SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Politics of Energy
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Hawkmoon who wrote (7769)4/28/2009 2:18:21 AM
From: The Vet2 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) of 86356
 
That is an interesting site Hawkmoon and it makes everything seem so neat and settled, but on reading it there are several of their neat "explanations" which simply don't stand scrutiny or are circular logic.

"Here is an example: The amount of CO2 is higher in the Northern than in the Southern Hemisphere as a result of the combustion of coal, oil, and natural gas.

After making this as a statement of fact they then use this assumption as the basis of the argument to prove itself to be true.

While it is obviously true that the northern hemisphere does burn more fossil fuels that the southern, it is also true that the human settled land area to compared to the ocean area is far greater in the north than the south. So the vastly differing ratio of ocean to land areas may be far more significant than any man made differences in man made CO2 between the hemispheres.

There would be significant variations in many factors which could affect warming and atmospheric composition not only those of CO2 production and release. There must be differences in evaporation, relative amounts of atmospheric water vapour, average surface temperatures, the different efficiencies of photosynthesis between land and aquatic plants etc.

The conclusion that more man made CO2 is the cause of higher CO2 levels in the northern hemisphere may or may not be a significant factor. There is an obvious bias in that statement which mentions only a single possible variable; the very one they are trying to build their case on.

esrl.noaa.gov
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News