The Church of Al Gore/IPCC claims man is driving the world climate through CO2 production. Some people buy that simply because no one ever illustrates the foolishness of this claim. So let’s do some comparisons using the all the water on planet Earth to represent the Green House engine, and let’s show how relatively small the man-made component is when we look at the entire engine. We will find that the contribution of man-made CO2 is, literally, a drop in the ocean.

So with all the water on Earth representing the Green House Gas engine let’s do some mat[LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This Truck Forum Link. with what we know:

This is an amazing feat when you consider that human-added concentrations of CO2 are only about five per cent of natural carbon emissions every year from factors like rotting vegetation, volcanoes, outgassing from the oceans, and the like. And amazing considering that 90 to 95 per cent of the greenhouse effect is produced by water vapor, not CO2.
Never mind. For the Hadley Centre, five per cent of a trace gas like carbon dioxide (CO2 is only 380 parts per million in the atmosphere, to which human emissions add about 10 ppm every five years) is “driving” the greenhouse gas system.

Emphasis mine. If all the water on Earth represents the Green House Gas effect, and 95% of that effect is the from water. Of the remaining 5%, man-made CO2 is only 5% of that number. Which means if we add up all the “non man-made” 95% + 4.75% = 99.75% of the Green House Engine is not due to man.
So, let’s compare 99.75% to the volume of water in the world’s oceans. [LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This Truck Forum Link. :

Volume in Thousands
of Cubic Kilometers Percentage of
Total Water on Earth Remarks Oceans 1,310,302 97.3 This is salty sea water. Ice 29,492 2.2 Much of this ice is in the Antarctic Groundwater 6,733 0.5 Underground aquifers, deep wells Lakes 242 0.02 Provide drinking water, irrigation water, fish and recreation Soil Moisture 74 0.005 This is being used by our crops, trees, and surface vegetation Water Vapor in the Atmosphere 14 0.001 Clouds, fog, and dew Rivers 1.3 0.0001 Provide water for drinking, irrigation, and recreation

So, let’s role up the amount of water on Earth we need to represent the non man-made Green House gas elements. Let’s start with the worlds oceans, which gives us 97.3%. If we add in the water trapped in the world’s ice we jump to 99.5%. If we add in all the lakes we get to 99.52%. If we add in all the world’s rivers we get 99.5201%.
So, if we were to use this example where all the water in the oceans, the ice caps, the rivers and the lakes represents the non man-made factors in the Green House effect, then the man-made component from CO2 is literally a drop in the ocean. Does anyone believe the average temperature of the oceans, ice caps, rivers and lakes could be changed by 5% of the remaining water? Of course not.
Some historical perspective from the first link above:

Furthermore, in the 1850s the planet came out of more than 400 years of cooling known as the Little Ice Age. Before that, during the Medieval Warm Period (900-1350), global temperatures were a degree or two Celsius higher than today’s. Temperatures were warmer about 2,000 years ago (the Roman Warm Period) and about 3,500 years ago (the Minoan Warm Period).
…
This means that over the past 5,000 years there’s been a major warming and cooling cycle every 1,000 years or so. The current warming, a millennium after the Medieval Warm Period, is right on track as part of that natural cycle.

Seems obvious to me it is highly implausible .25% can drive 99.75%, yet highly plausible we are in a natural cycle of warming we have seen in the historic record.



[LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This Truck Forum Link.

First off, you'll note that this section is not cited in your link. I'll take it at it's word, but I'm afraid even it's word is quite wrong. A great deal of rotting vegetation is caused by deforestation, which is human-caused.

What this also doesn't explain is that there is an understood balance between plants, which remove CO2, and respiration and decay, which add CO2. It is a circular system which has basically existed in it's current form since the emergence of multicellular life.

There is one point above all else, though, that is never addressed by those who claim that global climate change is a hoax or myth: can you demonstrate that a 5% change in this system will not have a dramatic effect? Can you demonstrate that a change of .005% will not have a dramatic effect? The author, Paul MacRae, seems to not know. As a matter of fact, I've never come across any climatologist that can demonstrate that what seems to be a small change in CO2 levels won't have the effect that is present in modern global climate change models.

It's late, you're not changing my mind just as I'm not changing yours.

We can agree to disagree.

You live your life like the world is coming to an end if you want. I'll stick to my big azzed Suburban.

I'll be comfortable.

Wrong........this has all been debunked in this forum more than once.
CO2 is NOT a "green-house gas". CO2 is PLANT FOOD. Plants USE it in photosynthesis to create OXYGEN. There is no proof that CO2 has ANY EFFECT what-so-ever on temperature increase. In fact; the rise in CO2 gas FOLLOWS a temperature increase. Man is ONLY responsible for less than 2% of the TOTAL CO2 output since the advent of the "industrial revolution".
Earth's "average temperature" only increased .7 degrees between the years 1890 and 1998, and has DECREASED .7 degrees during the last decade.
Don't make me pull out my list of over 600 sources.....including meteorologists who say it is a SCAM.

IF, in fact we are undergoing "Global Climate Change", we are entering a mini-ice age. Not caused by MAN, but caused by a 2 year absence of Sun Activity (sun spots).

__________________

Sorry, but even with "deforestation", there are more forests today than there were 200 years ago, or even 300 years ago.

__________________

Even the EPA under the Bush administration has admitted that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
[LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This Truck Forum Link.

Do you have a citation to support this?

Even if there are more forests, that doesn't mean there's less decay. We are cutting down wood either for use or to clear land, which has increased in the past 200 or even 300 years as the human population has increased. Just because we plant saplings after cutting down full grown trees doesn't mean they aren't rotting.

What a silly thing to say......we plant saplings...doesn't mean they aren't rotting" What the hell does THAT mean? What does "decay" have to do with it?


Just a start: [LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This Truck Forum Link.
As of the year 2000, the world's forest cover was 3.9 billion hectares (9.8 .... wood in U.S. forests is about 25 percent greater than it was 40 years ago. ...

Then: [LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This Truck Forum Link.
...developing countries lost 130 million hectares while the industrial world gained 36 million hectares as abandoned agricultural areas returned to forest. The yearly loss of natural forests during this period, which includes deforestation plus the conversion of natural forests to tree plantations, was 16 million hectares—94 percent of which occurred in the tropics.

__________________

If I chop down a fully grown oak and then plant 3 oak saplings, the chopped down oak still rots, therefore the size of forests is not related to the release of CO2 via decay of dead plants.

Deforestation always results in decay, which releases CO2 into the atmosphere. When that deforestation is for the use of wood, the smaller branches and foliage is left to rot. When that deforestation is for learing land, the plant matter also rots.

This figures shows estimates of the changes in carbon dioxide concentrations during the Phanerozoic. Three estimates are based on geochemical modeling: GEOCARB III (Berner and Kothavala 2001), [LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This Truck Forum Link. (Bergmann et al. 2004) and Rothman (2001). These are compared to the carbon dioxide measurement database of Royer et al. (2004) and a 30 Myr filtered average of those data. Error envelopes are shown when they were available. The right hand scale shows the ratio of these measurements to the estimated average for the last several million years (the Quarterany). Customary labels for the periods of [LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This Truck Forum Link. appear at the bottom.
Direct determination of past carbon dioxide levels relies primarily on the interpretation of carbon isotopic ratios in fossilized soils (palesols) or the shells of [LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This Truck Forum Link. and through interpretation of stomatal density in fossil plants. Each of these is subject to substantial systematic uncertainty.
Estimates of carbon dioxide changes through geochemical modeling instead rely on quantifying the geological sources and sinks for carbon dioxide over long time scales particularly: volcanic inputs, erosion and carbonate deposition. As such, these models are largely independent of direct measurements of carbon dioxide.
Both measurements and models show considerable uncertainty and variation; however, all point to carbon dioxide levels in the past that have been significantly higher than they are at present.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:P...on_Dioxide.png

Do you know why there were such high levels of CO2 400m+ years ago? Ferns, the earliest land plants, were just forming during the Devonian. It took tens of millions of years just to get from ferns to forests, and then tens of millions more before the plants could release enough oxygen for there to be small forest reptiles. It wasn't until the Permian (299m years ago) that there was enough oxygen for the land animal population to explode. You can see that represented perfectly on the graph. You may notice that things start to level out more after that explosion.

The balance maintained between plant life and animal life (along with many other things) is responsible for the more recent stable state of the atmosphere. Sure, there are cyclical cooling and warming trends over the past few hundred thousand years, but you can see that the recent rise in CO2 and temperature does not fit in with those patterns.