"Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong

"Don Klipstein" wrote in message
...
In article , Lee K wrote:

"donquijote1954" wrote in message
groups.com...

there is a
90 percent chance that global warming is human-caused.


" While humanity's three billion
tonnes (gigatonnes, or GT) per year net contribution to the
atmosphere's CO2 load appears large on a human scale, it is actually
less than half of 1% of the atmosphere's total CO2 content (750-830
GT). The CO2 emissions of our civilization are also dwarfed by the
210 GT/year emissions of the gas from Earth's oceans and land.
Perhaps even more significant is the fact that the uncertainty in the
measurement of atmospheric CO2 content is 80 GT -- making three GT
seem hardly worth mentioning."

Human activity is adding more like 25 gigatons of CO2 to the
atmosphere annually, just from burning of fossil fuels. The latest
figures are about 7 PgC, which is 7 petagrams of carbon annually, and
multiply that by 44/12 to get petagrams (gigatons) of CO2.

All the other carbon is just circulating around the biosphere,
hydrosphere and atmosphere. Burning of fossil fuels is adding carbon to
these at a rate of 7 gigatons of carbon, or 25 gigatons of CO2, per year.

- Don Klipstein )

Credentialed scientists in the cited article differ with your take: "The CO2
emissions of our civilization are also dwarfed by the 210 GT/year emissions
of the gas from Earth's oceans and land."

On Thu, "Lee K" wrote:

"Don Klipstein" wrote in message
...
All the other carbon is just circulating around the biosphere,
hydrosphere and atmosphere. Burning of fossil fuels is adding carbon to
these at a rate of 7 gigatons of carbon, or 25 gigatons of CO2, per year.

Credentialed scientists in the cited article differ with your take: "The CO2
emissions of our civilization are also dwarfed by the 210 GT/year emissions
of the gas from Earth's oceans and land."

An interesting article;

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/f...ef&rfp=dta&p=4

Thanks for posting it, today NBC Nightly News had
a preview of the global warming report expected tomorrow,
as "very likely" something, at least they aren't as cocksure
as the amateur proponents.
And in opposition in flavor, they showed video of
cattle freezing and starving in the central US plains where
4 feet of snow fell in the last few weeks.

But more topical, I am watching a documentary
on George Washington Carver and all the soy and peanut
products he pioneered or invented, soy diesel and plastics
and even newspaper inks are replacing petroleum products,
and are renewable, even the Ford U car made of soy plastic
was surprise to me, even though I have known for 60 years
about soy plastics;

http://media.ford.com/article_displa...ticle_id=14047

Renewables allow ignoring the global warming
argument, renewables are the way to attack the problem,
wastefulness should be avoided, but CO2 allocations and
reductions in economic activity are not as effective.

Joe Fischer

donquijote1954 wrote:
Hey, that I knew. What is missing in this report though is who among
humans are to blame. See, NOT ALL HUMANS POLLUTE: some drive Stupid
Unnecessary Vehicles while others ride bicycles.

Others simply post spam and troll messages to Usenet, thus wasting
electricity on the thousands (tens of thousands? hundreds of
thousands?) of Usenet servers worldwide.

- Logan

On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 22:12:28 -0600, Logan Shaw
wrote:

donquijote1954 wrote:
Hey, that I knew. What is missing in this report though is who among
humans are to blame. See, NOT ALL HUMANS POLLUTE: some drive Stupid
Unnecessary Vehicles while others ride bicycles.

Others simply post spam and troll messages to Usenet, thus wasting
electricity on the thousands (tens of thousands? hundreds of
thousands?) of Usenet servers worldwide.

- Logan

It really doesnt matter whether mankind is or isnt causing global
warming because there simply is no solution to a global problem.
The world is comprised of some 190 countries all with their own
Governments who will all do their own thing and there will be no
agreement about what should be done, ever.
The world has no mechanism for solving a global problem.
How is anyone going to stop a country like China from building its
500 coal fired power stations.

On Feb 1, 6:53 pm, Cosmopolite wrote:
THE BANANA REVOLUTION
http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote40

And how much pollution does the manufacture, shipping and retailing
of a bycicle cause. Since you are using the internet, you are also to
blame for the pollution that computer manufacture etc. and power
production emitt.

In short, we are all in this TOGETHER. - Hide quoted text -

NO, NO and NO. I'm a frugal monkey (notice the group above called
"frugal-living"), not a hungry lion. Monkeys are COOPERATIVE and
perhaps there is the most room for frugality.

Here's some pep talk for the revolution coming soon...

Continuing with the coops, here are some good reasons why many people
would join them if given the choice...

"Most people are living on Kibbutz Arava for two reasons: 1.) to be
able to work for themselves [no politician, no bureaucrat, no boss, in
other words, no lion], and 2.) to be able to raise their children in a
safe and comfortable environment [in other words, no jungle]. In a
world whose cities are increasingly becoming more polarized and
violent, these basic wants/needs are synonymous with life on a
kibbutz.

Internally, Kibbutz Arava functions rather communally and
ecologically. There is a central dining room and commons area. Food
that is eaten in the dining room arrives as bulk, wholesale crates,
thus eliminating retail wastes such as packaging and plastic wrappers.
The kibbutz is a pedestrian community. People are able to walk and
ride their bikes to any kibbutz activity. In fact, there are only five
leisure cars available for the 130 adult members. On kibbutz, people
don't throw much away. When things break, they are fixed either by the
garage, carpentry shop, or laundry. Things are not easily thrown away,
as items are scarce. There are public commodities, such as a coffee
and tea lounge, a pool, an entertainment area, a computer and fax
room, a music studio, and a horse stable. By offering these amenities,
the kibbutz eliminates the need for everyone to have their own TV,
computer, etc [no consumerism, which feeds the lion]."

kibbutz... http://www.objectsspace.com/encyclop...ex.php/Kibbutz

Leo Lichtman wrote:
"donquijote1954" wrote: (CLIP) See, NOT ALL HUMANS POLLUTE: (CLIP)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Answer a few questions:
1.) How does the LBS get its merchandise? Is there any fuel consumed in
the delivery?
2.) How does mail get to your house?
3.) Do you use electricity? How is it generated?
4.) How do the groceries get from the producer to the store?
...Need I go on?

OK, let's create a scale, in which, say, I'm a 5 and the SUV gas-
guzzlers are a 10 (the perfect polluter), then I would be ready to
move down perhaps to a 3, provided I'm safe to go out and ride my
bike. And then perhaps I would need a kibbutz coop and reduce my need
to a 1 (0 is when you die).

On Feb 2, 4:16 am, (Mauried) wrote:
On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 22:12:28 -0600, Logan Shaw

wrote:
donquijote1954 wrote:
Hey, that I knew. What is missing in this report though is who among
humans are to blame. See, NOT ALL HUMANS POLLUTE: some drive Stupid
Unnecessary Vehicles while others ride bicycles.

Others simply post spam and troll messages to Usenet, thus wasting
electricity on the thousands (tens of thousands? hundreds of
thousands?) of Usenet servers worldwide.

- Logan

It really doesnt matter whether mankind is or isnt causing global
warming because there simply is no solution to a global problem.
The world is comprised of some 190 countries all with their own
Governments who will all do their own thing and there will be no
agreement about what should be done, ever.
The world has no mechanism for solving a global problem.
How is anyone going to stop a country like China from building its
500 coal fired power stations.

You said best. There's one hope though: THE REVOLUTION (coming
soon)...

WORLD REVOLUTION
"The World Revolution is an idea for a new, global activist social
movement for progressive social change. It aims to resolve in a
definitive and comprehensive manner the major social problems of our
world and our era. Major issue areas of the World Revolution include:
peace, human rights, the environment, and world poverty." http://
www.worldrevolution.org/

VIVA LA REVOLUCION!!!
You may have liked what you read above and decided to join in such an
effort or any other effort to change the world --for the better, of
course, because you want change that's NONVIOLENT AND DEMOCRATIC. Thus
you are part of the solution and not part of the problem. However, if
you wished for something truly different, appealing to the pleasures
of life, in a shorter time frame, because you want to live it, then
look no further and 'feel' and 'taste' our EPICUREAN REVOLUTION.*
Welcome to the 'BANANA REVOLUTION,' which attacks top-down politics by
being irreverent of power, requiring the participation of the
individual and proposing a simple yet satisfying lifestyle... WE ARE
THE REVOLUTION; WE CAN HAVE THE GOOD LIFE, HERE AND NOW. Well, it's
also very funny and sexy to make it more appetizing.

Please see http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote40

See what they are doing in Canada...

Send a Message to Canada's Top Greenhouse Gas Polluters

Dear Sir/Madam,

Your company is listed as one of the top 10 Greenhouse Gas polluters
in Canada.

[Your Comments]

I urge you to give Canadians a real gift this holiday season by
committing to reduce your Greenhouse Gas emissions by 6% below your
1990 level.

Sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Your Address]


Yep, the worst polluters get punished (I suggest not buying from them)
for being filthy. Not a bad idea for other places where pollution is
ignored...

This is a comment to the above initiative: "If nothing is done the
earth will follow the path of the Dinasaur."

See the exclusive T-shirt "Do not feed the Dinosaur! Ride a Bike!"

http://www.zazzle.com/product/235628722888324810

On 2 Feb 2007 05:51:17 -0800, "donquijote1954"
wrote:

You said best. There's one hope though: THE REVOLUTION (coming
soon)...

Stick it.

Joe Fischer

Climate Change's Carnival Atmosphere
Thursday , February 01, 2007

By Steven Milloy
The global warming carnival hits its full stride this week in preparation
for the release of the long-awaited and much-hyped United Nations report on
global warming. It's unfortunate for the climateers that this week's climate
science doesn't live up to all the hoopla.

The week started out with a Congressional hearing in which Rep. Henry Waxman
accused the Bush administration of trying to squelch the science about
global warming. Rep. Waxman seems to have overlooked the fact that, if
silencing debate was the administration's goal, there was a far better way
to go about achieving that goal - that is, by cutting off the alarmist's
financial support.

The Bush administration, after all, is by far the largest funder of global
warming alarmism, pouring about $30 billion of federal dollars into climate-
and alternative energy-related research over the last six years. Many of the
beneficiaries of this taxpayer largesse, particularly NASA's James Hansen,
have become media darlings.

Not to be outdone, Sen. Barbara Boxer's Environment and Public Works
Committee held a hearing during which, as the Aberdeen American News (South
Dakota) put it, "presidential contenders for 2008. expounded - and at times
tried to outdo each other - on why they believed Congress must act to reduce
heat-trapping greenhouse gases."

And those were some of the more tame circus acts.

Al Gore was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize and an Oscar for his global
warming alarmism. Paris officials announced that the Eiffel Tower would
shutdown its 20,000 flashing light bulbs and go dark for five minutes on the
eve of the release of the UN report. The National Football League announced
that it would plant 3,000 trees to offset carbon dioxide emissions caused by
this week's Super Bowl. A California state legislator introduced a bill to
ban regular (incandescent) light bulbs and to mandate fluorescent lighting
in homes and businesses by 2012. The bill is called the "How Many
Legislators Does it Take to Change a Lightbulb Act."

These hijinks also extended into the science community.

First, the UN isn't releasing its full report this week - just the curiously
edited "Summary for Policy Makers." The detailed report on the science won't
be issued until May or so because it's not finished.

If you're wondering how the UN can issue a summary of a report that's not
even finished, fear not. The UN has announced that changes to the full
report shall be made "to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policy
Makers." The UN process - akin to shooting first and asking questions
later -is the exact opposite of the traditional scientific method.

In an apparent effort to either out-shine or to add urgency to the UN
report, a new study co-authored by NASA's James Hansen (Science, Feb. 2)
claims that the UN's climate models have under-predicted actual climate
change, particularly with respect to sea level. Hansen's study reports that
the climate models: (1) slightly underestimate actual global temperature
increase; and (2) greatly underestimate actual sea-level rise.

Hansen and his co-authors conclude that their findings show that previous
projections have not exaggerated, but may in some respects have
underestimated, the extent of climate change. But Hansen's global
temperature claims are questionable since the locations he relies on for
temperature measurements are as much as 1200 kilometers (720 miles) apart.

As an example of what this means, a temperature taken in New York, N.Y.
(where the average February high is 42 degrees Fahrenheit) would be assumed
to be representative of the temperature data from as far away as Atlanta,
Ga. (where the average February high is 57 degrees Fahrenheit). That can
obviously be quite a large (and uncertain) assumption in a game where the
alarmists make their gloom-and-doom predictions based on average global
temperature changes on the order of a few tenths of a degree over several
decades.

Moreover, NASA's own data indicate that there appears to be no significant
change in temperature trend since the early 20th century. No doubt this is
why Hansen and his co-authors admit in their study that the time period they
considered for their temperature analysis (1990-2006) is "relatively short,"
rendering it "difficult to establish the reasons" for this warming.

Not mentioned, however, is the fact that Hansen's claim of greater warming
during 1990-2006 is driven in large part by a brief spike in warming (caused
by an El Nino event) that occurred during 1997-1998. The spike is over and
subsequent temperature data indicate that the warming trend is back to
normal.

With respect to sea level rise, according to another new study, the mean
level of sea-level rise has not accelerated recently and was more than 30
percent greater during 1904-1953 than during 1954-2003. As with the
temperature data, Hansen and his co-authors acknowledge in their paper that
the time periods are too short to draw conclusions: "Again, we caution that
the time interval of overlap is short, so that internal decadal climate
variability could cause much of the discrepancy."

Showmanship, rather than facts, is driving the climate debate - and, yes,
there still is a raging debate despite pronouncements to the contrary by Al
Gore and the mainstream media.