Global Warming Debate

[xort]

Originally Posted by therapy23

It is more of a population issue really.

X pounds of **** per person times X number of persons.

Reduce X number of persons for a given reduction in X pounds of ****.

A new virus is in order = no discrimination.

Don't need a virus; we abort 3700 kids per day...1.3 million per year.

[souljour2000]

Sorry Cam..did manage to get off course...I really should have started a new thread on pollution..

[therapy23]

Originally Posted by xort

Don't need a virus; we abort 3700 kids per day...1.3 million per year.

Who is we?

Not me.

What portion of X is that?

The numbers (and pounds of ****) continue to grow despite your number.

Do you have an answer?

I don't.

[Yamsailor]

Gentlemen,

The CO2 analysis's performed over the past 6 years have been able to discern the types of CO2. In other words, CO2 from fossil fuel combustion has a different signature when put under a particular microscope (located in Colorado) as compared to naturally occurring CO2. In other words, as of 6 years ago, the scientific community can now quantify is concentration and mass, the mass of CO2 deposited as result of anthropogenic activity.

[sailaway21]

Originally Posted by Yamsailor

Gentlemen,

The CO2 analysis's performed over the past 6 years have been able to discern the types of CO2. In other words, CO2 from fossil fuel combustion has a different signature when put under a particular microscope (located in Colorado) as compared to naturally occurring CO2. In other words, as of 6 years ago, the scientific community can now quantify is concentration and mass, the mass of CO2 deposited as result of anthropogenic activity.

And you have evidence for this statement? And details on this particular microscope?

[camaraderie]

It is already known that man accounts for about 3.4% of the CO2. So...even if identifying particular molecules is possible, of what importance is it? The questions are...
Does ANY CO2 make a difference in global temperatures?
If so, is it something we should have concerns about?
Is man a big part of this claimed warming or is it mostly natural?
Is it both desireable and possible to do something about it?
What is the cost/benefit analysis of trying to do something about it NOW compared with other things we could use the $$ for?
What changes to our lives and economy will be necessary to offset the claimed effects?
Would it be better to let the claimed effects occur and deal with the results as they occur rather than attempt to prevent them?

Of course...I believe in none of this...but if you ARE persuaded of warming...then you need to consider the questions and develope real and comprehensive answers as opposed to feel good solutions like swapping out your light bulbs for flourescents and relying on windpower for our electrical grid.

[sailhog]

A few years back there were some coal seams that were ignited by lightning in northwestern Colorado where we were living at the time. Apparently they have been burning all over the world ever since there was a thing called coal in the ground. Reports at the time mentioned that these little understood fires account for some incredible percentage of the CO2 in the world... I can't recall what the percentage is, but it's very significant. Volcanoes probably don't produce much CO2, but they sure do pump a lot of "polution" into the atmosphere. Very sad. Volcanoes and coal seam fires are very bad.

[sailaway21]

Yeah, I'm really struggling here to see how science can determine the CO2 that comes from my wood-burning stove is different in character from that produced during forest wildfires.

[Banshi]

And let's see about 95% of the greenhouse gas on the planet is...................................H2O.......gue ss we better get on the wet suits and stop sweating so much we're making the planet hotter!

[denby]

I'm interested in the same thing Sway.

Banshi, I think it's 70 to 75% H2O and .oo23% or something like that CO2.