Quote:
Quote by: xyzer  |
Excuse me? Didn't we establish earlier that CO2 contributes to around 20% of the total greenhouse effect (complicated due to different absorptions at different altitude, but that's a ballpark figure) and that we've increased CO2 levels from 280ppm to 380ppm?
Quote:
Quote by: xyzer 97% of CO2 emissions come from natural(mostly the oceans) rather than human sources. |
Misleading information. The emissions from natural sources are part of the carbon cycle, for example, we will see large amounts of CO2 released in winters when a lot of plants die and decay but in the following Spring & Summer, it'll lock away that CO2 again. Therefore, the net is no significant increase (unlike when we do deforestation). However, we are pumping back into the atmosphere, carbon that has been sequestered over millions of years. We are causing the net increase of CO2 levels, if you doubt that fact then there's no point in debating.
Quote:
Quote by: xyzer Recent satellite measurements show a leveling or even cooling of global temps inspite of the increasing human contributions to CO2. |
This plateau has been explained, it fits in very nicely with the fact that we know what's causing it. It's not something new either, unless you've been living under a rock for the last 50 or so years.
Quote:
Quote by: xyzer The believers can rant on about how computer models predicted increased warming and it was directly related to human carbon use but their conclusions are illogical. It strains credibility to believe that humans who contribute a fraction of the actual greenhouse gas can overcome natural influences and change climate patterns? And there is no scientific proof they can. |
Fortunately, there are actually scientists out there who do the research and knows that we can. It strikes me how you can sling out the same lines over and over, as if you think repeating it will make you right.
Quote:
Quote by: xyzer It seems to me absurd to postulate that global warming(and increased CO2) are going to increase a global economic drag? |
Have you actually read the Stern report (a former Economist at the World Bank, was he not?)? Or is this another one of your unjustified rants again?
Quote:
Quote by: xyzer CO2 increases are the essence of plant growth. Crops respond to CO2 by increasing growth! Warmer climes mean some areas are now open to crops that wouldn't grow before? This latest bit of propaganda is just more illogical nonsense designed to confirm the myth that humans can and should influence climate. |
The above statements highlights, once more, how uneducated you are. Just because CO2 can increase plant growth in a controlled environment doesn't mean it'll do in the real world; you'd have to contend with the changing rain fall and changing temperatures, these are major factors that would overwhelm any benefits of increased CO2 concentration.
Quote:
Quote by: xyzer By the way Pooey if the global warming myth isn't based on computer modes and alarmist hype, what is it based on? |
Seems like you don't read anything I post in fear of it educating you. You already know and have complained about temperature reconstructions which all culminated in the hockey stick graph.
Quote:
Quote by: xyzer The actual evidence since the initial frenzy started shows cooling as well as other more important influences(El Nino and La Nina) overcoming the alleged human influence? |
You seem to have problems understanding the PDO, I'll reiterate again; it's a cycle that can have positive and negative impact on global warming but only temporarily, hence we see a record in 1998 which was not repeated in the following year. Currently, we've been seeing predominately the La Nina effect and hence the warming has been countered, this is well known and accepted.
Your misleading information may convince those who haven't had high school level education, but for the rest of us, you'll have to try harder.