Man made CO2 contributes to only 0.117% of the greenhouse effect
-
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html[^] " Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions cause only about 0.117% of Earth's greenhouse effect, (factoring in water vapor)" So reducing it by 20% will have what effect on temperature and at what cost? --edit-- Hey look, I know its not very interesting, but WTF, there hasnt been a post here for almost a week! I also heavilly dispute his figures for man made CO2 totalling 11.8 PPM only. Since CO2 has gone up 100 PPM during the last 150 years or so. Has anyone got a figure for the total gas, oil and coal produciton and how that relates to mass of CO2 and PPM?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html[^] " Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions cause only about 0.117% of Earth's greenhouse effect, (factoring in water vapor)" So reducing it by 20% will have what effect on temperature and at what cost? --edit-- Hey look, I know its not very interesting, but WTF, there hasnt been a post here for almost a week! I also heavilly dispute his figures for man made CO2 totalling 11.8 PPM only. Since CO2 has gone up 100 PPM during the last 150 years or so. Has anyone got a figure for the total gas, oil and coal produciton and how that relates to mass of CO2 and PPM?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
According to someone who's an evangelist for the cause. Hell, looking at what he has there all gases would be completely negligible in their effects on global warming. Which means one thing, we must but an end to evaporation. Edit: And upon review I find no credentials which would relate to the understanding of climate science what so ever. But better yet, one of his fundamental assumptions appears to be completely wrong: Quick reference[^] Which would put his 95% impact of watervapor at the off by 25-35 points. Closer to 70, hell, even assuming 75 you're looking at five times the impact, and using the corrected numbers you're most likely going to wind up with considerably more. This guy appears to be the Al Gore of the denial side to me. No reason to say anything, no reason anyone should listen to him, but he says what the faithful want to hear so he's quoted all over the place.
-
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html[^] " Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions cause only about 0.117% of Earth's greenhouse effect, (factoring in water vapor)" So reducing it by 20% will have what effect on temperature and at what cost? --edit-- Hey look, I know its not very interesting, but WTF, there hasnt been a post here for almost a week! I also heavilly dispute his figures for man made CO2 totalling 11.8 PPM only. Since CO2 has gone up 100 PPM during the last 150 years or so. Has anyone got a figure for the total gas, oil and coal produciton and how that relates to mass of CO2 and PPM?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
:zzz: :zzz: :zzz: :zzz: :zzz: :zzz: :zzz:
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html[^] " Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions cause only about 0.117% of Earth's greenhouse effect, (factoring in water vapor)" So reducing it by 20% will have what effect on temperature and at what cost? --edit-- Hey look, I know its not very interesting, but WTF, there hasnt been a post here for almost a week! I also heavilly dispute his figures for man made CO2 totalling 11.8 PPM only. Since CO2 has gone up 100 PPM during the last 150 years or so. Has anyone got a figure for the total gas, oil and coal produciton and how that relates to mass of CO2 and PPM?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
There has been a lot of big volcano erruptions in recent years, they are bound to have released or resulted in huge volumes of CO2, probably far more than man is producing. And anyway, the the short period timefram shows that the climate is heating up, but the longer time frame trend is that it is cooling down, and we are heading for an ice age in about 20,000 years. In reality though, if man just cracks on picking away at emissions and improving on efficiency and energy usage, the greenies will be happy, but really it probably doesn't matter what we do. So all i say is "Mr Government, get your fingers out of your arseholes and crack on with building Nuclear Power stations, i'm all for it."
Dave Don't forget to rate messages!
Find Me On: Web|Facebook|Twitter|LinkedIn -
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html[^] " Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions cause only about 0.117% of Earth's greenhouse effect, (factoring in water vapor)" So reducing it by 20% will have what effect on temperature and at what cost? --edit-- Hey look, I know its not very interesting, but WTF, there hasnt been a post here for almost a week! I also heavilly dispute his figures for man made CO2 totalling 11.8 PPM only. Since CO2 has gone up 100 PPM during the last 150 years or so. Has anyone got a figure for the total gas, oil and coal produciton and how that relates to mass of CO2 and PPM?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
:zzz:
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
There has been a lot of big volcano erruptions in recent years, they are bound to have released or resulted in huge volumes of CO2, probably far more than man is producing. And anyway, the the short period timefram shows that the climate is heating up, but the longer time frame trend is that it is cooling down, and we are heading for an ice age in about 20,000 years. In reality though, if man just cracks on picking away at emissions and improving on efficiency and energy usage, the greenies will be happy, but really it probably doesn't matter what we do. So all i say is "Mr Government, get your fingers out of your arseholes and crack on with building Nuclear Power stations, i'm all for it."
Dave Don't forget to rate messages!
Find Me On: Web|Facebook|Twitter|LinkedIndaveauld wrote:
There has been a lot of big volcano erruptions in recent years, they are bound to have released or resulted in huge volumes of CO2, probably far more than man is producing.
Yay bloggers who have done the math already: No[^] Summary quote: Human machines worldwide emit 3.89 times more CO2 than 1500 full-on Kilauea volcanoes.
-
:zzz:
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Brains.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
According to someone who's an evangelist for the cause. Hell, looking at what he has there all gases would be completely negligible in their effects on global warming. Which means one thing, we must but an end to evaporation. Edit: And upon review I find no credentials which would relate to the understanding of climate science what so ever. But better yet, one of his fundamental assumptions appears to be completely wrong: Quick reference[^] Which would put his 95% impact of watervapor at the off by 25-35 points. Closer to 70, hell, even assuming 75 you're looking at five times the impact, and using the corrected numbers you're most likely going to wind up with considerably more. This guy appears to be the Al Gore of the denial side to me. No reason to say anything, no reason anyone should listen to him, but he says what the faithful want to hear so he's quoted all over the place.