Quite confusing Monk.
First, a while back, you said we humans are no miniscule and insignificant to dare think we could screw up the planet.
Now you're saying the increased numbers of us small little apes may play a big role in CO2 and hence CC [?]
OK, CC doesn't exists... you're saying human breathing [and breeding] contributes to the natural CO2 levels... But others smarter people have quantify how insignificant that CO2 emission is in relation to the industrial-scale fossile burning.
Man, my head hurts so bad I can't even crack wise tonight
Luutzu, you have a remarkable knack of completely misunderstanding virtually everything I post within this thread!
Yet again I ask, without referring to your religious doctrine (and associated clergy), can you honestly dispute the logic behind my claim to there being a biological need for an elevated level of CO2 within the atmosphere?
Last year, Americans drove almost three trillion miles according to estimates from the U.S. Federal Highway Administration.
That’s a lot of time on the open road, time stuck in traffic jams, and time for carbon emissions to enter our atmosphere.
How much carbon?
12,000 mile average per year per passenger vehicle (cars, minivans, pick-ups, vans and SUVs) ÷ 25.5 average miles per gallon
= 470.6 average gallons per year
× 17.68 average pounds of CO2 per gallon of gas
= 8,320 pounds of CO2 per vehicle per year....
https://www.americanforests.org/a-carbon-conundrum/
1 pound = .45kg, say half... so each car emit 4Tonne of CO2?
How many people should not live so we could remove one car off the road to reduce CO2?
Maybe cleaner fuel source could spare lives, no?
What part of "without referring to your religious doctrine (and associated clergy)" didn't you understand?
Furthermore you have also completely missed the point!
Is it really so terribly confusing? Really?
An increased population of lifeforms exchanging CO2/O2 via the conduit of the atmosphere and somehow nobody seems to understand the biological necessity for an increased atmospheric level of CO2!
And somehow those whom don't understand something so terribly basic, continue to claim that they know that science is on their side when they call for reduction of carbon emissions!
Such fanatical lunacy has no business claiming to represent any branch of science!
So people should debate you without using any facts?
When so many people are missing your point... maybe they're not the one missing something.
I don't claim any science, only what I see and have experienced from growing up on the land with a Dad that watched climate and weather for his stock etc. Was talking about the changes we have observed with a 90 year old farmer from Warracnabeal. (i do visiting for red cross) particularly since the drought of 68/9 they have been enormous. No science needed to observe the stuff up from too much human footprint on our planet. Yes lots of causes but the burning of fuels and coal it seems is the worst. But it can be stopped and with lakes now appearing across the ice sheets of Antartica the urgent call is really out.
The main area where I find myself in disagreeance with you is on the questions surrounding causation.
Remedial action devised pursuant to mistaken causation, could easily be misdirected and exacerbate the issue (or possibly even create problems where none previously existed).
More objective, scientific work needs to be done on the what, why and how questions surrounding any anomalous observations.
Note when I say objective and scientific, I most definitely do not mean opinionated papers and/or websites calling on everyone to trust the authors expertise and dictates without question!
Is that before or after accounting for the breathing? Does measure of those breathing account for breather's weight and health status?
Would you care to summarise these ?
This thread is becoming so boring......It is like a Merry-Go-Round and nobody wants to get off it....The Alarmist keep using their cracked records and keep going over the same ground day after day in the hope of roping in some naive converters. :bonk::horse::horse:
For every doomsayer running around with their underpants on their heads, there's always someone else deliberately choosing to deny them that pleasure it seems.... for no particular reason than to be obstropolous.
The floods will become more severe and other catastrophic warnings !! I wonder if they said that in 1893?
View attachment 67938
View attachment 67939
Breakfast Creek Hotel was wet in 1893 dontcha think?
As the burbs have been developed so the flood plains have extended ... natural levees gone = less peak height.
Ermmmmm NO !! The Wivenhoe dam was not around in 1893
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?