Human caused climate change!

[Big Fitz]

All I got left to state about this is IF you are a climate scientist, you are among the minority 10%, and not in the consensus of the 90% who believe in global climate change and that we are in or headed to no man's land. I disagree with the 90% on their prediction on how soon or later the shit will hit the fan.

I will never understand why so many people refuse to keep learning and think they now it all.

IF... AGW can be debunked by basic math and earth science, it's probably NOT worth spending trillions on to prevent.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

All I got left to state about this is IF you are a climate scientist, you are among the minority 10%, and not in the consensus of the 90% who believe in global climate change and that we are in or headed to no man's land. I disagree with the 90% on their prediction on how soon or later the shit will hit the fan.

I will never understand why so many people refuse to keep learning and think they now it all.

I will never understand why so many people refuse to keep learning and think they now it all.

Yeah, the global warming cultists annoy me too.

 

[daveman]

All I got left to state about this is IF you are a climate scientist, you are among the minority 10%, and not in the consensus of the 90% who believe in global climate change and that we are in or headed to no man's land. I disagree with the 90% on their prediction on how soon or later the shit will hit the fan.

I will never understand why so many people refuse to keep learning and think they now it all.

Oh, you mean the people who say, "The science is settled"?

 

[daveman]

Something that is missing from the graphs and such as well as the convo in general, and seems to have been overlooked is the FACT that there are now 7 BILLION PEOPLE. Sure historical data gives us all something to deduce as far as cycles go BUT there are a whole lotta people now. Not to mention the domestic animals, far less forests, most everyone burning fossil fuel from carbon "stores" (there's a clue for an open mind)etc, etc, etc,............... Heck I bet I've likely burned 10,000 gal's of fuel just myself in my lifetime and I'm barely over 50.

Should be painfully obvious we should have a great impact on our HOME. It's our HOME!! Get it? If not wake the f up.

I guess I'm going to have to drop this on another ecofascistitard.

Planetary Atmospheric Composition (You can find it in any junior high text, but Wiki is the same.
Atmosphere of Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gas Volume
Nitrogen (N2) 780,840 ppmv (78.084%)
Oxygen (O2) 209,460 ppmv (20.946%)
Argon (Ar) 9,340 ppmv (0.9340%)
Carbon dioxide (CO2) 394.45 ppmv (0.039445%)
Neon (Ne) 18.18 ppmv (0.001818%)
Helium (He) 5.24 ppmv (0.000524%)
Methane (CH4) 1.79 ppmv (0.000179%)
Krypton (Kr) 1.14 ppmv (0.000114%)
Hydrogen (H2) 0.55 ppmv (0.000055%)
Nitrous oxide (N2O) 0.3 ppmv (0.00003%)
Carbon monoxide (CO) 0.1 ppmv (0.00001%)
Xenon (Xe) 0.09 ppmv (9×10−6%) (0.000009%)
Ozone (O3) 0.0 to 0.07 ppmv (0 to 7×10−6%)
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) 0.02 ppmv (2×10−6%) (0.000002%)
Iodine (I2) 0.01 ppmv (1×10−6%) (0.000001%)
Ammonia (NH3) trace
Not included in above dry atmosphere:
Water vapor (H2O) ~0.40% over full atmosphere, typically 1%-4% at surface

Okay? Note that? CO2 is less than 0.4% of total atmospheric composition. Now. How much is that by weight? We all hear about how many gigatons we produce as a species right? Let's see how much of an impact that has. Mind you, this is STILL basic gradeschool math applied to Junior High science. We're going to have to multiply and divide. Stay with me, mmkay?

The average mass of the atmosphere is about 5 quadrillion (5×1015) tonnes or 1/1,200,000 the mass of Earth. According to the American National Center for Atmospheric Research,

Okay, the total atmospheric weight is 5,000,000,000,000,000 tonnes. And for the sake of argument we'll round UP to 0.4% of Carbon Dioxide's share which is a weight of 200 billion tonnes.

So, you get that, right?

All CO2 = 200 billion tons

So what's man's contribution to that amount?

Approximately 9,000,000,000 tons. And that was last year, and a record.

Sounds pretty bad, doesn't it? At least till you read this:

How about natural sources?

Most sources of CO2 emissions are natural, and are balanced to various degrees by natural CO2 sinks. For example, the natural decay of organic material in forests and grasslands and the action of forest fires results in the release of about 439 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide every year, while new growth entirely counteracts this effect, absorbing 450 gigatonnes per year.

That means that in the yearly production of CO2 in the world, mankind is responsible for 0.02% of all CO2 produced of which makes up 0.4% of total atmospheric composition.

Now, you are asking us to turn the world upside down for global ecofascism for the addition to the atmosphere of 0.000002% of it's total volume???

Now remember this small fact too. Water vapor is a much stronger and variable green house gas. It exists in the atmosphere at between 1-4% of total volume, and yet we do not hear of people trying to ban water vapor.

Take further note that nature on average is in equalibrium with or absorbing more CO2 than is being produced from all sources by 2 billion tonnes. Shouldn't the temperatures be plummeting because before 1990 we weren't even close to 2 billion tonnes a year, or is it another factor? Hmmmmmmmmm........

You wonder why I am incredulous about AGW, particularly as CO2 as a main driver?

The math is astounding when you consider our impact as a whole.


True story.

Repbot is getting all rep-Nazi on me. I'll hook a brother up when I can.

 

[daveman]

All I got left to state about this is IF you are a climate scientist, you are among the minority 10%, and not in the consensus of the 90% who believe in global climate change and that we are in or headed to no man's land. I disagree with the 90% on their prediction on how soon or later the shit will hit the fan.

I will never understand why so many people refuse to keep learning and think they now it all.

IF... AGW can be debunked by basic math and earth science, it's probably NOT worth spending trillions on to prevent.

But just in case, you ought to park your car and walk everywhere while I fly my jet around the world. /Al Gore

 

[Big Fitz]

Wow... I realized I made a small mistake.

It's not 0.0000018%.

It's 0.00018%

My bad.

But them are loud crickets out there.

 

[Old Rocks]

There are an awful lot of people like Fritzy and Flatulance that throw around numbers with no realization of the significance of them at all. And think because they are so damned ignorant, that everybody else is, also. You can instantly spot them when they begin talking about water vapor, and how the scientists have not factored that in. The truth, of course, is that every study done has factored in water vapor, from the first one by Svante Arrhenius in 1896 to the present models and studies.

 

[Old Rocks]

Wow... I realized I made a small mistake.

It's not 0.0000018%.

It's 0.00018%

My bad.

But them are loud crickets out there.

Fritzy boy, them crickets are the response one gets when they state things that are abysmally stupid.

 

[Old Rocks]

What are the scientists stating concerning the possibility of major clathrate outgassing?

Arctic Methane Emergency Group - AMEG - Home

 

[Fordsflylow]

Just wait till Mother Earth lets one rip, and the real party officially begins. This season/year, sad to say, we will see massive crop loss due to desert type heat across much of the nation.

 

[Old Rocks]

The predictions concerning losses in agriculter have been spot on. We have seen major losses in the last three years. Australia, Russia, and the US last year and this year. At some point, more than one bread basket at a time is going to get hit, and we will see really bad cess.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There are an awful lot of people like Fritzy and Flatulance that throw around numbers with no realization of the significance of them at all. And think because they are so damned ignorant, that everybody else is, also. You can instantly spot them when they begin talking about water vapor, and how the scientists have not factored that in. The truth, of course, is that every study done has factored in water vapor, from the first one by Svante Arrhenius in 1896 to the present models and studies.

every study done has factored in water vapor,

How many trillions do we need to waste to reduce water vapor?

 

[bobgnote]

There are an awful lot of people like Fritzy and Flatulance that throw around numbers with no realization of the significance of them at all. And think because they are so damned ignorant, that everybody else is, also. You can instantly spot them when they begin talking about water vapor, and how the scientists have not factored that in. The truth, of course, is that every study done has factored in water vapor, from the first one by Svante Arrhenius in 1896 to the present models and studies.

every study done has factored in water vapor,

How many trillions do we need to waste to reduce water vapor?

Here's the problem, Turdsterbugger. Stupid people made a lot of little DDDs. So you all are deedling and doodling, in traffic.

In order to reduce water vapor, people have to re-green the planet, or the out-gassing CH4 will cause more H2O to accumulate, in the atmosphere, and some of the CH4 will break down, to CO2 and H2O. Water will get in the atmosphere.

But the gas to attack is the CO2, via planting a lot of beetle-resistant trees. We need to farm algae, hemp, and switchgrass, to process ethanol, by ultrasound. We can think of some sort of occasional filter media, for CH4, but the gas to whack is the CO2.

We need to free ourselves, from the drug war, prison industry, and petroleum/fossil fuel industry, simultaneously, in the same way we need to reduce use of internal combustion engines, in cars, but since beetles are ******* up a lot of trees, we need to use chainsaws, to clear out dead trees. But we need to plant hothouse trees, to recover blighted forests and deserts, both.

The only way to fund that is to cut wars, which would cut our carbon footprint, but then, we need to plant a lot of smart plants. Judging from the IQ of anti-warming skeptics, they will find jobs, as zombies, chasing the smart plants.

We need to re-green all polluted areas. We need to stop breeding stupid people, ASAP, but it looks like some sort of radical adjustment is going to take EVERYBODY'S numbers down, in some out-of-control way.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Something that is missing from the graphs and such as well as the convo in general, and seems to have been overlooked is the FACT that there are now 7 BILLION PEOPLE. Sure historical data gives us all something to deduce as far as cycles go BUT there are a whole lotta people now. Not to mention the domestic animals, far less forests, most everyone burning fossil fuel from carbon "stores" (there's a clue for an open mind)etc, etc, etc,............... Heck I bet I've likely burned 10,000 gal's of fuel just myself in my lifetime and I'm barely over 50.

Should be painfully obvious we should have a great impact on our HOME. It's our HOME!! Get it? If not wake the f up.

I guess I'm going to have to drop this on another ecofascistitard.

Planetary Atmospheric Composition (You can find it in any junior high text, but Wiki is the same.
Atmosphere of Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gas Volume
Nitrogen (N2) 780,840 ppmv (78.084%)
Oxygen (O2) 209,460 ppmv (20.946%)
Argon (Ar) 9,340 ppmv (0.9340%)
Carbon dioxide (CO2) 394.45 ppmv (0.039445%)
Neon (Ne) 18.18 ppmv (0.001818%)
Helium (He) 5.24 ppmv (0.000524%)
Methane (CH4) 1.79 ppmv (0.000179%)
Krypton (Kr) 1.14 ppmv (0.000114%)
Hydrogen (H2) 0.55 ppmv (0.000055%)
Nitrous oxide (N2O) 0.3 ppmv (0.00003%)
Carbon monoxide (CO) 0.1 ppmv (0.00001%)
Xenon (Xe) 0.09 ppmv (9×10−6%) (0.000009%)
Ozone (O3) 0.0 to 0.07 ppmv (0 to 7×10−6%)
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) 0.02 ppmv (2×10−6%) (0.000002%)
Iodine (I2) 0.01 ppmv (1×10−6%) (0.000001%)
Ammonia (NH3) trace
Not included in above dry atmosphere:
Water vapor (H2O) ~0.40% over full atmosphere, typically 1%-4% at surface

Okay? Note that? CO2 is less than 0.4% of total atmospheric composition. Now. How much is that by weight? We all hear about how many gigatons we produce as a species right? Let's see how much of an impact that has. Mind you, this is STILL basic gradeschool math applied to Junior High science. We're going to have to multiply and divide. Stay with me, mmkay?

The average mass of the atmosphere is about 5 quadrillion (5×1015) tonnes or 1/1,200,000 the mass of Earth. According to the American National Center for Atmospheric Research,

Okay, the total atmospheric weight is 5,000,000,000,000,000 tonnes. And for the sake of argument we'll round UP to 0.4% of Carbon Dioxide's share which is a weight of 200 billion tonnes.

So, you get that, right?

All CO2 = 200 billion tons

So what's man's contribution to that amount?

Approximately 9,000,000,000 tons. And that was last year, and a record.

Sounds pretty bad, doesn't it? At least till you read this:

How about natural sources?

Most sources of CO2 emissions are natural, and are balanced to various degrees by natural CO2 sinks. For example, the natural decay of organic material in forests and grasslands and the action of forest fires results in the release of about 439 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide every year, while new growth entirely counteracts this effect, absorbing 450 gigatonnes per year.

That means that in the yearly production of CO2 in the world, mankind is responsible for 0.02% of all CO2 produced of which makes up 0.4% of total atmospheric composition.

Now, you are asking us to turn the world upside down for global ecofascism for the addition to the atmosphere of 0.000002% of it's total volume???

Now remember this small fact too. Water vapor is a much stronger and variable green house gas. It exists in the atmosphere at between 1-4% of total volume, and yet we do not hear of people trying to ban water vapor.

Take further note that nature on average is in equalibrium with or absorbing more CO2 than is being produced from all sources by 2 billion tonnes. Shouldn't the temperatures be plummeting because before 1990 we weren't even close to 2 billion tonnes a year, or is it another factor? Hmmmmmmmmm........

You wonder why I am incredulous about AGW, particularly as CO2 as a main driver?

The math is astounding when you consider our impact as a whole.


True story.

Math FAIL!

Sorry but 9/439 isn't 0.02%, its 2%.



And man releases 9 Billion tonnes of CARBON into the atmosphere every year, not 9 Billion tonnes of CARBON DIOXIDE. We release 33.5 Billion Tones of CO2.

 

[Katzndogz]

The charts and graphs are not based on actual temperatures but on sensors. What the sensor reports depends a lot on where the sensor is placed. Many of the sensors today are strategically placed in places that have absorptive and reflective heat. Your backyard is not going to record the same temperature as the parking lot of a mall.

If you have a sensor in a place that records an air temperature, such as a field, and move it to a city in the middle of heat absorbing and reflecting cement, the sensor will record an increase in air temperature when in fact there was no increase.

That's how they do it.

 

[Big Fitz]

Something that is missing from the graphs and such as well as the convo in general, and seems to have been overlooked is the FACT that there are now 7 BILLION PEOPLE. Sure historical data gives us all something to deduce as far as cycles go BUT there are a whole lotta people now. Not to mention the domestic animals, far less forests, most everyone burning fossil fuel from carbon "stores" (there's a clue for an open mind)etc, etc, etc,............... Heck I bet I've likely burned 10,000 gal's of fuel just myself in my lifetime and I'm barely over 50.

Should be painfully obvious we should have a great impact on our HOME. It's our HOME!! Get it? If not wake the f up.

I guess I'm going to have to drop this on another ecofascistitard.

Planetary Atmospheric Composition (You can find it in any junior high text, but Wiki is the same.
Atmosphere of Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Okay? Note that? CO2 is less than 0.4% of total atmospheric composition. Now. How much is that by weight? We all hear about how many gigatons we produce as a species right? Let's see how much of an impact that has. Mind you, this is STILL basic gradeschool math applied to Junior High science. We're going to have to multiply and divide. Stay with me, mmkay?

Okay, the total atmospheric weight is 5,000,000,000,000,000 tonnes. And for the sake of argument we'll round UP to 0.4% of Carbon Dioxide's share which is a weight of 200 billion tonnes.

So, you get that, right?

All CO2 = 200 billion tons

So what's man's contribution to that amount?

Approximately 9,000,000,000 tons. And that was last year, and a record.

Sounds pretty bad, doesn't it? At least till you read this:

How about natural sources?

Most sources of CO2 emissions are natural, and are balanced to various degrees by natural CO2 sinks. For example, the natural decay of organic material in forests and grasslands and the action of forest fires results in the release of about 439 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide every year, while new growth entirely counteracts this effect, absorbing 450 gigatonnes per year.

That means that in the yearly production of CO2 in the world, mankind is responsible for 0.02% of all CO2 produced of which makes up 0.4% of total atmospheric composition.

Now, you are asking us to turn the world upside down for global ecofascism for the addition to the atmosphere of 0.000002% of it's total volume???

Now remember this small fact too. Water vapor is a much stronger and variable green house gas. It exists in the atmosphere at between 1-4% of total volume, and yet we do not hear of people trying to ban water vapor.

Take further note that nature on average is in equalibrium with or absorbing more CO2 than is being produced from all sources by 2 billion tonnes. Shouldn't the temperatures be plummeting because before 1990 we weren't even close to 2 billion tonnes a year, or is it another factor? Hmmmmmmmmm........

You wonder why I am incredulous about AGW, particularly as CO2 as a main driver?

The math is astounding when you consider our impact as a whole.


True story.

Math FAIL!

Sorry but 9/439 isn't 0.02%, its 2%.



And man releases 9 Billion tonnes of CARBON into the atmosphere every year, not 9 Billion tonnes of CARBON DIOXIDE. We release 33.5 Billion Tones of CO2.

See. that's why adjusted here:

Wow... I realized I made a small mistake.

It's not 0.0000018%.

It's 0.00018%

My bad.

But them are loud crickets out there.

That's of total atmospheric volume.

Also, that does not change the fact that nature absorbs 2 gigatonnes more of total CO2 currently than is produced by all sources, including our piddlyass 2%.

Error found, and still leaves us as a species... irrelevant.

Also, if you can find numbers that say we release 33 gigatonnes PER YEAR of CO2, from a reliable source, I'd be glad to see it. That'd make our contribution to total CO2 still less than 9%, AND still not over 0.001% total volume. Of course, I'd believe that the 33 gigatonne mark is a ALL TIME production of CO2, which makes it even less of an issue since in 1990, we barely produced over 1 gigatonne.

When water vapor, a far more powerful greenhouse gas is between 1-4% total volume, why aren't our emissions of that coming under scrutiny?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There are an awful lot of people like Fritzy and Flatulance that throw around numbers with no realization of the significance of them at all. And think because they are so damned ignorant, that everybody else is, also. You can instantly spot them when they begin talking about water vapor, and how the scientists have not factored that in. The truth, of course, is that every study done has factored in water vapor, from the first one by Svante Arrhenius in 1896 to the present models and studies.

every study done has factored in water vapor,

How many trillions do we need to waste to reduce water vapor?

Here's the problem, Turdsterbugger. Stupid people made a lot of little DDDs. So you all are deedling and doodling, in traffic.

In order to reduce water vapor, people have to re-green the planet, or the out-gassing CH4 will cause more H2O to accumulate, in the atmosphere, and some of the CH4 will break down, to CO2 and H2O. Water will get in the atmosphere.

But the gas to attack is the CO2, via planting a lot of beetle-resistant trees. We need to farm algae, hemp, and switchgrass, to process ethanol, by ultrasound. We can think of some sort of occasional filter media, for CH4, but the gas to whack is the CO2.

We need to free ourselves, from the drug war, prison industry, and petroleum/fossil fuel industry, simultaneously, in the same way we need to reduce use of internal combustion engines, in cars, but since beetles are ******* up a lot of trees, we need to use chainsaws, to clear out dead trees. But we need to plant hothouse trees, to recover blighted forests and deserts, both.

The only way to fund that is to cut wars, which would cut our carbon footprint, but then, we need to plant a lot of smart plants. Judging from the IQ of anti-warming skeptics, they will find jobs, as zombies, chasing the smart plants.

We need to re-green all polluted areas. We need to stop breeding stupid people, ASAP, but it looks like some sort of radical adjustment is going to take EVERYBODY'S numbers down, in some out-of-control way.

Are you okay Princess?
It must be tough being black and gay.
That's okay, I'm sure you'll figure it out.

 

[RollingThunder]

An idiotic question, typical of idiots like you.

The sun's output has been quite constant so the changes we're seeing in Earth's average temperatures and the consequent climate changes are not due to any changes in the sun's energy reaching Earth. Mankind has raised atmospheric levels of CO2, a powerful greenhouse gas, by 40% and the world's scientists all agree that that factor is the cause of the current warming and climate changes. So, dumbass, the fact is that mankind is currently having a "greater impact" on the Earth's climate while the sun's contribution remains the same as it was before the temperatures started climbing.

Now we got something to discuss RollingThunder.. How sure are you that part I bolded above?? Is THAT what you've been told?

What that shows is explained here.. http://www.usmessageboard.com/5549839-post68.html

The IPCC reports talk about just 12 year cycles of solar output. But the definite increase that you see in that graph is ALMOST equal to the raw calculated forcing function increase due to CO2.. When you see this LONGER solar irradiance record -- ARE YOU STILL sure of what you've been told? That almost ALL of the warming is accounted for by just CO2.

Yeah, fecalton, I am sure that CO2 is responsible for the recent abrupt warming trend because I understand the science involved whereas you're a gullible retard who is easily fooled by graphs that you can obviously neither understand nor grasp the context of, that were pulled from valid scientific sites and spoon-fed to you along with a lot of bogus misinterpretation by denier cult blogs.

Solar variation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(excerpts)

Variations in total solar irradiance were too small to detect with technology available before the satellite era, although the small fraction in ultra-violet light has recently been found to vary significantly more than previously thought over the course of a solar cycle.[2] Total solar output is now measured to vary (over the last three 11-year sunspot cycles) by approximately 0.1%,[3][4][5] or about 1.3 Watts per square meter (W/m2) peak-to-trough from solar maximum to solar minimum during the 11-year sunspot cycle. The amount of solar radiation received at the outer surface of Earth's atmosphere averages 1366 W/m2.[1][6][7] There are no direct measurements of the longer-term variation, and interpretations of proxy measures of variations differ. The intensity of solar radiation reaching Earth has been relatively constant through the last 2000 years, with variations estimated at around 0.1-0.2%.[8][9][10] Solar variation, together with volcanic activity are hypothesized to have contributed to climate change, for example during the Maunder Minimum. However, changes in solar brightness are too weak to explain recent climate change.[11]

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Are there still denier's out there? If so, how so!?

Maybe you Warmers need to push the Earth further away from the Sun?

 

[flacaltenn]

Something that is missing from the graphs and such as well as the convo in general, and seems to have been overlooked is the FACT that there are now 7 BILLION PEOPLE. Sure historical data gives us all something to deduce as far as cycles go BUT there are a whole lotta people now. Not to mention the domestic animals, far less forests, most everyone burning fossil fuel from carbon "stores" (there's a clue for an open mind)etc, etc, etc,............... Heck I bet I've likely burned 10,000 gal's of fuel just myself in my lifetime and I'm barely over 50.

Should be painfully obvious we should have a great impact on our HOME. It's our HOME!! Get it? If not wake the f up.

I guess I'm going to have to drop this on another ecofascistitard.

Planetary Atmospheric Composition (You can find it in any junior high text, but Wiki is the same.
Atmosphere of Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Okay? Note that? CO2 is less than 0.4% of total atmospheric composition. Now. How much is that by weight? We all hear about how many gigatons we produce as a species right? Let's see how much of an impact that has. Mind you, this is STILL basic gradeschool math applied to Junior High science. We're going to have to multiply and divide. Stay with me, mmkay?

Okay, the total atmospheric weight is 5,000,000,000,000,000 tonnes. And for the sake of argument we'll round UP to 0.4% of Carbon Dioxide's share which is a weight of 200 billion tonnes.

So, you get that, right?

All CO2 = 200 billion tons

So what's man's contribution to that amount?

Approximately 9,000,000,000 tons. And that was last year, and a record.

Sounds pretty bad, doesn't it? At least till you read this:

How about natural sources?

Most sources of CO2 emissions are natural, and are balanced to various degrees by natural CO2 sinks. For example, the natural decay of organic material in forests and grasslands and the action of forest fires results in the release of about 439 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide every year, while new growth entirely counteracts this effect, absorbing 450 gigatonnes per year.

That means that in the yearly production of CO2 in the world, mankind is responsible for 0.02% of all CO2 produced of which makes up 0.4% of total atmospheric composition.

Now, you are asking us to turn the world upside down for global ecofascism for the addition to the atmosphere of 0.000002% of it's total volume???

Now remember this small fact too. Water vapor is a much stronger and variable green house gas. It exists in the atmosphere at between 1-4% of total volume, and yet we do not hear of people trying to ban water vapor.

Take further note that nature on average is in equalibrium with or absorbing more CO2 than is being produced from all sources by 2 billion tonnes. Shouldn't the temperatures be plummeting because before 1990 we weren't even close to 2 billion tonnes a year, or is it another factor? Hmmmmmmmmm........

You wonder why I am incredulous about AGW, particularly as CO2 as a main driver?

The math is astounding when you consider our impact as a whole.


True story.

Math FAIL!

Sorry but 9/439 isn't 0.02%, its 2%.



And man releases 9 Billion tonnes of CARBON into the atmosphere every year, not 9 Billion tonnes of CARBON DIOXIDE. We release 33.5 Billion Tones of CO2.

Yeah -- that confuses a lot of people -- some of them are climate scientists. You need to establish whether you're weighing Carbon exchanges or CO2 exchanges. CO2 weighs about 3.6X what Carbon does. HOWEVER -- if you're consistent -- you can establish the man-made RATIO in either set of units!!

I prefer to remain in CO2 numbers.. Because unless you're dingbat trying to establish the dollar cost of "carbon credits" -- CO2 is the indicted culprit.. (BTW -- a "carbon tax" OUGHT to be charged by CO2 CH4 weights and not carbon -- dingbats)

So -- generally acceptable numbers are like follows..

Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter - environment - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist


Human emissions of CO2 are now estimated to be 26.4 Gt per year, up from 23.5 Gt in the 1990s, according to an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report in February 2007 (pdf format). Disturbances to the land - through deforestation and agriculture, for instance - also contribute roughly 5.9 Gt per year.

About 40% of the extra CO2 entering the atmosphere due to human activity is being absorbed by natural carbon sinks, mostly by the oceans. The rest is boosting levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

The consumption of terrestrial vegetation by animals and by microbes (rotting, in other words) emits about 220 gigatonnes of CO2 every year, while respiration by vegetation emits another 220 Gt. These huge amounts are balanced by the 440 Gt of carbon dioxide absorbed from the atmosphere each year as land plants photosynthesise.

Similarly, parts of the oceans release about 330 Gt of CO2 per year, depending on temperature and rates of photosynthesis by phytoplankton, but other parts usually soak up just as much - and are now soaking up slightly more.

And the weight of CO2 in the atmos is about 750Gton.. Couple of points..

1) I don't consider it fair that man gets charged for cowfarts and farming -- those differences in land use and agriculture are not sufficiently balanced with plains full of buffalo and more uncontrolled forest fires and such.. But it's not effective to quibble about whether man contributes 30 or just 25Gtons/yr. Bigger battles to fight.

2) Termites alone contribute about 9Gton of CO2 per year. Not neglible. If you consider the methane that these guys release as well (and the 20X GHG multiplier) this one species contributes almost 1/2 of man's GHG emissions.

3) Because of the enormous exchange of CO2 occuring NATURALLY on land and ocean, we better have these numbers to within a couple % in order to effectively the anthropogenic fraction. I'm not convinced that we do. 600 Gtons being released "naturally" is a tad bigger than the 30 Gtons/yr caused by man. A small change in our natural budget (say 10%) would swamp the anthro portion by man..

By the way -- my number 4 has to do with the error in the graphic above. Note the hypothesis is that Oceans USED TO BE CO2 neutral but somehow are now taking up a net 10GTon/yr -- So the red arrow at far right should be pointing DOWN not up. Which brings up the point --- If the earth "learned" to be a net absorber of atmos CO2 only since the industrial revolution, and the land and ocean are soaking up almost half of man's contribution --- would that trend continue? THAT'S where the debate about the carbon cycle is now. Back to arguing the feedbacks in the system -- not the basic theory or radiative warming as predicted by CO2 alone..