Water Vapor is 97% of Greenhouse Gases on Earth; Man's CO2 is 1% !!!

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Water Vapor is 97% of Greenhouse Gases on Earth!

Man Made CO2 is less than 1% !!!

Man-Made-Global-Warming swindle is about Global Governance, not the environment, and is based on a lie!



​

 

[amy31416]

Yeah...I read long ago that water vapor is a "greenhouse gas." Kinda made a little alarm go off.

From everything that I've looked into, both man-made and naturally occurring CO2 could actually be used to vastly improve plant growth...it's a totally untapped resource. Though there is a tipping point where too much CO2 can stunt plant growth--at current levels, it improves it. Nobody really talks about reasonable reactions to increased CO2--such as increasing plantings of the types of plants that most efficiently utilize the stuff (I like to think along the lines of agriculture.)

It is a somewhat complicated issue though, because runoff from industry can destroy the fertility of soils nearby, and thus make my notions null and void. But...if there were some reasonable solutions being discussed, like containment, and possible recycling of byproducts from industry--it could actually make a business more profitable, and certainly more innovative.

But those kinds of solutions aren't discussed (anymore.) It's either the right-wing "it's all bullshit!" notion, or the left-wing "we're all gonna die!" mode of thought.

It's a huge opportunity for the right person, in my opinion.

 

[TCE]

Yeah...I read long ago that water vapor is a "greenhouse gas." Kinda made a little alarm go off.

From everything that I've looked into, both man-made and naturally occurring CO2 could actually be used to vastly improve plant growth...it's a totally untapped resource. Though there is a tipping point where too much CO2 can stunt plant growth--at current levels, it improves it. Nobody really talks about reasonable reactions to increased CO2--such as increasing plantings of the types of plants that most efficiently utilize the stuff (I like to think along the lines of agriculture.)

It is a somewhat complicated issue though, because runoff from industry can destroy the fertility of soils nearby, and thus make my notions null and void. But...if there were some reasonable solutions being discussed, like containment, and possible recycling of byproducts from industry--it could actually make a business more profitable, and certainly more innovative.

But those kinds of solutions aren't discussed (anymore.) It's either the right-wing "it's all bullshit!" notion, or the left-wing "we're all gonna die!" mode of thought.

It's a huge opportunity for the right person, in my opinion.

And after studying it for a topic in Biology, it turns out rain forests have adapted and can soak up more CO2 than ever before. One theory is that the trees only used to consume a little CO2 because that was all that was available, but since it has become much more plentiful, the trees and plants can feel free to consume as much as they want for photosynthesis and other operations. It's pretty cool.

 

[Dr.3D]

I really enjoy and appreciate this explanation of the carbon cycle.
http://www.columbia.edu/~vjd1/carbon.htm

It explains how the environment will balance the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to maintain a constant global temperature.

 

[Carole]

Thanks for the link. I had not read that particular explanation before today and also found it interesting, especially at the end with the examples at the end explaining the way the balance is kept.

I wish political and other agenda-oriented folks would stop trying to interfere with nature.

"It's not nice to fool around with Mother Nature."
http://www.retrojunk.com/details_commercial/2903/


http://www.columbia.edu/~vjd1/carbon.htm


"some examples:

If CO2 concentration increases in the atmosphere because of an increased rate of outgassing, global temperature will rise. Rising temperature and more dissolved CO2 will lead to increased weathering of crustal rocks as a result of faster reaction rates (temperature effect) and greater acidity. Enhanced weathering will use up the excess CO2 thereby cooling the climate.

If global temperature cools as a result of some astronomical forcing or tectonic/ocean circulation effect, the lower temperatures will result in lower rates of chemical weathering. Decreased weathering means less CO2 being drawn from the atmosphere by weathering reactions, leaving more CO2 in the atmosphere to increase temperatures.

If more rocks become available for rapid weathering as a result of mountain uplift the enhanced weathering will draw down atmospheric CO2 and decrease global temperatures. But the decreased temperatures will slow reaction rates, thereby using less CO2, thus allowing temperatures to moderate. "

 

[awake]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"...A crucial means of establishing and maintaining this domination is by co-opting, by bringing within the ruling elite, the opinion-moulding classes in society. These opinion-moulders are the professional shapers of opinion: theorists, academics, journalists and other media movers and shakers, script writers and directors, writers, pundits, think-tankers, consultants, agitators, and social therapists. There are two essential roles for these assorted and proliferating technocrats and intellectuals: to weave apologies for the statist regime, and to help staff the interventionist bureaucracy and to plan the system.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The keys to any social or political movement are money, numbers, and ideas. The opinion-moulding classes, the technocrats and intellectuals supply the ideas, the propaganda, and the personnel to staff the new statist dispensation. The critical funding is supplied by figures in the power elite: various members of the wealthy or big business (usually corporate) classes."

Rothbard


...And scientists are some how magically immune to these political forces...? The climate has always been changing, we survive it and will continue to do so by adopting unfettered capital accumulation, not more government. In fact, the government burdens those who are trying to adapt by taking their very means to do so.
[/FONT]

 

[fj45lvr]

if I remember correctly CO2 is not even 1%...a closer to 1/2 of 1%.

 

[agitator]

Could post this here also: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/forumdisplay.php?127-Stop-Global-Warming-Fraud

 

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Mexico loses over 80% of its crops to big freeze, the coldest weather in over half a century. This, in combination with inflation, points to skyrocketing food prices in Mexico and the US. [And they are still pushing cap-and-trade taxes to combat the effects of so-called global warming. Hmmm...]

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/303583

Courtesy of http://www.realityzone.com/currentperiod.html

 

[sailingaway]

Yeah.

 

[RideTheDirt]

ban water!

 

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Nice

http://morphcity.com/home/92-playing-the-global-warming-card

Playing the Global-Warming Card: This analysis explains how the myth of global warming is the centerpiece of the current movement for expanding government, controlling people, and depopulation, a movement known as Agenda 21. MorphCity 2011 Feb 11 (Cached)

 

[MRK]

As CO2 levels in the atmosphere increase, the ocean becomes warmer. As the ocean becomes warmer, the ocean absorbs more CO2 from the atmosphere. There's a natural recycling buffer.

 

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

As CO2 levels in the atmosphere increase, the ocean becomes warmer. As the ocean becomes warmer, the ocean absorbs more CO2 from the atmosphere. There's a natural recycling buffer.

Nice.

 

[Aldanga]

As CO2 levels in the atmosphere increase, the ocean becomes warmer. As the ocean becomes warmer, the ocean absorbs more CO2 from the atmosphere. There's a natural recycling buffer.

Do you have a reference for that? I'd like to use it in the discussions I have about this topic.

Also, are there any negative implications for increased CO2 levels in the oceans?

 

[BenIsForRon]

As CO2 levels in the atmosphere increase, the ocean becomes warmer. As the ocean becomes warmer, the ocean absorbs more CO2 from the atmosphere. There's a natural recycling buffer.

It's not a 1:1 ratio. The ocean doesn't absorb all the extra carbon. The extra carbon dioxide in the water can also lead to more acidity in certain areas, and damage things like coral reefs.

I really hope most people aren't getting their global warming information from this forum.

 

[Dr.3D]

It's not a 1:1 ratio. The ocean doesn't absorb all the extra carbon. The extra carbon dioxide in the water can also lead to more acidity in certain areas, and damage things like coral reefs.

I really hope most people aren't getting their global warming information from this forum.

Well it sure as hell beats getting it from a politician.

 

[pcosmar]

Yeah...I read long ago that water vapor is a "greenhouse gas." Kinda made a little alarm go off.

From everything that I've looked into, both man-made and naturally occurring CO2 could actually be used to vastly improve plant growth...it's a totally untapped resource. Though there is a tipping point where too much CO2 can stunt plant growth--at current levels, it improves it. Nobody really talks about reasonable reactions to increased CO2--such as increasing plantings of the types of plants that most efficiently utilize the stuff (I like to think along the lines of agriculture.)

It is a somewhat complicated issue though, because runoff from industry can destroy the fertility of soils nearby, and thus make my notions null and void. But...if there were some reasonable solutions being discussed, like containment, and possible recycling of byproducts from industry--it could actually make a business more profitable, and certainly more innovative.

But those kinds of solutions aren't discussed (anymore.) It's either the right-wing "it's all bullshit!" notion, or the left-wing "we're all gonna die!" mode of thought.

It's a huge opportunity for the right person, in my opinion.

On the right track.
Oddly enough there is a plant that is very efficient at converting/using CO2, it also grows nearly everywhere without fertilizers and pesticides. And has about 1001 uses.



unfortunately it's illegal.

 

[libertarian4321]

It's not the "percentage" that is important.

When you have a system at equilibrium, a change to that system, even if small, has the ability to disturb the equilibrium and potentially create unwanted changes.

To put it in layman's terms, its the "straw that broke the camel's back" idea. The camel may have been successfully carrying 970 pounds of goods on his back (think of that as the "water vapor")- but if you toss a 1 lb bale of straw (think of that as anthropogenic CO2) on it's back, the camel might not be able to carry the load. That last little bit of straw was enough to screw things up, even though that straw was a tiny percentage of the weight the camel was carrying.

Scientists and people can discuss/argue the effect that the straw we call "man-made CO2" has on the system, but discussing percentages is irrelevant.

The reason anthropogenic (man-made) greenhouse gases (including CO2) are a hot topic is that WE CAN CONTROL THEM. We can't control the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere (nor can we control natural sources of CO2), but we can control our CO2 output.

Once you understand the problem, then you can better discuss what should be done about it (if anything).

 

[libertarian4321]

It's not the "percentage" that is important.

When you have a system at equilibrium, a change to that system, even if small, has the ability to disturb the equilibrium and potentially create unwanted changes.

To put it in layman's terms, its the "straw that broke the camel's back" idea. The camel may have been successfully carrying 970 pounds of goods on his back (think of that as the "water vapor")- but if you toss a 1 lb bale of straw (think of that as anthropogenic CO2) on it's back, the camel might not be able to carry the load. That last little bit of straw was enough to screw things up, even though that straw was a tiny percentage of the weight the camel was carrying.

Scientists and people can discuss/argue the effect that the straw we call "man-made CO2" has on the system, but discussing percentages is irrelevant.

The reason anthropogenic (man-made) greenhouse gases (including CO2) are a hot topic is that WE CAN CONTROL THEM. We can't control the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere (nor can we control natural sources of CO2), but we can control our CO2 output.

Once you understand the problem, then you can better discuss what should be done about it (if anything).