Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

parados wrote:

The net effect HAS been constant for centuries until humans started adding CO2.

Back to this point. According to who, Parados?

http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2_supp.htm

Parados, that alleged 5% was alleged to be 5% per year. Over the 30 year period 1975 to 2005, that would amount to 30 x 5% =150%.

Quote:

http://co2.cms.udel.edu/Increasing_Atmospheric_CO2.htm
Emissions of Carbon from Human Activities
...
Using a combination of modern and historic data, scientists estimate that humans have sent a total of 305 billion metric tons of carbon into the atmosphere since 1751; half of these emissions have occurred since the mid-1970s.
…
About half of the recent emissions are not accumulating in the atmosphere, but are going into the ocean and, to a lesser extent, into soils. These are considered "sinks" in the global carbon budget because they take up atmospheric CO2.

So half of that alleged 150% = 75% ended up in/on the surface of the earth. The other half, 75%, ended up in the atmosphere:
Per year, that's = 75%/30 = 2.5% per year which ended up in the atmosphere. But the actual average global temperature increase over 1975 to 2005 was less than 0.222%.

Parados, that alleged 5% was alleged to be 5% per year. Over the 30 year period 1975 to 2005, that would amount to 30 x 5% =150%.

would someone like to explain some simple arithmetic to ican.

The planet heats up, cools off, heats up, cools off, heats up and cools off with or
without human activity and this cycle will continue when human activities cease

Are you sure you want to use a site that lists historical papers and measurements that have since been shown to be wrong as your source for what you think CO2 has been the last few centuries?

I don't know about you okie, but I wouldn't use a paper from 1958 as my source since Mauna Loa measurements had not yet been nor had the present ice cores been done.

H2O_MAN wrote:

The planet heats up, cools off, heats up, cools off, heats up and cools off with or
without human activity and this cycle will continue when human activities cease

...the existence of natural heating and cooling doesn't prove that man contributes nothing to the process.

Planets, moons, asteroids, and comets contain natural resources such as water, minerals, and trace elements that may have survival value to visiting astronauts and economic value to life on Earth. How did we learn of these materials? How would one go about mining them?

ican711nm wrote:

Parados, that alleged 5% was alleged to be 5% per year. Over the 30 year period 1975 to 2005, that would amount to 30 x 5% =150%.

would someone like to explain some simple arithmetic to ican.

... the IPCC wrote that some 90 billion tons of carbon as carbon dioxide annually circulate between the earth's ocean and the atmosphere, and another 60 billion tons exchange between the vegetation and the atmosphere.
... man-made sources' emission of about 5 to 6 billion tons per year, the natural sources would then account for more than 95 percent of all atmospheric carbon dioxide
...
At 6 billion tons, humans are then responsible for a comparatively small amount - less than 5 percent - of atmospheric carbon dioxide ...

...
the burden of proof for anthropogenic global warming (AGW) rests with those who advocate it.
...

Simple not compound annual interest is implied. So over the 30 years 1975 to 2005, that amounts to 150%.

parados wrote:

Are you sure you want to use a site that lists historical papers and measurements that have since been shown to be wrong as your source for what you think CO2 has been the last few centuries?

I don't know about you okie, but I wouldn't use a paper from 1958 as my source since Mauna Loa measurements had not yet been nor had the present ice cores been done.

I'm not bragging on the data, but I wouldn't brag on ice cores either, parados. If its all we have, its all we have. By the way, you dodged the CO2 emissions by plants. Which is it, they absorb more or the same or less, and what are you including, living plants or the entire plant cycle? You can't have it both ways, and I think you have tried.

When did I claim it wasn't the entire cycle that created a zero sum?

I hardly dodged it. I ignored it because you have nothing to base your wild accusation on. By changing the type of plants or increasing the amount of biomass you can change the cycle but the natural cycle has been pretty much a zero sum game for centuries.

okie wrote:

parados wrote:

Are you sure you want to use a site that lists historical papers and measurements that have since been shown to be wrong as your source for what you think CO2 has been the last few centuries?

I don't know about you okie, but I wouldn't use a paper from 1958 as my source since Mauna Loa measurements had not yet been nor had the present ice cores been done.

I'm not bragging on the data, but I wouldn't brag on ice cores either, parados. If its all we have, its all we have. By the way, you dodged the CO2 emissions by plants. Which is it, they absorb more or the same or less, and what are you including, living plants or the entire plant cycle? You can't have it both ways, and I think you have tried.

When did I claim it wasn't the entire cycle that created a zero sum?

I hardly dodged it. I ignored it because you have nothing to base your wild accusation on. By changing the type of plants or increasing the amount of biomass you can change the cycle but the natural cycle has been pretty much a zero sum game for centuries.