correct me if I’m wrong (I’m new here, just popped in from England), but isn’t it the case that if you pump billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere for several decades, then you’ll tend to have a huge impact on the climate? Is the evidence not overwhelming? (devil’s advocate, here)...
post #2 isn’t any help to you?
No
-CO2 is only 0.038% of the atmosphere and only 3.6 per cent of greenhouse gases. Of that only 3.4 to 5% is man-made. CO2 as a result of man’s activities was only 3.2 per cent of that, hence only 0.12 per cent of the greenhouse gases in total. Human-related methane, nitrogen dioxide and CFCs etc made similarly minuscule contributions to the effect: 0.066, 0.047 and 0.046 per cent respectively.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/timaruherald/4064691a6571.html
-Mankind (anthropomorphic climate change) IS NOT the primary cause of GW now or for instance during the Medieval period when it was actually warmer than today. Mankind was neither responsible for the little ice age either or the warming taking place on Mars or Pluto today. Greenland was called Greenland for a reason, it was green. The Vikings lived there during the Medieval warming period and it was hot enough to cultivate grapes. Did the Vikings drive SUV`s !?
-CO2 does not antedate temperature increases. Temperature increases first, CO2 follows behind by up to 800 years.
-There is enough CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb almost all of the IR in the main carbon dioxide absorption bands.Added CO2 would still only cause an incremental increase in the amount of infrared absorption.Each time CO2 is doubled the increase in temperature will be less than previously simply because all the longwave radiation that can be absorbed has already been absorbed. It`s been calculated that CO2 absorbance is 376 units per km for 380 ppm. Doubling CO2 at it`s absorbtion bandwidth would only cause an increase IR absorbtion of about 0.17%.
-Clouds and greenhouse gases (GHGs), like water vapor and carbon dioxide, absorb radiation of varying wavelengths emitted by the earth. Some of these absorption bands overlap. In a sense, clouds and the various GHGs “compete” to absorb the earth’s radiation. Because of this competition, the heat-trapping potentials of clouds and GHGs don’t simply add up in a linear fashion.
-As explained in greater detail on the Department of Energy Web site, there is — and has been since before the industrial revolution — enough carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to absorb about 36 percent of the radiation emitted by the earth. But because of the “competition” for the earth’s radiation from clouds and other GHGs, the heat-trapping contribution of carbon dioxide to the greenhouse effect is reduced to about 12 percent. “By itself, however, carbon dioxide is capable of trapping three times as much radiation as it actually does in the earth’s atmosphere,” the DOE said. Adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, then, can do little to trap more of the earth’s radiation and so won’t contribute much to higher temperatures or more global warming.
-Temperatures have both risen and fallen during the period atmospheric CO2 has been rising. CO2 only plays a very minor part in climate change and man-made CO2, even less.
-Spending billions if not trillions to redistribute wealth(Kyoto) and creating a precursor to a command and control economy only to reduce the earth`s temperature by about 0.003055225 °C by the year 2050 or so, is just not worth it.
-” Kyoto represents the first component of an authentic global governance.”
Jacques Chirac at The Hauge 2000
-The IPCC claimed climate change to be “very likely” 90% man-made. All scientific statistical tests are subject to a 95% confidence interval and must be proven with objective data and analysis Therefore, the IPCC`s “very likely” claim is opnion, not scientific fact.
-National Research Council report on the UN`s IPCC/Mann chart stated that Mann`s method was biased towards producing hockey stick-shaped temp. chart, that uncertainties had been underestimated. In otherwords, the UN`s IPCC Temp. chart was false.
-Last year the National Academies convened a committee and asked scientists to model temperatures from a thousand years ago to within 0.5 °C (0.9 °F). None claimed they could, except for Mr. “hockey stick” himself, Mike Mann. And we all know his “hockey stick” temp. chart has been debunked long ago,regardless of “peer review” aka, fellow travellers.
-Climate models are programmed to overstate potential warming response to enhanced greenhouse forcing by a huge margin.
-The 2007 IPCC Summary for Policy Makers (pols) was released before the report itself so that “ Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter. See Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC Work, p4/15 “
They released the IPCC’s the political conclusions first, and then will adjust the actual science to fit them.
-Climate change related projects accounted for over 25% of the 3-year total reported grants and contributions received by 10 of the top-20 institutions. For 6 organizations, climate change grants accounted for 50% of their reported grants and contributions received.
-Of the list of recipients of those private funds reveals that the vast majority are spent by groups favoring restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions and believe that climate change requires dramatic government action.
-The U.S. federal government spent nearly $2 billion to support climate change science programs in 2004.
-Global alarmists are dependant upon these funds and must continue to produce doomsday scenarios.
What in our ecosystem likes CO2?
Trees.
Why does the country have more trees now then it did in 1776? Because capitalists planted them.
When trees do not have CO2, they die.
Drive your car, help a tree!
You will find water vapor is the overwhelming green house gas in our atmosphere and that it swamps the affects of CO2 which is a tiny, tiny fraction of the amount of water vapor.
10,000 years ago much of north America was covered with a mile or more of ice. Obviously there’s been a lot of “global warming” going on since then... Long before man came along spewing CO2...
There’s no indication that what’s happening now hasn’t been happening for thousands and thousands of years. The earth does not stay the same no matter how much we think it will or should. There’s only one constant. Change.
but isn’t it the case that if you pump billions of tons of manure onto the ground for several centuries, then you’ll tend to have a huge impact on the ecology?
No.
Correction can be found in the following: