Posted on 12/08/2010 3:59:15 PM PST by Coleus
Even if all the proposed solutions to “Global Warming” did NOT involve taking money from people that work and giving it to people who don’t, I STILL wouldn’t believe in it...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
That article doesn’t claim it is all from burning fossil fuels yet claims that it is all man.
They are stressing farming and many other elements.
No mention that even using their numbers and all these factors we are still only 30% of total global emissions of CO2.
So it is confirmed, not all the increase in CO2 is from burning fossil fuels. I really have to find that video for you. You would appreciate it.
Not sure, this may be it, have to watch it again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI&feature=related
It is (wait for it)......... water vapor.
There's certainly more water vapor than CO2, but perhaps CO2 has a bigger greenhouse effect per molecule. Do you know their relative strengths as greenhouse gases? Me either, but at least I'll try to look it up.
I'm sure you'll be able to convince yourself that antropogenic global warming is true, regardless of the facts.
"Do you know their relative strengths as greenhouse gases?"
General ranges are available on websites as difficult to find as wikipedia.org.
"Me either,..."
You do realize that you speak only for yourself. Or do you just automatically assume that everyone is as uninformed as you are?
"...but at least I'll try to look it up."
Try? Sheesh. Don't strain yourself.
That isn’t the video.
What ever it is, it is one of those videos where you have to work the calculations as they go along.
A sleeper but not something that rates high on Youtube.
Someone at Freerepublic linked it to everyone.
Since there is about twice as much CO2 being put in the atmosphere by fossil fuels each year than the observed increase in the atmosphere, that means nature is absorbing about 1/2 of the "extra" we put in. Due to natural factors (e.g. post-LIA warming like you mentioned), the portion of being absorbed by nature has decreased (i.e. nature would absorb more of the extra).
If fossil fuels were not in the picture, then there would still be a small natural rise because of the warming. But it would be a fraction of the rise we are getting with fossil fuels.
Here is the google link using “NOAA-16”
Here is a link to Canada free Press on the topic:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/26603
CO2 is release due to this natural rise in temperature.
The average change per 100 years in the climate is 2.5 degrees even before the Industrial Revolution.
IPCC is predicting 1.5 degrees for 2000-3000.
If 2.5 is normal variation, how can 1.5 all be man made fossil fuels? Why is it even remarkable?
I am just asking, something isn’t clicking here.
If the multiplier is lower for any reason, then the IPCC predictions will be too high. Even considering terrestrial factors along (e.g. tropical weather), it is likely that the multiplier is too high.
I should have reiterated: all the increase in CO2 that we see in the atmosphere is manmade because man made CO2 is twice as large as that increase. However the natural rise in temperature since the Little Ice Age is causing that CO2 increase to be even higher than if we did not have a Little Ice Age followed by natural warming.
Exactly, it is like a bank account. There is ins and outs, so we want to know the net balance that related to man burning fuels for power without all that fantasy of the left that sees the fart of a ant being man caused.
Global Temperature Increase is naturally occurring due to the fact that we are still coming out of the last ice age.
As the temperature increases, the tree line on mountains will get higher, decomposition rates of dead plant and animals will change. Shift in the earth’s crust will cause land masses to rise in response to melting glaciers.
All of these are going on now and will be for the next 800 years regardless. These create an increased CO2 output by nature.
Surely all the models don’t assume that Nature’s CO2 output is static.
In other words, the argument currently is if there wasn’t any man on planet earth that the earth wouldn’t be seeing any increase and CO2 and it wouldn’t experience any warming. It would be completely stable. Does that sound right? I don’t think so.
I have to find that video for you guys. Once you look at the entire train of co-efficients you see how little we really contribute to the problem and therefore have almost no influence over fixing it. Nature is just so powerful.
That is correct. Natural warming caused some CO2 increase in the past and that continues variably to the present. You are correct that none of that is in the climate models. What the video may not go into, or underemphasize, is the sheer volume of manmade CO2. I am one of those people who believe that all the manmade CO2 is not a problem, nor will it ever be, and will only cause a little extra warming. We have arrayed against us a multi-billion dollar industry determined to "prove" that the extra CO2 will cause catastrophe.
Maybe. The fossil fuel estimates should be pretty decent since they know how much was pumped, sold and burned. The categories that are not fossil fuels might just be guesswork.
There isn’t any question that the amount is massive, but the amount that is sticking around isn’t as a percentage of the total atmosphere.
It would be like saying that the amount of water emitted by my house is a disaster for the neighborhood because it would fill an Olympic sized swimming pool.
The point is, it isn’t sticking around and even if you include all my neighbors, we are still not going to flood the city.
Input output.
We are freaking on the total input to the system without looking at just the portion that is directly caused that nature is unable to deal with.
It is laid out in this video, it is like a single grain of sugar in a 1lb sack of sugar.
I strongly suspect this graph overstates the human caused emissions with the farming, because it isn’t like we just started farming in the 1750s, there has been farming even before Christ. I am sure there are other overstatements. I would just look at the actual fuel burning and take a percent of the rest, all these activities didn’t just start recently.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.