chal7ds Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 Hey Everyone, Does cigerette smoking add to global warming or air pollution? And if so, can some scientifically explain in easy terms how this process occurs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 The operation of the climate system is chaotic and nonlinear. The Earth’s climate system has warmed, and human activities certainly have contributed, but the exact extent and the exact nature of the forcings (including "greenhouse gasses" such as CO2) by which we have affected the climate system is still a matter of serious scientific debate. I think it's safe to say that the effects of cigarette smoking as a climate forcing are negligable and make no statistically significant impact. So, to put it bluntly, no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 but in a chaotic system a little change can do big things given enough time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 yeah, if your cig accidently sets fire to the nothern hemisphere by being knocked out of your hands by a butterfly that happened to flap it`s wings in Hong Kong at exactly 7:16am on a tueday last week Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chal7ds Posted October 5, 2005 Author Share Posted October 5, 2005 yeah, if your cig accidently sets fire to the nothern hemisphere by being knocked out of your hands by a butterfly that happened to flap it`s wings in Hong Kong at exactly 7:16am on a tueday last week LOL..nice...some chaos theory! it seems very complacent though, that just because there is no scientific evidence that it is affecting our atmosphere, to just assume that it is not. I feel like all of us should be doing something about this..but it's very strange how no one seems to care about this (among millions of other problems in our world today) we should at least be helping each other out to study and figure this out. the more fire i can get against smokers when they f@#kin ask me for a cigerette each day i walk home from work, the better. i HATE getting asked for cigerettes..it just reminds me of how much this planet doesnt give a flying F#@$k... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h4x0r Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 yes i believe it could go either way i just depends on how you look at the situation the smoke can cause pollution in the air which could make the ozone layer deplete and cause more global warming so in a sense they could be tied together Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 well the way I figure it, is that How many cigs worth of CO2 would fire up your `puter for a second? 10? maybe 100? perhaps a 1000! and yet you`ll still leave it on when you go get something to eat or need a toilet break, NAAAH, cigs aren`t the prob here at all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 but in a chaotic system a little change can do big things given enough time. Or small changes are mitigated as they either become part of or are mitigated by greater trends. That's generally how the climate system works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chal7ds Posted October 5, 2005 Author Share Posted October 5, 2005 what about ground pollution? All these f@$kin mcdonald's cups and napkins and newspapers i see all over the ground everyday...somehow that has to affect the soil, which the soil inversely affects the air, no?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 it seems very complacent though, that just because there is no scientific evidence that it is affecting our atmosphere, to just assume that it is not. Most climate science research is conducted via data analysis and modelling. The more accurately scientific models are able to replicate the effects of the climate system when applied to a set of input data (using climate modelling computer programs), the more accurate we assume the model to be. This is how the majority of atmospheric research is conducted, by collecting atmospheric data and then crunching numbers on computers. I'm directly involved in both parts of this process. Through this we are able to define a set of anthropogenic forcings on the climate system, and the main one impacting "global warming" isn't "greenhouse gasses" as the media would have you believe, it's land use, which can greatly affect how much solar radiation is stored by the earth as heat and then released into the atmosphere. (sadly, much global warming research uses temperature as a metric, which is a poor indicator of how much energy is actually being stored by the system as all sorts of things like moisture content can affect the amount of energy being stored relative to temperature) Global mean surface temperatures are often touted as an indicator of global warming when what we should really be looking at is atmospheric heat content. Regardless, the majority of "greenhouse gasses" are being emitted through things like industrial processes and automobiles. The amount being released into the atmosphere by smokers is statistically insignificant. yes i believe it could go either way i just depends on how you look at the situation the smoke can cause pollution in the air which could make the ozone layer deplete and cause more global warming so in a sense they could be tied together Wrong. Ozone depletion occurs through the emission of gasses which are chemically reactive with ozone, the foremost of which was CFCs which were banned after they were linked to ozone depletion. Furthermore, ozone depletion is not a climate forcing, nor is it linked to global warming. Ozone depletion results in higher levels of solar ultraviolet radiation which is known to damage DNA and is therefore linked to an increased risk of certain types of cancers, most notably skin cancer. It's really sad global warming is such a hotbutton political issue yet the public remains so incredibly ignorant about its nature... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 All these f@$kin mcdonald's cups and napkins and newspapers i see all over the ground everyday...somehow that has to affect the soil, which the soil inversely affects the air, no?? In terms of land use as a climate forcing, paving a parking lot has a much higher impact than litter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sholtzy Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 Well, I'm a smoker and have been for 11 years, all I have to say is: If smoking causes global warming, then sorry guys, it's time to roast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xyph Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 the more fire i can get against smokers when they f@#kin ask me for a cigerette each day i walk home from work, the better. i HATE getting asked for cigerettes..it just reminds me of how much this planet doesnt give a flying F#@$k...Just take comfort in the fact that they'll (maybe) die of lung cancer soon enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chal7ds Posted October 5, 2005 Author Share Posted October 5, 2005 "Global mean surface temperatures are often touted as an indicator of global warming when what we should really be looking at is atmospheric heat content." Wow. Ok..great..I'm glad I'm getting some truth here. But I still have questions. For instance, if what we should be worried about is atmospheric heat content, how are we measuring that? and what are we seeing? And is what we're seeing rates increasing? Also, how are things like parking lots, industrial buildings, factories, etc contributing as land use to the heat that the earth stores? What is the chemical process that takes place via the object to nature that is forcing the earth to collect more heat? (which in turn puts that heat in the atmosphere, correct?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokele Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 Global mean surface temperatures are often touted as an indicator of global warming when what we should really be looking at is atmospheric heat content. Actually, I'd argue that *ocean* temperatures are more important. Air is a poor conductor of heat, and tends to stay put, more or less. In contrast, there are numerous ocean currents which, by virtue of the *huge* amount of mass and thermal energy they transport, can massively alter the climate in a region. Alteration of their flow patterns of temperature have had major impacts on world climate in the past (ice ages and such). Mokele Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 Actually, I'd argue that *ocean* temperatures are more important. Ocean temperatures are an excellent metric because of the low degree of variability in heat content of ocean water relative to tempature as compared to the atmosphere (in fact my boss did a lot of pioneering work on this in the '70s) The point I was trying to make was that surface temperature is a relatively poor metric by which to measure atmospheric heat content due to the high variability of heat content of the atmosphere relative to temperature (i.e. in order to properly assess surface temperature as a metric of global warming we must consider all possible climate forcings which can increase atmospheric heat relative to temperature). Think of the old (and incorrect) adage "It's not the heat, it's the humidity" which comes close to the truth of "It's not the temperature, it's the heat" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chal7ds Posted October 5, 2005 Author Share Posted October 5, 2005 that's all fine and dandy bascule, but you still didn't answer my questions... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 Wow. Ok..great..I'm glad I'm getting some truth here. But I still have questions. For instance, if what we should be worried about is atmospheric heat content I'm not say we should be worrying about that. The main thing we should be worring about, at least in the near future, is Arctic sea ice, and we are seeing below average summer Arctic sea ice cover. However, if this is attributable to global warming, then we would naturally expect to see a subsequent reduction in Antarctic sea ice, but in fact we see the opposite, an increase in Antarctic sea ice cover. However, this hasn't stopped the media/Hollywood from directly attributing changes in Arctic sea ice cover to global warming and feeding people disaster scenarios about global warming melting the ice caps and flooding coastline areas. how are we measuring that? and what are we seeing? And is what we're seeing rates increasing? I'll answer the questions it seems you really want to know from this: Yes, global warming is happening, due to both a natural trend and the influence of man. How much is man influencing it? We don't know. That's a very complex question heavily debated by climate scientists. Should we be worried? We don't know. That's also a very complex question heavily debated by climate scientists. Also, how are things like parking lots, industrial buildings, factories, etc contributing as land use to the heat that the earth stores? Land use as a forcing comes into play primarily with changes to the biosphere, most notably agriculture; plants alter the moisture content of the air around them and thus allow it to store more heat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chal7ds Posted October 6, 2005 Author Share Posted October 6, 2005 "Through this we are able to define a set of anthropogenic forcings on the climate system, and the main one impacting "global warming" isn't "greenhouse gasses" as the media would have you believe, it's land use, which can greatly affect how much solar radiation is stored by the earth as heat and then released into the atmosphere." "I'm not say we should be worrying about that" if the one impacting global warming is 'land use' as you've said here, then why again should't we be worrying about this??? why wouldn't we be worrying about something even if it's small, if it's IMPACTING global warming? "How much is man influencing it? We don't know. That's a very complex question heavily debated by climate scientists." Ok, well..I'd like to heavily debate..not just make a dodging statement that 'climate scientists' are arguing about it somewhere. Debating means to discuss things with specific opposing points. So what is the point or points? BE SPECIFIC..it's okay if you put blame on mankind, i'm not gonna start crying or anything. "Land use as a forcing comes into play primarily with changes to the biosphere, most notably agriculture; plants alter the moisture content of the air around them and thus allow it to store more heat." So, by this, are you arguing that fundamental argriculture (the origin of pastoralism) is the cause and origin of potential harmful global warming? And something else that escapes me, is that you also said parking lots contribute more than litter, yet you won't get specific about how..you continually evade things you've brought up, and bring up others... PLEASE be SPECIFIC about your original allegations, instead of bringing up a NEW problem each time.. course, I have a feeling you can't..you're gonna leave that up to the ambiguous climate scientists... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted October 6, 2005 Share Posted October 6, 2005 if the one impacting global warming is 'land use' as you've said here, then why again should't we be worrying about this??? why wouldn't we be worrying about something even if it's small, if it's IMPACTING global warming? Because, believe it or not, global warming is something we're not necessarily sure we need to be worried about. So what is the point or points? BE SPECIFIC Specific eh? Uhh... here's a three way exchange which can hopefully elucidate the complexity of this debate for you. I've decided to change it from 3rd to first person. However, keep in mind that Scientist A is peer reviewing Scientist C's paper. Scientist B is attempting to (unsuccessfully) defend Scientist C's paper, and Scientist C is basically telling Scientist B that he's wrong then going on to be a klaxonic mouthpiece of global warming alarmism (notice his conclusions are essentially "No, we don't have enough data yet, but by the time we do it'll be too late!") The topic being discussed is the use of multi-decadal models of ocean heat to assess the Earth's radiative imbalance. Jargon ho! Scientist A: [You] correctly recognize that ocean heat storage changes can be used to accurately assess the Earth’s radiative imbalance. There are substantive overlooked science issues, however, and an arbitrary selection of the largest value of the heat flux to highlight [your] conclusions. [Your] report of a global 0.85 +/- 0.15 Watts per meter radiative imbalance is substantially larger than the interpretation presented in Willis et al. (2004). Willis et al. list a value of about 0.93 × 1023 Joules of accumulated ocean heat over a period of 10 years. This corresponds to a global radiative imbalance of 0.62 Watts per meter squared, which is essentially what [you] also obtained for the period between 1993 and mid 2003. Scientist B: [You don't] have the slightest clue about the large decadal noise that exists in the oceans and some ocean models. If [you] did [you] would not make the comments and calculations [you] do. A decadal of data and analysis leave no room, after natural variability in the ocean is considered, to make statements about global warming issues. Further, the sparse nature of the ocean observations makes statements about ‘global ocean warming’ highly unrelaibale. The interpolations done by Levitus have been shown to lead to potentially misleading conclusions. The use of the altimeter by Willis et al looks good but is likely to miss any baroclinic signals in the upper ocean that might impact the estimates of heat content in the upper 750m. Scientist C: [You don't] realize how small the fluctuations of the global mean energy balance with space are, even in the presence of realistic ENSO and large scale ocean dynamics variability, in the absence of external forcings. The measured/inferred imbalance, as a decadal-mean global-mean, is huge. It implies a correspondingly large external forcing that has yet to be responded to. Any doubts about this interpretation should be erased by a few more years of data. Accurate measurements are continuing and the number of profiling floats is increasing. This planetary metric will become more precise and has the potential to become very useful as the record gets longer. However, to be most useful, its significance needs to be widely recognized. Hopefully any doubting oceanographers have an open mind — I don’t think that we have a decade to convince them. This is not a debate that can be broken down for laymen to comprehend, but the alarmists will always get more attention. The thing few seem to comprehend is that if we take action based on bad science we have just as much potential to damage the climate system as we do if we do nothing. So, by this, are you arguing that fundamental argriculture (the origin of pastoralism) is the cause and origin of potential harmful global warming? No, but how we use land can alter the Earth's radiative imbalance significantly more than "greenhouse gasses" like CO2. And something else that escapes me, is that you also said parking lots contribute more than litter, yet you won't get specific about how..you continually evade things you've brought up, and bring up others... It's big. It's black. It absorbs heat... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted October 6, 2005 Share Posted October 6, 2005 if the one impacting global warming is 'land use' as you've said here, then why again should't we be worrying about this??? why wouldn't we be worrying about something even if it's small, if it's IMPACTING global warming? Because, believe it or not, global warming is something we're not necessarily sure we need to be worried about. So what is the point or points? BE SPECIFIC Specific eh? Uhh... here's a three way exchange which can hopefully elucidate the complexity of this debate for you. I've decided to change it from 3rd to 2nd person to give it a bit more of a conversation format. However, keep in mind that Scientist A is peer reviewing Scientist C's paper. Scientist B is attempting to (unsuccessfully) defend Scientist C's paper, and Scientist C is basically telling Scientist B that he's wrong. The topic being discussed is the use of multi-decadal models of ocean heat to assess the Earth's radiative imbalance. Jargon ho! Scientist A: [scientist C, you] correctly recognize that ocean heat storage changes can be used to accurately assess the Earth’s radiative imbalance. There are substantive overlooked science issues, however, and an arbitrary selection of the largest value of the heat flux to highlight [your] conclusions. [Your] report of a global 0.85 +/- 0.15 Watts per meter radiative imbalance is substantially larger than the interpretation presented in Willis et al. (2004). Willis et al. list a value of about 0.93 × 1023 Joules of accumulated ocean heat over a period of 10 years. This corresponds to a global radiative imbalance of 0.62 Watts per meter squared, which is essentially what [you] also obtained for the period between 1993 and mid 2003. Scientist B: [scientist A, you don't] have the slightest clue about the large decadal noise that exists in the oceans and some ocean models. If [you] did [you] would not make the comments and calculations [you] do. A decadal of data and analysis leave no room, after natural variability in the ocean is considered, to make statements about global warming issues. Further, the sparse nature of the ocean observations makes statements about ‘global ocean warming’ highly unrelaibale. The interpolations done by Levitus have been shown to lead to potentially misleading conclusions. The use of the altimeter by Willis et al looks good but is likely to miss any baroclinic signals in the upper ocean that might impact the estimates of heat content in the upper 750m. Scientist C: [scientist B, you don't] realize how small the fluctuations of the global mean energy balance with space are, even in the presence of realistic ENSO and large scale ocean dynamics variability, in the absence of external forcings. The measured/inferred imbalance, as a decadal-mean global-mean, is huge. It implies a correspondingly large external forcing that has yet to be responded to. Any doubts about this interpretation should be erased by a few more years of data. Accurate measurements are continuing and the number of profiling floats is increasing. This planetary metric will become more precise and has the potential to become very useful as the record gets longer. However, to be most useful, its significance needs to be widely recognized. Hopefully any doubting oceanographers have an open mind — I don’t think that we have a decade to convince them. This is not a debate that can be broken down for laymen to comprehend, but the alarmists will always get more attention. The thing few seem to comprehend is that if we take action based on bad science we have just as much potential to damage the climate system as we do if we do nothing. So, by this, are you arguing that fundamental argriculture (the origin of pastoralism) is the cause and origin of potential harmful global warming? No, but how we use land can alter the Earth's radiative imbalance significantly more than "greenhouse gasses" like CO2. And something else that escapes me, is that you also said parking lots contribute more than litter, yet you won't get specific about how..you continually evade things you've brought up, and bring up others... It's big. It's black. It absorbs heat... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chal7ds Posted October 6, 2005 Author Share Posted October 6, 2005 "It's big. It's black. It absorbs heat..." Right. But what is the chemical process? How does all the collected heat in the building or lot transfer that energy to actual ground? And then what is the chemical process of the ground to air? That's my question... Annnd...HOW ARE WE MEASURING THAT TODAY? ARE WE CONCERNED THAT PARKING LOTS, BUILDINGS, CARS, ETC MIGHT BE F#$KING UP OUR AIR? As far as the other points, you pretty much hit dead on exactly what i wanted, except i'm a little more interested in how land use is affecting global warming, not oceans, although i realize that is important as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdurg Posted October 6, 2005 Share Posted October 6, 2005 Cigarette smoking is just as big a contributor to global warming as outdoor barbeques are. In fact lighting up your gas or charcoal grill, or your smoker, and cooking a hamburger or two puts out a lot more CO2 than a cigarette does. Also, look at the number of people who use gas stoves or grills and compare that to the number of smokers. In light of this, I'd say that cigarette smoking does not contribute to global warming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chal7ds Posted October 6, 2005 Author Share Posted October 6, 2005 have you been reading this thread? We've already established that the effects of cigerettes on global warming is nil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadaAotS Posted October 6, 2005 Share Posted October 6, 2005 It's big. It's black. It absorbs heat... lol, well put after the big confusing science debate, at least something understandable is said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts