Posted on 07/12/2019 8:33:33 PM PDT by Simon Foxx
These guys in Finland will soon be out of jobs or the EU will end all connections with Finland. /sarc
They oughtn’t to be THAT costly — I’ve seen replacement units advertised on eBay for a tenth of that — but maybe some of the newest designs are.
It was good for smog-laden areas that humanity controlled the tailpipe and other emissions. Carbon dioxide wasn’t hurting anything, but other combustion emissions were. Likewise coal burning is very clean today, as it should be as soon as it is possible. Maybe there should have been a way to give a waiver to vehicles operated solely in open country, where inversions do not threaten, but we have what we have. It does give us a noticeably clean America, which stands as a silent reproach to dirty, dirty countries like China.
It could be otherwise if there’s a real God but He has placed Himself in a beauty contest before humanity, as it were, next to His enemies (some worse than others) in the hope that humanity will choose the right thing in the end.
There’s a reason that Christianity got to the top of the empirical heap, and it wasn’t brute force conquests.
It’s got 124K miles, and I bought it second-hand, so I’m SOL on the warranty, sadly.
They tell me the “manivert” is cracked. I had to look it up - it’s a combination manifold and inverter. Anyway, I think I can buy the part for around $300, and am going to try and talk my son-in-law into helping me swap it out. We’re going to go underneath & take a look tomorrow to see if it’s doable. (Sometimes the way they design things so as you can’t get at it).
A $1000? Should be able to easily beat that.
the atmosphere has 0.04% greenhouse gases in it- Carbon from man amounts to just 3.4% or so of that 0.04%-
therefore 3.4% of 0.04 = 0.00136
only roughly 3% is from man
EPA document supports ~3% of atmospheric carbon dioxide is attributable to human sources
I’ve given it another .4% because I’ve seen more recent figures show that amount, some a little more, some a little less- but it’s roughly 3.4%
at any rate- the amount is still far far far too small to have global impact-
yup another good source
Humans contribute approximately 3.4 percent of annual CO2 emissions. However, small increases in annual CO2 emissions, whether from humans or any other source, can lead to a large CO2 accumulation over time because CO2 molecules can remain in the atmosphere for more than a century.
A lot of the presentation is just plain incorrect like the next slide where they use the 3.4% to derive a human contribution to the greenhouse effect. In any case the 3.4% is the ratio of human emission to natural emissions. IOW natural emissions are 30 times greater than human.
The missing fact is that natural emissions are more or less balanced by natural uptake. IOW natural uptake is also 30 times human emissions. That's why they add the phrase "small increases ... can lead to a large accumulation over time" That's their round about way of acknowledging that the rise from 280 ppm to 400 ppm (and the 2.5ppm rise every year) is now essentially manmade.
The WUWT link you provided has the same conclusion: "The chart refers to the annual increase in CO2, not the total amount. So it is misleading." Like FR, the threads at WUWT are left up so we can see the arguments from both side, even if the article or headline is "wrong". In any case, the now defunct NCPA, Dr. Tim Ball, and Heritage.org are all the same, and they are the only sources of "3.4%" It's never going to gain any nontrivial scientific following. However there are scientists posting similar arguments on that thread you linked. In particular richardscourtney, a bonafide peer-reviewed scientist. But notice one important detail, he does not promote a number like "3.4%" or any other number. But his scientific view is that some of the rise of CO2 could be natural.
The stompie-footed green meanies of global warming and/or climate change have been insisting “the science is settled” for a couple of decades now, and these studies illustrate why science is never settled...
That heavier than air vehicles could never fly, and trains were too dangerous because “man cannot live at such speeds” (30-40 mph) were both once “settled science”...Outspoken settled science of the sky-is-falling global warmist variety today chiefly consists of the overbearing shout ‘em down opinions of hired guns with lots of diplomas and very little integrity acting as PR flacks for their paymasters...
To be science (in compliance with the scientific method) any findings must be open to reconsideration in light of new information...It appears the Finns and Japanese have provided some...
there were several sites that had that figure not long ago- even wiki had it on their site- which i don’t cite- but
[[That’s their round about way of acknowledging that the rise from 280 ppm to 400 ppm (and the 2.5ppm rise every year) is now essentially manmade.]]
Again- we’ve been over this before- there isn’t consensus on that claim-
[[The WUWT link you provided has the same conclusion: “The chart refers to the annual increase in CO2, not the total amount. So it is misleading.”]]
the total amount over time is cited as even less- quite a bit less compared to the total atmosphere- I’ve posted those figures to you before- not gonna look for them again-
[[In any case, the now defunct NCPA, Dr. Tim Ball, and Heritage.org are all the same, and they are the only sources of “3.4%”]]
No sir- that was untrue- my sources from years ago on this subject were not tim or that site- as i mentioned there were several sites- I used to run a blog and kept track of all this ‘man-caused climate change’ nonsense- All the peer reviewed info i posted to back then had it around 3.4% - some were 3.6- some were 3.2- a few were even around 3.8- but the bottom line is- no matter how you slice it- our contribution to atmospheric CO2 is so negligible it can’t possibly be causing global climate change- There’s no thick layer of CO2 blanketing the earth- our atmosphere is right around 6 quadrillion tons- CO2 is but a speck of that figure-
Like I’ve said before- you and i have been round for round over these things- I do not wish to repeat it all once again- CO2 rises many 100’s of years AFTER heat rises- which is just yet another proof that CO2 is not causing temperature rises- We’ve also been as much as 1000 ppm on earth in the past- and life flourished just fine- on and on it goes-
Here’s anogther fact- we have at least 1007 more years left on earth- 7 years of the tribulation, and 1000 years of Christ reigning as Lord on this earth- I am in no way shape or form worried one iota about natural cyclical warming trends-
That is a legitimate point - although to dismiss all of the findings as a "rounding error" is rather cavalier / a gross oversimplification.
Better to say that the posited anthropogenic component (0.01 °C) of the allegedly observed temperature rise (0.1 °C) is so small (on the order of 10%) as to be statistically insignificant, given assumed measuring error and concomitant background noise.
Regards,
“That is a legitimate point - although to dismiss all of the findings as a “rounding error” is rather cavalier / a gross oversimplification.”
.18 deg over 100 years? Yes, that is nothing but a rounding error.
[[
CO2 Nears 400 ppm – Relax! It’s Not Global Warming ‘End Times’ — But Only A ‘Big Yawn’ — Climate Depot Special Report
Renowned Climatologist: ‘You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide’
‘Scientists note that geologically speaking, the Earth is currently in a ‘CO2 famine’ and that the geologic record reveals that ice ages have occurred when CO2 was at 2000 ppm to as high as 8000 ppm. In addition, peer-reviewed studies have documented that there have been temperatures similar to the present day on Earth when carbon dioxide was up to twenty times higher than today’s levels’]]
[[Peer-Reviewed Study finds ‘ancient’ Earth’s climate similar to present day — despite CO2 levels 5 to over 20 times higher than today! ]]
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-08/uol-aae080910.php
[[
New paper finds CO2 spiked to levels higher than the present during termination of last ice age — Paper published in Quaternary Science Reviews
Read the Full Article
Study ‘reconstructs CO2 levels during the termination of the last ice age and finds CO2 spiked to levels near or even exceeding those of the present, obviously without any human influence. According to the authors, ‘The record clearly demonstrates that [CO2 levels were] significantly higher than usually reported for the Last [Glacial] Termination,’ with levels of up to ~425 ppm about 12,750 years ago, which exceeds the present CO2 concentration of 395 ppm’]]
on and on and on it goes- indoor CO2 can be as high as 1000 ppm or more- 400 ppm is nothing to worry about- nor is it certain man is the cause of the rise- - ppm has always risen and fallen- risen to much much higher levels than today- infact, as that site points out, we’re in a CO2 starvation period- The lowest point of 270 ppm has occurred only once and was unusual
i gotta read through hte following site-
https://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-increase-in-co2-is-not-due-to-humans.html
I agree that CO2 rises after centuries of warming. The amount is about 5-10 ppm per degree of warming shown in the graphs here: http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming-2/ice-core-graph/ Keep in mind that website agrees with you, but they show there's only about 10 ppm rise for each 1 degree rise. Since the 1800's CO2 has risen from about 280 to 410 and rising 2.5 ppm per year. That would mean there was a temperature rise of 12C in the past 1000 years. But there wasn't.
But, as usual, I agree completely with you that the level doesn't matter. And as you point out, we were in CO2 starvation, unique in planetary history. It was way worse than just 270. In the last ice age it was down to 180 and life dies off at 150. And it wasn't getting better until we came along. Not only did we fix that problem but we invented modern econonies with new technologies so we don't need as much fossil. Man fixes all problems provided we are free and have choices.
I can tell you what they are doing wrong: They are comparing red arrows in the first diagram. That shows (correctly) that natural emissions about about 30x manmade emissions. But they are ignoring the natural black arrows. There’s no black arrow for mankind. We only have the red arrow. That’s why the current rise is manmade.
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.