the opposite opinion. As I said, I've been totally lost in this CO2-discussion!
Now, I just don't give an F!
We have non-poluting tech's available, as a species I mean.
Given that the reaction before me dates from 7 months ago, I think more and more people start realising this when they start searching on the net, turning the CO2-discussion from present to past and as soon as these tech's become global even the 3rd world won't emit CO2 any more.
So,.. I've been totally lost in this CO2-discussion! Since I was a very little boy there's all this talk about it. I've spent a whole lot of night's laying awake feeling quilty, then blaiming myself for feeling guilty because my only contribution is my breath, to feel quilty again after a few years cause, a little older now, you realise all these products and stuff you use are contributing to. In a process I've been on both sides, switching when new facts(to me) would bounce me into
Whoever made this video lacks a basic understanding of the carbon cycle. He wrote:
"At most, 5% of the carbon dioxide in the air comes from human sources such as power plants, cars, oilsands, etc."
This is 100% wrong. We are responsible for about 35% of the CO2 in the atmosphere. This is a fact.
He also fails to point out that without that little purple area in the corner our planet would be about as warm as the moon. In other words, a lifeless rock. The greenhouse effect is very real.
Your conclusion: 'because CO2 is a trace gas it is not a problem' is not only wrong, it is innumerate.
Numerate people see this the other way round:
'It is BECAUSE there is so little carbon dioxide that it is a problem. It means: a) CO2 is potent stuff; b) it doesn't take much for human activity to have a significant impact on the quantity.'
That is, because the numbers are small, the problem is big.
Plus, in addition to positive feedbacks, there are negative feedbacks that act to restore the climate system to its initial state. look up "equalibrium" and "homeostasis"
And CO2 is only 5% of the greenhouse gas effect - therefore Man is contributing in the area of 30% x 5% or about .015% of global warming - Global warming is assumed to be about 1 degree above some assumed 'natural baseline' and therefore man is responsible for about .015 degrees of warming, of the entire planet. .015(?)
Why does even that amount of warming seem too high?
The text is a lie. Man has increased atmospheric CO2 by 30%, not 5%. As far as what percentage of the atmosphere it is, well, the rest isn't increasing.
Even though CO2 is a trace gas, its increase creates a cycle. First the increase of CO2 decrease the ability of Infrared radiation to be released during the night, a window if you will. This causes a small increase in temp, enough to melt ice caps, then H2O vapour closes the window further, this warms it up more. Then permafrost becomes an issue etc etc.
If that is true, ukmaxi, then how come there's a lag between the increase of C02 and increase in tempurature? It's like stating that a pot of water will boil on a stove BEFORE you turn on the heat.
Well this process does take time, as there are many factors that arise, but there is most definately more CO2 being produced and being released into the atmosphere more than there should be. as there is always one side of the planet facing the sun. there will be a form of Le Chatelier's principle, meaning that any change ina system of reactions will try to balance itself to a steady rate, but does not mean that the steady rate will not increase, if you have done A-level chemistry its easier
Oh really? If that were the case, then Earth would have become another Venus eons ago.
CO2 levels have been much higher in the past than they are today.
Wake up and face the facts: The AGW house of cards is falling all around you and that you have bought into a bunch of bogus science. Turn off Al Gore and Michael Moore, and start thinking for yourself!!
First of all I AM a scientist (physicist to be specific) so I have at least A LITTLE understanding a physical processes in addition to strict training in the scientific method.
And you are wrong, the burden of proof is on the people making the claim. In this case it is the global warmers (only a handful of which are actually scientists) who are claiming that our climate is so unstable that a few hundredths of a percent increase in CO2 concentration will cause catastrophic warming.
OK maybe I didn't say this exactly right. (I'm only in this conversation due to a bout with insomnia, anyway)
The ABSOLUTE concentration has increased by 105 ppm. That is little more than one one hundredth of a percent. It is THAT amount that constitutes a RELATIVE change of 28% from pre-industrial levels (assuming the numbers are even correct. I don't really know how much clearer I can be.
CO2 is NOT the only atmospheric gas that can trap heat. Methane and Water Vapour also both trap heat, and they do so much more effectively than CO2.
Of course all of this is totally irrelevant since CO2 levels rise after temperatures rise, not before. Therefore they can not be the reason for global warming because that would violate causality
Yes CO2 peaks 800 years after temperature peaks in the Vostok ice core data, but it is completely wrong to conclude from that that CO2 does not also cause temp to increase. All it indicates is that there is a causal link the other way too.
We are seeing one mechanism for that right now. Increased temp in the arctic is causing CH4 emissions from (what used to be) permafrost. In a few hundred years this CH4 will be CO2.
There is NO correlation between CO2 and temperature in the short term either.
And your statement about th arctic and permafrost is irrelevant since there is absolutely NO proof that increasing arctic temps are due to human activity.
malbor, YOU ARE THE FIRST to confirm my theory that THE OCEANS recycle CO2 on a GEOLOGIC timescale. In other words, CO2 is "stored" there during glacials and then "exhaled" during interglacials. Bravo!
Co2 in the rock cycle works over time periods that are millions of years not 10,000s of years as are glacial interglacial cycles. So releasingby burnig millions of years of slowly stored CO2 in 200 to 300 years is what the argument is. Well that's my understanding anyway.
It's not about the environment, it's about control.
AGW indoctrination has the potential to concentrate the control of unprecedented amounts of the world's wealth into the hands of elites (like ALGORE) in ways that the robber barons of the 18th century could only dream about.
whether or not various governments are or are not lying about global warming, we should be conserving energy and co2 release, along with all the other crap we pump out and the destruction we cause in the name of "progress"
I have no issues with conservation. We should do it everywhere it makes sense.
Mandating draconian reductions in CO2 that will harm everyone over dubious correlation to warming is lunacy. Correlation does not equate causation. The planet is warming, it has been for 10s of thousands of years. The oceans are rising, about 1-4 millimeters a year. They have been for thousands of years. Even before the industrial boom.
the earth has been warming at an accelerated rate that matches perfectly against the industrial revolution. At a rate far quicker than has been seen before naturally, the sun's output is at approx 1kw/m^2 which hasn't changed
Co2 acts as a catalyst, a slight increase in Co2 = a large increase in water vapour, Co2 heats the world up a tiny bit, which then allows the atmosphere to absorb huge amount of water vapour, in turn heating the world up, scientists don't claim Co2 to be the main greenhouse gas, it is not a symptom but a cause.
What doesn't help is governments and business spurting out propoganda to confuse and scare people so they can rip off the masses from BOTH sides of the arguement and exploiting the fact that OUR FUCKING PLANET could become largely inhabitable to people, so they can make a profit, fuck the millions that will have to suffer, they're alright, they're rich
like i said, whether co2 is or is not the culprit is irrelevant, even if it isn't causing global warming, all the pollution we pump into the atmosphere still causes plenty of damage to the environment in other ways. we are a wasteful and destructive species and needs to to change our ways, the measures being called for are hardly draconian, YET, although i have no doubt governments will try and rape the populace for all it can get under the guise of "going green" but that's not the point
I'm all for not pumping various pollutants into the atmosphere. I'm for "green" technologies where they make sense. If you have issues with pollution, visit China. I have spent a few months of my time over a handful of trips there. The Guangdong province is a polluted mess. Flying into Hong Kong, you can't even see the city. We don't emit like that any longer, we abide by strict pollution standards. The 3rd world just opens it to the air. You want to make a difference...start there.
6.5 billion humans and growing. never in the history of the planet has an animal been so dominant, so numerous, so deadly, so arrogant. Easter Island , a speck in a huge ocean that grew an unsustainable population which ate everything and each other and used up all the resccources that sustained human life?. Wake up, this is happening NOW on a planet,a speck in a huge gallaxy . The human plague has doubled in under 50 years, Fuck global warming only a few shall live to see it .
This is deliberately deceptive. CO2 is normally measured in parts per million so doubling or even tripling the measured amounts will still appear as a small component of the overall atmosphere. The net effect is large however, and there are domino effects within the overall biosphere. Shame on whoever created this misleading graphic - corporate science at its finest.
Actually, you're quite wrong. Doubling CO2 does not double CO2's effect on warming. It's not anywhere near doubling, it's perhaps up 25% and that is questionable. That said, you are STILL missing the Elephant in the living room. WATER VAPOR is the primary greenhouse gas. Why do "hockey stick" huggers claim that a trace gas is causing all the warming, deny the gas that causes 95%+ of the greenhouse effect?
Oh and all you AGW koolaid drinkers who 1 star me...I take that as a badge of honor. 10 years from now as the solar output wains and we slip in the other direction, you folks are going to look entirely idiotic.
As an addendum, I personally made the image. I probably overstated the "man's contribution" by a whole bunch. It is likely about 1/4 of what is pictured, but I was generous.
the opposite opinion. As I said, I've been totally lost in this CO2-discussion!
Now, I just don't give an F!
We have non-poluting tech's available, as a species I mean.
Given that the reaction before me dates from 7 months ago, I think more and more people start realising this when they start searching on the net, turning the CO2-discussion from present to past and as soon as these tech's become global even the 3rd world won't emit CO2 any more.
Don't let these mad scientists get to you!!!
078Sjoerd83 1 year ago
So,.. I've been totally lost in this CO2-discussion! Since I was a very little boy there's all this talk about it. I've spent a whole lot of night's laying awake feeling quilty, then blaiming myself for feeling guilty because my only contribution is my breath, to feel quilty again after a few years cause, a little older now, you realise all these products and stuff you use are contributing to. In a process I've been on both sides, switching when new facts(to me) would bounce me into
078Sjoerd83 1 year ago
Whoever made this video lacks a basic understanding of the carbon cycle. He wrote:
"At most, 5% of the carbon dioxide in the air comes from human sources such as power plants, cars, oilsands, etc."
This is 100% wrong. We are responsible for about 35% of the CO2 in the atmosphere. This is a fact.
He also fails to point out that without that little purple area in the corner our planet would be about as warm as the moon. In other words, a lifeless rock. The greenhouse effect is very real.
Glasya666 2 years ago
Your conclusion: 'because CO2 is a trace gas it is not a problem' is not only wrong, it is innumerate.
Numerate people see this the other way round:
'It is BECAUSE there is so little carbon dioxide that it is a problem. It means: a) CO2 is potent stuff; b) it doesn't take much for human activity to have a significant impact on the quantity.'
That is, because the numbers are small, the problem is big.
SciFive 2 years ago
Plus, in addition to positive feedbacks, there are negative feedbacks that act to restore the climate system to its initial state. look up "equalibrium" and "homeostasis"
BeondaPale 2 years ago
And CO2 is only 5% of the greenhouse gas effect - therefore Man is contributing in the area of 30% x 5% or about .015% of global warming - Global warming is assumed to be about 1 degree above some assumed 'natural baseline' and therefore man is responsible for about .015 degrees of warming, of the entire planet. .015(?)
Why does even that amount of warming seem too high?
FreeAgain2 2 years ago 2
The text is a lie. Man has increased atmospheric CO2 by 30%, not 5%. As far as what percentage of the atmosphere it is, well, the rest isn't increasing.
marcodbeest 2 years ago 2
nice job
campgalley 3 years ago
Even though CO2 is a trace gas, its increase creates a cycle. First the increase of CO2 decrease the ability of Infrared radiation to be released during the night, a window if you will. This causes a small increase in temp, enough to melt ice caps, then H2O vapour closes the window further, this warms it up more. Then permafrost becomes an issue etc etc.
ukmaxi 4 years ago
sorry i got the permafrost and melting ice caps wrong way round but hopfully you get the idea
ukmaxi 4 years ago
If that is true, ukmaxi, then how come there's a lag between the increase of C02 and increase in tempurature? It's like stating that a pot of water will boil on a stove BEFORE you turn on the heat.
Darthbelal 3 years ago 3
Well this process does take time, as there are many factors that arise, but there is most definately more CO2 being produced and being released into the atmosphere more than there should be. as there is always one side of the planet facing the sun. there will be a form of Le Chatelier's principle, meaning that any change ina system of reactions will try to balance itself to a steady rate, but does not mean that the steady rate will not increase, if you have done A-level chemistry its easier
ukmaxi 3 years ago
There's a lag between temperature increase and CO2. Temperature leads CO2 not the other way around.
Effect cannot precede cause, so how can CO2 be a cause of temperature rise in such cases?
The AlGore lacks even the basic understanding of science.
tuttt99 3 years ago
Ever hear of feedback amplification?
...put a mike up to a speaker and see what happens.
CO2 = the mike
BeondaPale 2 years ago
Oh really? If that were the case, then Earth would have become another Venus eons ago.
CO2 levels have been much higher in the past than they are today.
Wake up and face the facts: The AGW house of cards is falling all around you and that you have bought into a bunch of bogus science. Turn off Al Gore and Michael Moore, and start thinking for yourself!!
tuttt99 2 years ago
Oh really? Are you sure? Would you entertain asking someone with at least A LITTLE more knowledge
My analogy is OF COURSE not perfect - but there are feedback amplifications ALL OVER nature.
Here's a couple of novel ideas -
- read a book
- email an actual climatologist and ASK QUESTIONS
Merely SAYING the science is bogus does not make it bogus - in science you must PROVE the reasoning faulty
BeondaPale 2 years ago
First of all I AM a scientist (physicist to be specific) so I have at least A LITTLE understanding a physical processes in addition to strict training in the scientific method.
And you are wrong, the burden of proof is on the people making the claim. In this case it is the global warmers (only a handful of which are actually scientists) who are claiming that our climate is so unstable that a few hundredths of a percent increase in CO2 concentration will cause catastrophic warming.
tuttt99 2 years ago
The CO2 concentration has NOT increased a few hundredths of a percent
Over the last 180 years it's increased about 28% - 280 ppm to 385 ppm
What does "burden of proof" mean here?
Lets take evolution - I hypothesize that all life has been derived from a single organism long ago. Through experimentation I make a logical case.
Now, can you come along and just say - "no that's wrong" without showing evidence as to HOW it's wrong?
BeondaPale 2 years ago
First: 100 ppm is 100 parts per million
100/1000000=0.0001, or 0.01 %
therefore 100 ppm = one one-hundredth of a percent.
280 ppm is 2.8 one-hundredths of a percent.
385 ppm is 3.85 one-hundredths of a percent.
Change in CO2 concentration is 385-280=105 ppm
or
1.05 one-hundredths of a percent. OK, So it hasn't increased by a few hundredths of a percent, just about one.
How can you expect to hold an intelligent conversation about atmospheric science when you don't even understand the units?
tuttt99 2 years ago
I do understand the units
The word "concentration" = the number of molecules of a substance in a given volume. SO.. The CONCENTRATION has increased by 28%
What YOU are exressing is percentage of CO2 within the mix. I assumed physicists also study chemistry. Maybe I was wrong
Do YOU understand the IMPORTANCE of the units?
QUESTION: How (for example) does CO2 differ from 99.93% of the gasses (nitrogen, oxygen, argon) in the atmosphere?
QUESTION: Why is this difference important?
BeondaPale 2 years ago
The CONCENTRATION has increased by 105 ppm, or 0.0105%
The RELATIVE AMOUNT is what has increased by 28%
But even doubling or tripling 280 ppm leaves you with a CONCENTRATION of less than one tenth of one percent. It's still a TRACE GAS.
Nice try.
To answer your QUESTIONS:
CO2 differs from all the other gases in that it is the one gas that is essential to every form of life on Earth.
This difference is important because without CO2 all life on Earth would cease to exist.
tuttt99 2 years ago
lol - trying to change the definitions of words does not help you.
Now please pick up a dictionary and look up the word concentration = the amount of a component in a given area or volume
Oxygen is essential to every form of life on Earth too.
Nitrogen is essential to every form of life on Earth too
Hence NOT a difference, but a SIMILARITY
Wanna try again?
Are you SURE yiou're a physicists?? You're not very good at this
BeondaPale 2 years ago
OK maybe I didn't say this exactly right. (I'm only in this conversation due to a bout with insomnia, anyway)
The ABSOLUTE concentration has increased by 105 ppm. That is little more than one one hundredth of a percent. It is THAT amount that constitutes a RELATIVE change of 28% from pre-industrial levels (assuming the numbers are even correct. I don't really know how much clearer I can be.
tuttt99 2 years ago
There are plenty of anerobic organisms that get along fine without atmospheric oxygen.
Not sure about nitrogen, so I'll give you that one if you like.
tuttt99 2 years ago
OK, since it appears that you are not going to try to answer the question correctly, I'll GIVE you the answer.
The main DIFFERENCE between CO2 and the 99.9 % of atmospheric gasses is that CO2 (OF COURSE) has the ability to... ready?... trap heat
Curious, right?
Now, next question, why is this important?
BeondaPale 2 years ago
Wrong.
CO2 is NOT the only atmospheric gas that can trap heat. Methane and Water Vapour also both trap heat, and they do so much more effectively than CO2.
Of course all of this is totally irrelevant since CO2 levels rise after temperatures rise, not before. Therefore they can not be the reason for global warming because that would violate causality
tuttt99 2 years ago
I didn't say that CO2 was the only atmospheric gas that can trap heat. So, no, not wrong.
....Pay attention or get some sleep.
Water vapor is indeed the most plentiful greenhouse gas, followed by CO2, methane , nitrous oxide , ozone and
chlorofluorocarbons.
CO2, while not as potent as methane and the other GHGs (all of which are also on the rise due to humans, btw) is FAR more plentiful.
Water vapor is not what climatologists consider a " forcing" gas. Would you like to know why?
BeondaPale 2 years ago
No - it's you that lacks basic understanding.
Yes CO2 peaks 800 years after temperature peaks in the Vostok ice core data, but it is completely wrong to conclude from that that CO2 does not also cause temp to increase. All it indicates is that there is a causal link the other way too.
We are seeing one mechanism for that right now. Increased temp in the arctic is causing CH4 emissions from (what used to be) permafrost. In a few hundred years this CH4 will be CO2.
CO2 => heat => CO2.
SciFive 2 years ago
There is NO correlation between CO2 and temperature in the short term either.
And your statement about th arctic and permafrost is irrelevant since there is absolutely NO proof that increasing arctic temps are due to human activity.
tuttt99 2 years ago
malbor, YOU ARE THE FIRST to confirm my theory that THE OCEANS recycle CO2 on a GEOLOGIC timescale. In other words, CO2 is "stored" there during glacials and then "exhaled" during interglacials. Bravo!
opchidexio 4 years ago
Co2 in the rock cycle works over time periods that are millions of years not 10,000s of years as are glacial interglacial cycles. So releasingby burnig millions of years of slowly stored CO2 in 200 to 300 years is what the argument is. Well that's my understanding anyway.
endaderoad 4 years ago
malbor, you are correct about the science. Good job! Now, ask yourself -
WHO is behind the pseudo sci-fi of MAN-MADE warming? WHY would Al Gore, for example, put out bogus climate crap?
I suspect the anti-capitalists (communists) are behind this. (And their HQ is the United Nations itself.)
opchidexio 4 years ago
@opchidexio:
It's not about the environment, it's about control.
AGW indoctrination has the potential to concentrate the control of unprecedented amounts of the world's wealth into the hands of elites (like ALGORE) in ways that the robber barons of the 18th century could only dream about.
tuttt99 2 years ago
whether or not various governments are or are not lying about global warming, we should be conserving energy and co2 release, along with all the other crap we pump out and the destruction we cause in the name of "progress"
wrennus 4 years ago
I have no issues with conservation. We should do it everywhere it makes sense.
Mandating draconian reductions in CO2 that will harm everyone over dubious correlation to warming is lunacy. Correlation does not equate causation. The planet is warming, it has been for 10s of thousands of years. The oceans are rising, about 1-4 millimeters a year. They have been for thousands of years. Even before the industrial boom.
CO2 ISN'T the culprit. The SUN is.
malbor 4 years ago
the earth has been warming at an accelerated rate that matches perfectly against the industrial revolution. At a rate far quicker than has been seen before naturally, the sun's output is at approx 1kw/m^2 which hasn't changed
wrennus 4 years ago
Co2 acts as a catalyst, a slight increase in Co2 = a large increase in water vapour, Co2 heats the world up a tiny bit, which then allows the atmosphere to absorb huge amount of water vapour, in turn heating the world up, scientists don't claim Co2 to be the main greenhouse gas, it is not a symptom but a cause.
wrennus 4 years ago
What doesn't help is governments and business spurting out propoganda to confuse and scare people so they can rip off the masses from BOTH sides of the arguement and exploiting the fact that OUR FUCKING PLANET could become largely inhabitable to people, so they can make a profit, fuck the millions that will have to suffer, they're alright, they're rich
wrennus 4 years ago
like i said, whether co2 is or is not the culprit is irrelevant, even if it isn't causing global warming, all the pollution we pump into the atmosphere still causes plenty of damage to the environment in other ways. we are a wasteful and destructive species and needs to to change our ways, the measures being called for are hardly draconian, YET, although i have no doubt governments will try and rape the populace for all it can get under the guise of "going green" but that's not the point
wrennus 4 years ago
I'm all for not pumping various pollutants into the atmosphere. I'm for "green" technologies where they make sense. If you have issues with pollution, visit China. I have spent a few months of my time over a handful of trips there. The Guangdong province is a polluted mess. Flying into Hong Kong, you can't even see the city. We don't emit like that any longer, we abide by strict pollution standards. The 3rd world just opens it to the air. You want to make a difference...start there.
malbor 4 years ago
errrr... what about the smog above nearly every major city? walking through london is like smoking a 20 pack a day
wrennus 4 years ago 2
Um, that's actually fog in London. It's water vapour.
tuttt99 2 years ago
6.5 billion humans and growing. never in the history of the planet has an animal been so dominant, so numerous, so deadly, so arrogant. Easter Island , a speck in a huge ocean that grew an unsustainable population which ate everything and each other and used up all the resccources that sustained human life?. Wake up, this is happening NOW on a planet,a speck in a huge gallaxy . The human plague has doubled in under 50 years, Fuck global warming only a few shall live to see it .
mickeray 4 years ago
If you think that Humans are a plague, then by all means don't just talk the talk, walk the walk.
Start by sterilizing yourself (and ALL of your children, if you have any).
Then submit yourself to your government for euthanization.
The Earth will thank you.
tuttt99 2 years ago
This is deliberately deceptive. CO2 is normally measured in parts per million so doubling or even tripling the measured amounts will still appear as a small component of the overall atmosphere. The net effect is large however, and there are domino effects within the overall biosphere. Shame on whoever created this misleading graphic - corporate science at its finest.
bushmustgo 4 years ago
Actually, you're quite wrong. Doubling CO2 does not double CO2's effect on warming. It's not anywhere near doubling, it's perhaps up 25% and that is questionable. That said, you are STILL missing the Elephant in the living room. WATER VAPOR is the primary greenhouse gas. Why do "hockey stick" huggers claim that a trace gas is causing all the warming, deny the gas that causes 95%+ of the greenhouse effect?
malbor 4 years ago
Oh and all you AGW koolaid drinkers who 1 star me...I take that as a badge of honor. 10 years from now as the solar output wains and we slip in the other direction, you folks are going to look entirely idiotic.
malbor 4 years ago
the solar output hasn't changed in the past 100years, it's still at 1kw/m^3 at sea level
wrennus 4 years ago
Sun's radiation has increased by .05 percent per decade since the late 1970s
malbor 4 years ago
impressive illustration.
Does anyone know where it originally came from?
Tom Harris
nrsp[dot]com
TomHarrisNRSP 4 years ago
National Post
communitiesDOTcanadaDOTcom/nationalpost/blogs/gunter/archive/2007/04/10/global-warming-do-the-math.aspx
malbor 4 years ago
As an addendum, I personally made the image. I probably overstated the "man's contribution" by a whole bunch. It is likely about 1/4 of what is pictured, but I was generous.
malbor 4 years ago
I'm glad that I go to school.
raahr 4 years ago