Re: Global warming
 

The percentages are:

Consumption of vegetation by animals & microbes = 220 gigatonnes of CO2 per year.

Respiration by vegetation = 220 gigatonnes.

The ocean releases = 332 gigatonnes.

Anthropogenic CO2 emissions = 29 gigatonnes per year.

But:

Land plants absorb about 450 gigatonnes of CO2 per year and the ocean absorbs about 338 gigatonnes.

So - 778 Gt. – 772 Gt says that human activity is adding about 23Gt of CO2 per year.

Or about a 3% increase. (I read somewhere it actually is 2.89%)
Now the big question in my mind. How accurate do you think those numbers are?

To within 3%?

I doubt it.


Ref: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/faq.html

Re: Global warming
 

so if we have an increase of population to 9billion by 2050 (or whatever it is - I can't remember what they say) and an increase in affluence so that the average CO2 emission per person goes up at the same time, would the projected increase be a problem? Or would it still be minimal?

Re: Global warming
 

Sure it is…..

In fact the problem really is population growth as much it is our wasteful attitudes to energy etc.

Notwithstanding this, we have a scientific argument based upon estimations. Who knows what the actual amount of CO2 released by the oceans. We estimate the numbers of 50 tonne whales and still get that wrong…

Re: Global warming
 

Let's get back to Camels and the whole stupidity of the ETS scheme.

You need to read this article first:-

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1225827641354

This typifies why the whole stupid idea will never work. We have a chance to reduce our CO2 emissions to the tune of 300,00 cars a year by a well deserved culling of a bunch of ferel pests. But according to Wong their CO2 doesn't count according to the Kyoto protocol because they are not domesticated animals.

You couldn't make it up if you tried. The lunatics are running the asylum. Either we want to reduce CO2 or we don't. Rudd and Wong fly all over the world with hundreds of people, signing stupid treaties, that mean Jack Sh?t, or should I say Camel Dung?

Re: Global warming
 

[QUOTE=slapphead_otool;8335034]Spewing?

No, sorry Budawing, i cant let that comment pass.....

QUOTE]

No, that's mostly methane - a very potent Greenhouse gas.

Re: Global warming
 

Actually it's really easy to measure the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and the amount it has been increasing each year.

There are some deluded deniers who claim the CO2 increase is not caused by humans... HAHAHA

Re: Global warming
 

What caused the CO2 increases before humans were around... just asking like.

Re: Global warming
 

Lets have a guess:

Volcanoes
Forest Fires
and.....................Camels

Re: Global warming
 

I used to smoke Camels at one time.... that Joe Camel has a lot to answer for. :)

Re: Global warming
 

All living things produce CO2.

But a correlation is not a causation. Just because there is more CO2 in the atmosphere it doesn't mean that it is the cause of climate change. However there is a slight mechanistic rationale in that CO2 does have a very small additive greenhouse effect. On the other hand, CO2 produced from fossil fuels (which is the ONLY CO2 that has been added to the system that wasn't there before) is produced by burning the fossil fuel. So you could also argue that the increase in heat that we see might actually be caused by, wait for it, heat. You can also argue that there is a correlation between solar energy and global warming, which is the explanation for all previous global warmings. So, as I'f pointed out before, you need to eliminate solar energy as a cause before you point the finger at something else.

Even if CO2 does turn out to be the cause, there is no guarantee that reducing it will be the solution. Complex systems don't work like that, unless they're being analysed by simplistic mathematical models.

So essentially you have a situation where there's a 50/50 chance of CO2 being the cause (if we consider the sun and CO2 to be equivalent forcing factors which is bollocks of course, since if the sun goes out the world will not continue to warm just because there's lots of CO2). And then there's a 10% chance (at the outside) that reducing CO2 is likely to reverse global warming, and then there's a 2% chance that reducing CO2 might actually head us towards a catastrophic global cooling which is far more dangerous to the planet, and the human population than global warming. So you end up with a probability that reducing carbon dioxide will solve the problem of about:

0.5 x 0.08 = .04 or 4%, if I have my probability calculation right, with a 1% chance of buggering it up completely and causing an ice age. And this is all assuming that the sun is doing nothing in the meantime.

Hardly a road we should travel.

But anyway, we come back to the same problem, the sun has not been ruled out as the cause.

Re: Global warming
 

Probably volcanoes.

Another cause of prehistoric global warming may have been caused by a "methane belch":

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...arthbelch.html

It's not all about the sun which has a very stable energy output.

Re: Global warming
 

So volcanoes in the past.... but man now?.
Why not volcanoes now?

Re: Global warming
 

Because the government can't tax them!

Re: Global warming
 

How about a canoes tax... its half of volcanoes so they could be taxed at a reduced rate. :)

Re: Global warming
 

Dunno, maybe you should ask them?