Man made contributions to that are 3.225% of that .03%.
Posted on 04/06/2017 6:38:10 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
I don’t care if the whole earth burns up (it will anyway, eventually). Even if it would help people (which it won’t), I will NOT comply with the Democrats’ stupid weather-control scheme. Stupid cult.
It should say "a study exults."
I exult, anyway. I consider 1500 ppm, the level aimed for by most commercial garden/nursery carbon dioxide generators to be optimal, and I don't see why we should settle for anything less than the optimal for God's Green Earth. Now I'm off to conscientiously enlarge by carbon footprint by turning my compost pile.
Still generating carbon dioxide, methane and water vapor...
For a Greener Planet!
This is one of the worst studies ever.
The CO2 estimates they used are ONLY the ones produced by the most inaccurate methods available. Bascially only the methods that climate science has abandoned because they just produce random estimates.
For example, here are the lowest CO2 estimates they have (I mean really, all the plants would have died at these levels. They even have physically impossible negative numbers in there. How could Nature publish this):
CO2 in ppm
-194 -127 0 0 0 6 10 10 13 15 38 42 45 47 50 54 60 65 70 74 80 80 88 90
And exactly how likely is it that humans will have burned through all fossil fuels on Earth?
Not only that, but did you realize that, at the growth rate of the tree in my front yard, it will be over 2,000 feet tall by the year 2400.
I can't wait.
But alarmist author Chelsea Harvey really missed the boat on that prediction. If you're swinging for the bleachers with an unverifiable claim like that, you might as well go all the way and tell us what the future will be like 125 years after that date, just as these guys did:
Zager And Evans - In The Year 2525
In the year 2525
Go ahead, Chelsea Harvey, and tell us what they may find.
After all, this is "settled science" that we're discussing here, right? And not just some imaginary figures that someone pulled out of his, um, assumptions...
I already knew that.
My comment was directed to the wizards that know everything past, prersent and future regarding climate, weather and all of the elements of human life affected by such knowledge.
So ....
Can I plant my cukes now in SW Pa ?
Geezo. What the hell is a degree in “science, health and environmental reporting”?
I guess, like the womens studies, native American studies, black studies and LGBTSQTEREMSMSTQPMZVVCX studies, there will always be at least one position open in book publishers and media companies for each one of these types of degrees.
WHAT??!!!!!
That is just a flat out lie. Since the Himalayas rose, the climate has been increasingly sharply cyclical, with temps on an overall downward trend due to deeper and deeper periods of glaciation, and interglacials not even up to the average levels that preceded the general decline. Only in the timing of the cycles could one possibly find "stability", and even that changed radically not so long ago.
Alternately, I suppose, one could go by the most common condition, recently: "Normal is Chicago under a mile of ice".
Man made contributions to that are 3.225% of that .03%.
Unfortunately, turning your compost pile won’t enlarge your carbon footprint - all that carbon dioxide, methane and water vapor it emits was pulled from the atmosphere during the lifetimes of the plants being composted.
To boost your carbon footprint, you need to go for a nice drive in the country. ;-)
And then there’s “Is Global Warming a Sin”, by Alexander Cockburn, a militant hard-leftist if there ever was one. But, at least in this respect, a semi-rational one.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2007/04/28/is-global-warming-a-sin/
Most important paragraphs:
“Now imagine two lines on a piece of graph paper. The first rises to a crest, then slopes sharply down, then levels off and rises slowly once more. The other has no undulations. It rises in a smooth, slowly increasing arc. The first, wavy line is the worldwide CO2 tonnage produced by humans burning coal, oil and natural gas. On this graph it starts in 1928, at 1.1 gigatons (i.e. 1.1 billion metric tons). It peaks in 1929 at 1.17 gigatons. The world, led by its mightiest power, the USA, plummets into the Great Depression, and by 1932 human CO2 production has fallen to 0.88 gigatons a year, a 30 per cent drop. Hard times drove a tougher bargain than all the counsels of Al Gore or the jeremiads of the IPCC (Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change). Then, in 1933 it began to climb slowly again, up to 0.9 gigatons.
And the other line, the one ascending so evenly? That’s the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, parts per million (ppm) by volume, moving in 1928 from just under 306, hitting 306 in 1929, to 307 in 1932 and on up. Boom and bust, the line heads up steadily. These days it’s at 380.There are, to be sure, seasonal variations in CO2, as measured since 1958 by the instruments on Mauna Loa, Hawai’i. (Pre-1958 measurements are of air bubbles trapped in glacial ice.) Summer and winter vary steadily by about 5 ppm, reflecting photosynthesis cycles. The two lines on that graph proclaim that a whopping 30 per cent cut in man-made CO2 emissions didn’t even cause a 1 ppm drop in the atmosphere’s CO2. Thus it is impossible to assert that the increase in atmospheric CO2 stems from human burning of fossil fuels.”
A bit chilly here this morning in USDA Zone 7, Upper East Tennessee. Think I'll flip on the gas heater...
Add a long, hot shower.
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.