- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: True or False: climate change
Posted on 3/14/17 at 4:44 pm to Dale51
Posted on 3/14/17 at 4:44 pm to Dale51
Are you referring to this portion from your link?
EDIT: Actually I might get banned so I'll do a BLUF and then expound more later: Salby is 100% correct! Unfortunately you asked me what percentage of concentration we're responsible for and Salby is talking about emissions.
Nature is responsible for way more CO2 emission than we are. But nature is also responsible for way more CO2 uptake than we are (which is basically none).
Salby doesn't mention natural uptake because he wants to mislead you by relying on the gross and not the net. This is how we can be responsible for only a tiny fraction of the emissions, but pretty much all of the increase in concentration; in the absence of human emissions the CO2 flux would be slightly negative and CO2 concentration would be (very very slowly) falling per the glaciation cycle.
quote:I just want to be absolutely clear this is the specific part you were referring to before I address it. (Which won't be until later, it's leg day again!)
96% of CO2 emissions are from natural sources, only 4% is man-made
EDIT: Actually I might get banned so I'll do a BLUF and then expound more later: Salby is 100% correct! Unfortunately you asked me what percentage of concentration we're responsible for and Salby is talking about emissions.
Nature is responsible for way more CO2 emission than we are. But nature is also responsible for way more CO2 uptake than we are (which is basically none).
Salby doesn't mention natural uptake because he wants to mislead you by relying on the gross and not the net. This is how we can be responsible for only a tiny fraction of the emissions, but pretty much all of the increase in concentration; in the absence of human emissions the CO2 flux would be slightly negative and CO2 concentration would be (very very slowly) falling per the glaciation cycle.
This post was edited on 3/14/17 at 4:57 pm
3
Posted on 3/14/17 at 4:57 pm to Iosh
quote:
I just want to be absolutely clear this is the specific part you were referring to before I address it.
Thats one part..there are sources that claim less than 4%...but please respond to the context of why I find that significant. CO2 is 0.04% of the total atmosphere. (Your numbers). Man made is 4% of that...not 4% of the total volume of the atmosphere. If mankind stopped 100% of all production of CO2, it would still be insignificant. Seeing that will not happen and the demands of changes in peoples lives would be dramatic, it just seem stupid to be scared of that. As human, our most important trait is the ability to adapt. The change of a another 0.08 degree in another 100 years seems like something we could easily adapt to.
So to summarize. 0.003% of anything is a fools worry.
Posted on 3/14/17 at 5:00 pm to Iosh
quote:
Nature is responsible for way more CO2 emission than we are.
How much? Percentage of each?
Posted on 3/14/17 at 5:50 pm to Iosh
CO2 is NOT a pollutant. It is a trace atmospheric gas that is required for life to exist on this planet as we know it.
If anything, too little CO2 would be a much, much more serious problem than "too much" - even if we could satisfactorily define just exactly how "much" is "too much."
If anything, too little CO2 would be a much, much more serious problem than "too much" - even if we could satisfactorily define just exactly how "much" is "too much."
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News