The whole idea that our 'environment' must be some arbitrary temperature and any deviation from which becomes a 'man made pollution' issue, is the most ludicrous thing I've ever heard.

Carbon dioxide has never been proven to be a cause of warming, and may just as easily be a symptom resulting from it. Nevertheless, Earth has had many, many ice ages, going back long before man had technology, and even further back before man was even here. Ice ages imply a cold climate, and the melting of the ice in between ice ages implies a warm climate. Meaning the earth constantly cycles between hot and cold. Never staying the same. Climate change is a natural, 'green', if you will, phenomenom. Climate change prevention is the un-natural attempt to maintain a steady, non-variable temperature scenario for the entire globe.

And be aware also; a single volcanic eruption can put more carbon dioxide(among other things) into the air than man has managed to emit with his technology in a hundred years time. Such eruptions have cycles as well. Trying to stop 'global warming', or 'climate change', by outlawing man made sources of carbon dioxide is a fools errand. The Earth will do as it wills, despite our puny efforts.

 

Yep, all several billion tons of our puny efforts. You're the first I've heard still using that line in over a year. The consensus has been slowly changing, as the evidence mounts. It is a tortoise and hare scenario, the super volcano dumps it all at once (which caused the little ice age and killed a lot of people) or the slow steady yet increasing stream we humans have been doing. One we have no control over, this is true, but the other is under our total control.

We could destroy our biosphere in war with no trouble, so why is it so hard to believe we could do it by accident? I suspect the only other multicellular land species that can boast of 6 billion + individuals are insects. I don't call that inconsequential. Humans have graduated to a force of nature.

 

Okay then, let’s look at the Carbon Dioxide (CO2) component of our atmosphere, part of that blanket surrounding the Earth. Go back to the pie chart at the top, and look very closely at it.
This shows the makeup of the Earth’s Atmosphere. Not all of those gases are Greenhouse gases.
Most of the Atmosphere is made up of Nitrogen, Oxygen, and Argon, and this adds up to 98 percent. The remaining 2 percent is made up of what are called the Greenhouse gases. From this, you can see that Water Vapour makes up 1.96% of that, and not actually mentioned in the greenhouse gas debate at all, it is the largest of these greenhouse gases and makes up the bulk of them. Water Vapour is also many times more potent as a greenhouse gas, and is able to cause more warming per ton than CO2. This leaves us with 0.04%. This is made up of CO2 and other sundry gases, Methane, Nitrous Oxide and the CFC’s among them.

So, let’s look at the CO2 content then. For the sake of this pie chart it is drawn as a line, and it has to be, because in actuality if it were given the same ratio as the others that line would be close to invisible. The CO2 content of all the Greenhouse Gases makes 0.03% of the total, and this translates to 1.5% of those greenhouse gases, an insignificant amount really. The Global Warming lobby will explain away these facts here by saying many things, labelling me as a denier, and the chart as bogus, and that levels are rising dramatically. If that is so, then the increase in levels will still be by a totally insignificant amount. Look at the chart. 0.04%. Levels in the early days of the Earths formation and evolution have been at levels 5 to 18 times they are now, and any increase we might add will not go even a fraction of the way to approaching those levels.
What is little known, and not likely to be spoken out loud, is that the level of CO2 currently in the Atmosphere is at the lowest level it has been since the Earth was formed. That gives you some sort of idea why it isn’t mentioned. At the rate we are currently emitting CO2, those levels will rise, but that rise will be so insignificant as to make hardly any effect on the overall total, and will never reach the concentrations once in existence in the Earth’s history.

Now as to the other greenhouse gases. They are made up in the main by three gases, Methane, Nitrous Oxide, and the CFC’s. These make up 0.01% of the total gases and that translates to only half of one percent of the total for the greenhouse gases. Even though more volatile than CO2, again, any additions we make here on the Earth’s surface will add very little to the total. The vast majority of Methane comes from the wetlands here on Earth, from farming crops, mostly the stagnant water from the World’s rice fields. The amounts from grazing animals we use for meat produce very little of the total. Methane makes up most of the volume of that tiny amount, and of that tiny amount, Nitrous Oxide makes up about 1.5% of that total of 0.01% and CFC’s make up 0.05% of that same insignificant total.
What needs to be kept in context when viewing these tiny percentages is the fact that the overall total is just so tiny.

Go back and look again at the pie chart, and as a further reference, this link also offers some explanation.
Keep in mind that the CO2 level is now at the lowest point it has been since the Earth formed(ice cores from the Antarctic show this to be so), and that the levels shown are all but insignificant. All this I have detailed above is not just something I have made up. This is real science from real scientists.

 

...The remaining 2 percent is made up of what are called the Greenhouse gases. From this, you can see that Water Vapour makes up 1.96% of that, and not actually mentioned in the greenhouse gas debate at all, it is the largest of these greenhouse gases and makes up the bulk of them. Water Vapour is also many times more potent as a greenhouse gas, and is able to cause more warming per ton than CO2. This leaves us with 0.04%. This is made up of CO2 and other sundry gases, Methane, Nitrous Oxide and the CFC’s among them.

It's clear that you aren't qualified to be talking about this. Honestly, neither am I so I won't say too much. However, I must point out that you are spouting really bad science here.

There are reasons why water vapor is not mentioned as a potentially harmful greenhouse gas. First of all, water is important and we need it and the the earth is mostly covered by it. Second, water vapor is the primary gas that determines the green house warming at any given moment over the short term, and that is normal. Third, water vapor levels in the atmosphere can change radically over periods of a few days and so is much better able to be regulated via feedback mechanisms. Fourth, there is just so much of it that man can not impact it significantly, unlike CO2.

So, why is CO2 important if the level is so much lower than that of H20? Well, what is the most significant remaining greenhouse gas to be concerned about? As you point out it's CO2 which is a primary driver of the water vapor content in the atmosphere. Why is it important? Because it takes decades (not days) to change the CO2 levels. So, once it get's into the atmosphere, it takes a very long time to come back out. The issue is that the CO2 level is capable of being a sensitive driver (or amplifier) of the total greenhouse gas (mostly H20) because it affects the long term levels of water vapor and could prevent the water vapor content from periodically declining as in now naturally does with daily periods. And, the scariest part is that, if you understand nonlinear dynamics, you might realize that there is a danger that beyond a certain CO2 threshold, the system can possibly go unstable and a runaway greenhouse effect can occur.

Basically, I don't understand your attitude (and that of others like you) that want to discount the possibility of humans causing harmful greenhouse effects. Personally, I'm not convinced by the evidence one way or the other yet, but I acknowledge that the possibility is there, and we clearly do not have a full understanding of the problem. So, why would you want to keep the accelerator slammed to the floor and drive at 200 miles per hour, when there might be a sharp bend in the road coming up? Isn't it prudent to be more cautious?

What is little known, and not likely to be spoken out loud, is that the level of CO2 currently in the Atmosphere is at the lowest level it has been since the Earth was formed. That gives you some sort of idea why it isn’t mentioned.

Simply not true. So why say it? It is well known that the CO2 content today is significantly higher than it was before the industrial revolution. Granted, long term, over the entire earth history, the levels seem to have changed drastically. Well, OK but there was also a time when there was hardly any oxygen in the atmosphere and the atmosphere was a reducing and not an oxidizing one. Does that mean we can get rid of all our oxygen and have no problems? Continents, life, ocean currents and the atmosphere have changed drastically over the age of the earth, but we are adapted to the way it is now. I'm not worried about the earth, but I am worried about us, because we are the ones that will suffer if something goes wrong.

So by the way, yes a huge volcano or caldera could do far more damage, but does that mean we should just do whatever because something worse could happen? I'd rather pray that we don't get that volcanic activity and be prudent and not take needless chances until/unless a firm credible scientific case can be made that there is no danger.

 

Please, folks, enjoy my post and extend it, #12 -post 8 , has the right idea.

I did not want to start a debate on global warming or any other off topic subject.

 

Steveb. It was nice of you to quote me, and leave out the source of the data as being from the Vostok Ice core data.

I've looked at hundreds of scholarly articles on this subject and find large disagreements from them. Some conclude temp leads CO2 levels and others find completely opposite. A glance at the funding 'usually' clears up why.

anyone who wishes can do the same research I have done. I won't waste to much of 'our' time trying to change viewpoints. Just pointing out, the conclusions are not just my own, but also belong to some significant number of highly respected researchers.

I tend to doubt things that are 'pushed' by one group of people and at the same time are refuted by others. I like to do my own 'due diligence' and dig for data and conclusions from BOTH sides.

My science is BAD?

Hey, at least I bothered to look for the data(from both camps), which is more than you have claimed.

Studiot, my apologies. We now return you to your regularly sponsored show.

 

The whole 'green' thing, is really about waste and polluting our atomosphere and environment, conservation of resources. Our planet was a much nicer place, before the throw-away convenience of the past few decades. Global warming is a fun topic, but debate is seldom allowed, and for good reason. It's basis, is mostly faith, a guess, and a hope that it's not too late, and something could actually be done. Personally, I think its mostly a marketing scheme, to get the masses to start being more considerate of their host planet (the only one we've got), so we aren't living on top of a garbage dump. Not a bad thing, but fear is a poor motivator. All that oil and coal we've been burning for centuries, came from organic material. No denying that it was once free in the atmosphere, as CO2. The climate is self regulating, and fluctuates, which is why we are blessed with the miracle of life on this planet.

 

No smog and we can breath in the once polluted cities and states
that the computer herds never had to experience.The green voters
are living on the waste covered land.No longer do we talk about
the liners between us and our gated communities and golf courses.
The Green Grass of Home. Sink holes your grandfathers trash
rotting away underground. Our view of our c02 being taken in by the
trees and plants.Ask Bertus how much it cost in the lab to do a
small test on c02.The rest is guess work multiplied. The real thing.

 

My science is BAD?

.

Yes, I believe what you put forth qualifies as propaganda more than science. And, I know that much propaganda exist on the other side of the question too, but that doesn't make it OK to play in that game.

I agree that there is wide disagreement in the literature which just gets to my point that the question is still open, not so clear cut as you state. Your view that you can look at the funding sources and conclude that all researchers than oppose your view are just after the money and those that agree with you are not after money, but doing good science is interesting and reveals a classic sign of self deception.

Out of respect for studiot, I won't say any more in this thread, but I just felt that some of the other side needed to be inserted to balance off your view. As, I said, I don't lean to one side or the other, but advise prudence and caution when the stakes are so high.

 

Scholarly that word has a complex meaning,you don't where they get
there Information.Too many think tanks and boards that adjust there
opinions.Sometimes you don't know If they are using grad students work.
I want to know every thing they belong too,and what shapes there
opinion.You don't know there goals.More higher education government
panels.There are too many scholars,you have to define all of them now
a days.Truth is hard to come by,opinions are cheap and ego are big.
who would you apoint to study green house gasses,tough decision.no answer. Like I say
ask Bertus with his instruments a little liquid,tells you very little in the glass tubes
at great expense.For a big problems small people with joint opinions,scholars.
Our planet a free ride only for our life span.