Basilio, what do you mean by "the amount of carbon used" ?
(My bolds)
At one stage the program translated the amount of carbon dioxide used by an American family into the physical carbon equivalent. ( CO2 less the oxygen atoms). They had a tipper dumping hundreds of tons of (very black dirt) carbon around the family to demonstrate both how much carbon based fuel is taken out of the ground to feed our energy needs and in an oblique way point out that all this carbon does end up in atmosphere as CO2.
Worth a look.
Sure. See below. This is to Greg Combet. After 21 days without a response I will send a "Notice of Default". I sent back the carbon tax sillyness that came in the mail with my notice.
View attachment 43836
Note the format convention of how your name should appear in the notice - there are logical reasons, eg never use Mr, Mrs etc as you are standing under common law. Feel free to PM me with questions.
There's a similar trend in Tasmania too with a downtrend since the mid-70's that became dramatically worse in the early 2000's. That said, it has very much reversed over the past two winters - rain, rain and more rain is what we're getting lately.Its all good see below water inflow to WA water supply dams.......
Source WA water corp
The great Perth desert coming soon no wonder all the trees are dying.
.
Its all good see below water inflow to WA water supply dams.......
Source WA water corp
The great Perth desert coming soon no wonder all the trees are dying.
.
There's a similar trend in Tasmania too with a downtrend since the mid-70's that became dramatically worse in the early 2000's. That said, it has very much reversed over the past two winters - rain, rain and more rain is what we're getting lately.
Its all good see below water inflow to WA water supply dams.......
Source WA water corp
The great Perth desert coming soon no wonder all the trees are dying.
.
"Amount of CO2 used"???? We don't "use" CO2. We produce it. Plants use it. What you are saying suggests to me you have no idea what the discussion is all about.
Furthermore, what you have illustrated is a totally meaningless exercise. Carbon, one of the earth's major elements, and part of all organic matter, is constantly being recycled. And no, all carbon does not end up as CO2 in the atmosphere. What a ridiculous thing to say.
(But only if you believe the scientific community of course and WTF would they know ?)
Therefore more CO2, more warming.
Ruby your right on the first point. I meant to say have much CO2 we produced through our use of fossil fuels.
Your wrong with the rest of your commentary and misunderstand both what I said and the critical issue of the CO2 causing global warming question.
In the natural environment cycle carbon is recycled through trees and back into the soil. The efforts of scientists monitoring the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere over thousands of years shows long periods of stability as the natural recycling of carbon takes place.
But this has changed in the last 200 years and in particular in the last 50 years. The burning of billions of tons of fossil fuels has put more CO2 into the atmosphere than can be effectively recycled. CO2 is the main greenhouse gas that warms our atmosphere. Therefore more CO2, more warming.
(But only if you believe the scientific community of course and WTF would they know ?)
What? It is doing no such thing. You are just regurgitating another anti-AGW meme based on small time periods and cherry picked start dates.. The surface and satellite data both show continued warming and when you correct for volcanic and ENSO variations the trend is clearly that of warming.Basilio, I know this is a circular argument, but emperical evidence has shown that this is not the case. Initially increased temp moved with increased CO2 in the atmosphere, but this has levelled out. Now, although CO2 is increasing, temperature is not. This is what is being observed. It has nothing to do with anyone's belief system.
How can you hold a position on global warming when you so clearly have nfi what you are talking about.Uh oh. Basilio is back with the same old propaganda - was it a nice holiday?
And what % of all CO2 in the atmosphere is due to man again Basilio? Is it still 3% or has the propaganda machine changed it?
While you were away have you found the observed evidence that shows the 3% is 100% responsible for driving "runaway" global warming? Or are u still referring to models and data with a heap of legal disclaimers? Please post a link of the study
There's a similar trend in Tasmania too with a downtrend since the mid-70's that became dramatically worse in the early 2000's. That said, it has very much reversed over the past two winters - rain, rain and more rain is what we're getting lately.
Ruby your right on the first point. I meant to say have much CO2 we produced through our use of fossil fuels.
Your wrong with the rest of your commentary and misunderstand both what I said and the critical issue of the CO2 causing global warming question.
In the natural environment cycle carbon is recycled through trees and back into the soil. The efforts of scientists monitoring the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere over thousands of years shows long periods of stability as the natural recycling of carbon takes place.
But this has changed in the last 200 years and in particular in the last 50 years. The burning of billions of tons of fossil fuels has put more CO2 into the atmosphere than can be effectively recycled. CO2 is the main greenhouse gas that warms our atmosphere. Therefore more CO2, more warming.
(But only if you believe the scientific community of course and WTF would they know ?)
If you truly believe this Ifocus, when will you be putting your house on the market and leaving WA? Better get on it before the rest of the herd does and you still have some value. Just like Flannery espousing rising sea levels by up to 2m, yet he owns a flash waterfront house, you'd think somewhere like Alice Springs would be a place a paid up alarmist like him would feel more secure.
Hey never mind, according to his logic sea levels will rise to the point that the ocean will flood the inland and fill the dams up for us, will save me the cost of putting salt in my boiling pot of water when i cook my spuds and pasta.
You know full well that WA is moving from El Niño to La Nina ie. a wetter weather pattern, and that graph will reverse, or maybe according to you the trend will continue and we will have negative water flow in the dams in 5 years?
It varies but:Hi Smurf,
Have the dams refilled yet ?
Bas....I think you are over looking something that is very significant in your post.
How much land has been logged in the past 200 and in particular in the last 50 years??
Derty on Oz Wave GuyHow can you hold a position on global warming when you so clearly have nfi what you are talking about.
Aliens may destroy humanity to protect other civilisations, say scientists
Rising greenhouse emissions could tip off aliens that we are a rapidly expanding threat, warns a report
We have truly entered the realms of the most bizzarre postulations ever.
An who else but the Grauniad would publish this crap?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2...roy-humanity-protect-civilisations?CMP=twt_gu
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?