Natural CO2 emissions completely swamp manmade CO2 emissions in our atmosphere

Sorry to bust your emotional bubble, but no hippie ever took my lunch money or stole my girl. They are the ones holding signs in front of Kroger wearing stained shorts and sporting some of the worst looking teeth that I've ever seen. They don't get the change from my grocery bill and they can only resort to sneering as I pass by them in my excessively optioned SUV.

With regards to your "science", you can't dispute the simple facts presented in the OP.

 

So, the person who started this whole hysteria, that we are killing our environment, is DEBUNKING it. Its called post-hypnotic suggestion. When you hear something so much that you start to believe it. I think its amazing that it was Global Warming, but when the environment didn't stick to the popular belief trend, they had to change it to Climate Changes. Really what this all comes down to, is that no "talking monkey" on this planet, knows what the planet is going to do, or how it takes care of itself. The Earth does what it does. Monkey influenced, or not.

 

You`ve missed my point. I wasn`t responding to an accusation that I was after other people`s money. I was simply referring to the obvious. The disciples of the big new ACCC religion ARE after other people`s money. Just look at how the carbon tax was presented, and why it appeals to a certain section of the community. Gillard and Co have constantly harped on how the carbon tax will be scammed so that those "other people" who have worked hard and done something with their lives will be hurt by the tax, while the ACCC disciples will actually gain from their loss. ACCC is about money, not the environment.

 

Then your point was essentially a non-sequitur as we weren't talking about money at all.

 

I see, too hard eh.

 

Someone LIKED this post? Why??????????????

For a start they obviously do not know the difference between an Australian liberal and an American Liberal and it is vapid. It exemplifies everything wrong with American politics where there is focus on those who have chosen the other side of politics rather than the political agenda itself or the people promoting the agenda.

 

And the point is?

No one denies this but there is a balance between the CO2 that is produced and the CO2 that can be absorbed by nature. By analogy it is on a balance beam where we could compare the weight of grains of sand. The beam can be in balance at thousands of pounds on each side of the beam but just a few grains of sand can move it out of balance.

Former scientists that were skeptical of man being the cause of global warming because of the methodology used to determine it, after addressing that methodology by independent studies, are not also reaching the conclusion that we are experiencing global warming and that man is responsible for it.

http://news.yahoo.com/former-global-warming-skeptic-makes-total-turnaround-113037588.html

 

And millions of years ago when we had 7000ppm ??

What about if our sun fires up for no expected reason, the amount of CO2 that would be released into our atmosphere from the ecosystems will dwarf anything humans can manage?

humans produce 3.75% is it so hard for the earth to suck this up while it sucks up the other 96.25%.

AGW is a lie and the carbon tax is a scam, when are you going to wake up to this fact.

 

Lighten up.

 

BB, I liked the post. "Haven't seen that at all on the liberal, tree hugging, granola munchin', Subaru drivin', hairy armpittin', Obama votin' side of the aisle."
It has a certain poetic ring to it, filled with wisdom, and profoundidity. There is no issue with confusion of cross Pacific terminology, for a functional IQ, at least.

In fact, these precious words will undoubtedly be put to music one day soon. I believe this implicitly, having an unshakable confidence in inspired humanity`s capacity to do good works, despite our shortcommings.

Again I quote : "Haven't seen that at all on the liberal, tree hugging, granola munchin', Subaru drivin', hairy armpittin', Obama votin' side of the aisle."
Brings a tear to your eye don`t it.

 

I saw a graph recently that showed major volcanic eruptions matched the swing between ice and hot ages, so none of this stuff is new. The reasons global warming is a joke is because they are focusing on carbon dioxide which is not the problem, and people think they are talking about carbon smog which is misleading. When the world realised a problem existed with CFC's they acted, but this global warming balone is hilarious to watch. Climate change is real, yes, but their is nothing you can do about it. Otherwise I think its good to clean the air up, but that's not what the carbon tax is going to do, all that achieves is more taxpayers money to the government, more room for business to slip in profittaking, and less incentive for the industries which Australia relies on to stay a first world country.

 

I agree 100%. True environmentalism is one of the most urgent issues of our time. Industrialisation, and the Global population explosion, together have had a negative impact on the environment, and this problem obviously needs to be managed properly. Another obvious fact, is that too many people who represent the "green movement", and their visable followers, are completely inappropriate people for the job. The Australian Greens are a perfect example, they simply have no grasp on reality. A Hippie in a suit is still a Hippie, daydreams and fairytales don`t get anything done.

 

AS I said my issue with this idea is that it is concentrating on the PEOPLE and not the politics. It is dividing a nation into "us" and "them". It oversimplifies politics into "I is right coz I isn't one of them!!" It diminishes the capacity of people to come to mutual agreement and compromise on important issues

But it does have one clear defining advantage - you no longer have to think about anything to decide where you stand

 

Did you? Wow! Really? An actual graph.... I have seen hundreds.................

Now which correlation was that? The cooling effect from the increase in atmospheric aerosols? Of the warming from the increase in CO2

Or was it the correlation of increasing volcanism and tectonic activity with decreasing ice mass?

sez who?

Sez who?

sez who?

Yes it will be good to clean up the air - and when you have a better strategy to do that please get back to me.

 

Sez millions of years of our evolution and history.

This is the lowest concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere for quite some time and the coldest temperatures too, ofcourse the alarmists never ever mention facts like this when they are scaring the general population into the global warming religion.

We have had CO2 concentrations 20 times higher than today, but guess what we didn't have a runaway greenhouse effect and the CO2 concentrations followed the temperature by a lag of about 800 years.

Temperature doesn't follow the CO2 concentrations it drives them.

You know that beastly amount of 96.25% CO2 from the ecosystems which has enormous potential.

Not that pultry steady as she goes mate 3.75% from man.

Another graph

 

Where is the evidence apart from the IPCC's GCMs?

Can you prove this? Have measurements been taken, statistics gathered?

Very articulate indeed.

Yes i agree lets clean up the air, but the carbon tax will fleece us as individuals and as a nation with no results at grass roots level.

 

Another hole in the global warming religious armour.

 

The same scientists, which represent over 90% of the scientific community that states global warming is being cause by mankind also states that we can do something about it. They propose a simple solution. First reduce CO2 production predominately from electrical power production and secondly quite destroying the ability of nature to reprocess CO2 by clear-cutting forests and polluting our oceans. Both of those actions are critical to solving the problem.

I'm in wholehearted agreement that the carbon tax isn't a solution to anything. It merely raises the costs of pollution and those costs are passed on to the consumers. Alternate forms of electrical energy such as wind generators and solar are simply too expensive. The cost of electricity from both solar thermal and PV are 2.5 times more expensive than electricity produced by coal. Electrical power production is key though because it's the elephant in the living room related to CO2 production.

Obviously the "ideal" solution from an electical power generating perspective is nuclear fusion. It doesn't have any real negative radioactive issues and produces unlimited power. We don't have that yet but it remains the long term solution. Current nuclear fission enegry production costs far more than coal produced electricity (albeit far less than solar) and it is "dirty" energy with radioactive waste even though the reduction in radioactive waste and the improvements in the safety of nuclear fission reactors as been greately advanced by technology over the last 30 years.

So coal remains economically the key to electical energy production and we can greatly reduce coal emissions with "clean coal" technology without incurring any serious costs. CleanCoal.org, the mouthpiece of the coal industry, states that we can reduce CO2 and particulate emissions by 40% without any significant increase in the cost of electricity. Implementing that is "doable" and there is no rational reason for not mandating it today. It is not a "tax" and it doesn't impose any serious costs to the industry or to the consumer.

Is that enough to stop global warming? Probably not but it's only one-half of the equation. The other is addressing natures means of absorbing CO2. We need to stop destroying the ocean ecosystem and stop the deforestation of the planet. Hopefully we can actual reverse both of these trends.

As was noted we can't compare today's global warming with global warming and CO2 levels from millions of years ago because the ecosystem was considerably different hundreds of millions of years ago when we had 20-times more CO2.

Even then it may not be enough so we need to keep working on nuclear fusion reactors that provide unlimited clean energy. They are truly the ultimate key. In the meantime we can and should focus on cost effective solutions like clean coal technology and reducing or reversing the destruction of our ecosystems.

Always remember there is one more "last ditch" thing we can do. We could literally create a gossamer unbrella in outer space between us and the sun to reduce the amount of solar radiation hitting the Earth. It is technologically possible but it is very, very expensive. If left unchecked global warming could threaten the lives of half of the people on Earth so while this is probably the most costly solution it is one that could be justified to save the lives of billions of people.

 

It's interesting to cite CalTech but, based upon the following from 2008 it appears that CalTech does believe that manmade pollution and ecosystem destruction are behind the current global warming.

http://media.caltech.edu/press_releases/13099

 

Not a hole - was predicted and is part of the "tipping points" that David Evans was griping about - you know the guy you were quoting the other day??

 

There are no tipping points, if there were tipping points we would have already experienced them yet our evolution and history shows us that CO2 is a trace gas sure its a greenhouse gas that causes global warming but its a trace gas to small in volume to have any sort of major impact on our atmosphere.

Especially when compared to water vapor and clouds, if we took all the minor greenhouse gases out of our atmosphere except for water vapour and clouds we would still be left with 98% of the greenhouse effect??????!!!!!!!

Again i remind you that we have had concentrations of CO2 in our atmosphere 20 times higher than today, so whats all this panic about when today we have about 1/20 of the CO2 from our past in our atmosphere.

As the graph below shows CO2 and Earth's global mean average temperature dont correlate at all.

Today we have some of the lowest CO2 levels in our history and we also have some of the coldest temperatures ever.

Its only natural that we should experience peaks and troughs int the natural cycle of the Earth weather systems.

Its called climate change and has been around since the Earth formed from a hot rock of lava.

If we didn't have climate change it would still be a hot rock of lava.

Global cooling (1970's) Global warming (2000's) are all peaks and troughs in Earth's cycle of weather patterns and its called CLIMATE CHANGE.

The only place where you will find evidence that CO2 is causing all this warming and destruction is the IPCC's GCM's.

Parametric computer generated models.

 

What's that thing called where when you argue against somebody it only further entrenches them in their beliefs?

 

Are you kidding???????????????????????????????????????????????????

 

being ridiculously stubborn

 

One thing I believe most of us can agree upon is that the proposals by our government haven't been very good related to pollution and it's possible contribution to global warming whether we agree with the 90% of the scientific community that manmade pollution is a primary cause of global warming or if we agree with the 10% that say it's not.

I believe we can also agree that unnecessary pollution is unacceptable regardless of whether it's causing global warming or not. It there are cost effective ways to eliminate industrial pollution that don't adversely effect the economy then our government should mandate that this technology be used by industry. Pollution simply for the sake of pollution when it can be cost effectively eliminated isn't rational.

That's why my singular position is that "clean coal" technology needs to be mandated for existing coal fired powerplants. It's cost effective off the shelf technology and existing coal fired powerplants can install it within a reasonable amount of time. There is no reason why it shouldn't be mandated. As CleanCoal.org, the mouthpiece of the coal industry, states it would reduce CO2 and particulate emissions by up to 40% without causing a significant cost increase to consumers. There is no logical reason for not requiring the implementation of this technology today.