GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post - Al Gore: ?Polar ice cap could be completely gone in summer in as little as seven years.?

PAR · 10-10-2014, 09:20 AM

Mark, *and whomever else... On page 4 I pasted 3 questions last night...

The first having to do with the current solution looks to be a CO2 Tax and CO2 credit exchange (where by CO2 credits are treated as stock) and unlike when the Ozone was an issue, the world acted fast, when there is a disaster the world bands together.
I'll accept that this could be due to climate change moving at what can be said to be a glacial pace.

So I will move on to the next 2 questions.

1) For everyone posting CO2 vs temp graphs can one of you explain the following.

If all the CO2 released yearly adds up to 779 gigatons (100%)
And Man creates 29 gigatons of CO2, (3.7%)
Leaving 750 gigatons produced by other means then those caused by man. (96.3%)

Knowing this how can the graphs showing a CO2 increase account for the jump in CO2 being 3-5 times greater than the amount of CO2 possibly created by man.
If we allow that the raw data is correct from the samples.
Forgetting that the plan is to only reduce man made CO2 by less than 10%...
Would this not mean that even a plan to reduced man made CO2 by 100% would have little to no impact?
Is the math/software/programming used to produce the graph wrong?
Thoughts?
I'll skip my own personal issues with any CO2 data from Mauna Loa Hawaii and my thoughts that this would be like measuring the air temp of a room by putting a thermometer inside a roaring fire place.
*Volcanos being the largest global source of CO2 and Mauna Loa being the worlds largest active volcano on the planet...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauna_Loa

I digress and move on to the second of my 2 questions.

2) Why are we seeing little to no movement or discussion on other (non CO2 based) by-products of the industrial revaluation?
I live in a city that at its' core is warm enough in the winter to basically see no snow due to large concrete buildings that trap heat, yet the sounding area is covered in a few feet of snow.
What % if any do large buildings, roads, etc.. play in global temp increase?

*** Keep in mind that I do not deny that man is and can affect his environment, or do I think CO2 isn't a problem we should be looking at. I'm not even denying that there is climate change going on.
I'm simply questioning the idea of it being single source Man Made CO2, and that due to it being single source that there is some silver bullet solution of curing CO2 fixing the climate change issues we have now and will have in the future.

10-10-2014, 09:20 AM
PAR Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 1,835	Mark, and whomever else... On page 4 I pasted 3 questions last night... The first having to do with the current solution looks to be a CO2 Tax and CO2 credit exchange (where by CO2 credits are treated as stock) and unlike when the Ozone was an issue, the world acted fast, when there is a disaster the world bands together. I'll accept that this could be due to climate change moving at what can be said to be a glacial pace. So I will move on to the next 2 questions. 1) For everyone posting CO2 vs temp graphs can one of you explain the following. If all the CO2 released yearly adds up to 779 gigatons (100%) And Man creates 29 gigatons of CO2, (3.7%) Leaving 750 gigatons produced by other means then those caused by man. (96.3%) Knowing this how can the graphs showing a CO2 increase account for the jump in CO2 being 3-5 times greater than the amount of CO2 possibly created by man. If we allow that the raw data is correct from the samples. Forgetting that the plan is to only reduce man made CO2 by less than 10%... Would this not mean that even a plan to reduced man made CO2 by 100% would have little to no impact? Is the math/software/programming used to produce the graph wrong? Thoughts? I'll skip my own personal issues with any CO2 data from Mauna Loa Hawaii and my thoughts that this would be like measuring the air temp of a room by putting a thermometer inside a roaring fire place. Volcanos being the largest global source of CO2 and Mauna Loa being the worlds largest active volcano on the planet... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauna_Loa I digress and move on to the second of my 2 questions. 2) Why are we seeing little to no movement or discussion on other (non CO2 based) by-products of the industrial revaluation? I live in a city that at its' core is warm enough in the winter to basically see no snow due to large concrete buildings that trap heat, yet the sounding area is covered in a few feet of snow. What % if any do large buildings, roads, etc.. play in global temp increase? *** Keep in mind that I do not deny that man is and can affect his environment, or do I think CO2 isn't a problem we should be looking at. I'm not even denying that there is climate change going on. I'm simply questioning the idea of it being single source Man Made CO2, and that due to it being single source that there is some silver bullet solution of curing CO2 fixing the climate change issues we have now and will have in the future.