0ZB0N wrote:

CO2 is "only" 1% of the atmosphere,

More like 0.35% actually.

Graham

On Fri, 30 May 2008 10:54:39 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

0ZB0N wrote:

CO2 is "only" 1% of the atmosphere,

More like 0.35% actually.

0.35% in 1988.

April 2008 MLO has 387.19 PPM, or 0.38719%
Rounding fun
0.3872%
0.387%
0.39%
0.4%

ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt

On May 30, 9:38 am, phil hays wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2008 10:54:39 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
0ZB0N wrote:

CO2 is "only" 1% of the atmosphere,

More like 0.35% actually.

0.35% in 1988.

April 2008 MLO has 387.19 PPM, or 0.38719%
Rounding fun
0.3872%
0.387%
0.39%
0.4%

Ok, let's just say 0%

A well designed and operated hydroponic grow room would round that
down to zero fairly quickly, if it weren't for those pesky humans
there.

ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt

kT wrote:

phil hays wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2008 10:54:39 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
0ZB0N wrote:

CO2 is "only" 1% of the atmosphere,

More like 0.35% actually.

0.35% in 1988.

April 2008 MLO has 387.19 PPM, or 0.38719%
Rounding fun
0.3872%
0.387%
0.39%
0.4%

Ok, let's just say 0%

A well designed and operated hydroponic grow room would round that
down to zero fairly quickly, if it weren't for those pesky humans
there.

Human etc respiration is a bugger isn't it ?

Let's solve AGW by eliminating all animal life on earth. And presumably
quite a lot of plant life too. How about the fishies ?

Graham

On May 30, 10:07 am, Eeyore
wrote:
kT wrote:
phil hays wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2008 10:54:39 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
0ZB0N wrote:

CO2 is "only" 1% of the atmosphere,

More like 0.35% actually.

0.35% in 1988.

April 2008 MLO has 387.19 PPM, or 0.38719%
Rounding fun
0.3872%
0.387%
0.39%
0.4%

Ok, let's just say 0%

A well designed and operated hydroponic grow room would round that
down to zero fairly quickly, if it weren't for those pesky humans
there.

Human etc respiration is a bugger isn't it ?

On a global scale, no, it isn't.

I'd ask you to do the math yourself, but it would be fruitless.

Let's solve AGW by eliminating all animal life on earth. And presumably
quite a lot of plant life too. How about the fishies ?

Why don't you grow up, instead. Who knows, you might like it.

kT wrote:

On May 30, 10:07 am, Eeyore
wrote:
kT wrote:
phil hays wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2008 10:54:39 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
0ZB0N wrote:

CO2 is "only" 1% of the atmosphere,

More like 0.35% actually.

0.35% in 1988.

April 2008 MLO has 387.19 PPM, or 0.38719%
Rounding fun
0.3872%
0.387%
0.39%
0.4%

Ok, let's just say 0%

A well designed and operated hydroponic grow room would round that
down to zero fairly quickly, if it weren't for those pesky humans
there.

Human etc respiration is a bugger isn't it ?

On a global scale, no, it isn't.

I'd ask you to do the math yourself, but it would be fruitless.

I have done ages back. I suggest YOU do. You might get a surprise.

And never mind the cows.
http://www.algaelink.com/co2_from_cows.htm

" Cow emissions are more damaging the planet than CO2 from cars

The world’s 1.5 billion cattle are most to blame. Livestock are responsible
for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than
cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together. It generates 65
per cent of human-related nitrous oxide, which has 296 times the Global
Warming Potential (GWP) of CO2. Most of this comes from manure. "

http://www.algaelink.com/co2_from_cows.htm


Graham

On May 30, 11:13 am, Eeyore
wrote:
kT wrote:
On May 30, 10:07 am, Eeyore
wrote:
kT wrote:
phil hays wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2008 10:54:39 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
0ZB0N wrote:

CO2 is "only" 1% of the atmosphere,

More like 0.35% actually.

0.35% in 1988.

April 2008 MLO has 387.19 PPM, or 0.38719%
Rounding fun
0.3872%
0.387%
0.39%
0.4%

Ok, let's just say 0%

A well designed and operated hydroponic grow room would round that
down to zero fairly quickly, if it weren't for those pesky humans
there.

Human etc respiration is a bugger isn't it ?

On a global scale, no, it isn't.

I'd ask you to do the math yourself, but it would be fruitless.

I have done ages back. I suggest YOU do. You might get a surprise.

Soemhow, I doubt it.

And never mind the cows.

Apparently you have confused 'cows' with 'humans' and 'methane' with
'carbon dioxide'. Nevermind, it's a common mistake among crackpots.

kT wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

And never mind the cows.

Apparently you have confused 'cows' with 'humans' and 'methane' with
'carbon dioxide'. Nevermind, it's a common mistake among crackpots.

And why would a biofuel site lie about cows ?

" Cow emissions are more damaging the planet than CO2 from cars

The world’s 1.5 billion cattle are most to blame. Livestock are responsible
for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than
cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together. It generates 65
per cent of human-related nitrous oxide, which has 296 times the Global
Warming Potential (GWP) of CO2. Most of this comes from manure. "

http://www.algaelink.com/co2_from_cows.htm

Are you anti-biofuel too ?


Graham

On May 30, 12:14 pm, Eeyore
wrote:
kT wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

And never mind the cows.

Apparently you have confused 'cows' with 'humans' and 'methane' with
'carbon dioxide'. Nevermind, it's a common mistake among crackpots.

And why would a biofuel site lie about cows ?

We were discussing humans and carbon dioxide, and you immediately
switch the subject to cows and methane. That's called dishonesty.

Furthermore, you cite blogs and crap, not anything substantial :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livestock's_Long_Shadow

I believe the total amount contains all of the operational
contributions of fossil fuels to livestock management as well so again
you're dishonest.

kT wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
kT wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

And never mind the cows.

Apparently you have confused 'cows' with 'humans' and 'methane' with
'carbon dioxide'. Nevermind, it's a common mistake among crackpots.

And why would a biofuel site lie about cows ?

We were discussing humans and carbon dioxide, and you immediately
switch the subject to cows and methane. That's called dishonesty.

No, I threw in the cow thing for amusement.

Did you even read it ?

Graham