Chinahand Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 No offence, Chinahand - but your graph does not address my question, which was: We know how much CO2 mankind has put into the atmosphere; so, remind me just how much that is - as a percentage of the total of CO2 in the atmosphere? ERm - the graph clearly show that up until the industrial area CO2 levels were approximately 280 ppm - they are currently about 380 ppm ie a 35% increase. They are projected to go up to a range of 550 ppm to 1000 ppm over the next century - an increase of between 96% and 350% - just due to demographics and development levels getting below a doubling of CO2 will be very very very difficult if not impossible. Lonan3 - are you wanting this information in tonnes of CO2 or something rather than the percentage man has contributed - don't understand!? The graph clearly shows how much CO2 has and will be put into the atmosphere - you can work out the percentages very easily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurkah Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 And there we have it, as some kind of miracle and somewhat forcing me to eat my hat regarding of France's position, a deal has indeed been reached: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6433503.stm So now the EU leaders have agreed to: 1. Cut CO2 emmissions by 2020 to 20% less than that of 1990. 2. 20% of power generation will be from renewable sources by 2020. Incredible and does give me some hope to offset the depression I had initially reading this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Dave Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 No offence, Chinahand - but your graph does not address my question, which was: We know how much CO2 mankind has put into the atmosphere; so, remind me just how much that is - as a percentage of the total of CO2 in the atmosphere? It answers your question... Look at the first graph Chinahand posted. Prior to man's involvement, the CO2 level was about 280ppm (parts per million). It is currently 400ppm. So mankind has contributed 30% of the total atmospheric CO2. It is reasonable to assume that the full 120ppm difference is due to mankind by the fact that the level never went above 280ppm for the 300,000 ish years before the last couple of centuries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurkah Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 People need to open their minds more and not be the sheep governments want them to be. To be honest in your case, I'd start with getting a mind and then worry about opening it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 ERm - the graph clearly show that up until the industrial area CO2 levels were approximately 280 ppm - they are currently about 380 ppm ie a 35% increase. They are projected to go up to a range of 550 ppm to 1000 ppm over the next century - an increase of between 96% and 350% - just due to demographics and development levels getting below a doubling of CO2 will be very very very difficult if not impossible. Lonan3 - are you wanting this information in tonnes of CO2 or something rather than the percentage man has contributed - don't understand!? The graph clearly shows how much CO2 has and will be put into the atmosphere - you can work out the percentages very easily. I'm not a scientist. I'm not a mathematician. I'm asking how much CO2 is there in the atmosphere - as a % of the atmosphere - and what % of it can definitely be attributed to man-made sources? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Dave Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 I'm not a scientist. I'm not a mathematician. I'm asking how much CO2 is there in the atmosphere - as a % of the atmosphere - and what % of it can definitely be attributed to man-made sources? CO2 accounts for ~0.04% of atmospheric gases. Of which 30% is probably attributable to human input. The percentage that can definitely be attributed to man-made sources is 0%, because if you want certainties, you're looking in the wrong place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringwraith Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 I'm not a scientist. I'm not a mathematician. I'm asking how much CO2 is there in the atmosphere - as a % of the atmosphere - and what % of it can definitely be attributed to man-made sources? Not a lot. WIKI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 ERm - the graph clearly show that up until the industrial area CO2 levels were approximately 280 ppm - they are currently about 380 ppm ie a 35% increase. They are projected to go up to a range of 550 ppm to 1000 ppm over the next century - an increase of between 96% and 350% - just due to demographics and development levels getting below a doubling of CO2 will be very very very difficult if not impossible. Lonan3 - are you wanting this information in tonnes of CO2 or something rather than the percentage man has contributed - don't understand!? The graph clearly shows how much CO2 has and will be put into the atmosphere - you can work out the percentages very easily. I'm not a scientist. I'm not a mathematician. I'm asking how much CO2 is there in the atmosphere - as a % of the atmosphere - and what % of it can definitely be attributed to man-made sources? pre industrial 0.028% Now 0.038% End of century 0.055% to 0.1% The increase is as close to "definitely down to man" as you can get scientifically - its ancient carbon from the radioisotopes in it - ie its oil and coal. Link They look tiny percentages which is why I also gave the chart showing how important this is in contributing to green house warming - CO2 is the major contributor and its increase will have a huge effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 The percentage that can definitely be attributed to man-made sources is 0%, because if you want certainties, you're looking in the wrong place. Thank you. Your reasoned reply is in stark contrast to the storm-trooper mentality of many contributors - on both sides of the fence. For those of you who venerate science, you must realise that convincing the average person (such as myself) that he/she can make a difference to global warming, is going to be an uphill task. It will not be achieved by browbeating. It will not be achieved by wrapping everything up in scientific terminology. It will not be achieved by the offerings of scientific or political personalities. The Channel4 programme made an impact because it addressed the questions in simple (possibly too simple?) terms that everyone could understand. There is, whether you like it or not, an underlying current of feeling that we are being cheated over issues such as this - that people keep telling us, not only what is best for us, but that it's all our fault that everything's in such a mess and that we are going to have to change our ways, pay more, and hope to put it right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurkah Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 Perhaps I might take a stab at describing your underlying current of feeling: ignorance. P.S. I don't think it's strictly necessary to be a mathematician to work out a percentage myself but there you go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 The percentage that can definitely be attributed to man-made sources is 0%, because if you want certainties, you're looking in the wrong place. Thank you. Your reasoned reply is in stark contrast to the storm-trooper mentality of many contributors - on both sides of the fence. For those of you who venerate science, you must realise that convincing the average person (such as myself) that he/she can make a difference to global warming, is going to be an uphill task. It will not be achieved by browbeating. It will not be achieved by wrapping everything up in scientific terminology. It will not be achieved by the offerings of scientific or political personalities. The Channel4 programme made an impact because it addressed the questions in simple (possibly too simple?) terms that everyone could understand. There is, whether you like it or not, an underlying current of feeling that we are being cheated over issues such as this - that people keep telling us, not only what is best for us, but that it's all our fault that everything's in such a mess and that we are going to have to change our ways, pay more, and hope to put it right. Just to flip Dr Dave's statement round - scientists are over 95% certain that the increase in CO2 is due to man. Things are never certain - but I'd say that we are about as certain CO2 increases are down to man as we are certain that cancer is caused by cumulative mutations in cell DNA. There's a debate, but its a technical one, and as far as the "average person" is concerned the basic statement - CO2 increases are predominently caused by man - is true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Dave Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 Thank you.Your reasoned reply is in stark contrast to the storm-trooper mentality of many contributors - on both sides of the fence. Hmm, not quite the message I was trying to convey there. I'm of the opinion that too many people reject perfectly good science by asking questions like "what percentage can definitely be attributed?" and failing to get scientists to agree to an absolute. As I tried to spell out in my previous post, there are no absolutes in science, there never will be, the debate will never end. But sometimes you've got to abandon any hope of definites and go with something that is the majority opinion - especially with an issue that is as time critical as this. The Channel4 programme made an impact because it addressed the questions in simple (possibly too simple?) terms that everyone could understand. Then this is a bad thing, because it made a disproportionate impression in comparison to the weight of support for the view that it was trying to get across. It also presented as "facts" data that was at best misleading and at worst plain wrong. There is, whether you like it or not, an underlying current of feeling that we are being cheated over issues such as this - that people keep telling us, not only what is best for us, but that it's all our fault that everything's in such a mess and that we are going to have to change our ways, pay more, and hope to put it right. Surgeons tell you what is the best operation for a particular malady. Do you feel cheated by this? Aeronautical engineers tell you what is the best shape for a plane wing. Do you feel cheated by this? The truth is, science is just too damned big and too damned complicated for anyone to possibly grasp the whole of it, so we're forced to trust in the experts. I just find it interesting that some experts are deemed more trustworthy than others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cambon Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 People need to open their minds more and not be the sheep governments want them to be. To be honest in your case, I'd start with getting a mind and then worry about opening it. Are you that "Tuna Sandwich" bloke with a new monica? My mind is alive and well, and has never been concerned with man made CO2. Yes I saw part of the program last night but it did not really interest me, as Al Gore's film does not interest me. Personally, I think the population of this planet have more important things to worry about, like will Dubbya press the big red button, or piss someone olse off enoug to make them press it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 The Channel4 programme made an impact because it addressed the questions in simple (possibly too simple?) terms that everyone could understand. But the science isn't easy to understand. And pepole are far too ready to jump on the sensationalists because it supports the easy option: that there's nothing wrong and even if there was there's fuck all you can do about it. That someones coming from this stance and telling us that we should open our minds is hilarious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurkah Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 Are you that "Tuna Sandwich" bloke with a new monica? Who? I've made as many posts to this board as the number on the left there. I form part of an elite squad of mainland minds that come here, when summoned, to deal with localised outbreaks of idiocy. My mind is alive and well, and has never been concerned with man made CO2. Yes I saw part of the program last night but it did not really interest me, as Al Gore's film does not interest me. Personally, I think the population of this planet have more important things to worry about, like will Dubbya press the big red button, or piss someone olse off enoug to make them press it. Righty. Proper deep thinker. Carry on. Edit: I've been clued in as to who Tuna Sandwich is. If you have a look in a thread back you'll find me having a spirited argument with this chap. Which, presumably, is all part of an elaborate conspiratorial ruse to pull the wool over your eyes. What's that on my doorstep? Why it's another black envelope stuffed full of secret government cash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.