The Environmentalist Thread Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Environmentalist Thread

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (21825)	6/3/2008 7:44:08 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) of 36917

CO2 as a problem is a rounding error, hardly worth starting famine, food wars and other wars, or even just economic destruction. Some rough numbers from someone a little more knowledgeable on the subject than ourself: [Response: It’s a set up since the questions are ill posed, but he thinks he’s knows the answer (but he will be wrong). For the current situation CO2 provides about 20% of the greenhouse effect (water vapour is about 50% and clouds about 25%, ozone and other minor gases make up the rest) (defined as the net reduction in the difference between longwave emitted from the surface and the longwave emitted to space, uncertainties are a few percent maybe). For CO2, the anthropogenic component is about 27%, methane it’s 60%, N2O it’s about 13%, CFCs it’s 100% (uncertainties of a couple of percent). His second set of questions are either irrelevant or make no sense. Last year, we emitted about 9 GtC, and increased concentrations by ~2ppm CO2. Your chap will most likely respond with a reference to a website run by mhieb (see here for more debunking). - gavin] Of course there is Watson with his refrain: CO2 in ppm can't have any affect... From here: realclimate.org

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next