CO2 levels... uhh that boring stuff again

[Lusso5]

Originally posted by B.VDBOS



3% of what = 0.072 degrees

The total greenhouse efect?

3% of the total greenhouse efect is going to be larger than that.

.12% of the greenhouse effect is from human activity - related to CO2.
The greenhouse effect contributes about 60 degrees to earth temp.
0.12% of 60 degrees = 0.072degrees

[roibm]

Originally posted by Lusso5

You have yet to prove that you "know" anything.

...

Speak for yourself...

texas way

edit: just because you know how to spell "Environmental Consultant" does not make you one. And then, even if you are one, it does not prove you are a good one, nor does it prove you get no money from different companies for disinforming people. So, don't brag around, "average guy"

[Lusso5]

You started this thread roibm, and you seem to have no problem offering up juvenile statements to bring it down.

I have nothing to prove to you, but when you start a thread, and try to speak with authority, then claim there is no one here "trained" enough to discuss the issue, well I can stand up for myself; I don't call that bragging.

[SY]

Cool off a bit, guys, you're doing your best to create a thermal disaster.

[roibm]

Originally posted by Lusso5
You started this thread roibm, and you seem to have no problem offering up juvenile statements to bring it down.

I have nothing to prove to you, but when you start a thread, and try to speak with authority, then claim there is no one here "trained" enough to discuss the issue, well I can stand up for myself; I don't call that bragging.

Well, my thread was meant to be informative, and regardless of what you think, the first post still is. Needless to say who posted on the second one.
This thread presents what the "proved to be" scientists out these have observed.

[Brian Donaldson]

To make "informative" post in an "informative" thread, you must first be informed...not just repeat junk science propaganda with no basis oin fact.



If it wasn't for our burning of fossil feuls, where would the rain forrest and all of the grasses the gasseous grass eating animals eat get their CO2.

[rfbrw]

Originally posted by Brian Donaldson

If it wasn't for our burning of fossil feuls, where would the rain forrest and all of the grasses the gasseous grass eating animals eat get their CO2.

It is obviously a question of equilibrium or do you think that the tropical rainforest is a byproduct of the industrial revolution?

[cunningham]

Originally posted by B.VDBOS


How much carbon do grass eating animals sink? more than they fart out thats for sure

BTW why are some Americans so interested in animal farts?

Our wonderful government funded some research one time a while back to determain if cow farts were harmful to the environment.

With programs like this, no wonder George wants to increase the national debt limit. Rediculous isn't it.

[audio-kraut]

I do no tknow why you guy's are argueing about something that clearly - for whatever reason - is happening.
Up here the permafrost is leaving the building and it is expected that within 10 years melting and warming at the current rate there will be no ice in the arctic ocean during summertime.

Canada is already thinking how to control the new shipping route.

The increase in co2 is even more accelerated as the previous frozen plant deposits in the permafrost now start to decompose.

And - ever anybody read the new report by - according to some apparently here all nincompoops - a 300 member panel re: climate changes in the arctic - but, what shall not be cannot be.
Seems to be the new science of the new cons, aeh neo cons (why do they permit to be called that anyway - do they not know that a con man is not a position to aspire to? or maybe there is a deeper connection)

[B.VDBOS]

Originally posted by Brian Donaldson

..........not just repeat junk science propaganda with no basis oin fact.

What propaganda?

Grass eater