| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 1/14/2008 12:13:50 AM | I just want someone to check my figures for this.
The average human produces, on avererage, 1kg of co2 per day.
The converts to 6.7 billion kgs of co2 created simply by human breathing.
The worldwide use of gasoline as a fuel source is roughly 1.56 billion gallons per day.
One gallon of gas is converted to 8.8 kg of co2 when burned in a car.
This means that gasoline burned in cars, daily, worldwide, is about 13.7 billion.
Assuming these are the ONLY two sources of co2 in the atmosphere (and they aren't) that means that human respiration is responsible for about 1/3 of global warming... correct? | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 1/14/2008 12:59:31 AM | No, simply because there are far larger CO2 sources than gasoline combustion and human respiration. Coal or oil fired power plants, concrete, diesel (fuel of choice for international shipping)...
Humans put about 27 billion metric tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere per year...more than 4000 times what humans produce by respiration. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 1/14/2008 5:24:30 AM |
Assuming these are the ONLY two sources of co2 in the atmosphere (and they aren't) that means that human respiration is responsible for about 1/3 of global warming... correct?
If you want to start with a faulty premise (and even you admit it's faulty), then yes, the internal logic of the statement is correct. But since breathing and cars aren't even almost the only two sources of CO2 (as you well know), I don't see why you'd ask the question. | |
|
| |
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 1/14/2008 5:50:58 AM | | The CO2 emitted by humans was only fixed in the current growing cycle. The CO2 emitted by cars has been fixed a long time. It is essentially new carbon to the cycle. Same sort of thing applies to many forests, except it isn't a one or two year cycle as it is with food. I would imagine bogs might fix carbon longer than a forest does, but it isn't something I study. Marine cycles that fix CO2, keep the carbon fixed for quite a long time. Or, at least some of them do. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 1/14/2008 9:17:46 AM | Seems everybody rabout coal-fired power generation,as well.
Coal is the primary fuel used for the production of electricity.
Sooo..coal is a major source of Co2 emissions.
I agree w/ the poster that stated the OP's premise was faulty. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 1/14/2008 9:30:16 AM | | Come on people. Global warming by CO2 is a total scam. CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas and human contributions of total CO2 is also minor. CO2 is not pollution. We are not the cause of Global Thawing, nor did we cause the poles to freeze in the first place. Al Gore is a lying piece of crap and even though he has been shown the errors in his disinformation film, he still is running around telling his lies. A whole generation has been fooled into believing this nonsense, so they can bring about a carbon tax to further fund the NWO and global slavery. Earth is just recovering from the same celestial event that caused the great flood and froze the poles. We can't fix it because it ain't broke! | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 1/14/2008 10:12:30 AM | The upside is if you take all your faulty figures (6.7 + 13.7 )/3 = 6.8 (close enough), then you were right.
x is one third of 3x.
You are a champ.
//rzK | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 1/14/2008 10:17:28 AM | Work on your own math.
1.56 x 8.8 = 13.728 That's a daily total, which is what was stated. Your calculation was for a year.
1 x 6.7 billion = 6.7 billion. That's a daily worldwide total for humans breathing, based on a world population of 6.7 billion. Your total was again annual, and you missed the part about world population.
Regardless of the initial flawed assumptions of the OP, and the many factors not included...it's YOUR math which is buggered!
edit VV not defending the argument OR the person making it. Just the correct math, which IS what you targetted. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 1/14/2008 10:22:32 AM | Good call, deleted.
Don't know where I got the idea he was talking about a year.
And my math wasn't 'buggered' the calculations were 100% accurate. I used the wrong period of time in comparison to his numbers is all, but nice try?
I'm glad you're defending someone who wasted forum space asking essentially if three thirds is equal to one.
//rzK | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 1/14/2008 11:07:53 AM | I was going to suggest that everyone see the film "The great global warming swindle" but there seems to be some problems with that film.
Can you believe there are scientists actually debating if the sun effects global temperatures. Holly crap we have some dumb scientists out there. Just what do these idiots think would happen if we turned the sun off? It would get very cold very very fast-duhh! Of course the sun has an effect. Now I have been following the suns sun spot activity for several years now and I have seen record levels of sunspots with my own eyes during a time that sun spot activity should be at a minimum. There are government bought and payed for scientists lying about that too, claiming that the sun has been quiet for the last few years.
Now as I have stated, global thawing is natural, a recovery towards normal, but the suns activity is speeding things up as well.
Still not sure if global warming from CO2 is a scam? Then kindly explain why Mars, and even Pluto is also warming up? Case closed. No one is driving SUV's on Mars. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 1/14/2008 11:29:08 AM |
Humans put about 27 billion metric tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere per year...more than 4000 times what humans produce by respiration. That works out to be 27000 million / 365.25 tonnes/day = 73.92 = 74 million metric tonnes of CO2 per day = 74 billion kg of CO2 per day, since 1 metric tonne = 1000 kg
So human respiration, at 6.7 billion kg of CO2 per day, would represent 9% of total human CO2 production, a far cry from 1/4000=0.025%, more like 1/11. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 1/14/2008 11:37:51 AM |
I was going to suggest that everyone see the film "The great global warming swindle" but there seems to be some problems with that film.
Can you believe there are scientists actually debating if the sun effects global temperatures. Holly crap we have some dumb scientists out there. Just what do these idiots think would happen if we turned the sun off? It would get very cold very very fast-duhh! Of course the sun has an effect. Now I have been following the suns sun spot activity for several years now and I have seen record levels of sunspots with my own eyes during a time that sun spot activity should be at a minimum. There are government bought and payed for scientists lying about that too, claiming that the sun has been quiet for the last few years.
Now as I have stated, global thawing is natural, a recovery towards normal, but the suns activity is speeding things up as well.
Still not sure if global warming from CO2 is a scam? Then kindly explain why Mars, and even Pluto is also warming up? Case closed. No one is driving SUV's on Mars.
Let's see
1) Can you name one reputable scientist that will claim that global warming is not effecting the climate and that the cause is likely of human origin?
2) And any peer-reviewed papers that state that global warming is a hoax or is greatly overstated?
3) Wouldn't private industry be more effective in "buying and paying" for scientific opinions than the government?
4) Since Mars and Pluto don't support human life...why even use them as examples?
And finally....
Are you troll posting? | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 1/14/2008 11:46:52 AM | Still not sure if global warming from CO2 is a scam? Then kindly explain why Mars, and even Pluto is also warming up? Case closed. No one is driving SUV's on Mars.
Did you really just compare the sun's affect on Earth with it's affect on Mars and Pluto? Planets significantly farther from the sun with drastically different atmospheres?
If your other points weren't amusing enough, I think that one takes the Gold!
//rzK
[Edit] Ahh scorpiomover that is where I saw a per year! I knew I didn't imagine it. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 1/14/2008 12:22:25 PM |
Humans put about 27 billion metric tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere per year...more than 4000 times what humans produce by respiration. That works out to be 27000 million / 365.25 tonnes/day = 73.92 = 74 million metric tonnes of CO2 per day = 74 billion kg of CO2 per day, since 1 metric tonne = 1000 kg So human respiration, at 6.7 billion kg of CO2 per day, would represent 9% of total human CO2 production, a far cry from 1/4000=0.025%, more like 1/11.
Whoops...call it a 1AM mistake. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 1/14/2008 12:44:05 PM | "Did you really just compare the sun's affect on Earth with it's affect on Mars and Pluto?"
Of course I did! They are all part of the Suns system. What do you think holds Pluto in orbit?
The atmosphere has nothing to do with Mars nor Pluto warming up at this time. The connection hear is the out put of the Sun. It has been very active lately. This is just a part of the picture. As I mentioned the Earth is just now thawing, from an event aprox.10500 years ago. Same event that Buried dinosaurs in their footsteps, with TROPICAL vegetation in their mouths, stomachs and between their toes.
The meat is not only still today eatable but it had not putrefied , meaning the whole animal was flash frozen in less than 20 minutes. The so called ice age did not take millions or even thousands of years to arrive. It happened very quickly-40 days and 40 nights to start.
I am getting a bit off track and I realize this information is new to some of you. The stuff on TV is BS.
So hear is what is happening as best as I understand it now.
Earth is thawing naturally. The Sun is currently speeding things up a bit. AND a critical mass has been reached where the Earth naturally thaws more quickly before being totally thawed. You see, as the glaciers melt and more land is exposed to the Sun light the Earth gets warmer(land being dark and heating, ice being white and reflecting the light/heat).
Are you still with me? There is more to the accelerated thawing. You see, Water Vapor is a major greenhouse gas. As Earth warms(naturally), the atmosphere warms and it holds more water vapor. More water vapor more heat trapped from the sun, more heat, more ice melts, more water evaporates, more greenhouse effect, more ice melts....get it? | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 1/14/2008 12:58:30 PM |
Earth is thawing naturally.
But why?
If you look at the graph of earths temperatures over the last two million years, you would not expect an uptick. We are on a plateau of warm temperature, lasting about as long as the longest on record, so we would expect the next 'natural' shift (when it occurs) to be a decline in temperature and a return to glaciaration.
So the question is: if the sudden uptick in temperatures heralds a climate shift and not a temporary blip, what has caused the earth to break out of its pattern?
Now as I have stated, global thawing is natural, a recovery towards normal,
Only if by normal you mean temperatures over 5 million years ago. That's how long we have been in the current geologic period, in which we are at the high end of the temperatures. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 1/14/2008 1:03:13 PM | If you still don't see that I am telling you the truth, perhaps for the first time, try this:
You like math so figure this one out. I have read that a single big volcano eruption puts out more CO2 than all of us have since the beginning of the industrial age. I didn't do the measurements my self so you will have to check this out. BUT
If that is true then I am forced to wonder just how many big volcanic eruptions have taken place in the last 10500 years and why the Earth didn't thaw all those times? BECAUSE CO2 doesn't cause global warming obviously.
Yet another thing to consider is Al's lies where he said that the ice core samples show that there was more CO2 and then the Earth got warmer. As I said he is a lier. He is deliberately reading the data(ice cores) backwards. First the Earth got warmer that released more CO2, not the other way around.
Now I would be lying if I said I don't care if you all learn this. It is up to you. I for one don't like our corporate controlled government and media lying to me so they can create yet another tax..a tax on life itself. All life on the planet is based on carbon. We need CO2- Carbon and Two oxygen molecules.
That isn't pollution and it doesn't cause global warming. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 1/14/2008 1:15:39 PM |
As I mentioned the Earth is just now thawing, from an event aprox.10500 years ago. Same event that Buried dinosaurs in their footsteps, with TROPICAL vegetation in their mouths, stomachs and between their toes.
The meat is not only still today eatable but it had not putrefied , meaning the whole animal was flash frozen in less than 20 minutes. The so called ice age did not take millions or even thousands of years to arrive. It happened very quickly-40 days and 40 nights to start.
If you don't know; and can't tell, the difference between a dinosaur and a Siberian mammoth [the last of which apparently died on Wrangell Island about 3000 years ago], then it's not the least bit surprising that you so boldly illustrate a complete ignorance of evidence or logical conclusions on all your other points.
Read. Learn. You've got a ways to go, and it would be good to start with literature which addresses the scientific method, rather than books of unverifiable faith and inflamatory and biased opinion pieces by those with no actual qualifications or understanding of their subject matter. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 1/14/2008 1:21:38 PM | "Only if by normal you mean temperatures over 5 million years ago"
I keep forgetting how many lies everyone is told. Look if you go by "accepted" science, everything on earth happened millions of years ago and took millions of years to happen. They are lying to us.
I will try to explain. Knowledge is power so what makes you think the powers that be are going to tell you the truth? By telling everyone(the sheeple) that everything was so long ago and took so long, it becomes almost totally outside of peoples thinking. The Earth and all the planets are still right where they formed billions of years ago, glaciers take millions of years to grow, mountains take millions of years to grow. None of this is true. Mountains happen over night, the last ice age flash froze, and their have been planets and moons captured, planets run into each other, in fact if you look into Earths ancient legends you may even find that Earth was once twice it's current size and where the asteroid belt is now.
Why, you are wondering would they tell us such lies. To control you! | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 1/14/2008 1:28:20 PM | | There are trolls here but it isn't me. Don't believe me, do your own research. I know it is mammoths, lots of them in fact. I wasn't sure everyone else would know what a mammoth was and I could spell dinosaur easier. Doesn't change a thing. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 1/14/2008 1:36:53 PM |
CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas and human contributions of total CO2 is also minor. CO2 is not pollution.
CO2 is second in terms of wattage, and we've driven it up by about 1/3 in the past few decades.
We are not the cause of Global Thawing, nor did we cause the poles to freeze in the first place.
Who claimed we froze the poles?
Al Gore is a lying piece of crap and even though he has been shown the errors in his disinformation film, he still is running around telling his lies. A whole generation has been fooled into believing this nonsense, so they can bring about a carbon tax to further fund the NWO and global slavery.
I read the actual ruling. The errors were all pretty trivial, and the premise of the film is sound. It came up in another thread earlier.
Earth is just recovering from the same celestial event that caused the great flood and froze the poles.
Great flood.....right.....do you realize that a sufficient mass of ice to cause said flood striking the earth would've exterminated all life? We'd be looking at a crust shattering event. And then there's the "were did the water go" question... And you call yourself a truth seeker. Here's a short video covering the math of why that theory doesn't work.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdEZTdOlGss
Can you believe there are scientists actually debating if the sun effects global temperatures. Holly crap we have some dumb scientists out there. Just what do these idiots think would happen if we turned the sun off? It would get very cold very very fast-duhh! Of course the sun has an effect.
Since surface temperatures are warmer than they would be by straight radiative warming, so there has to be more than just the sun causing the temperatures we measure on the surface every day. The greenhouse effect doesn't add energy, it helps retain energy. If the sun was turned off, the earth would still cool to radiative balance with the surroundings...but the greenhouse effect would slow the process down.
The question the scientists are debating is how much solar changes can account for observations...not whether the mechanism exists.
Now I have been following the suns sun spot activity for several years now and I have seen record levels of sunspots with my own eyes during a time that sun spot activity should be at a minimum.
And you saw these charts of sunspot levels where? Actual emission, which is directly measured, hit a relative minimum last month, and is coming into a new cycle.
Then kindly explain why Mars, and even Pluto is also warming up?
Well, its atmospheric pressure has tripled...that may have something to do with it...Pluto has a springtime too, you know.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html
As to Mars, we only know that one spot, the southern CO2 ice cap, is melting....it's only a 3 year trend.
Realclimate has a piece (with references) where they go over it.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192
But of course, since you seem to subscribe to the "all the scientists are in on the conspiracy" mindset...no matter how phenomenally improbable...well, remember to ground the tinfoil, or it serves as a re-radiator.
You might also find this study informative...
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 1/14/2008 2:06:11 PM |
Look if you go by "accepted" science, everything on earth happened millions of years ago and took millions of years to happen. They are lying to us.
In fact, these scientists include a highly significant portion of the planet's human population. That's a big conspiracy. The scientific method is deductive reasoning, and it's a standard in pretty much every field of study. Its reliable results provide everything from a Bic lighter to the calendar on your wall and the computer you are using. If the basic science which leads to the conclusions you deny, were wrong, then none of these things would exist because they rely on the same rules in order to work.
I will try to explain. Knowledge is power
The only objective source of knowledge is the scientific method. You've proven you lack the former and refuse to use the latter. You're up the creek.
it becomes almost totally outside of peoples thinking
Your inability or refusal to conceive such things does not make it so for the rest of us. If you learn one step at a time, rather than giving up because it's too complex to do all at once, then it's actually quite logical and easy to conceive.
in fact if you look into Earths ancient legends you may even find that Earth was once twice it's current size and where the asteroid belt is now.
And precisely HOW are ancient legends, unsupported by ANY evidence and recorded by people with no ability to know, test, or measure such things, in ANY way more factual than modern conclusions which CAN be tested, measured, and supported with evidence?
I too would recommend a tinfoil hat, but that damned tin foil doesn't exist because it's a product of modern science. I don't know...did cavemen have some anecdotal equivalent which has been handed down orally to the chosen few who happen to include you? | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 1/14/2008 2:08:03 PM | http://uncoverthenews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=62&Itemid=2
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/11/07/weather-channel-founder-global-warming-greatest-scam-history
http://globalwarmingtrends.blogspot.com/2007/11/weather-channel-founder-calls-global.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/11/09/eaweather109.xml
I told you the truth, and there is a lot more to it but I am not wasting time arguing. Just know that we are not the cause. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 1/14/2008 2:24:04 PM |
I keep forgetting how many lies everyone is told.
How do you know that it isn't you who has been lied to?
Mountains form very quickly, yes...but it takes millions of years for enough force to build up to do so. It would be amazing to watch....from a safe distance.
In fact if you look into Earths ancient legends you may even find that Earth was once twice it's current size and where the asteroid belt is now.
Lets look at the consequences of these two scenarios....
Earth in the asteroid belt orbit: Since it's farther out than Earth orbit, it will receive less solar radiation, and be colder....depending on where you are, that ranges from -73C to -108C. Unless scientists have been lying about the inverse square law since Newtons day....
The Earth losing half its mass wouldn't leave anyone on the surface in a condition to tell the tale. Try and keep in mind how relatively thin the crust is. There's also the "where's the rest of it" to consider...the asteroid belt masses around 0.055% of the Earths current mass....look at the bright side...it's only four orders of magnitude error....
Why, you are wondering would they tell us such lies. To control you!
Occam's Razor tells me that it's far more likely that you're simply deluded. Scientists have all the herd mentality of your average housecat. | |
|
Home
login 
