It sounds like a small number, but it is significant. And pay attention to the rate of change, that is where the major significance lies. The full glacial-to-interglacial change in carbon 12/13 of the atmosphere — which took many thousands of years — was about 0.03%. The total change in the Carbon 12/13 ratio of the atmosphere since 1850 is about 0.15%. Five times as much, in a much smaller period. What is special about 1958, AGW was in full force at that time. Step back and take a longer perspective. The dramatic increase in CO2 since the start of the industrial revolution is evident. The graph is bogus. What is your source? According to the scientific literature and climate experts, CO2 contributes anywhere from 9% to 30% to the overall greenhouse effect. H2O in the troposphere is a feedback effect, it is not a forcing agent. Simply put, any artificial perturbation in water vapour concentrations is too short lived to change the climate. Too much in the air will quickly rain out, not enough and the abundant ocean surface will provide the difference via evaporation. But once the air is warmed by other means, H2O concentrations will rise and stay high, thus providing the feedback. RealClimate: Calculating the greenhouse effect
Let's just say EVERYTHING you listed is ABSOLUTE fact. If that's the case why are so many man-made global warming alarmists still continuing to increase their "carbon footprint"? Why should we have credits or offsets? Why shouldn't everything come to a halt? Why is it that money and power seem to be the only answers/solutions being offered by the alarmists? Once again...until those who believe this start leading by example you haven't got much of a prayer of anything changing. If the most vocal supporters of man-made global warming truly believe what they preach, they are the biggest hypocrites in history. You can argue the science but you can't defend people like Al Gore who waste more than most in the world. He's one of those evil rich 1%. (YOU should tax him now!)
You should ask "them". I speak for myself. I don't remember mentioning either of those things, are you sure you are arguing with the right person? Go ask an alarmist. What money and power solutions have I offfered? Be specific. I'm carbon negative. End of story. Show me where I have ever defended AL Gore, his politics, or even cited him. Good luck with that. You are ranting about policies by people not here and expecting me to defend them instead of responding to what I write.
Red...you have NO power or influence so my argument isn't solely with you. I have a problem with people who claim science proves man-made global warming and use scare tactics and "the sky is falling" comments. When you ask for their solutions it's always the same...give us money & power. They don't practice what they preach and are often the biggest violators but yet blame everyone else. (Sounds like someone in the oval office...:thumb Many man-made global warming alarmists demand change yet aren't willing to make ANY sacrifices to support their assertions. That's hypocrisy and is ALWAYS present when liberals argue an issue. One question for you: How are you carbon negative? What methods/activities are you employing? If this is something that can be done without tax credits, mandates, regulations, etc...then I'll support you and hope all man-made global warming believers follow your lead.
Not a "money and power" solution. No, its a smaller one and it serves the purpose of both a truck and a sedan for me, so I don't have to drive two vehicles. My commute is obscenely short, so I don't burn a lot of gas. I live in an energy efficient small house ina tree-shaded pedestrian neighborhood and walk to stores, bars, eateries, and barber shop. And I own a forest. Carbon negative.
Then don't address your comments to me. I'll defend my own positions, not those of anybody you find on TV or the internet. Always the same? Give me a list of these power and money solutions. Some of the solutions are as simple and cheap as planting more trees than we cut. Who are these people? Be specific. I own about 140,000 trees. They suck up carbon dioxide, far more than I use to power my small energy efficient house and my short commute.
What, pray tell, is a "cap and trade tax for everyone"? I've explained to you several times how cap and trade works and you still don't have a clue.
