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.
It's called an analogy... was that your first one?
You suggest a small percentage couldn't be responsible for a major change and I disagree with an analogy.
Quote:
The point is, you think the 86% of the 0.033% of naturally occurring carbon in the atmosphere has no effect, and only the 14% or 0.0.004% from humans does.
CO2 is just one emission. Let's not be dumb here and assume CO2 is the only emission we are responsible for emitting. Adding increasingly more CO2 than the planet would otherwise normally have go back into the carbon cycle will certainly have a consequence, along with other emissions.
Lastly, adding more CO2 will exacerbate the problem if factors outside of our control (increased solar and/or geological activity) were to grow.
BTW it's funny how climate change deniars only look to "global warming studies" or BS in the WSJ or Forbes to find 'evidence (or not) of man-made climate change. One only has to travel and read non-partisan reports or updates from a variety of sources worldwide to know this is real. You are one of the last, so I applaud your stubborness.
MIT’s Richard Lindzen, the unalarmed climate scientist..yeah i guess richard lindzen a leading climate scientist gets all his info from as you would say... BS global warming studies" from the WSJ or Forbes ...
It is a scientific fact that the glaciers are melting due to global warming, and that fossil fuel consumption is the primary cause. What is unknown is the exact effect. If the Gulf Stream is impacted by the melting glaciers there are a number of possible scenarios, such as...
Melting Glaciers Could Disrupt Warm Gulf Stream Currents
Among the greatest fears scientists have about global warming is that it will cause the massive ice fields of Greenland and other locales at the northern end of the Gulf Stream to melt rapidly, sending surges of cold water into the ocean system and interrupting the flow of the Ocean Conveyor Belt.
One doomsday scenario is that such an event would stop or disrupt the whole Ocean Conveyor Belt system, plunging Western Europe into a new ice age without the benefit of the warmth delivered by the Gulf Stream.
No, Gretsky, I don't hold you and yours in high enough esteem to allow you to get on my nerves. But keep the dream alive, if it keeps you warm at night.
Climate change exists, the real argument is how much mankind has contributed to it. One thing is for damned sure, we cannot continue to poison the air and water, and suck out all of our natural resources without paying a price.
Do you have any idea what an increase of 14% arsenic will do to a human body. Don't assume because the % is small, it is unable to have a magnified effect.
CO2 is tied with O2 and H2O for the title of "molecule that human life is totally dependent on" while arsenic is nothing of the sort. Your body does not produce arsenic in the process of every breath you take. Plants do not use arsenic in the photosynthesis process. Greenhouses do not use tanks of arsenic to make plants grow greener, bigger, and heartier. In short, it's an absurd comparison.
The human contribution to CO2 as a percentage of the greenhouse gas volume is 0.4%. That's it. And your magnified effect theory disregards this thing called "the saturation point" in regards to infrared absorption (the thing that let's CO2 trap heat in the atmosphere) and that water + naturally occurring CO2 + all other GHG molecules govern 99.6% of the greenhouse gas volume and the GHG volume's effect on the global mean temperature.
Question...do people who work in greenhouses drop over dead from the vastly increased CO2 concentrations within the structure? How about tourists who stroll through said greenhouses? I've been to several botanical gardens with increased humidity, CO2 and temperature, and not only have I not keeled over from being in them, I was amazed to see abundant flora thriving in such an environment. How is this possible? I thought an increase in CO2 killed just like arsenic?
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.
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.
