Of the co2 in the atmosphere, how much of it is "fossil fuel induced" and how much of it is naturally occurring?
Yeah. Same here.
People should be more worried about a comet or asteroid hitting the earth and destroying the atmosphere than to be wetting their pants over “greenhouse gasses”.
If everyone in the world does EXACTLY what you demand, how much cooler will it be after 20 year?
Answer: A fraction of a degree.
Here is one I found interesting in his article, that water vapor is a weak GHG and CO2 is a strong GHG. That is the opposite from everything I’ve read. Would love to see the science or data on that.
Regarding the 379 ppm figure, when I was in 7th grade science class in the mid-70s, we were taught that the amount of CO2 was about 0.04%, which would be the same number after rounding, whereas 349ppm would be rounded down to .03%. This tells me that the amount of CO2 has hardly budged in 40 years. You can probably look at Jr. High science books from the 40s and 50s and get similar numbers.
That said, if the amount of CO2 increased from 280 to 379, that’s adding more than a third of CO2. The author would have been wise to at least acknowledge that the increase is significant. Even though the overall amount is small, if it disappeared, all of the plant life would die, so it must be quite significant. However, CO2 is not a toxic gas, so yes, it’s effect in simply trapping/reflecting heat would be inconsequential and possibly benevolent inasmuch as the plants like it.
When I was a lad in high school, we had an annual science fair. Any entry to the fair had to be governed by the discipline of Scientific Method or it wasn’t even considered. If the AGW crowd has ever presented evidence based on Scientific Method, I have been unable to find it. I’m pretty sure that none exists because the only argument (false argument at that) they can agree on is “consensus” and I don’t believe that science is determined at the ballot box.
My three questions are these:
There was once nearly a mile of ice over what is now Manhattan. Was the warming that melted its good thing or a bad thing? What caused it?
What’s causing the documented warming on Mars?
What is the “correct” temperature for earth and how do you know?
The Glaciers covered New York, Chicago and Seattle with a mile and a half of ice as recently as 11,000 years ago and also formed the great lakes. Geologists claim they have come and gone many times previously. What caused them to retreat (and advance) then?
My favorite climate change question is :
Does the historical data indicate that an increase in atmospheric temperature followed an increase in atmospheric CO2
Or
Does the historical data indicate that an increase in atmospheric temperature preceded an increase in atmospheric CO2?
What would be the point of answering other questions on the subject before an answer to this question is learned.
The Japanese and German’s used bombs and bullets in WWII in a failed attempt to defeat the United States. Today,The purpose of Global Warming, Climate Change, Climate Disruption is nothing more than a political tool being used to destroy the American economy. It’s brilliant and wildly successful. Who can be against being “Sustainable”?
1st qtr, 2014 U.S. economic growth was at .01% or less indicating that the economic goal of “Sustainable Development/Agenda 21” as adopted by the U.S. has largely been met. This also fulfills the machiavellian wish of Maurice Strong, UN Chairman of UNCED aka The Rio Earth Summit where in 1992 he articulated the intentions of the “Plan for the 21st Century- Sustainable Development/Agenda 21” by saying this in regard to our “unsustainable” high consumption of natural resources which is, according to them destroying the Earth; “...isn’t it our responsibility to bring about the collapse of the industrialized countries?” Now, to become truly as “Sustainable” as perhaps Bangladesh, more vital work is quickly needed to further collapse and “Degrow” the economy. This will be accomplished with draconian restrictions on business and energy use which will be mandated by arbitrary regulations spawned from the bogus hype to save the planet from the dread effects of antropogenic Global Warming aka Climate Change aka Climate Disruption.
http://blogs.worldwatch.org/sustainableprosperity/resources/clubfordegrowth/
CO2 2005=379ppm=0.000379=ca 4/100,000
Common core math
QUESTION #3: Why isn’t the ocean not now flooding the lobbies of seaside resorts?
I often ask if someone can point me to a long term climate change study that has accurately predicted weather patterns out 20-30 years. So far, no body has been able to produce one.
They think they are using science to debate social policy when it isn’t science at all. In real science there is a hypothesis, gathering of data, an evaluation of the data to see if the evidence supports the hypothesis and then reproduction of the results.
What the warmists do is come up with a theory, gather evidence and then create computer models based on the evidence that support their initial theories. At no point do they ever go back and see if the real world results match the predictions of the computer models.
I think conservatives need to be careful not to dismiss climate change as a whole though. It is a real natural occurring event throughout the history of the planet. What we need to emphasize is that mankind cannot possibly do anything to affect it in any meaningful way. It’s like worrying about the sun burning out. It will happen, but it is a useless. The serenity prayer comes to mind. Climate changes is so gradual, people will naturally adapt- move, build new homes and eventually cities in cooler, safer areas, adapt to warmer areas....I just don’t understand the urgency on this.
I rather like the term “greenhouse effect”, because it makes for a delightful thought model.
To start with, imagine the surface of the Moon. It has no greenhouse effect, because it has no atmosphere at all. So if something is in the shade, it very quickly becomes extremely cold. If it is in sunlight, it very quickly becomes extremely hot.
Now compare this with a physical greenhouse. It is quite humid inside, typically, and when it is cold outside, it tends to be warmer, somewhat. Importantly, when it is hot outside, the high humidity inside the greenhouse actually moderates the temperature somewhat.
In a nutshell, the greenhouse effect *moderates* extremes of temperature.
So all the hysteria about the Earth entering a new ice age, or broiling, is rather silly.
Of the co2 in the atmosphere, how much of it is "fossil fuel induced" and how much of it is naturally occurring?
btt
My favorite question: Doesn’t it suggest that Climate Change is not important when, while enjoying a majority in the house and senate, your president chose to pass a healthcare law instead of a CC law? I mean, he had the opportunity to save the entire planet, but instead he did something only for uninsured Americans? Isn’t that a tad selfish?