|Co2A (Co2 Atmosphere) = SUM(SOURCES)-SUM(SINKS)14-07-2012 14:21|
|That's adding up all the SOURCES of Co2 and then subtracting all the SINKS for Co2. E.g. some gets belched by volcanoes and animals (SOURCES) and some gets consumed by plants and the oceans (SINKS). The overall majority of Co2 sources are non human in origin. No one even looks at the other side of this equation (SINKS) any more and its as important if not more important than the SOURCES side.|
In my view the real culprit for Co2 increases is deforestation. Human emissions are a tiny % of the Co2A and do not correlate with the Co2A increases. Cutting down trees removes the O2 sources and at the same time the Co2 sinks thereby having a larger effect on the Co2 % increase as trees belch oxygen and consume Co2. Co2 emissions alone has less net effect in the Co2A equation or at least no one is talking about industry consuming Oxygen while emitting Co2.
Recent NASA satellite records show an alarming reduction in the worlds' Co2 sinks (forests). Replanting these forests is actually going to make a real and tangible difference as more forests = more sinks. Unfortunately the market for tree farm lumber has wained in recent years so it needs government investment to make it happen. Doing the Carbon Tax jig is going to delay solving the real problem. If there were a way to fit planted forests into the economic models then even the economists would find it hard to argue and anyway why are we listening to a bunch of economists instead of the basic science?
Edited on 14-07-2012 14:21
|Is Gore's theory CO2 causes warming false?||7||16-01-2019 22:27|
|10 ppm O3 in atmosphere absorb 98% of UV. So what makes you thin first 10 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere don||1||14-01-2019 09:11|
|CO2 and Some transparency||62||14-01-2019 05:09|
|Why would an atmosphere made of O2 not trap heat?||15||11-01-2019 19:25|
|10 ppm O3 in atomsphere absorb 98% of UV. 10 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere absorb 98% of IR. So why would||2||11-01-2019 18:54|