europe’s rapidly rising temperatures.
Evaporated H2O is a known greenhouse gas—a gas that absorbs and re-emits infrared radiation in Earth’s atmosphere, thereby increasing temperatures
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1110_051110_warming.html
==================================
Now, here is a major culprit that we can do absolutely nothing about. For 18,000 years the earth has been warming and during each “up cycle,” the oceans, lakes and rivers get warmer and produce more water vapor, that warms the earth, that warms the water, that releases more water vapor. Also, the warmer ocean temperatures can cause more methane to be released in shallow beds of methane which breaks down after having 20 times the warming effect of CO2, into CO2 which then lingers 10 times as long as the Methane did.
June 1st, 2007 at 8:53 pm
So, what will save us? How about the same oceans that are warming us. As the ice caps melt, the rising sea levels will also create huge pressure on the ocean floors. We live on a lava filled balloon.
Quote:
Pyle noticed a strong correlation between eruptions and the global water cycle. During the northern winter, the weight of snow and ice on northern continents deforms the Earth slightly, pushing the crust down in the north and making the southern hemisphere bulge out. Using satellite-based altimeters, other researchers have measured this deformation, which can be as much as a few centimetres in the far north. The group believe that this deformation could add to local stresses building up in volcanic regions, making eruptions more likely
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18224452.300
===============================
Now, if just the weight of snow distorts the earth’s crust, think of what 2 to 20 ft of deeper oceans will do. What does more volcanic action mean?
Quote:
Volcanic eruptions can alter the climate of the earth for both short and long periods of time. For example, average global temperatures dropped about a degree Fahrenheit for about two years after the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, and very cold temperatures caused crop failures and famine in North America and Europe for two years following the eruption of Tambora in 1815. Volcanologists believe that the balance of the earth’s mild climate over periods of millions of years is maintained by ongoing volcanism. Volcanoes affect the climate through the gases and dust particles thrown into the atmosphere during eruptions. The effect of the volcanic gases and dust may warm or cool the earth’s surface, depending on how sunlight interacts with the volcanic material.
http://www.cotf.edu/ete/modules/volcanoes/vclimate.html
===============================
June 1st, 2007 at 8:53 pm
Quote:
A WATCHLIST FOR YELLOWSTONE
by Jennifer Lawson
Yellowstone’s Supervolcano could trigger another Ice Age
Yellowstone National Park located in western Wyoming bordering
Idaho and SW Montana, is America’s largest and most famous National Park, and the world’s first national park.
The Park spans 2.5 million acres of forests, bubbling hot springs , geysers and hot mud flats with spectacular scenery and abundant wild life and is visited by over 3 million tourists each year.
But a sleeping giant lies hidden deep beneath Yellowstone ’s seemingly tranquil and glorious scenery: a supervolcano. When the giant awakes it has the potential to devastate North America and plunge the entire world into a volcanic winter.
Supervolcanoes look and behave differently from normal volcanoes and are way more dangerous to the Earth’s environment. A supervolcano presents the greatest threat to life on Earth, apart from a major comet or asteroid strike. Ash and dust ejected from a supervolcanic eruption is thousands of times greater than a normal volcano, potentially blocking out sunlight for years to come and driving the global climate into an ice age, as indicated in the geological records.
For some time scientists have known about the connection between ‘normal’ explosive-type volcanic eruptions such as Indonesia’s Krakatoa and Tambora and global cooling due to volcanic ash clouds and dust particles being spewed into the upper atmosphere blotting out sunlight.
Krakatoa’s violent blast in August 1883 blew the volcanic island apart, ejecting 5 cubic miles (20.8 cubic kilometers) of ash and dust 50 miles skyward blocking out 87 percent of the sunlight for well over a year. The blast, considered to be the largest sound ever heard by man, devastated everything within a 100-mile radius and generated great tsunamis up to 120 feet high that wiped out all human habitation on the neighboring Indonesian islands and coastal lowlands.
The Tambora eruption in April 1815 was even more powerful, ejecting 36 cubic miles (150 cubic kilometers) volcanic ash and dust high into the stratosphere. This is considered to be the largest ejection of volcanic material ever recorded in history. Tambora’s eruption wiped out everything within a 200-mile radius, while the great ash cloud blocked out the sun plunging the region into darkness for three days. Similar to Krakatoa, great sea waves were generated by the explosion and great earthquakes that followed. In the following year the Northern Hemisphere experienced an unusually cold summer due to reduction of sunlight, known as “the year without a summer”.
http://www.earthmountainview.com/yellowstone/yellowstone_press_release.htm
June 1st, 2007 at 8:54 pm
Volcanoes also play a role in CO2.
Quote:
volcanic activity (which does increase CO2 levels) would have a greater effect than all of the cars combined, because volcanic activity recycles the sedimentary carbonates back into the ocean, which then ‘gives up’ some of its CO2 as ‘effervescence’ (like a soda going flat). But were it NOT for the volcanic activity under the oceans, the CO2 levels would be LOWER, and there wouldn’t be enough CO2 for all of the plants.
So what would happen if underwater volcanos stopped erupting?
A decrease in underwater volcanic activity causes more carbonate residue to form on the ocean floor.
As the carbonate residue continues to precipitate out, the oceanic carbon dioxide levels drop, and less carbon dioxide is released back into the atmosphere.
As the atmospheric carbon dioxide levels drop, less carbon dioxide is depleted by the rain.
As the rain dumps less carbon dioxide into the ocean, oceanic carbon dioxide levels drop, causing less precipitation of carbonate residue.
Algea growth diminishes somewhat due to reduced carbon dioxide levels, producing less oxygen.
Similarly, plant growth on the earth’s surface is reduced slightly, producing less oxygen.
A shift in worldwide oxygen production causes an effective increase in carbon dioxide levels in the ocean from animal respiration, and to some extent, in the atmosphere.
A new equilibrium level is reached where carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere may be immeasureably lower than they were before, but not significant enough to cause global warming/cooling. Carbon dioxide levels in the ocean are measurably lower, but total dissolved gas concentrations remain roughly the same.
Oceanic animals breathing the slightly higher concentrations of oxygen flourish a bit more than usual, causing an increase in the production of CO2. A new “biological equilibrium” is reached in the oceans.
http://www.mrp3.com/bobf/global_warming.html
===================================
June 1st, 2007 at 8:55 pm
The problem we have is that whether you believe in CO2 as the culprit or not, you can find evidence to support your view. The anti-warm people select things like this last. The people who say CO2 is the problem site gasoline and factories. Yet, until it is all put together, most of us never have the total picture of how much nature controls CO2 supply and consumption.
What we do know for sure is that the earth is warming and has been for 18,000 years. We can slow it and speed it up but we can’t stop it but nature can and it can do it in days. We can be plunged into an ice age much faster than we can be warmed. The reason is simple, just one super volcano can fill the skis with enough ash and dust to cause centuries to go by before the air is clear enough to allow more sunlight to start a warming trend that would take thousands of years to get back to normal temperatures before the last ice age began. Of course, small volcanic eruptions like Mt. St. Helens would have to be fairly continuous and spread out and they would create a slower descent into an ice age. But, if the earth’s crust is distorted by even a few feet of water weight over the ¾ of the earth’s surface covered by oceans, the crust will distort so much that volcanoes will spring up in many of the old “extinct” fields.
How much do you hear about all the natural forces at work in global warming? Man is a speed bump to nature’s supply of greenhouse gases.
Quote:
The level of Carbon Dioxide (CO2), which of all the greenhouse gases contributes most to global warming, has been increasing since the pre-industrial period. Global mean mixing ratio has reached a new high in 2004 at 377.1 ppm, which increased by 1.8 ppm during the last year. This mixing ratio corresponds to 135% of the pre-industrial level. Mixing ratios peak in northern high and mid-latitudes, suggesting strong net sources in these areas.
The global growth rate varies significantly interannually and was 1.9 ppm/year on average for the latest 10 years (1994-2004). The high growth rates in 1987/1988, 1997/1998 and 2002/2003, which exceeded 2 ppm/year, resulted from the warm events related to El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO). The anomalously strong El Niño event in 1997/1998 brought about worldwide high increases in 1998. The exceptionally low growth rates in 1992, including negative values for northern high and mid-latitudes, were caused by low global temperatures following the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991.
http://gaw.kishou.go.jp/wdcgg.html
==================================
That information from the World Data Center for Greenhouse Gases points out both the effects of El Nino and Volcanoes.
Quote:
Human additions to total greenhouse gases play a still smaller role, contributing about 0.2% - 0.3% to Earth’s greenhouse effect.
=======================
I post that from the previous comment’s link because when you look at all the natural causes listed in that comment, man is insignificant. He can only speed or slow the event slightly. I believe I read one scientist that was promoting global warming said, if we did all we could, we could slow the warming by a few years over the next century.
Quote:Global Warming is Unstoppable and Humans are to Blame, says UN Report
From Larry West,
Your Guide to Environmental Issues.
FREE Newsletter. Sign Up Now!
Prompt action can slow global warming and reduce some of its impact
On Friday, February 2, 2007, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—the leading international group of climate scientists—published a 20-page summary of a much longer scientific report, The Physical Basis of Climate Change [pdf], which confirms global warming is now “unequivocal” and states with more than 90 percent certainty that human activity “very likely” has been the primary cause of rising temperatures worldwide since 1950.
The report summary also says that global warming is likely to continue for centuries, and that it is already too late to stop some of the serious consequences it will bring—even if mankind could somehow hold the line on greenhouse gas emissions worldwide starting today.
Snip———————
…scientists—including those who authored the IPCC report—are saying that the atmosphere now contains so much heat-trapping greenhouse gas that it is no longer possible to stop global warming. To stabilize the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, for example, would require a 70 percent to 80 percent decrease in CO2 emissions
http://environment.about.com/od/globalwarming/a/ipcc_report.htm
——————————————
In short, whether by man or nature, they say it is too late and these are the people who are promoting the reports that support man causing the problem.
I don’t know who is right but, with 18,000 years of warming with ups and downs, including a mini-ice age, I tend to believe nature is much more powerful than we realize in causing and eventually ending global warming.
June 2nd, 2007 at 11:02 pm
Jan Paul says,
“Think about a depression when 15% are unemployed like we had. During that period, 85% of the people were employed. Millionaires were being made, homes were being built and bought, etc. Yet, nobody would have said our economy was good.”
When was this depression?
June 3rd, 2007 at 12:07 am
Jan,
RE# 28, the opinion at Mine Engineer.com
‘The article carries it out to global “exhaling” of CO2 which is 26,000,000,000 tons.’
These figures are off. They are overstated by a factor of nine times.
See the Journal of Applied Physiology online at
http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/reprint/64/3/1022?ijkey=4819837fc142891339550da832cf7f92f80dab1d
and
http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/85/2/642
A very long link and a lot of math to do.
The key is the amount of CO2 expelled from blood gases.
Not the amount of CO2 in exhaled breaths.
A human each day creates .66 pounds of CO2.
Not 5 pounds per person per day.
I’d trust a study on blood gas wash out or pulmonary wash out over a mining engineer.
Got a better source for 1963 pounds of new CO2 being created each year per person?
Trot it out.
June 3rd, 2007 at 1:23 am
I was referring to the Great Depression which the BLS lists unemployment figures for including some higher than the 15%. Thus just happened to be one I remembered from an article I read on it.
I think you are right about the CO2 being too high. I read everything from your figure up to over 2 lbs per day unless they exercise and then it is more but, didn’t see anything really “scientific.” However, the point is we exhale a lot and so do our animals and that isn’t even a fraction of the things that produce CO2 like the volcanic activity on the ocean floors.
We can’t stop or significantly slow global warming or do you think we can, Mad Dog. I hope you do or some people along the shores of our oceans may get their feet wet if the oceans rise a couple of feet or do you believe Al Gore is closer with his 20 ft prediction?
By the way, I was hoping I could find that source for the .66 since it was so much lower that what I have been finding
quote:
I once did an experiment in which I held my breath for approximately 1 minute, and using an exhaust gas analyzer, I measured the percent O2 in my exhaled breath. I discovered that after holding my breath for a minute, the percent oxygen was approximately 10%, less than half of normal (20.9%). I did this to see how efficient my lungs were at extracting oxygen from the air. I found that I could get it as low as 5% if I held my breath long enough, but below that I had some trouble holding my breath. Because I was “at rest” when I did this, it is a good representation of the amount of oxygen that I consume on average, while “at rest”.
For sake of calculations, we must assume that every molecule of Oxygen inhaled and metabolized by your body produces one molecule of CO2. By mass ratio, this is 44 grams CO2 per 32 grams O2. Volumetrically, this is 44 grams for every 22.4 liters (1 mole gas at STP) of pure oxygen.
With the assumption that an AVERAGE lung capacity is approximately 1 liter (my lung capacity is approximately 2 liters, measured while I was in the Navy, in a preliminary examination I took for working with asbestos), and if we assume that an average person could hold his/her breath for 1 minute and utilize 50% of the O2 in that breath, at rest, such that it represents the normal average oxygen consumption by that individual, we can calculate the total CO2 production as follows:
1 liter air
* (1440 minutes/day)
* (1/22.4 liters/mole)
* (0.209 moles O2/mole air)
* 1/2 (50% utilization)
* 1 mole CO2 per mole O2
* 44 grams / mole CO2
= ~300 grams CO2 per person per day
At 2.2 lbs per KG, that’s equal to 0.66 lbs per day.
—————————
You’re correct that is a lot of math. Not sure how accurate his basis is but, definitely a lot of math.
June 3rd, 2007 at 10:07 am
Jan,
“For sake of calculations, we must assume that every molecule of Oxygen inhaled and metabolized by your body produces one molecule of CO2. By mass ratio, this is 44 grams CO2 per 32 grams O2. Volumetrically, this is 44 grams for every 22.4 liters (1 mole gas at STP) of pure oxygen.”
If you read the scientific articles, the figures your posted and the method to obtain them are also wrong.
If you did read the Journal of Applied Physiology, then you know that not every molecule of oxygen converted by the bogy becomes CO2.
Just proving you don’t read the sources.
June 3rd, 2007 at 10:47 am
Nitric oxides (NO) produced at twice the volume of carbon dioxide.
At least half the inhaled oxygen, if converted to another gas compound becomes NO.
Reduce 0.66 pounds to .33 pounds at least if you want to use that skewed method of assuming all oxygen becomes either NO or CO2 when converted by the human body.
Also exhaled, acetone and aldehydes. Both capture oxygen.
Reduce the input to output ratio further.
And, the body has other uses for oxygen in the complex chemical processes of metabolism.
Some compounds formed from free oxygen are expelled as solids and liguids.
So your use of a bozo mine engineer was at best ignorance. At worst it becomes lying. You ought to know better.
I bet you don’t go see the mine engineer when you have a cough or a fever, eh?
All of your sources are crap.
June 3rd, 2007 at 10:49 am
The EXPERTS, as you like to call your sources, are not expert in any respected field of human knowledge.
The real experts laugh at political tools like … you.
June 3rd, 2007 at 11:20 am
Jan,
You used the weather source in your post about how the “global warming” can be caused by volcanic gases.
The article also says that the dust and ashes from volcanic actions cool the earth.
The Japanese Weather Service, one of the benefactors of the MONITORING SERVICE, does not present a cause and effect relationship between increased volcanic activity and increased CO2. They just report various atmospheric gas measurements taken around the globe.
Poor you.
Another poor source for your partisan point.
June 3rd, 2007 at 11:25 am
Again, not all the experts agree.
READ
states it is .90 for at rest 12 per breath. Other include some adjustment for average activity.
But, you are missing the point that we can’t stop it. It is going to go on whether you stop all manufacturing and auto use, etc. because it is already in the air and humans and animals keep adding CO2 every time they breath.
We can either prepare for the changes or we can whine about them and do nothing but call for reductions of our greenhouse gas emissions that may slow things down, but won’t stop them. That is if the contributions by man are actually the problem.
Some say CO2 is a lag, not lead factor. They point to high CO2 levels in previous warming periods that obviously man had nothing to do with.
We can focus on the toxic wastes and gases and other forms of pollution that we can control the output of by man. And we can move to more efficient power plants, factories and autos but we won’t stop global warming.
June 3rd, 2007 at 11:42 am
I couldn’t read the first link because it requires a subscription and $8. The second link doesn’t give the output in pounds you mention, unless I missed it so if you would point out the portion of the report that provides the .66 figure.
The Nasa scientiest say it is 1kg or 2.2 pounds when converted)
quote:
CO2 concentrations must remain at a low level in order for normal life to occur. The adverse effects of high concentrations of CO2 include headaches, mental depression, hearing losses, dizziness, increased cardiovascular activity, nausea, and eventually unconsciousness. The partial pressure of CO2 on earth is 0.0318 kPa. Allowable levels of CO2 concentration are 1.01 kPa during short missions and 0.40 kPa for long missions such as an assignment to the International Space Station. In order to prevent CO2 buildup due to human respiration (1 kg of CO2 per day), methods of removing it from the atmosphere must be utilized [ref Designing for Human presence in space]..
==============================
Now, they have to be pretty precise in planning for the CO2 exhaled by the people in the space station and they have not only run tests but have the results of the effectiveness of their space program’s methods of dealing with it to evaluate the accuracy with.
Whether they are right or your source doesn’t change the fact that we can’t stop producing CO2 and adding to what is already present and according to those who believe it is a leading factor, not a lagging factor, is too late to stop it from continuing to warm the earth.
June 3rd, 2007 at 11:43 am
Here is the link for the NASA site
READ
===========================
June 3rd, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Here is another source other than the site that listed volcanic action. This is from NASA so that might be more convincing for you.
quote:
ust in the Wind
Aerosols are tiny particles suspended in the air (mostly in the troposphere). Some aerosols come from natural sources, such as volcanic eruptions, dust storms, forest and grassland fires, living vegetation, and sea spray. About 11 percent of the total emitted aerosols in our atmosphere come from human activities, such as the burning of vegetation and fossil fuels and changing the natural land surface cover, which again leads to windblown dust. Yet human-produced aerosols account for about half of the total effect of all aerosols on incoming sunlight. From a satellite’s perspective, aerosols raise the Earth’s albedo, or make it appear brighter by scattering and reflecting sunlight back to space. The overall effect of these tiny particles is to cool the surface by absorbing and reflecting incoming solar radiation.They also serve as cloud condensation nuclei, or “seeds” for cloud formation, which again helps to cool the surface. In terms of their net influence on global climate, aerosols represent scientists’ greatest subject of uncertainty. Yet computer climate models estimate that over the last century human-produced aerosols have offset global warming due to greenhouse gases by about 40 percent.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/RemoteSensingAtmosphere/remote_sensing3.html
=========================
I don’t know, however, if you trust the government for information of this nature. Volcanoes can cause both warming and cooling depending on the types and volume and height of eruptions.
What do you think another Yellowstone super volcano eruption would do? I mean warming or cooling as we know it would destroy most life west of the Mississippi or don’t you believe that either?
Also, you still haven’t said what you believe about whether or not we can or can’t stop global warming. Do you believe it can be stopped? Do you believe man is the major cause of it?
June 3rd, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Here is another NASA site that covers the cooling effect of volcanoes
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/pdf/70811main_FS-1996-08-11-LaRC.pdf
Again, to have an “ice age” triggered would mean prolonged periods of volcanic activity like the various volcanic fields have produced in the distant past. Where I just moved from, Springerville, Az, had 405 volcanoes and vents that were active for hundreds of years before dying out.
The site covers this quite well including the destruction of Ozone.
quote:
Three types of aerosols significantly affect the Earth’s climate. The first is the volcanic aerosol layer which forms in the stratosphere after major volcanic eruptions like Mt. Pinatubo. The dominant aerosol layer is actually formed by sulfur dioxide gas which is converted to droplets of sulfuric acid in the stratosphere over the course of a week to several months after the eruption (Fig. 1). Winds in the stratosphere spread the aerosols until they practically cover the globe. Once formed, these aerosols stay in the stratosphere for about two years. They reflect sunlight, reducing the amount of energy reaching the lower atmosphere and the Earth’s surface, cooling them. The relative coolness of 1993 is thought to have been a response to the stratospheric aerosol layer that was produced by the Mt. Pinatubo eruption. In 1995, though several years had passed since the Mt. Pinatubo eruption, remnants of the layer remained in the atmosphere. Data from satellites such as the NASA Langley Stratospheric Aerosol and Gas Experiment II (SAGE II) have enabled scientists to better understand the effects of volcanic aerosols on our atmosphere.
Here is the other site that covers all the causes of global warming and whether it is “expert” enough for you it does cover things I have read in other sources and I like the summary that puts most of the things in one place.
http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
=====================
And people who follow this thread can read your sources and my sources and do their own checking and decide for themselves.
I happen to believe global warming is real but many others don’t. I also don’t believe it can be stopped. Let them make up their own mind.
June 3rd, 2007 at 6:13 pm
Jan,
You’re full of crap.
Would you like the real answer on how much carbon dioxide is created by human metabolism?
Zero.
Our net production of carbon dioxide is zero. Our source of carbon was food.
The correct way to calculate if humans produce carbon dioxide is not respiration.
It’s intake of food.
Show me any conservative source that calculates how much carbon we remove from the planet.
No carbon intake, no carbon output. No eating. No breathing.
When we bury our dead bodies in seal cement coffins, we are removing carbon dioxide from circulation.
Any discussion of humans create carbon dioxide gas is misinformation.
June 3rd, 2007 at 7:34 pm
I realize you aren’t the brightest bulb in the pack so I will try to explain it to you. It isn’t adding it the scientists are concerned with but where it is located. In the ground or in the ocean is not a problem. It is when it is taken from those places and put into the atmosphere that has them in a dither.
They are the ones in a rant about this, not me. I don’t really care whether they do anything about CO2 emissions or not. I would like to see more done for toxic waste and other pollutants but I don’t mind a warmer planet and extra plant growth due to higher levels of CO2 and warmer areas allowing more crops.
Remember, during the mini ice age, many crop producing areas couldn’t continue to grow the crops they previously had been able to.
You need to relax and take a break. You are getting uptight over nothing.
For example the one article I read was complaining that “Carbon” stored in the ground millions of years ago was being dumped into the atmosphere and causing global warming.
But what percent of total emissions of greenhouse gas is that? Is CO2 a leading factor or a lagging factor?
The carbon in food is partially from the removal of carbon from the earth ans plants grow and produce what we eat. Big deal. I am not the one that is in a twist over it. But, some people like to know all the sources of CO2 and make their own choices. You need to quit trying to tell others what is and isn’t important to them.
I give them information they can take or leave, not rudely try and jam it down their throats like you do. I post the sources so that right or wrong they can see the source and see what I based my opinion on. If I am wrong, they get to see it.
As you pointed out, the one source was twice as high on the CO2 and it is good to have that pointed out. Yet, you used flawed data yourself and it was pointed out. You just have to learn how to relax more. Your words seem like you are filled with some kind of need for self-glory.
Enjoy life. We aren’t going to be here for the next ice age or the end brought on by global warming. Life is short, learn to enjoy it more.
June 3rd, 2007 at 9:23 pm
Mr Konop,
The data disagrees with you—
[http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/ECIWAG],
[http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/WASCUR] and
[http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/RCPHBS/downloaddata?&cid=2]
But, that never bothered you before, did it?
June 3rd, 2007 at 10:46 pm
Jan,
I’ll type slow and see if you can understand.
The process called respiration is only one part of human metabolism.
Overall, human metabolism requires capturing carbon and oxygen. Keeping it. Storing it.
Even when the zygote had no lungs, it captured carbon and oxygen and a few dozen other elements to build new cells.
Without capturing and storing carbon and oxygen, cells do not grow.
The six billion people on the planet are a warehouse of elements. Among those, carbon compounds like CO2.
No C02, our body will not breath OUT. The build up of C02 triggers respiration, OUT.
The amount of retained carbon isn’t from breathing. It’s from eating.
Am I typing too fast?
But, looking at only ONE part of human metabolism doesn’t provide a net change.
We have an amount of food and air taken in.
We take out the elements, minerals, compounds that our body must have (or get sick/die).
We store in fat cells, blood gases, bones, cells, hair, toe and finger nails… etc.
Our input is exactly equal to output minus retained for storage.
No animal creates NEW elements. And, if you take the time to look at what we are taking in, sugar, starches, alcohol, we take in just a tiny amount more than we output.
Animals are storage for carbon and carbon compounds. Humans as well.
I don’t expect a brilliantly polished tool like you to acknowledge the facts.
Inputs = outputs - retained carbon.
Or, inputs = outputs - growth.
We remove carbon from the system and store it during our lifetimes.
If when we die, our bodies are buried in sealed tombs, then the net is a loss of carbon to the system.
It’s very much like economic systems and monetary systems.
BUT OH, that’s right. You think we can use potatoes for money.
June 3rd, 2007 at 11:03 pm
Jan,
Getting back to you misinformation on the “Great Depression.”
“Think about a depression when 15% are unemployed like we had. During that period, 85% of the people were employed. Millionaires were being made, homes were being built and bought, etc. Yet, nobody would have said our economy was good.”
We’ve never had 85% employment. Never. Not even during the “Great Depression.”
Unemployment means the number of people without jobs SEEKING employment. You should know that.
I posted employment figures for 1991 through 2003 recently.
Some people are not old enough to work. Some people are too old or infirm and unable to work.
UNEMPLOYMENT hit over 24 percent by 1933. That does not mean 76 percent of the population had jobs outside the home.
It means that of the people eligible and able to work who were seeking work, 24 percent could not find a job for whatever reason.
In that time period, many quit seeking the type of work that would be included in the employment numbers.
Since about 60-64 percent of the population work, unemployment of 24 percent means only half the people had jobs.
June 3rd, 2007 at 11:51 pm
That is very good. I agree 100% with you. Man is a transfer of CO2 back to the air.
Also, since plants store CO2 in the soil as well as provide the carbon we get from it, the warmer it gets and the more growing surface the earth has, the better the CO2 levels should be. Once we become a tropical forest, the plants will be really saving our planet from further warming.
So, man is even less of a contributor than many think since many apparently believe what man exhales is adding to it. I am glad you pointed this out.
But, why didn’t you post the source of your information. I had no trouble verifying it with a simple search. You could have provided a link to the information but, I will do it for you.
http://www.ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_english/CO2-air-we-breathe-cotton.doc
I am sure there are other even better sites but that one did it for me.
There is one small change. It has to do with increasing the population of man and animals as they cultivate and destroy more plants that would live, die and much of the carbon would go into the soil. When I was doing the search for your information I ran across from the U.S. Geological Survey site.
quote:
Carbon enters the soil as roots, litter, harvest residues, and animal manure. It is stored primarily as soil organic matter (SOM). The density (weight/volume) of carbon is highest near the soil surface. But much of the most recently deposited SOM decomposes rapidly, releasing CO2 to the atmosphere.
Some carbon becomes stabilized, especially in the lower part of the soil profile. Balanced rates of input and decomposition determine steady state carbon fluxes. However, in many parts of the world, agriculture and other land-use activities have upset the natural balance in the soil carbon cycle, contributing to an alarming increase in carbon release from soils to the atmosphere in the form of CO2.
Carbon sequestration in soils is a climate-change-mitigating strategy based on the assumption that movement, or flux, of carbon from the air to the soil can be increased while the release of carbon from the soil back to the atmosphere is decreased. In other words, certain activities can transform soil from a carbon source (emits carbon) into a carbon sink (absorbs carbon). This transformation has the potential to reduce atmospheric CO2, thereby slowing global warming and mitigating climate change.
http://edcintl.cr.usgs.gov/carbonoverview.html
==================
Anyway, good comment and I appreciate it. I hope others read it and spread the word around because all I have ever seen being hyped is the exhaling of Cows and Man and other critters as part of the contribution but not where it came from originally.
Now if we can get them to stop tearing up the soil and burning down the forests in some parts of the world, it might help. We still have all the other natural sources of Methane and CO2 but it would be nice to cut down on it. No-till farming gained some fame a few decades ago, maybe that will help too.
Again, very well explained.
June 3rd, 2007 at 11:58 pm
Actually, 4% unemployment is referred to as “full employment” and thus, 85% when there is 15% unemployed is correct since it only refers to the people eligible for employment. That is like the reverse. We have never had 4.2% unemployed since we only have about 155 million eligible for employment and only about 147 million including government employees so we currently have a 50% unemployment rate if you are going to include everyone.
But, I did get your point. Not a good one but I did get it. Let me be more clear then. 85% of the work eligible work force or 80% when unemployment was 20% etc.
Again, you need to relax and enjoy life a little more. Time is short. Try some anger management courses.
June 4th, 2007 at 10:21 am
Jan,
I don’t post sources for what I consider common knowledge or for conclusion drawn from common knowledge by good logic.
MD
June 4th, 2007 at 10:38 am
Now, to help you close the circle on global warming.
Research the amount of carbon being mined or drilled.
Coal and oil.
That carbon is far below the root systems and is trapped.
Humans dig it out or pump it out of the ground.
Then, in one way or another, humans burn that carbon creating “new carbon dioxide” in the atmosphere.
Prior to pre-industrial society, man did little to change the carbon cycle.
The release of carbon trapped and stored for millions of years beyond the reach of any organic life leads to increased “green house gases” and manmade “global warming.”
All voluntary acts that can be changed.
You’re right, though.
I shouldn’t get so angry when self taught experts portray cow farts and human exhalation as un-natural events based on the opinions of mine engineers and various paid political tools.
In your logic, truth doesn’t need any defenders. And, individuals have no responsibility or power. A hand full of OPINION leaders rule.
Ignorance is bliss, eh?
And,
June 4th, 2007 at 10:51 am
Jan,
As far as me getting the ‘word’ out, if you don’t believe the UN reports, the reports of various scientific communities, Al Gore, G8 statements, then you’ve already ignored, using your math from employment, “85 percent” of real information.
You’ll keep getting your “facts” from the opinions columns of other.
You’ll keep reporting wacko opinions while pretending to be a voice of reason.
The only way to handle a political tool like you?
Slap them in the face until they snap out of the coma.
You’re a political tool of the anti-global warming crowd. Now that you’ve been outed, what will you do?
Correct all your posts on all the blogs you visit?
Nope.
You’ll continue to attack global warming. You’ll continue to say there is nothing man has done to change the environment. There is nothing man CAN do to change the environment.
Given how much information you ignored to post the opinion crap you’ve used, you have no intelligence, no motiviation to think responsibiy, or maybe you’re paid to spread propaganda by oil companies, energy companies, conservative think tanks, or the GOP.
Now.
A direct question.
You said you have no personal ties to either party.
Do you have any professional ties to a political party, organization, or political cause?
MD
p.s. I don’t expect an honest answer.
June 4th, 2007 at 11:49 am
No. no ties to any since I am retired now and just enjoying life.
But, I am not anti-global warming. I believe it is happening since it has been happening for 18,000 years. Why should it stop. I just don’t believe we can stop it. It was going on before we had the industrial age and will go on if man completely dies out. It will go on until nature ends it.
We had very high CO2 levels before and we will again. The earth and nature and the solar systems has cycles that are very long as well as some that are short.
We can prepare for global warming but we can’t stop it. Even scientists don’t fully agree on whether we can even significantly alter what is going to happen because the majority of the nations aren’t going to make any real changes and nations like China growing industrial output by 10% or more a year will more than override any cuts in other nations.
There is no consensus on global warming other than it is happening. To say we can change what is happening with man’s efforts is ridiculous. The most, the very best, would be a slowing by a few years in a 100. Nature will make needed changes before man ever has an effect.
It might even make things so bad man becomes almost extinct. That might not be all bad. Those left can start over and maybe do a better job the next time around. After one Super Volcano exploded, they believe the population of the earth dropped to a few thousands or 10’s of thousands.
That can easily happen again. We haven’t had a super volcano errupt for over 600,000 years in the U.S. (not sure about the world). But, if Yellowstone erupted with its usual volume, we could easily lose eveyone west of the Mississippi to ash fallout. There isn’t a thing in the world we can do to stop that if it happens anymore than we can stop global warming. But nature can and some day will and will return us to an ice age of some degree. Whether it is a “mini-ice age” or a larger one, nobody knows but, there is no reason not to expect one as the earth adjusts to changes going on now.
However, regarding the sources. What is logic to you isn’t to most people as you should realize by reading the comments on this forum. Only once you posted detailed information that could be searched for did “your logic” come out. That is not the common thought. As I was searching for your information I found more sites going on about the methane and CO2 from animals and people than anything regarding your view. Thus, for most people, your view is not “logical” because they don’t see any support for it.
The bulk of Americans have no idea of what you are talking about. They aren’t taught to think for themselves any more. So while you think things are logical, they don’t. If you don’t show them in black and white, they have no reason to believe you. They are too tuned to the “talk show hosts” that have other agendas than the full truth.
Just like the garbage about global warming being controlled by man. Speed it up, slow it down, yes. Stop it? Not a chance. It is way too late to even slow it down more than a year or two at the most. With industrial growth in the old Soviet block, India, China, Korea, Vietnam and most of Asia, it will only rapidly get worse regarding emissions.
To tell people they can make it better is just a lie. But, they can prepare for it. We need plans in place so we know exactly what we will do given the different possibilities. What if the oceans rise 2 feet? What do we do then. What will we need if they rise 5 ft? What other low lying areas will be affected.
What if we have more storms, tornadoes, droughts, floods, etc. Each area that previously was “safe” from various acts of nature may be “unsafe” in the future and should know what they will do for disaster coordination when those things change.
The area I just moved from in the mountains was a very wet area with one of the longest continuous stands of ponderosa pine in the U.S. It was settled and logged in the late 1800’s and already shifting weather patterns we moving the moisture out of the area. Tree ring data shows that from that time on, trees were growing much less, lakes in the area dried up, and desert conditions rapidly expanded.
In an area that was belly high grass and some of the largest cattle ranches in the U.S. it is almost all unfit for livestock now. Every decade for a 100 years, it has gotten worse. Yet, that area never really developed any plans for dealing with the changes that were taking place and is one of the poorest areas in the state now.
That is going to happen with Global Warming. Areas that are doing well will change and become wasteland. Wasteland may become productive again, especially Northern areas that were too cold for most crops.
We are wasting time by telling people they can stop this. They can’t. They need to deal with the reality they can’t stop it and prepare for it.
The main agenda with global warming is international wealth redistribution with the buying and selling of credits instead of actually reducing emissions. It is a way to get more government power internationally and to scare people into voting for some people or to make money for some group like those making money off corn-based ethanol instead of better alternatives. It is a scam designed for just about everything except real preparation for what it coming.
Yup, I may be wrong about some aspect of the sources of CO2 but, that doesn’t change the fact it is a scam on the people so some can benefit at the expense of others through the creation of a “crisis” where people voluntarily surrender their freedoms without really knowing what is going to happen anyway.
June 4th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Jan,
You should follow your own suggestions on enoying life, whatever you have left.
Your view on life is fatalistic.
Mine is not.
You might see a 18,000 year old problem.
That problem if it exists at all has no relavent place in discussions of man made changes in the environment that affect climate.
You choose to ignore man’s impact on the world. You choose to believe you have no power.
Those are your choices.
Enjoy waiting for the inevitability of death.
June 4th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
The scientific and philosophical debate is over.
Mankinds preference for fossil fuels is a controlable factor in the environment.
The use of fossil fuels converted “stored” carbon into carbon dioxide faster than the “environment” could possibly recapture. (the rise in greenhouse gases like CO2)
The depletion of forests, rain forests, and nature further reduced the natural resources to make adjustments to the newly available amount of carbon reintroduced to the system.
The cyclical nature of human agriculture …
If you go back to your own sources, like the Japanese monitoring of global CO2 sources, you will discover seasonal changes in Co2 levels and documentation of unique geographic areas with significant increases in CO2 (before disapation).
The Southern hemisphere has no real “hotspots” of notable increases in carbon dioxide.
You can very easily guess where and when in the Northern Hemisphere CO2 hotspots occur.
And, it’s not around volcanoes, for example.
There is a lag time for change in the environment.
That change can’t happen in your life is enough information for you.
Just not for me, my children, my grandchildren…
Nor is there any giving up of liberty proposed by me or anyone else.
You’re free as an individual to obey the laws or disobey the laws.
You are free to enjoy ignorance.
You are few to do nothing.
You’re free to lie.
Review the social contract and all the implications before whining about freedoms and liberty.
Without the social contract, your life would have been brief and brutal.
June 4th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
I didn’t say man can’t change. I said he won’t. You are not going to stop Eastern Europe, India, China and the other rapidly rising nations using 10% or higher growth in industry to change. Not a chance.
China’s government is totalitarian and will do what they think is needed for economic growth. Inida, just rising out of poverty is similar even with a different government style. The people are getting better off each year and buying more cars using more energy across the nation.
The U.S. will continue its decline and we will become 2nd world nation (I doubt we every become a 3rd world nation). You can’t reverse this trend and as scientists (some) say. The CO2 level is already too high to do anything. It will stay in the atmosphere for many decades and more will be added. We don’t have much of a way to reduce the CO2 in the air (except have more crops and trees and other natural processes that take it out of the Atmosphere to be stored again in the soils and ocean beds.
You have rapid growth in fossil fuel use around the world that exceed any cut backs by any nation. Even if the U.S. started cutting back, it is too late. Those other nations will more than exceed any minor cutback we do.
Regarding hotspots, we only have a relatively few cities over 1 million. China has 70 cities or so that are over a 500,000 and all of them are demanding more fossil fuel use. We have about 10. So, while there demand for fossil fuel is going up a double digit rates, any offsets by our meager population is going to be dwarfed. Even if we were cutting by 10%, they will increase their demand for fossil fuels more than anything we do. The rest of the rapidly growing nations are also demanding more.
Have you seen any plan that will actually cut emissions on a world wide basis? Or are they just “reduce the growth” plans because they won’t get China and India make the same sacrifices.
You really believe we can have an impact? How do you get those government to not more than offset anything the rest of the world does?
We can prepare for it though. Do you believe they are serious when they use corn based ethanol instead of bio-diesel. That process involves a lot of energy to just make it. Then you have extra transportation because our pipelines aren’t up to a grade needed to handle it so we burn even more fossil fuels hauling it.
Do you believe it when they are going to add 67 to 100 million people either directly or by what they can bring in with them, over the next 25-30 years? That means 1/3 more power plants, not less. It means 1/3 more schools, roads, cars, Air Conditioners, Furnaces, etc that need power provide through the use of fossil fuels (unless we go more for nuclear).
June 4th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Jan,
Man has changed in the past. So I believe man has the capacity for change.
Negative thinkers aside.
Bio-fuels pretty much smoke and mirrors in terms of energy savings. Nor, will those help slow or create change in the environment.
The better question is do you want to have an impact and what kind?
June 4th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
Yes, man has changed. We are changing here. I am not talking about on nation. I am talking about the world and man hasn’t changed for any length of time in the world. There are always nations that will be progressive and others regressive.
There will always be nations that move to dictators and those the move to more democratic nations. But, no nation will rise to the top and stay there. Never has happened and never will because of human nature.
Just like the citizens of this nation are doing things through there representatives that will cause us to implode with debt and loss of standard of living, at the same time there will be nations rising in standard of living.
Some nations that never rise to the top will cycle in a range over the centuries but still they will have peaks and valleys, too.
That is also true of nature. It will eventually repair itself with some very cataclysmic events probably, such as the eruption of a super volcano. However, since it could be thousands of years until that happens, you can’t plan on it solving your problems with the current climate changes.
Again, the amount of CO2 is believed to be at a high enough level already in the atmosphere that given the length of time it stays there, we have probably hundred or more years of warming just on that alone. That is, if it is a leading or lagging factor. Most believe it is a leading factor.
June 5th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
OH.
I see the church reformation, failure of the British Empire, failure of monarchies, the 300 years of European Renaissance capitalism, etc as signs of permanent change. And, that is strictly a Western point of view.
You just see neanderthals.
The decline you project for the United States is or isn’t caused by bad management. Make up your mind.
On the one hand, socialism is destroying the US, on the other it’s inevitable.
Your point of view is a subset of nationalism.
As to climate change, now you’re saying CO2 is rising and has an affect on climate change. …
Nature might not repair itself. It might just purge itself of us. Always the concept of broken and being fixed as a requirement of being broken.
I suggest an entirely different modeling structure for you.
A very bad one from economics.
Supply and Demand curves.
Bad in that market fundamentalists see price as the desired function of the interactions of supply and demand.
I know that demand and supply are not an always interlinking relationship.
Remember Sey’s Law? Supply creates demand.
Generally seem as valid before October 1929. It has some reference today.
No Cadilacs. No demand for Cadilacs. Same for BMW, Benz, etc.
Still a demand for cars, eh?
But when there were no cars, we had no demand for cars.
But, we had a demand for transportation. An, for most of us, a supply of feet.
Realistic estimates of affecting the rising curve on carbon supplies is 30 years. If a workable plan were begun today.
But, don’t you worry. There are enough negative thinkers to prevent humans from taking responsibility for their lives.
(The underlying problem of the USA starts with a rapid depletion of natural resources. We had a supply of cheap natural resources. What we have left is no longer cheap. China has not exploited their cheap surplies, yet. Nor, has Russian. We MUST import finished materials as well as natural materials.”