Suppressed has lost his entitlement to a direct answer because of his history of ignoring direct questions on this thread and insulting people (such as I) who disagree with his conclusions or data without then apologizing when proven wrong. For example, in another part of the thread, he tried to dismiss my post by stating that I, "obviously did not understand radiative forcing". In my substantive response post to his insulting one, I explained radiative forcing using terms that made it understandable even to those who might not have much technical understanding of science, demonstrating that not only did I understand it, I understood it better than he. Suppressed then scurried away like a rude coward without apologizing nor responding substantive to my post (which he still has not done) for about three weeks using some lame excuse that he was going to be "out of town" (as if they didn't have the Internet wherever he went. The Amazon River? Antarctica? The Moon?)Then he came back and tried to take up where he left off as if nothing had happened. Rude. That's why I ignore his post and do not give him the courtesy of a direct one.
I will be opening another thread on AGW data.
NOTE': For those interested in following the debate (which AGW advocates insist is over, QED) I will be opening a thread on the general topic which will include correct data on natural v. anthropogenic contributions of CO2 to the atmosphere. Out of courtesy to those people who may have followed the debate to this point I will present the numbers here as a last contribution to information :
Natural annual contributions to the total atmospheric C02 (an inert trace gas which is never more than about 0.04% of the total atmosphere) from natural sources is:
Natural (volcanoes, decay of vegetation, plains/forest fires, deep ocean current upwelling of methane): not less than 750 - 900 gigatonnes per year.
Anthropogenic : (industry, automobiles, other activities*) ONLY about 35-45 gigatonnes.
Do the math.
As far as Suppressed is concerned, I hope that he is more courteous and responsive on another thread than he has been on this one. Enjoy the Super Bowl everyone or whatever you like to do on Sundays!
PS Since I last viewed Wikipedia's website on Carbon Dioxide, they have apparently scrubbed all previously-listed data concerning total natural C02 contributions and instead added tangential, opinion-laden minutiae related to unproven speculative conjectures like Carbon Forcing, so I will provide another reference for this data. Clearly Wikipedia has in regard to AGW, decided to suppress objective presentation of data and instead become a source for AGW propaganda. Wikipedia has previously done this is in regard to many other politicized issues.
BTW, for anyone interested in finding the correct total natural vs. human contribution information immediately, I suggest referring to the bibliography in the back of "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton. You remember him? He was that oil company shill whose information could not be trusted because he got all of his income and power from oil companies. WHAT? Oh. He was a surgeon and immensely successful writer who made hundreds of millions of dollars from writing books, creating T.V. productions like E.R. and feature films, not from oil companies? Oh. Never mind.
PPS For anyone who is concerned with the extremely weak, peripheral argument presented in the above post. In years where there is a larger-than-average volcanic eruption, the amount of C02 emitted into the atmosphere can be significantly more than the 200+ gigatonnes mentioned above. It is notable that even the lower amount ( referred to as "ONLY 230 gigatonnes") is significantly more than the entire average annual output of C02 by the ENTIRE HUMAN RACE in an average year.
Have a good life Suppressed, I hope that you show more courtesy and demonstrate more honor to others as a general rule than you have show to me and other posters on this thread. I am resigning from this thread now.
* China contributes more to the total atmospheric carbon dioxide than the United States because of the massive numbers of older ICE vehicles, wood fires and dirty coal plants (used for cooking/heating/industry). That is also the case in Oceania and the rest of the second-tier economies of the far east. So even if we fitted ever cow in the U.S. and Europe with a fart collector (rolls eyes) it would not begin to offset the amount of C02 emitted by far-eastern industry and unregulated public sources like wood and coal burning.