The manufacturing of one turbine produces 250,000 lbs. of CO2. <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/vCGuaRqv8No" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Yes methane eventually degrades into CO2 and water. But the amount of CO2 from methane in the atmosphere, if ALL the methane became CO2 the forcing of this CO2 can be estimated as follows. methane is 20x greater in greenhouse effect methane now accounts for 28% of temp forcing thus the CO2 from the methane, if ALL the methane degraded into CO2, would be 1/20 ie . 05 times 28% = 1.4%. Now this is an admittedly crude calculation but leads to the answer that the CO2 from oxidized methane now contributes no more than 1.4% to the warming. Again, climatologists know about this. 97% of all the worlds climatologists and all the world's science organizations agree on the fact of man-made global warming due to CO2 from man's activities. They also know how much fossil fuels we have burnt and are burning. From there it is simple math to determine how much CO2 we have put into the earth's atmosphere and oceans. Also, this CO2 has a certain isotope ratio. The CO2 in our atmosphere can be identified as from fossil fuel burning by this ratio. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/...-CO2-is-man-made-and-other-carbon-isotope-fun Whack-a-mole. Whack!
I don't watch stupid vacuous emotionally warped videos. What's the gist of it? Show me an article. The data. I know how to read.
I see you learned a new word, vacuous. I counter with being tired of reading posts from the vapid narcissists which make up the GW cult.:eek:
Psssst. (Futurecurrents only believes in "manipulated" data. None of this raw data that shows the real situation. To that he turns a blind eye.)
You admit earlier that warming is occurring, but here you imply that those who believe it are cultists.
Yes me and virtually all the world's climatologists and relevant scientists, we only like "manipulated data". Been bitch-slapping any "bitches" recently douche-bag? Quote from pspr: You then slapped her senseless, of course.
q. whats a climatologist without a govt grant? a. unemployable. http://www.climatepedia.org/about-climatologist-careers Biggest Employers 34% of atmospheric scientists are employed by the federal government, most in the National Weather Service (NWS) [7] NASA NOAA Environmental Consulting Firms -- (mostly total bullshit to comply with govt rules I am sure.) Corporations: as an in-house environmental consultant (corps feeding on govt trough) Universities â Research positions, teachers, and classroom or lab assistants (feeding on student loans to charge high tuition for useless degree) The state that employs the most atmospheric scientists is Colorado, with 1,220 as of 2009. [12] One major reason for this is the National Corporation for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), located in Boulder. (more useless jobs)
Of course it's occurring. The raw data shows that. The cultists have done a very good job of framing the argument. Anyone questioning the root cause is labeled a non-believer accross the board. Makes for effective rhetoric on the campaign trail. It's not the either/or debate they have turned it in to.