- Joined
- 30 June 2008
- Posts
- 15,594
- Reactions
- 7,472
Well that was a pleasant way to win friends and influence people wasn't it Wayne ?
Bye.
Bye.
Interesting isn't it ? Every scientist with any integrity acknowledges that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that the extra volume we put into the atmosphere is causing global warming.
Even climate skeptics acknowledge that CO2 is contributing to global warming. (Their argument is that sensitivity levels of Co2 are not as high as all the other climate scientists are suggesting.
Scientists say the Arctic has been ice free in summer for the last 4 years.
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/n...=c76d05dd-2864-43b2-a2e3-82e0a8ca05d5&k=53683
QUEBEC -- The Arctic Ocean could be free of ice in the summer as soon as 2010 or 2015 - something that hasn't happened for more than a million years, according to a leading polar researcher.
Louis Fortier, scientific director of ArcticNet, a Canadian research network, said the sea ice is melting faster than predicted by models created by international teams of scientists, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
There are lots of scientist with integrity who are also skeptics.
Do you have a link to your statement that "EVEN SKEPTICS ACKNOWLEDGE THAT CO2 IS CONTRIBUTING TO GLOBAL WARMING"
Out of some 32 billion tones of GREEN HOUSE GASES induced into the atmosphere, only about 5.5 billion is man made....the balnce would be due to natural bush fires and volcanoes. after all bush fires burn fossil fuel.......how do you overcome bush fires which are a natuarl phenomenon mostly started by lightning. Refer my post 4976.
noco, your like watching a moth at the porch light. The CO2 aspect is physics, it like methane and nitrogen oxide absorb light in the infra-red part of the spectrum, (the bit that feels warm when the sunlight hits you; yes there are other parts to, that's why it's called a spectrum). That trapped heat is then radiated to its surroundings, in our case the Troposphere,(thats the bit of the atmosphere where all the life goes on, except for the bit under the water but we'll keep things simple)...
Fossil fuel burning, and no bush fires don't burn fossil fuel, has changed what was a balance in atmospheric CO2. Before the industrial revolution circa 1850, CO2 had been more or less steady for many hundreds of thousands of years at around 285 ppm(parts per million) The bush and the fires which result are part of the troposphere, the CO2 released is absorbed back into regrowth of new forrest and or other CO2 utilising organisms and doesn't effect the long term balance.
Burning long (many millions of years) buried fossil fuel does, now 2014 the level of atmospheric CO2 is at 400ppm and rising. More CO2 equals more trapped heat .
All about balance noco, CO2 out of balance. And now we're on a journey into the unknown to find where the Earths new heat balance will take us.
Learn the science. It's not 'commo' or 'greenie' it's just science. And it scares the **** out of some deeply vested interests. Did you know that science can change the very timber that gets burnt for no good purpose in those bush fires you talk of into Kerosene(jet-A) or non sulphur diesel. It can, true. Imagine a government policy that mandated a little percentage of that in the 'National tank'.
or just go and buy yourself a new pair of shoes and stop worrying.
noco, your like watching a moth at the porch light. The CO2 aspect is physics, it like methane and nitrogen oxide absorb light in the infra-red part of the spectrum, (the bit that feels warm when the sunlight hits you; yes there are other parts to, that's why it's called a spectrum). That trapped heat is then radiated to its surroundings, in our case the Troposphere,(thats the bit of the atmosphere where all the life goes on, except for the bit under the water but we'll keep things simple)...
Fossil fuel burning, and no bush fires don't burn fossil fuel, has changed what was a balance in atmospheric CO2. Before the industrial revolution circa 1850, CO2 had been more or less steady for many hundreds of thousands of years at around 285 ppm(parts per million) The bush and the fires which result are part of the troposphere, the CO2 released is absorbed back into regrowth of new forrest and or other CO2 utilising organisms and doesn't effect the long term balance.
Burning long (many millions of years) buried fossil fuel does, now 2014 the level of atmospheric CO2 is at 400ppm and rising. More CO2 equals more trapped heat .
All about balance noco, CO2 out of balance. And now we're on a journey into the unknown to find where the Earths new heat balance will take us.
Learn the science. It's not 'commo' or 'greenie' it's just science. And it scares the **** out of some deeply vested interests. Did you know that science can change the very timber that gets burnt for no good purpose in those bush fires you talk of into Kerosene(jet-A) or non sulphur diesel. It can, true. Imagine a government policy that mandated a little percentage of that in the 'National tank'.
or just go and buy yourself a new pair of shoes and stop worrying.
Anthropoenic CO2 emissions come from the combustion of carbon based fuels principally wood, coal, oil and natural gas.......correct if I am wrong but don't bush fires burn wood?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
Wood does emit CO2 when burned (and under certain conditions can also emit CH4 (methane) as well as other things) but wood can be burned without necessarily being a net source of CO2 emissions.Anthropoenic CO2 emissions come from the combustion of carbon based fuels principally wood, coal, oil and natural gas.......correct if I am wrong but don't bush fires burn wood?
Are plants really that fussed about where their CO2 comes from?
CO2 is CO2 regardless of its origins. How can the plants tell one identical molecule from another?
We're down to around 30% of the earths land area covered by forests, but clearign them at a rate of the size of Panama, or over 75,000 Square KM being lost to sugar cane and palm oil.
So yes, the remaining plants don't really care where a molecule of CO2 comes from, it's just unfortunate that there's less and less of them each year to try and scrub the increasing amounts of CO2 we're releasing into the atmosphere.
The last time I checked, sugar cane and palms were plants!
The last time I checked, sugar cane and palms were plants!
...
If burning fossil fuels isn't the cause of the increase of atmospheric C02, then what is?
Mammalian respiration ...
...
And sharks respire too!
The last time I checked, sugar cane and palms were plants!
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?