Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Again, simply your opinion. The general public doesn't have to be able to do higher math to know that not all relationships are linear. Understanding that it might not be that simple is all that's necessary.You're thinking the general public can do math. Believe me they can't do math esp higher math.
Water vapor is twice as efficient at absorbing heat than CO2. There are 70 times more water vapor molcules in the atmosphere than CO2. Thus water vapor is 140 times more efficient at absorbing heat than CO2.
Alge and fungi decomposing carbon based life forms cause 90 percent of the CO2 produced in the atmosphere.
qa.com
the mathmatics of leaf decay.
Over 90 percent of the CO2 produced per year in the atmosphere comes from decomposisition of plants.
The mathmatics of leaf decay MIT type this in your search engine.
Why do you need others to do your homework for you? An inability to copy and paste a link belies any claims of being a mathematician. But here is a link to the article that you did not understand:The mathmatics of leaf decay MIT type this in your search engine.
It is taken into account. And we can tell that the increase comes from fossil fuels. Have you forgotten how?The fact remains that CO2 produced by nature and the CO2 produced by man is reabsorbed by the ocean and plants. Deforestation also needs to be taken into account.
The fact remains that CO2 produced by nature and the CO2 produced by man is reabsorbed by the ocean and plants. Deforestation also needs to be taken into account.
It is my perception that "denialists", on whatever topic, are unaware - to an alarming degree - of the extent and depth and detail of the research on that topic. It is the range and intricacies of the data, and the way in which they interlock coherently to provide clear understanding that is convincing. Ignorance of the wealth of those data encourages cherry picking from secondary and tertiary sources, with the selection favouring pre-existing beliefs.Why are you debating these things? They are well know, most importantly by the people who monitor climate, CO2 levels, etc. and by those who model climate change.
Look persons in the sciences know co2 is a greenhouse gas. But they also know that to figure one gas can produce any kind of intense warming-they disagree on that. Perhaps if the planet were devoid of forests & ocean, then it would be a different scenario. But given that we also know the Sun has certain properties & yields different wavelengths of radiation. Theme being--not all scientists are willing to agree that the 1.8 degree warming is 100% anthropogenic given everything else.
It is my perception that "denialists", on whatever topic, are unaware - to an alarming degree - of the extent and depth and detail of the research on that topic. It is the range and intricacies of the data, and the way in which they interlock coherently to provide clear understanding that is convincing. Ignorance of the wealth of those data encourages cherry picking from secondary and tertiary sources, with the selection favouring pre-existing beliefs.
The atmospheric scientists, climatologist, they all know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and is sufficient to cause the warming seen. The models include forests, oceans, ice pack, and many other things.
The whole statement about the Sun is frankly incoherent and vague. What does "has certain properties & yields different wavelengths of radiation" even mean? Of course the Sun has "properties" and it does yield "different wavelengths of radiation" all day everyday. Do you mean that the flux has changed or the spectrum of the flux has change? Then say it! Even then it doesn't matter, because it *HASN'T* changed. It's been monitored from orbit by satellites.
They knew 30 years ago that the input of CO2 from fossil fuels would change the climate in the early 21st century. So what did you all do? Ignore it! Call it fraud, a scam, a money grabbing plot, a liberal/socialist plot to destroy the economy, etc., etc. And now we can see exactly what has happened and there is no feasible alternative to the origin of our recent climate change -- it is from anthropogenic CO2 from fossil fuels. (Thanks a lot!)
--------
"Splendid isolation, I don't need one. Splendid isolation." --Warren Zevon
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?