Can a mod fix those images for me, I cannot for the life of me know how to work that out :)
@JohnA
do you have any specific research you want to present that counters the very substantial and diverse scientific evidence that seems to overwhelmingly support the man-made thesis? or is this something you just feel in your gut? ----- here's a graph showing atmospheric co2 since 1955 ----- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_Carbon ------- The longest such record exists at Mauna Loa, but these measurements have been independently confirmed at many other sites around the world. -------- so - clearly CO2 is rising.
Can you show me where Co2 directly dictates temperature, a linear correlation of such. I can't:
CO2 green line derived from ice cores obtained at Law Dome, East Antarctica (CDIAC - http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/lawdome.html). CO2 blue line measured at Mauna Loa (NOAA). Global temperature anomaly (GISS - http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts...)
Atmospheric CO2 (parts per million, NOAA) and Global Temperature Anomaly (°C GISS) from 1964 to 2008: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts...
Therefore if the temperature is fluctuating as the Co2 levels are rising then is Co2 the driver of climate change? If it is not then man's output of Co2 is irrelevant. It does not however give us carte blanche to continue our polluting ways.
and then you have this:
Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the average amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased by nearly 40 percent from an estimated 280 to more than 380 ppmv percent. This increase in CO2’s share of the atmosphere is mostly due to anthropogenic (man-induced) factors, such as burning fossil fuels, deforestation and industrial production.
do you dispute this? how?
No I do not dispute this.
*looks around to see a stunned courtroom.
where do you think all of the TONS of CO2 we have been pumping in to the atmosphere is going? is the atmosphere infinite or finite?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis
Photosynthesis is a process that converts carbon dioxide into organic compounds, especially sugars, using the energy from sunlight. Photosynthesis occurs in plants, algae, and many species of Bacteria, but not in Archaea. Photosynthetic organisms are called photoautotrophs, since it allows them to create their own food. In plants, algae and cyanobacteria photosynthesis uses carbon dioxide and water, releasing oxygen as a waste product. Photosynthesis is vital for life on Earth. As well as maintaining the normal level of oxygen in the atmosphere, nearly all life either depends on it directly as a source of energy, or indirectly as the ultimate source of the energy in their food.
its really a simple question. is man adding co2 to the atmosphere?
I would believe by exhaling Co2 we are; transport, lifestyles, resources.
*Woman faints in the courtroom
at what levels?
Around 380ppm
can you demonstrate that the levels since the beginning of the industrial revolution are negligable amounts?
Ah since the beginning of the industrial revolution. I do hope that the Earth isn't less than 300 years old or some Christians will have you lol
Well no of course you couldn't state with a straight face that Co2 levels since the beginning of that period are negligible, it's obvious they would of increased.
Perhaps we could look further back into Earths historical Co2 levels via Ice Cores?
http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/ice-core-g...
and lastly - do you dispute that global temperatures and CO2 are directly related? i think the science is pretty iron-clad there too - although (giggle) some of the kooks out there appear to want to dispute that one also.
Of course the kooks.. hur hur
Science is either consensus based or conspiratorially backed by a powerful vast right-wing network of sceptical scientists & corporations with stand-over men to intimidate corporate-backed government grant funded advocates.
See the merry-go round we sit on? This transcends political ideology... It doesn't matter what "side" you sit on, you'll get screwed and conditioned to believe the other "side" is wrong as demonstrated with the environmental disinformation page. It's a gaggle of right-wing conspiracies.... the left could do no wrong. Screw the left & right.
The Climate Research Unit (CRU) in the UK was set up in 1971 with funding from Shell and BP as is described in the book: “The history of the University of East Anglia, Norwich; Page 285)†By Michael Sanderson. The CRU was still being funded in 2008 by Shell, BP, the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate and UK Nirex LTD (the nuclear waste people in the UK) - http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEggt0ldQUI - A Message to the Environmental Movement: Your Movement Has Been Hijacked
The question you should be asking is 'do you dispute that Co2 drives temperature rather than you proposed theory: temperature drives co2 levels'
By my own admission in my belief that temperature drives co2 levels it was plainly obvious I saw a relation between the two.
exactly WHERE does your doubt reside? in what nook or cranny of the scientific evidence are you hanging your hat?
I believe the above link said it best, Jo Nova:
"In the 1990’s the classic Vostok ice core graph showed temperature and carbon in lock step moving at the same time. It made sense to worry that carbon dioxide did influence temperature. But by 2003 new data came in and it was clear that carbon lagged behind temperature. The link was back to front. Temperatures appear to control carbon, and while it’s possible that carbon also influences temperature these ice cores don’t show much evidence of that. After temperatures rise, on average it takes 800 years before carbon starts to move. The extraordinary thing is that the lag is well accepted by climatologists, yet virtually unknown outside these circles. The fact that temperature leads is not controversial. It’s relevance is debated."
That's where my doubt resides. The relationship Co2 & Temperature have. If that is brought into question then man-made Co2 should also be brought into question.
Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth
http://rapidshare.com/files/322905041/DouglasChris...
To assume that I rebel against positive environmental changes is silly. It may not be on the level wanted here but a balance between nature and humanity needs to be reached rather than putting nature wholly above the value of human life.
I have no expertise in the field concerning climate change so it'd be widely agreed that you'd source advocate research and myself sceptical.
I do hope however we have gotten past sticking point that ALL sceptics and ALL advocates have vested interests. Scepticism = corrupted, likewise for advocates.