"Monster" greenhouse gas levels in 2010 (retire, state, claim)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yeah, but that's all a bunch of science dorks. What do they know? I don't understand the aversion to reducing pollutants. Should we just let things continue until a crisis forms, and then try to fix it when it's too late? Why is it a bad thing to minimize our impact?
CO2 is not pollution. If it is then reduce your footprint and hang yourself.
CO2 is not pollution. If it is then reduce your footprint and hang yourself.
It is a chemical when which is present in excess causes disruptions to the environment. Do you actually have a reason why we shouldn't reduce emissions of substances that can be harmful to our environment?
"The world pumped about 564 million more tons of carbon into the air in 2010 than it did in 2009. That's an increase of 6 percent. That amount of extra pollution eclipses the individual emissions of all but three countries - China, the United States and India, the world's top producers of greenhouse gases."
Good thing co2 makes up a miniscule % of greenhouse gas. Ooops the article failed to point that out.
I hope these loons are right because it's already snowed here and I don't like winter much anymore. A year long growing season would do us all nice and allow for more baseball.
Regardless of the greenhouse aspect, which most people will only believe once they are directly affected, what worries me as well is the reason behind the rise, namely that the developing world is dramatically increasing its use of fossil energies. If that trend goes on like that, energy and other resources will become scarce much faster and/or much more expensive than expected And since so many people are incapable of thinking of an alternative, low-profile life-style, I guess I am happy to neither be around anymore a few decades from now, nor have kids...
Not to mention that just a few days ago the 7 billionth human was born...
Yeah, but that's all a bunch of science dorks. What do they know? I don't understand the aversion to reducing pollutants. Should we just let things continue until a crisis forms, and then try to fix it when it's too late? Why is it a bad thing to minimize our impact?
In a word: yes. That is standard operating procedure for the cretins who prefer no regulations, no proactive or preventative maintenance and the like. Someone on this forum actually stated, rather emphatically, that our infrastructure is not crumbling - it is just a lie put forth by Democrats!
They seem to think that the argument 'well, it happened before' is somehow germane as if there is any comparison between previous dramatic changes and what could happen now.
The fact that there are now 7 billion people who could be impacted is totally beyond their notice.
Even if, as they argue, all of those people and industry had absolutely no effect, wouldn't basic concern for one's fellow humans inspire some sort of desire to stave off some sort of 'natural' catastrophe to whatever extent possible?
I've come to the conclusion that they honestly don't care.
Ahhhhh run for the hills!!!
Good thing co2 makes up a miniscule % of greenhouse gas. Ooops the article failed to point that out.
That 'miniscule' amount of gas is a major reason why Earth's average temperature is not 0 C.
This argument constantly thrown out there (CO2 is a trace gas, so it cannot contribute to warming of the planet) is simply scientifically untrue. CO2 has a significant radiative forcing on the planet. I am happy to entertain scientific debates as to contributions of CO2 vs. other forcings on the planet's climate, however. But as scientists, I don't engage with people who cannot accept already determined facts.
Good grief, you know better than that. The temperature is still increasing, the sea levels are rising, glaciers are melting...What makes you say there is no warming trend? Is that the GOP party line, or are you a shill for big oil?
the sealevels have been the same for my entire life ( I am 75). infact they have decreased slightly
Good grief, you know better than that. The temperature is still increasing, the sea levels are rising, glaciers are melting...What makes you say there is no warming trend? Is that the GOP party line, or are you a shill for big oil?
Even the new BEST data shows no statistical rise in global land surface temperatures. the ocean heat content has actually dropped in the last few years (we call this PDO/Cool Phase ENSO La Nina)
Glaciers have been melting at a steady pace since the end of the LIA and Sea Levels have been rising at a steady rate for about 5000 years. I should also note that the rate of rise has declined in the last 5 or so years.
AND for all the talk about "big oil" the fact is that while oil companies have pumped some millions into research (on both sides) governments have pumped hundreds of BILLIONS into research almost exclusively on the side of the AGW proponents.
so no. you are not right.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.