Welcome to a much greener Earth!

[iguanaman]

Probably the greatest source of CO2 from the human race is in all the people breathing. Good luck with curbing that. :screwy:

Are you a fossil? Did you not read my post at all? CO2 currently in the environment does not increase concentrations in the air and is constantly recycled. Burning fossil fuels and volcanoes are the only way to increase CO2 concentrations since they add new carbon that has not been in our atmosphere for millions of years. At least get an understanding of the situation before making a judgement. Of course that requires thought unlike reading those denier blogs.

 

[eohrnberger]

Are you a fossil? Did you not read my post at all? CO2 currently in the environment does not increase concentrations in the air and is constantly recycled. Burning fossil fuels and volcanoes are the only way to increase CO2 concentrations since they add new carbon that has not been in our atmosphere for millions of years. At least get an understanding of the situation before making a judgement. Of course that requires thought unlike reading those denier blogs.

Your post assumes far too much not in evidence, specifically which blogs I do and do not read. Fact off the matter, I really don't read any blogs at all.

Mankind can't control the eruptions of volcanoes, so that's neither here nor there.

If you examine the billions and billions of humans breathing in O2 and exhaling CO2, I think that's more volume of CO2 being produced this way than the fossil fuels being burned.

Cars and other vehicles produce no CO2 when they are parked, and they are parked far more than they are being driven and producing CO2.

There are far fewer electrical generation facilities than there are humans by many multiple orders of magnitude, so even the proportionally larger volume a plant produces is off set and out weighed by the sheer numbers of humans.

If there is indeed AGW, it's not so much coming from burning fossil fuel as it is from so many humans on the planet.

 

[Orly?]

Turn up the boost, grow more green things.. Sounds good..

 

[iguanaman]

Your post assumes far too much not in evidence, specifically which blogs I do and do not read. Fact off the matter, I really don't read any blogs at all.

Mankind can't control the eruptions of volcanoes, so that's neither here nor there.

If you examine the billions and billions of humans breathing in O2 and exhaling CO2, I think that's more volume of CO2 being produced this way than the fossil fuels being burned.

Cars and other vehicles produce no CO2 when they are parked, and they are parked far more than they are being driven and producing CO2.

There are far fewer electrical generation facilities than there are humans by many multiple orders of magnitude, so even the proportionally larger volume a plant produces is off set and out weighed by the sheer numbers of humans.

If there is indeed AGW, it's not so much coming from burning fossil fuel as it is from so many humans on the planet.

Most all the carbon you mentioned is part of the carbon cycle. Plants split CO2 from the air, using the carbon to grow and releasing O2. We eat the plant and our bodies "burn" the plant matter containing the carbon using O2 and forming CO2 again. It is the same carbon and the cycle is essential for life. It also has nothing to do with global warning since it is a "closed system" containing a set amount of carbon. By digging up millions of tons of Buried carbon and releasing it into the air we have overloaded the system with excess carbon and it is warming the Earth and acidifying the oceans and at alarming rates in many cases. It really is that simple and since so many wont believe the worst until it happens it is more and more likely that they will get their wish. Our grandchildren will look at the inaction with puzzled disdain I'm afraid.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Probably the greatest source of CO2 from the human race is in all the people breathing. Good luck with curbing that. :screwy:

Well, even I will call you on that.

The oceans and biomass source far more than what man does, but we are no doubt, disrupting the balance between their sourcing and sinking. When it comes to man's CO2 emissions, the making of concrete probable is larger than humans breathing, but the burning of fossil fuels, is no doubt, the largest contribution of CO2 by mankind.

Please present honest, real argument, or I will chastise you...

I don't believe man's emissions of greenhouse gasses are a problem since we mitigated CFC's, but in keeping things honest and real, I will not stand for clear misrepresenting on either side.

I suggest you learn the topic better before presenting something as fact.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Greetings, Erik. :2wave:

DO.NOT.GIVE.THEM.ANY.IDEAS! :mrgreen:

LOL...

Agreed.

Next, they will want a eugenics program against people with a high carbon footprint...

 

[Lord of Planar]

Your post assumes far too much not in evidence, specifically which blogs I do and do not read. Fact off the matter, I really don't read any blogs at all.

Mankind can't control the eruptions of volcanoes, so that's neither here nor there.

If you examine the billions and billions of humans breathing in O2 and exhaling CO2, I think that's more volume of CO2 being produced this way than the fossil fuels being burned.

Cars and other vehicles produce no CO2 when they are parked, and they are parked far more than they are being driven and producing CO2.

There are far fewer electrical generation facilities than there are humans by many multiple orders of magnitude, so even the proportionally larger volume a plant produces is off set and out weighed by the sheer numbers of humans.

If there is indeed AGW, it's not so much coming from burning fossil fuel as it is from so many humans on the planet.

I'm, sorry, but even I think your post was silly...

 

[eohrnberger]

Most all the carbon you mentioned is part of the carbon cycle. Plants split CO2 from the air, using the carbon to grow and releasing O2. We eat the plant and our bodies "burn" the plant matter containing the carbon using O2 and forming CO2 again. It is the same carbon and the cycle is essential for life. It also has nothing to do with global warning since it is a "closed system" containing a set amount of carbon. By digging up millions of tons of Buried carbon and releasing it into the air we have overloaded the system with excess carbon and it is warming the Earth and acidifying the oceans and at alarming rates in many cases. It really is that simple and since so many wont believe the worst until it happens it is more and more likely that they will get their wish. Our grandchildren will look at the inaction with puzzled disdain I'm afraid.

The carbon sequestered in the fossil fuels are still in the carbon cycle, as they are still on the planet, but are / were temporarily removed - yeah, a long 'temporary', but certainly not permanently removed. At one point in time, the carboniferous period, they were in the active carbon cycle. Then buried, and now being extracted again to rejoin the carbon cycle.

If we want to get the carbon out of the air, we'd need the same level of foliage as there was in the carboniferous period, which would seem to make sense.

 

[eohrnberger]

Well, even I will call you on that.

The oceans and biomass source far more than what man does, but we are no doubt, disrupting the balance between their sourcing and sinking. When it comes to man's CO2 emissions, the making of concrete probable is larger than humans breathing, but the burning of fossil fuels, is no doubt, the largest contribution of CO2 by mankind.

Please present honest, real argument, or I will chastise you...

I don't believe man's emissions of greenhouse gasses are a problem since we mitigated CFC's, but in keeping things honest and real, I will not stand for clear misrepresenting on either side.

I suggest you learn the topic better before presenting something as fact.

I suppose you are right on that count.

I'm, sorry, but even I think your post was silly...

Yeah, I did a bit of checking, and you are right, there's an order of magnitude difference.

Input Values
Earth's Population	7	billion	https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
Per Person consumption	11000	liters per hour	How much oxygen does a person consume in a day? | HowStuffWorks
Exhale comprises CO2	5%		How much oxygen does a person consume in a day? | HowStuffWorks
People on planet	7,000,000,000
Liters consumes	77,000,000,000,000	Liters / hr
Percentage CO2	3,850,000,000,000	Liters / hr
	160,416,666,666.67	Liters / day
	439,497,716.89	Liters / year
	0.001977	kilogram/liter	Online Conversion - how much does CO2 weigh?
	868,886.99	kilograms / year
	868.89	metric tones / year
CO2 Emissions	5,500	million metric tons / year	https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html

So an order of magnitude difference. Not the major factor, but a significant factor?

 

[Lord of Planar]

So an order of magnitude difference. Not the major factor, but a significant factor?

Yes.

Anything that can be measured outside the error bands is significant. Significant can also be a subjective term. The best poll studies out there use the word "significant" when asking scientists their thoughts of AGW. That is where 97% agree AGW is significant. In my opinion, they are using a statistical version whereas if it is more than maybe 5%, then it is considered "significant." Then... this is where the crime is committed. Activist pundits, then change this into saying that 97% of the scientists say "most" of the warming is due to mankind.

Significant does not equal most!

It is a flat out lie, but too subtle for most people to recognizance.

 

[Deuce]

But if the earth gets greener, the governments have less control over the world's food supply.

Well our tinfoil supply certainly is in no danger.

 

[Deuce]

LOL...

Agreed.

Next, they will want a eugenics program against people with a high carbon footprint...

Yes yes liberals want to make it illegal to breathe :roll:

Can we shove this thread to the forum it belongs in now?

 

[Threegoofs]

Your post assumes far too much not in evidence, specifically which blogs I do and do not read. Fact off the matter, I really don't read any blogs at all.

Mankind can't control the eruptions of volcanoes, so that's neither here nor there.

If you examine the billions and billions of humans breathing in O2 and exhaling CO2, I think that's more volume of CO2 being produced this way than the fossil fuels being burned.

Cars and other vehicles produce no CO2 when they are parked, and they are parked far more than they are being driven and producing CO2.

There are far fewer electrical generation facilities than there are humans by many multiple orders of magnitude, so even the proportionally larger volume a plant produces is off set and out weighed by the sheer numbers of humans.

If there is indeed AGW, it's not so much coming from burning fossil fuel as it is from so many humans on the planet.

Fantastically vapid commentary.

Seems like a basic understanding of the CO2 cycle would be s prerequisite for telling all the scientists who study the issue em that they are wrong.

 

[jmotivator]

However, what we do will have a direct effect on life as we know it and that is the concern expressed by Global Warming advocates. People who believe that we need to act on those things within our control that are clearly detrimental to the environment that maintains OUR continued existence on planet Earth.

You may be surprised that I actually agree with you here, but in a more general sense. It is precisely this belief that was a precursor to my becoming a full blown skeptic.

There are many many ways that we are ruining ecosystems around the world through real pollution, deforestation etc.

We should be focusing on those very real problems rather than fighting over what the temperature might be 100 years from now.

As I see it, in the long run this global warming hysteria and onerous legislation will only hurt the conservation movement. When it is proven that the threat of global warming has been hugely over stated, and that we have wasted trillions of dollars chasing alarmist BS there will be a public backlash on conservation as the public will lose trust in conservation science (and with good reason).

 

[Tim the plumber]

You may be surprised that I actually agree with you here, but in a more general sense. It is precisely this belief that was a precursor to my becoming a full blown skeptic.

There are many many ways that we are ruining ecosystems around the world through real pollution, deforestation etc.

We should be focusing on those very real problems rather than fighting over what the temperature might be 100 years from now.

As I see it, in the long run this global warming hysteria and onerous legislation will only hurt the conservation movement in the long run. When it is proven that the threat of global warming has been hugely over stated, and that we have wasted trillions of dollars chasing alarmist BS there will be a public backlash on conservation as the public will lose trust in conservation science (and with good reason).

Yep, that's a big problem.

The even bigger one is the loss of trust in science in general. This fraud could initiate a general turn away from the enlightenment.

 

[jmotivator]

Per Person consumption 11000 liters per hour

That's per day, not per hour.

 

[jmotivator]

Yep, that's a big problem.

The even bigger one is the loss of trust in science in general. This fraud could initiate a general turn away from the enlightenment.

Well, I think cell phones, 3D printers and virtual reality will keep people in a general sciencey mood over the next 100 years even though those items are all engineering miracles based on the science of a century ago...

 

[Tim the plumber]

Well, I think cell phones, 3D printers and virtual reality will keep people in a general sciencey mood over the next 100 years even though those items are all engineering miracles based on the science of a century ago...

I hope so but I am scared that the whole of learning is under threat from the deep green anti-human agenda.

 

[jmotivator]

I hope so but I am scared that the whole of learning is under threat from the deep green anti-human agenda.

I don't think it is nefarious, I feel that that the left feels an urgent need to change everything always and without regard to how that change will actually effect anyone. When the left took over education this kind of thoughtless experimentation and failure was the inevitable result, but not the intention.

We can all fight back by changing the paradigm for our own kids. My plan is to give my kids a year off of school on the agreement that they learn a trade and experience the real world before going to college. Sending kids from childhood dependency on parents straight to college leaves them vulnerable to all the leftist BS.

I had a discussion with a niece of mine who is getting ready to graduate and plans on taking time off to work before school. She is unfortunately a Bernie Sanders supporter, and saw the need to tell me that she is voting for HER future, not mine to which I assured her that I am voting for her future as well, just with more experience. I think the year of real work and bills will be good for her. Many kids rush into leftist indoctrination and delay real world responsibilities for years.

 

[Tim the plumber]

I don't think it is nefarious, I feel that that the left feels an urgent need to change everything always and without regard to how that change will actually effect anyone. When the left took over education this kind of thoughtless experimentation and failure was the inevitable result, but not the intention.

We can all fight back by changing the paradigm for our own kids. My plan is to give my kids a year off of school on the agreement that they learn a trade and experience the real world before going to college. Sending kids from childhood dependency on parents straight to college leaves them vulnerable to all the leftist BS.

I had a discussion with a niece of mine who is getting ready to graduate and plans on taking time off to work before school. She is unfortunately a Bernie Sanders supporter, and saw the need to tell me that she is voting for HER future, not mine to which I assured her that I am voting for her future as well, just with more experience. I think the year of real work and bills will be good for her. Many kids rush into leftist indoctrination and delay real world responsibilities for years.

I think it's a good idea to do the real world for a year before college but I disagree with your view on Bernie.

I was a Thacherite in the 1980's. That made me extreme right here in the UK. Now, without changing any of my ideas I am extreme left. The Sanders program seems a lot less left than the 1950's new deal was in the US. This democratic socialism in Europe has it's good sides even though it gives us all much more to complain about. Unions have their place etc. Which is a a prime example of my point because that was a very right wing thing to say in 1986 and now is extreme left.

 

[Jack Hays]

[h=1]Surprise: Hurricanes create carbon sequestion – exceed carbon emissions by American vehicles each year[/h] Hurricanes key to carbon uptake by forests Increases in carbon uptake by southeast US forests in response to tropical cyclone activity alone exceed carbon emissions by American vehicles each year From Duke University: While hurricanes are a constant source of worry for residents of the southeastern United States, new research suggests that they have a…
Continue reading →

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

Greetings, Polgara. :2wave:

I'd have to insist that it apply to themselves first and then perhaps others. :mrgreen:

The limousine libruls just would not have that. They would have to stop flying those C02 belching gulf stream jets all over the world for those climate change conferences.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

Yes.

Anything that can be measured outside the error bands is significant. Significant can also be a subjective term. The best poll studies out there use the word "significant" when asking scientists their thoughts of AGW. That is where 97% agree AGW is significant. In my opinion, they are using a statistical version whereas if it is more than maybe 5%, then it is considered "significant." Then... this is where the crime is committed. Activist pundits, then change this into saying that 97% of the scientists say "most" of the warming is due to mankind.

Significant does not equal most!

It is a flat out lie, but too subtle for most people to recognizance.

I am not sold on the "97% of scientists agree AGW is significant" claim.

Climate Change: No, It?s Not a 97 Percent Consensus | National Review Online

 

[Lord of Planar]

I am not sold on the "97% of scientists agree AGW is significant" claim.

Climate Change: No, It?s Not a 97 Percent Consensus | National Review Online

It depends on where you draw the line for "significant."

 

[Threegoofs]

Deniers gonna deny.

Extra CO2 is causing the Earth to become greener.