It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What percentage is Man responsible for Climate Change?

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 20 2016 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

You are kidding right? Man hasn't completely reshaped the surface of this planet? How can you possibly fathom man has had no impact. Did you ever see the Los Angeles valley before the smog was cleaned up. Have you seen air quality data from China. Can you even fathom the amount of CO2/methane release just from the animal population used to feed the billions of people on this planet.

Deny ignorance?? I think not.




posted on May, 20 2016 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Also just in the United states, 380 MILLION gallons of gasoline are burned each day. Yet you want to say humans have had NO impact. That seems silly.



posted on May, 20 2016 @ 04:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Kali74
Sunspot numbers. Annual mean. At solar max.

1979: 220
1989: 211
2000: 173
2014: 113

A 48% decline. Is it cooler than 1979?



It's cooler today where I live than it was this same date in 1979. And the sun has been hiding for several days. Coincidence? I think not.

(kidding, I understand weather vs. climate)



posted on May, 20 2016 @ 07:15 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

You know what I think, really?

We have no clue about the issue, and here we are arguing about the issue.

So then, typical human beings, right?




posted on May, 20 2016 @ 09:08 PM
link   
by my calculations its about 59.7867 %



posted on May, 20 2016 @ 09:22 PM
link   
Well we did blow a hole in the ozone fairly quick so I think it is possible that man can change other aspects of our atmosphere.

Unless the hole we did blow in the ozone was just a way to make it so we couldn't just use a flat screwdriver to empty air conditioners...

Was that just a conspiracy to ween us off of CFC's?

Who knows...



posted on May, 21 2016 @ 08:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: syrinx high priest
by my calculations its about 59.7867 %


I'd like to see the math.



posted on May, 21 2016 @ 08:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jonjonj
a reply to: network dude

You know what I think, really?

We have no clue about the issue, and here we are arguing about the issue.

So then, typical human beings, right?



EXACTLY!



posted on May, 21 2016 @ 08:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Terminal1
Well we did blow a hole in the ozone fairly quick so I think it is possible that man can change other aspects of our atmosphere.

Unless the hole we did blow in the ozone was just a way to make it so we couldn't just use a flat screwdriver to empty air conditioners...

Was that just a conspiracy to ween us off of CFC's?

Who knows...


I wonder about that. Didn't we try to test nukes in near space at some point, then decide it was kind of a dumb thing to do? What was the time frame of that opposed to the Ozone hole? I realize that would still equal man's input damaging the planet, but then, I doubt anyone denies that detonating thermonuclear bombs could in fact have a slight impact on the planet as we know it.



posted on May, 21 2016 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Well... the hole appeared over the poles...

Who knows... though never really thought of the nuke testing. That was late 50s.
Now you done it. I was wanting a lazy Saturday morning. Now I gotta research...


edit on 21-5-2016 by Terminal1 because: Corrected 40s to 50s



posted on May, 21 2016 @ 09:20 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

its above top secret



posted on May, 21 2016 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

From what I can gather...

Ozone studies began in 1977 and Nimbus-7 launched in 1978 which was supposed to last 1 year. It ended up lasting 14 years. Two scientists in California discovered that CFCs destroyed ozone in 1977 and it became a hot topic.

In 1984 the hole appeared out of nowhere in the data. There were hints as early as 1981 but the hole really didn't appear until 1983-1984 time frame which spurred on the Montreal Protocol and ban on CFCs.

Now on to nuke testing. High altitude nuclear testing went on from 1958 to 1962 with both the US and Russia involved. Starfish Prime by the US was the largest which arguably caused an artificial radiation belt disabling a third of satellites in low Earth orbit. The US conducted two more tests (Checkmate and Kingfish) but those two were nowhere near as high or as powerful. Russia conducted 3 more tests after Starfish Prime but none of those were as high or powerful as Starfish Prime.

My thoughts are the time lines don't match outside of secret testing but high altitude blasts are very hard to conceal being everyone can see them.

Just what I have found over my sausage gravy and biscuit breakfast. Sorry no links but on my phone.



posted on May, 21 2016 @ 11:21 AM
link   
November 5, 1982 issue of SCIENCE magazine:

The worlds total of termites emits 10 times the CO2 than does the entire population of humans, all their factories and all their vehicles combined. Makeup of CO2 in the atmosphere: .04%. The atmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 billion tons (scary big number?). Man's contribution is .83% of .04% of the atmosphere. Manmade CO2 is not a significant greenhouse gas at those numbers. Water vapor accounts for up to 95% of all solar radiation attenuation.



posted on May, 21 2016 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: tkwasny

The worlds total of termites emits 10 times the CO2 than does the entire population of humans, all their factories and all their vehicles combined.
The thing is, that CO2 comes out of the air in the first place. Plants capture it, termites eat the plants and release the CO2 back into the atmosphere. Carbon cycle.

Unless those termites are tunneling really deep and eating coal and oil which contains carbon that was sequestered millions upon millions of years ago they aren't changing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. On the other hand, we are.



Manmade CO2 is not a significant greenhouse gas at those numbers.
False. CO2 concentrations from 280ppm before the industrial age to 400ppm. That is significant.


Water vapor accounts for up to 95% of all solar radiation attenuation.
The concentration of water vapor is temperature dependent. The concentration of CO2 is not. If the atmosphere cools (like at night) water condenses out of the atmosphere, CO2 does not. When CO2 causes the atmosphere to warm the atmosphere can hold more water vapor. There is an amplification effect.

edit on 5/21/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2016 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

More than zero, and more importantly, way more than we have to.



posted on May, 21 2016 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

+1000000000000000000



posted on May, 21 2016 @ 04:39 PM
link   
The American education system has failed us.



posted on May, 21 2016 @ 07:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: tkwasny
November 5, 1982 issue of SCIENCE magazine:

The worlds total of termites emits 10 times the CO2 than does the entire population of humans, all their factories and all their vehicles combined. Makeup of CO2 in the atmosphere: .04%. The atmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 billion tons (scary big number?). Man's contribution is .83% of .04% of the atmosphere. Manmade CO2 is not a significant greenhouse gas at those numbers. Water vapor accounts for up to 95% of all solar radiation attenuation.

Uh... wrong on many points here. Stop believing every dumb thing you read on the internet.

originally posted by: Greven
Earth's atmosphere: 5,148,000 gigatonnes (Gt) = a
Mean molar mass of the atmosphere: 28.97g/mole = b
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) molar mass: 44.0095 g/mole = c
Atmospheric CO2 ppm, November 2015: 400.16 ppm = e
Atmospheric CO2 mass, November 2014 (a * (c / b) * d): 3,106.7812 Gt = f
Atmospheric CO2 mass, November 2015 (a * (c / b) * e): 3,129.4654 Gt = g
Atmospheric CO2 mass increase (g - f): 22.6842 Gt

You're way off on your CO2 math.

As for termites?

Global annual emissions calculated from laboratory measurements could reach 1.5 x 10(14) grams of methane and 5 x 10(16) grams of carbon dioxide.

1 Gt = 1x10^15 grams. From the 1982 article, 1x10^16 grams of CO2 implies 50 Gt of CO2 from termites annually. This figure is much too high:

originally posted by: Greven
Additionally, termites produce an estimated 3.5 +/- 0.66 gigatonnes of CO2 annually. A gigatonne is 10^9 tonnes, so ~3,500,000,000 tonnes of CO2. Humans produced 26.8 billion tonnes of CO2 in 2003, while volcanoes average 200 million tonnes of CO annually. The U.S. alone produces far more CO2 than termites - over 5 billion tonnes of CO2 annually for the last twenty years.

Besides the already mentioned bit about termites not emitting unearthed CO2 into the atmosphere...
edit on 20Sat, 21 May 2016 20:12:42 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago5 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2016 @ 01:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: MrThortan
The American education system has failed us.


And given US global influence, they're not just letting themselves down, they're letting the whole world down.



posted on May, 22 2016 @ 05:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Greven
Additionally, termites produce an estimated 3.5 +/- 0.66 gigatonnes of CO2 annually. A gigatonne is 10^9 tonnes, so ~3,500,000,000 tonnes of CO2. Humans produced 26.8 billion tonnes of CO2 in 2003, while volcanoes average 200 million tonnes of CO annually. The U.S. alone produces far more CO2 than termites - over 5 billion tonnes of CO2 annually for the last twenty years.

According to that study "However, it should be noted that the emissions of methane from only 1% of termites have been measured. The number of species of termites whose emissions of carbon dioxide have been measured is even smaller. The errors in the annual emissions of trace gases therefore remain to be fully quantified". Of course it's possible that the CO2 emissions measured from the less than 1% of termite species could be considerably lower than the average from all species combined and we wouldn't know until the CO2 emissions from more species have been measured. So I don't think we can draw any definitive conclusions from that study regarding CO2 emissions from all termites.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join