youngindian
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2009
- Messages
- 1,365
- Likes
- 77
yes bro me 2
Indian Monsoon & Global Warming
- Thread starter Pintu
- Start date
johnee
Senior Member
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2009
- Messages
- 3,473
- Likes
- 499
TTD to conduct Varun Yagam for rain in Andhra Pradesh
PS: Similar event was conducted last year as well, and the rains commenced immediately after that.
PS: Similar event was conducted last year as well, and the rains commenced immediately after that.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2009
- Messages
- 5,419
- Likes
- 1,001
No it is not. Stop spouting your uneducated crap 'Koji'.
The contribution of human activity to the greenhouse effect as a contributor to radiative forcing and global warming is 0.28% -- 5.53% if water vapour, the earth's most abundant and significant greenhouse gas (at 95%) is not taken into account - which is what scientists, proponents of biofuels and the alternative fuels industry, and the viscerals championing the 'great human-induced global warming catastrophe' resort to to exaggerate human greenhouse gas contributions.
Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and the miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also predominantly of natural origin (except for the last, which is mostly anthropogenic). However, the actual contribution of carbon dioxide and these latter greenhouse gases to the greenhouse effect is so small that human-induced emissions are dwarfed in comparison to natural sources. Here is a data-graph compiled detailing actual human contribution from activities like deforesting, farming, manufacturing, etc. from scientific data in a five-stage synopsis:
The following is from a United States D.O.E. study on greenhouse gas emissions with numbers states in parts-per-billion. It however selectively leaves out water vapour and has not corrected for actual Global Warming Potential (GWP) of each gas.
These are however the statistics those who resort to the 'scientific method' would employ to expedite the benefits accruing from disseminated concern about 'startling human greenhouse gas emissions':
- Man-made and natural carbon dioxide (CO2) comprises 99.44% of all greenhouse gas concentrations (368,400 / 370,484 )--(ignoring water vapor).
However, also from the table:
- Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 additions comprise (11,880 / 370,484) or 3.207% of all greenhouse gas concentrations, (ignoring water vapor).
- Total combined anthropogenic greenhouse gases comprise (12,217 / 370,484) or 3.298% of all greenhouse gas concentrations, (ignoring water vapor).
However, the various greenhouse gases are not equal in their respective heat-retention properties, so that to remain statistically relevant, percentage concentrations must be converted to percentage contributions via GWP multipliers relative to Co2. Geocraft.com has a brilliant table in this regard modelled in the same format as the previous D.O.E. table for comparative convenience:
Now compare this to the above:
- Total carbon dioxide (CO2) contributions are reduced to 72.37% of all greenhouse gases: i.e. 368,400 / 509,056 - (ignoring water vapor).
- Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions are reduced to 11,880 / 509,056 ppb or 2.33% of total greenhouse gases, (ignoring water vapor).
- Total combined anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions reduce to 28,162 / 509,056 ppb or 5.53% of all greenhouse gas contributions, (ignoring water vapor).
- Relative to carbon dioxide the other greenhouse gases cumulatively comprise about 27.63% of the greenhouse effect (ignoring water vapor) but only about 0.56% of total greenhouse gas concentrations.
To summarize differently, methane, nitrous oxide, chloro-fluoro-carbons and other miscellaneous gases account for about 50 times the equivalent concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere: that is, they are about 50 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a net irradience-inducing greenhouse gas.
Now, factor water vapour into the contention and the equation changes dramatically. Also from Geocraft:
Total atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) - both man-made and natural - accounts for about 3.62% of the overall greenhouse effect. The most common greenhouse gas, Water Vapour, is responsible for about 95% of the effect. This is common knowledge among climatologists, but among special interest groups, lobby groups, NGO's with (yes) vested interests, and uninformed reporters, this is unacknowledged, ignored or underemphasized altogether.
To account for the human aspect of the non-water vapour greenhouse gas concentrations, the following is (mean-adjusted) scientific data compiled in pie charts from various statistical sources and geographical studies:
And finally, to calculate the proportion of the greenhouse effect due to human activity like mining, transportation, deforesting, etc., multiply the product of the adjusted CO2 contribution to greenhouse gases with percentage CO2 concentration from anthropogenic sources: 0.03618 X 0.03225 or 0.117% of net irradience due to atmospheric CO2 from human activity. The most important fallout of deforestation is not 'global warming', but topographical and soil erosion.
Including water vapour and statistically cumulating for the human aspect of ALL greenhouse gas emissions to calculate the human contribution to the greehnouse effect as a whole:
As you can see, the anthropogenic contribution to the statistically correct total greenhouse gas effect (including water vapour) is approximately 0.28%. Furthermore, Aanthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions (adjusted for heat retentiveness) cause only about 0.117% of Earth's greenhouse effect.
Watch for the research of Wallace Broecker, a respected American goechemist at Columbia's Earth Observatory. His research indicates that air reaching glaciers during the last Ice Age had less than half the water vapor content of today. Such increases in atmospheric moisture during our current interglacial period would have played a far greater role in global warming than carbon dioxide or other minor gases.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2009
- Messages
- 5,419
- Likes
- 1,001
Poor rains not seen drying up growth
8 Sep 2009, 0417 hrs IST, ET Bureau
MUMBAI: Even as fears of a failed monsoon hitting agricultural output and pushing up prices continue to linger, some research firms have taken
the line that overall economic growth will not be affected. Their reasoning is that the drought impact would be offset by the stimulus package and improved exports.
In a report released this week, Moody’s has said: "With nearly half of the country declaring drought-like conditions, agricultural output is bound to tumble in the coming months on the year-ago basis. Nevertheless, India's gross domestic product (GDP) growth is unlikely to decelerate in the second half of 2009."
According to the rating agency, this is because the previous rounds of fiscal stimulus are now tickling down the economy, providing a boost to the economic activity, it said. The government is quick in nullifying any downside risks, although it means running up a larger-than-budgeted fiscal deficit.
Bank of America Merrill Lynch, in its latest report, has retained its growth outlook — GDP forecast for FY10 at 5.8%, and it expects the industry to wriggle out of the drought conditions the way it did in 2002, on the back of G-3 demand stabilising.
"The industrial growth at 7% in June-July is higher than what we had expected," the report said. This has led the BankAM ML to hike FY10 IIP growth forecast by 80 basis points to 6.6%. At the same time, it expects consumer durable demand to dip as drought contracts rural incomes although the sixth Pay Commission arrears due October are a buffer. Transportation — railway, port and air traffic — will improve because of an improving export demand and base
effects.
Macquaire Research has warned that investors should avoid the mistake of looking only at the overall rainfall shortage to gauge the impact on growth. What matters is the spatial and inter-temporal distribution rainfall, too.
Unlike most previous serious droughts, the rains in July this year, the key sowing month, were relatively decent, which in turn should mitigate the overall damage to crops, it said. While the overall shortfall in rainfall has been worse than what it was in FY03 when GDP-agriculture collapsed 7.2%, the hit to agriculture this time will be much smaller. Admittedly, the fate of the rabi crop remains a key risk to outlook.
The research firm is of the view that India's rural economy has become more than just agriculture. The ongoing recovery in non-agriculture sectors following last year's post-Lehman crisis will soften the blow to the GDP growth. Also, the expansionary fiscal and monetary response will further cushion the impact.
In particular, measures such as the final Pay Commission payout shortly and the rural employment guarantee will limit the damage to rural spending from softer farm income.
Poor rains not seen drying up growth- Indicators-Economy-News-The Economic Times
8 Sep 2009, 0417 hrs IST, ET Bureau
MUMBAI: Even as fears of a failed monsoon hitting agricultural output and pushing up prices continue to linger, some research firms have taken
the line that overall economic growth will not be affected. Their reasoning is that the drought impact would be offset by the stimulus package and improved exports.
In a report released this week, Moody’s has said: "With nearly half of the country declaring drought-like conditions, agricultural output is bound to tumble in the coming months on the year-ago basis. Nevertheless, India's gross domestic product (GDP) growth is unlikely to decelerate in the second half of 2009."
According to the rating agency, this is because the previous rounds of fiscal stimulus are now tickling down the economy, providing a boost to the economic activity, it said. The government is quick in nullifying any downside risks, although it means running up a larger-than-budgeted fiscal deficit.
Bank of America Merrill Lynch, in its latest report, has retained its growth outlook — GDP forecast for FY10 at 5.8%, and it expects the industry to wriggle out of the drought conditions the way it did in 2002, on the back of G-3 demand stabilising.
"The industrial growth at 7% in June-July is higher than what we had expected," the report said. This has led the BankAM ML to hike FY10 IIP growth forecast by 80 basis points to 6.6%. At the same time, it expects consumer durable demand to dip as drought contracts rural incomes although the sixth Pay Commission arrears due October are a buffer. Transportation — railway, port and air traffic — will improve because of an improving export demand and base
effects.
Macquaire Research has warned that investors should avoid the mistake of looking only at the overall rainfall shortage to gauge the impact on growth. What matters is the spatial and inter-temporal distribution rainfall, too.
Unlike most previous serious droughts, the rains in July this year, the key sowing month, were relatively decent, which in turn should mitigate the overall damage to crops, it said. While the overall shortfall in rainfall has been worse than what it was in FY03 when GDP-agriculture collapsed 7.2%, the hit to agriculture this time will be much smaller. Admittedly, the fate of the rabi crop remains a key risk to outlook.
The research firm is of the view that India's rural economy has become more than just agriculture. The ongoing recovery in non-agriculture sectors following last year's post-Lehman crisis will soften the blow to the GDP growth. Also, the expansionary fiscal and monetary response will further cushion the impact.
In particular, measures such as the final Pay Commission payout shortly and the rural employment guarantee will limit the damage to rural spending from softer farm income.
Poor rains not seen drying up growth- Indicators-Economy-News-The Economic Times
