Bill Pup, you already have the answer but here it is again: Anthropogenic.Originally Posted by Bill Pup60
No, not all greenhouses gases are directly produced by mankind but a significant portion of them are.
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Pup, you already have the answer but here it is again: Anthropogenic.
No, not all greenhouses gases are directly produced by mankind but a significant portion of them are.
Speaking out of your ass again, Salty... What % of GHG emissions are you arguing are caused by mankind?
As a % of the specific gas, and overall...
Water vapor?
Methane?
CO2?
NOx?
etc.
Ken, you're a LA Tech graduate, right?
Not quite, but in May I will. I wait in suspense for the impending joke.
Oh, just that you are young and still learning.
Let's cut to the chase and just say that the reason why atmospheric CO2 levels are increasing year after year is because of our burning fossils fuels and deforestation. It is this increase in CO2 levels that is responsible for higher levels of water vapor and possiby methane.
Why don't you tell us why you think CO2 levels are increasing every year?
Uh, the carbon cycle?
Water vapor is most definately a greenhouse gas...but what is the correlation between CO2 and water vapor? Methane?
And my tender young age of 24 can't reasonably fathom a legitimate threat out of the current CO2 levels....tell me how your ripe old age has allowed you better reasoning on this subject. Tell me how increases on the order of hundredth of a percent is a reason to dramatically curb industrialization in our country.
You haven't done anything that I've seen to prove your years are any more packed with wisdom than mine.
His argument will be that increasing CO2 increases temperature, which increases water vapor, which increases temperature even more. So its a feedback response to increasing temperature.
So an increase of 0.01% in atmospheric CO2 (and a total increase in atmospheric GHG of something like 0.0000000001%) causes an increase in temperature of X degrees, which causes an increase in water vapor of Y%. :icon_wink:
uh, wrong.
It takes an awfully simple mind to accept that the carbon cycle balances on an annual or near-annual timescale. Even the simplest feedback mechanisms (tree growth, etc.) is perhaps best judged in timescales hundreds of years.
It takes an awfully simple mind to accept that un-naturally injecting 7+ gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year has no consequences.
I have no doubt that injecting 7+gigatons of CO2 into a small area that was initially empty of CO2 would do a lot. But...
1) how many gigatons of total "atmosphere" do we have?
2) how many gigatons of CO2 is pumped into the air each year naturally?
3) how much total volume does that CO2 get pumped into?
I have been appointed "judge" for this debate. Salty, you are losing. Any rebuttal?
Jordan Mills on choosing Tech:
“It’s a great experience seeing them play. It was a good atmosphere. The fans stood up the whole game and never sat down. They have a great fan base.”
Salty....loosing? I don't think so. Just the past few pages:
*we have seen some trying to discredit scientists because they only make 100k a year and therefore must not be the best scientists studying this.
*CO2 is only 3/10 of 1 percent of the atmosphere, so it is such a small amount it can't be doing anything.
*"natural" cycles that took place "naturally" in 100 years.
*we are going to do okay because it is going to be so much warmer.
*it was cold in Russellville this week, so GW needs to hurry up.
Anything else I missed? Just go back listen to Rush if you need to add more. He has a great scientific mind. Just ask him.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
