Global Warming? are humans to blame?

wow
you really are trying to misrepresent the data aren't you, or is it that you have selective comprehension skills, which is something else I notice about some folks desperate to cling to certain beliefs, What it says is

so quite clearly its not just the burning of timber. If once again you'd done some research before jumping to conclusions you'd have found that its pretty easy to calculate the amount attributable to the burning of timber and the amount attributable to burning fossil fuels.

You might study up on the basic combustion reaction ----------->http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/

It was however a nice opportunity to show the readers who is in fact jumping to conclusions and who is depending entirely on the science for the pertinent information

 

This isn't the best graph in the world, but it does show the % of CO2 that is fossil fuel based and the % that is timber based



So again the wildly inaccurate belief

or your jumping to the conclusion that we agree on that wildly inaccurate statement

obviously again the primary source of increases in CO2 concentrations is the burning of fossil fuels. Not the burning of timber, although timber is a distant second

But I give you credit for at least beginning to read the information provided. Its progress, albeit your selectively processing the information but it is progress

 

I didn't say there wasnt engine and power plant exhausts contributing..you know something?..you continually misrepresent my words, attack any data I post...I am tired of it. I don't need or deserve your abuse. I'm ignoring you from now on

 

Or you could just admit you had it all wrong again

what happens with most hardcore deniers is they eventually get tired of getting there asses handed to them every time they open there mouths.

It just gets pretty silly and its hard not to be overly sarcastic when dealing with blatant denial

 

That graph makes no mention of volcanic belching.

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php

"Volcanoes release more than 130 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. This colorless, odorless gas usually does not pose a direct hazard to life because it typically becomes diluted to low concentrations very quickly whether it is released continuously from the ground or during episodic eruptions. But in certain circumstances, CO2 may become concentrated at levels lethal to people and animals. Carbon dioxide gas is heavier than air and the gas can flow into in low-lying areas; breathing air with more than 30% CO2 can quickly induce unconsciousness and cause death. In volcanic or other areas where CO2 emissions occur, it is important to avoid small depressions and low areas that might be CO2 traps. The boundary between air and lethal gas can be extremely sharp; even a single step upslope may be adequate to escape death."

 

well thats because the volcanic contribution is so small it just doesn't show up very well. That resolution thing I mentioned earlier Lets go look up exactly how much that volcanic contribution is shall we.

From
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/08/volcanic-vs-anthropogenic-co2/

The bottom line? Annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions exceed annual volcanic CO2 by two orders of magnitude, and probably exceed the CO2 output of one or more super-eruptions***. Thus there is no scientific basis for using volcanic CO2 emissions as an excuse for failing to manage humanity’s carbon footprint.

any other questions Hoyt ole "bean"

 

Feel better soon, Boston.

 

i'm unsubscribing this thread. see yall other threads. adios amigos

 

Its a lot more conducive to the learning process to just admit when you've been mistaken about something and move forward from there.

Running away is no way to further ones understanding of our present issues

I'm sure you'd like to think it was my level of frustration in communicating the science behind the theory however that might have had something to do with people who blindly refuse all logic and reason in preference to mindlessly denying the simply science behind the fact that Rapid Global Climate Shift is very real and very scary.

Little things like there's no correlation between spiking levels of CO2 and rising temp. Who dreams that **** up anyway. I mean really. When did anyone add insulation to there house and have it end up using more energy to heat.

 

If you want or need a more detailed analysis of the volcanic contribution you can find it here

http://www.agu.org/pubs/pdf/2011EO240001.pdf

 

I don't, but thanks anyway.

 

I like to look at big pictures. I wonder if anyone might consider the orbit of the earth in relation to the sun. Would this not increase or decrease aquatic activity or synthesis of the Earth flora and fauna? might account to for numbers not measuring up to your expectations

When is the first flight to Keppal 8 anyway

 

While global worming is an important issue whatever the cause, it kind of distracts from some big human related problems that we could have a lot more controll over. Overpopulation and polution. I think we should put the corrective effort where it would get the best bang. Unfortunatly many people,human nature,and some major religions are against birth control. With polution humans are closely related to pigs in many ways.

 

called Maclkovitch cycles and yes this has been considered and no, unfortunately is not directly related to the recent dramatic spike in global temps.

 

Ah the answer I was hoping for. So if its been considered and accepted as being contributory then why is it not included. It does not say on the graphs that this information is inaccurate due to what was it? Macldovich theory.

You see this is my point --although I stick my nose in just occasionally it seems to me the information you have or any one in the world has is inconclusive which is why the pig governments take little notice of it too.


However who am I to tell people what to believe or not.

Like flees talking about who's gonna wash the dog.