Reply With Quote
Yes, Yoni. The current levels would be about that much lower if not for man, give or a take a few PPM from the natural increase.
That's my argument, which nobody seems to understand.
Yes, Yoni. The current levels would be about that much lower if not for man, give or a take a few PPM from the natural increase.
So, I'm back to my original question; what percentage of the current greenhouse gas inventory is due to anthropogenic sources and by how much do the annual atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases vary?
Jesus Christ you really don't understand partial pressure at all.
I do understand partial pressure. Do you understand the effect that temperature has on the same system, when applying to solubility?
How are you able to make that statement? Since we cannot simply use the amount manmade CO2 in the atmosphere as an accurate measure. How do you dismiss natural releases of co2 from volcanic activity, ocean upwelling etc etc.
Well, just so you know, the chart DOES NOT account for water vapor (you weren't sure earlier). So, the Department of Energy leaves off the one atmospheric cons uent most responsible for the greenhouse effect -- about 95%, according to my sources. And, a cons uent comprised of 94.999% natural sources and only .001% man made sources.
Throw that into the mix and only about .28% of the greenhouse effect can be attributed to man made causes. And, that's TODAY! At .28% of current contribution, I don't think your math works that man has increased the inventory by 28.3% over the past couple of centuries.
But, that also leads to my second question about the variation in greenhouse gases over time. If it varies by more than .28% (which seems quite likely), man made contribution to the greenhouse effect becomes negligible, no?
Because his faith and dogma tell him to. He is a denier of how temperature affects ocean solubility of CO2, and it's dissolved forms.
You don't expect him to believe you over his AGW religion, do you? He's a faithful follower.
But, he's having fun.
I will say this again.
I believe, from the evidence I have seen that:
1) Increases in solar output since 1700, and again from 1900 to 1950 are a leading contributor to global warming during the period surveys by the IPCC AR4.
2) I am in agreement with the IPCC's contention that the solar changes amount to 0.12 watts/sq meter of direct radiative forcing increases.
3) The direct solar increases are those caught by the atmosphere before the remaining energy increases the actual surface temperature.
4) The increased surface illumination becomes more upward IR energy to fuel the greenhouse effect, of which approximately another 0.8 watts/meter of indirect forcing occurs in the greenhouse effect.
5) This added radiative downforce in the greenhouse effect is incorrectly attributed to the added CO2.
6) Black carbon on Ice changes the albedo of ice dramatically. An invisible dusting of soot may reduce it's reflective ability so little that it is invisible without measuring equipment. However, changing the reflection of light from 90% to 80% is the same as increasing the albedo from 10% to 20%, doubling the heating of the ice.
Should I go on?
I just wonder if in 5 years, when all he is learning from the University of Indoctrination is found to be incorrect, if he will be able to find a job?
I don't that's the case. I did earlier when I had him confused with other posters. Manny saying it's 100% manmade is a pretty bold statement, I would guess he has something to back it up.
LOL...
I agree, he's not that faithful to the indoctrination. Still, he does not acknowledge anything that disputes his beliefs.
I don't think he has anything to back it up. At least nothing factual enough to deny any real scientific skepticism. I think he would have if he did.
What I'm not clear on is why, if it only accounts for approximately 3.5% of the greenhouse effect, is such a big deal being made of CO2?
Why aren't we doing something about water vapor?
Because we aren't pumping water vapor into the atmosphere.
So, we're not causing global climate change?
Well I would prefer you don't because those are imo distractions from the topic of agw theory just like arguing over whatever the the temperature was a 1000 years ago.
Like I said earlier I think the only relevant questions on agw theory are 1.) How much of the co2 increase is manmade (and of course how do you know that) and 2.) how does that increase account for the temperature increase we've seen when co2 is a minor greenhouse gas (and of course how do you know that) . Funny to me that in all the agw threads/articles those two most basic questions on the topic never get answered.
So I'd really like to hear Manny's answers since he has apparently studied the topic.
That doesn't mean I'm going to jump on board the alarmist's political agenda, they've already lost that fight.
I'm not following you???
Where are you getting 3.5% of the effect from? Now I agree it may be that low, but AGW scientist are saying it contributes to somewhere between 9% to 26% of the greenhouse effect.
The chart Al Gore used would indicate that CO2 is approximately 20% of the Greenhouse Effect:
I get the 20% by taking the total greenhouse effect of about 33 degrees, and dividing the 6.6 into it.
I've been trying like to find those answers with any level of certainty, but it's real hard to, especially when these people refuse to acknowledge natural solar changes and increased sea temperatures reducing solubility.
I take it as his sense of humor.
Don't you know? The temperature changes and the ocean fizzes like a soda until equilibrium is reached. All of it!
He still thinks that he is the only one considering solubility states.
Fizz Fizz Dumb Dumb
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
