Quote by tcmtech: Of the approximately 1% of the annual gross mass of CO2 produced on the planet us humans and all our dirty little efforts only contribute around 3% of that total gross mass of atmospheric CO2.
That means we are directly and confirmed responsible for around 3% of 1% of the total green house gasses. Or .03% of the annual volume produced which about a 30 PPM equivalent of the total mass of the estimated volume of the earths atmosphere. Or about the equivalent CO2 that you release into your house in one average breath in one years time period.
Thats far below the accepted statistical noise floor in valid scientific data analysis as I understand it. Mathematically calculable but when used in actual testing its just too small of value. Its like saying your cat riding along with you in your car affects the gas mileage. Mathematically yes but in all practicality you can never prove it. 100 cats maybe but not one.
Please show your error analysis to include the calculations you used to determine that the quantities are stistically below the acceptable niose floor. The statistical significance of the amount being measures would depend entirelly on the measurement method and whatever errors produced by that method. So, what are the measurement methods? What is the measurement errors? What are the error soruces?
In this article**broken link removed**, The so-called Keeling curve was constructed from measurements at Mauna Loa using infared spectromotry. The accuracy of these instruments were about +/- 1ppm.
This page describes a measure method with an accuracy of .8ppm. Further advances in gas analyzers have reduced the error even more.
**broken link removed**, the ultramat 5 produced by seimans is used to measure CO2 concentrations to an accuracy of .1ppm. As the amount of CO2 is in the hundreds of ppm's, this represents accuracy that is well above the niose floor. If you have better data than this, you should show it. Where is this "actual fact data?" which can easliy be proven. If you've proven it, then show your work.
CO2 is not the greenhouse gas thats responsible for our weather and natural climatic cycles of heat dissipation and retention. Water vapor is!
Water vapor has an approximately netural effect on global warming, as it reflects sunlight energy back into the atmosphere and does not allow a significant amont of the enegy to reach the earth. Ever notice it's cooler on a cloudy day? CO2 is transparent to visible light, and opaque to the infared that gets radiated back, and so it allows energy to warm the Earth, but blocks the re-radiation that would otherwise cool the Earth. So, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, while water vapor is not.
There is a similar debate going on over at CR4 right now.
Here is the link (if I did it right). CR4 - Thread: Greenhouse Effect Sounds Like a Great Idea (Part 2)
I learned some new things and found it rather interesting and informative.
Many of these guys have engineering and science degrees and are not paid by special interest groups so their data may actually be reasonably accurate but that also makes it a longer and rather more in depth read.
This appears to be a bunch of meat-heads who don't know much about the science they are trying to discuss, much like this discusson. So, what makes them so important? They have no special credentials that qualify them in any way to speak authoritively. And the site they link for thier discussion information is nothing more than another denyer using junk science and smoke and mirror arguments. So, I guess anything on the internet is golden as long as you agree with it, which beings up the next question:
Quote by ke5frf: Brownout, why on Earth would I demand links or references from the people I agree with? I'M NOT DEBATING THEM!!! That would be like an attorney cross-examining his para-legal LOL!!!
That pretty much sums up your whole sorry argument. The question should be why wouln't you demand links or references. What you're telling us here is that you have one threshold of acceptability for data that supports one side of the argument, and an entirely different threshold for data that supports the other side. So, you accept any data or opinion that goes against the science without question or examination. That's the very thing you've accused those who argue for the science of doing. Further, since you're parroting this data, it might be good for you to do some checking, else you have no credibility (too late to worry about that however.) You started the discussion with links to hacked e-mails and you didn't even know the history of how this information came to light, or about the conspiracy theorists who hacked them and published them out of context. Next time, do some checking, and make sure informaion or misinformation you repeat is verified.
As well, you haven't any idea about the nature of the tree ring data you've pimped repeatedly. As it turns out, there are only a subset of trees which have exhibited divergent data, and only in the last few decated. Tracking the data back, the ring data from these trees correlated with other tree data as well as other measures. The decision to not include this data was based on these simple facts and not as an attempt to fool anyone. The tree ring problem is well documented and any scientist or simply curious person can find the data and discussoins of the problem.
Pretty much the rest of this thread is clogged with the same old baloney of name-calling and finger pointing. The enemies of science don't have any logical and proven arguments to make, so they disparage the dedicated scientists who's diligent work has shown the link between global warming and CO2 emmissions. What makes the scientists at NOAA different from those at NASA, DOE, DOD ( who BTW, drove much of the study of CO2 as a project with national security implications ), Departmnet of State? Claims that those scientists get paid to make up data are unsubstantiated, and really just plain stupid. Further, examination of hte NOAA website shows strong evidence of the link between CO2 and GW, and pretty much confirms everthing that's been published by the scientific community on the subject, so it's beyone weird that the deniers would try to use that orginization as their stated source.
