Hi Peter & All,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Ward
You have not produced one iota of evidence that current CO2 levels are not man made (its OK, no-one else has) and in light of the above...you've simply made a stronger case we (humans) are in for a rough ride.
|
You see this is where I have the problem in trying to sort the wheat from the chaff -- and I really want to know the answer one way or another. A correlation without a link is not enough for me. I'm really trying to keep an open mind on this, but being a former copper, I'm trained to be sceptical.
As I understand it, it's common ground the greenhouse gasses are composed of approx 95% water-vapour, 3.6% CO2 and 0.9% Methane.
Is this right?
Proceeding on the assumption that is correct, I have also read of the total CO2emissions (man-made & natural), the human component accounts for 2.91% according to the US Department of Energy or 3.67% according to the IPCC’s AR4 -- the IPCC's own report. That means that of CO2's contribution to greenhouse warming 96% is down to natural emissions.
Is this right?
Since 1998, the
total atmospheric CO2 levels have risen from 365ppm to 385ppm -- about a 5.5% rise. How can the the quite tiny human contribution of 3.67% of the total CO2 emissions account for a rise of about 5% in the total CO2 level over the 10 years?
Maybe I've been misled, maybe I'm just dumb, but this doesn't on the face of it appear to add up.
Can anyone show me how it adds up?
If the governments get together and agree to reduce CO2 emissions by humans by say 30% over the next 20 years, this will bring the total contribution of humans to CO2 levels to about 2.5%. This in turn will reduce total atmospheric CO2 by no more than 1% (assuming the natural imput remains static).
Considering CO2 comprises only 3.6% of the total of Greenhouse gasses, we will therefore reduce total greenhouse gasses by about 0.02%.
How can this possibly make a difference? If there is a natural event (like a small increase in total volcanic activity) that increases total natural emissions of CO2 by say 5% in that time, won't our contribution in cutting Carbon Dioxide emissions by say 30% of that 3.7% amount to 2/3rds of 5/8ths of ... not a lot?
Please I'd like the above figures confirmed or shown wrong and an answer that will let me assess this whole thing.
As I'm one of the millions who will pay through the nose for the extra taxes and costs imposed by the carbon credits scheme I think I'm entitled to an answer before I part with this money willingly.
Best,
Les D