Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

How much of the atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic?
Debunk House & American Geophysical Union journal ^

Posted on 11/30/2015 1:38:57 PM PST by Talisker

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-60 next last

1 posted on 11/30/2015 1:38:57 PM PST by Talisker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Talisker

“If mankind had never burned any coal, oil or natural gas, atmospheric CO2 levels would only be 30 to 50 ppmv lower than the current ~385 ppmv”

Got any proof of that? Seems like a “reasonable” statement to make, but “reasonable” isn’t scientific nor a fact.


2 posted on 11/30/2015 1:40:29 PM PST by CodeToad (III)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad
Got any proof of that? Seems like a “reasonable” statement to make, but “reasonable” isn’t scientific nor a fact.

The linked article is an extensive explanatory analysis of a paper published in the American Geophysical Union journal, Geophysical Research Letters.

3 posted on 11/30/2015 1:43:17 PM PST by Talisker (One who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Talisker

Probably a bit more in the last few minutes.

My dog farted and then I did, to cancel his noxious odor...


4 posted on 11/30/2015 1:43:20 PM PST by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously-you won't live through it anyway-Enjoy" Yourself ala Louis Prima)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Talisker

Zip, zilch, nada.


5 posted on 11/30/2015 1:44:25 PM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vendome
Probably a bit more in the last few minutes. My dog farted and then I did, to cancel his noxious odor...

Thanks for sharing.

6 posted on 11/30/2015 1:44:35 PM PST by Talisker (One who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Talisker

“How much of the atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic?”
It doesn’t matter. There is a mechanism for reestablishing CO2 equilibrium. Nature restores the balance.


7 posted on 11/30/2015 1:47:27 PM PST by I want the USA back (Media: completely irresponsible. Complicit in the destruction of this country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Click The Pic To Donate

Support FR, Donate Monthly If You Can

8 posted on 11/30/2015 1:47:29 PM PST by DJ MacWoW (The Fed Gov is not one ring to rule them all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vendome

Was that an eggplant, pickled egg and cheap beer fart? Or was that me?


9 posted on 11/30/2015 1:47:42 PM PST by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad
Frankly, considering all the myriad sources of this molecule upon which all life on Earth depends, and that its percentage of the atmosphere is presently far lower than in the geologic past, estimating the contribution by all puny human activities at ten percent is probably a monumental over-statement. Per one of my favorite lines of dialog from O' Brother Where Art Thou, "That don't make NO SENSE!"
10 posted on 11/30/2015 1:49:14 PM PST by katana (Just my opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Talisker
Contact the instructor if you have difficulty viewing this image

So, greenhouse [effect] is all about carbon dioxide, right?

Wrong. The most important players on the greenhouse stage are water vapor and clouds.

Carbon dioxide has been increased to about 0.038% of the atmosphere (possibly from about 0.028% pre-Industrial Revolution) while water in its various forms ranges from 0% to 4% of the atmosphere and its properties vary by what form it is in and even at what altitude it is found in the atmosphere.

In simple terms the bulk of Earth's greenhouse effect is due to water vapor by virtue of its abundance. Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect -- perhaps 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets), some estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth's total tropospheric greenhouse effect (e.g., Freidenreich and Ramaswamy, 'Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,' Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264).

The remaining portion comes from carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, ozone and miscellaneous other 'minor greenhouse gases.' As an example of the relative importance of water it should be noted that changes in the relative humidity on the order of 1.3-4% are equivalent to the effect of doubling CO2.

http://web.archive.org/web/20100317023946/http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse
_________________________________________________________

Water Vapor Rules the Greenhouse System

Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many 'facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.

Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).

Human activities contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.

http://web.archive.org/web/20110308203927/http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
____________________________________________________________

Water Vapor Confirmed As Major Player In Climate Change

ScienceDaily (Nov. 18, 2008) -- Water vapor is known to be Earth's most abundant greenhouse gas, but the extent of its contribution to global warming has been debated. Using recent NASA satellite data, researchers have estimated more precisely than ever the heat-trapping effect of water in the air, validating the role of the gas as a critical component of climate change.

http://web.archive.org/web/20120808014318/http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081117193013.htm

11 posted on 11/30/2015 1:53:51 PM PST by ETL (Ted Cruz 2016!! -- For a better, safer America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: I want the USA back
It doesn’t matter. There is a mechanism for reestablishing CO2 equilibrium. Nature restores the balance.

That's exactly what this article says, too, per a peer- renewed Geophysical Research paper.

12 posted on 11/30/2015 2:00:13 PM PST by Talisker (One who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ETL
As an example of the relative importance of water it should be noted that changes in the relative humidity on the order of 1.3-4% are equivalent to the effect of doubling CO2.

In a sane world, that should end the CO2 argument right there.

13 posted on 11/30/2015 2:02:08 PM PST by Talisker (One who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Talisker

CO2 is only .04 percent of the total atmosphere.


14 posted on 11/30/2015 2:03:26 PM PST by Parmy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Talisker
Well considering CO2 is a TRACE gas that only makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere, and we have an atmosphere that is 5,000 trillion metric tons which might as well be infinity as far as man is concerned, I wonder if we contribute anything at all considering the plants that absolutely dominate this planet. North America, South America all you see is green green and then you have the ocean with it's plants, algae, phytoplankton and macrophytes like seaweed that suck in CO2 and release O2. We'd have to overcome the CO2 intake of allllll that, plants on land and the sea, and what is left over is what we would contribute to that 0.04%. Call me naive but I doubt it's much. Methane is an even more ridiculously small number at 0.00017% and even IF we could raise the CO2 levels to any significant amount that would raise the temperature and create a greenhouse effect, what is the worst that will happen? We get more plants? More rain from the greenhouse effect? So in other words the water shortage would be solved? The ice caps will melt and sink the liberal sewer holes of New York city, San Fran and Kennedy lair "Bahston"? Yeah? And? What's the problem? I see only positive results from Gorebull warming.


15 posted on 11/30/2015 2:06:12 PM PST by GrandJediMasterYoda (B. Hussein Obama: 20 acts of Treason and counting.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Talisker

The article doesn’t provide the paper or a link.


16 posted on 11/30/2015 2:08:57 PM PST by CodeToad (III)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Talisker
This is so anthropocentric.

When are they going to ask how much of the carbon dioxide is hylogenic (caused by trees) or therogenic (caused by wild animals)?

It's mostly Bambi and Thumper's fault. The herbivores eat too much of the green plants, otherwise they would be getting rid of the carbon dioxide.

17 posted on 11/30/2015 2:10:17 PM PST by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Billthedrill

You smelt it...you dealt it....and you disgust me...sir...


18 posted on 11/30/2015 2:14:46 PM PST by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously-you won't live through it anyway-Enjoy" Yourself ala Louis Prima)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad
The article doesn’t provide the paper or a link

Well that's embarrassing. No, it doesn't, but it quotes a paper. WTH?

I'll look for it, this is weird.

19 posted on 11/30/2015 2:17:41 PM PST by Talisker (One who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Talisker
All of the CO2 in the atmosphere is irrelevant regardless of its source.

Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide - Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts? By Timothy Ball

No Smoking Hot Spot (The Australian)

The missing hotspot (JoNova)

Those two articles take Greenhouse Theory at face value and by the criterion set up in the theory itself finds no evidence of warming on the basis of greenhouse effect.

Sky-high hole blown in AGW theory?

"Forbes reports on a peer-reviewed study that uses NASA data to show that the effects of carbon-based warming have been significantly exaggerated. In fact, much of the heat goes out into space rather than stay trapped in the atmosphere, an outcome that started long before AGW alarmists predicted:"

That article explains why no Hot Spot has been found.

The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory

Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics

Harvard astrophysicist dismisses AGW theory, challenges peers to 'take back climate science'

It Is Impossible For A 100 ppm Increase In Atmospheric CO2 Concentration To Cause Global Warming

Simple Chemistry and the Real Greenhouse Effect.

Those five articles each show that Greenhouse Theory has no basis in reality due to a direct conflict with the known laws of physics. No wonder the smoking gun "hotspot" can't be found.

20 posted on 11/30/2015 2:20:59 PM PST by TigersEye (This is the age of the death of reason and rule of law. Prepare!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-60 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson