Ajax wrote on Dec 25
th, 2018 at 9:00am:
Dnarever wrote on Dec 25
th, 2018 at 8:42am:
Ajax wrote on Dec 23
rd, 2018 at 10:09am:
With 200 countries on this planet is they all produced 1.24% the carbon emissions would quadruple or more ?
Over 85% are under 1% they all have the same excuse that it does not matter that you prefer to use for us yet combine all the countries at or below 1.24% and you will find that the overall percentage is huge.
Our 1.24% puts us at about number 13 in the list of high emitters, we are in fact one of the worst.
Natural CO2 emissions every year = 96% of total.
Manmade CO2 emissions every year = 4% approx. of total.
So 1.26% of 4% is going to make a difference......???
Wake up and get real FFS.
The amount of atmospheric CO2 has been increasing in line with the Natural emissions of CO2 not what man is throwing up.
This is because we have been warming since the little ice age and as we warm more natural CO2 is thrown up into the atmosphere from natural sinks, which eclipses anything man can do.
And lets not forget the logarithmic affect of CO2 either.
https://i.ibb.co/vHCPyJn/agw11.jpghttps://i.ibb.co/sqwVPxL/co2log-JPG.jpg All we can do is control what we are responsible for.
Your numbers are meaning less as the natural component is balanced, the problem is adding 4% per year above the point of balance for a century or so. What is 100 X 4% ?
Taking the economic advantage of acting earlier is not a bad economic choice it may save us billions in the long term and at the same time produce industries and technology with a real long term market value and benefit to Australia.
Playing catch up may be the very expensive result of our current behaviour.
This is because we have been warming since the little ice age
You know that the little ice age was not an ice age at all, it was a localised cool period the followed the medieval warm period, another localised event.
It is also evident that the graphs you display all measure the period of the Industrial revolution, Would that be because the period between the little Ice age and the Industrial Revolution fails to support the claim ? We know that the industrial revolution was the beginning of anthropological climate impact, when we started pumping quantities of Co2 into the atmosphere.
The graphs you supplied do not support what you would like them to, in fact they hurt your cause.