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.
Looking at the relative percentage of atmospheric concentrations is a built-in distortion. Because humans don't "exchange" CO2 with the atmosphere, using this argument, in the end 100% of the CO2 will be from human emissions. In time, the planet adjusts to absorb the additionally released CO2. I agree with you that we should stop deforestation though.
No, the atmospheric concentration is what causes global warming. One needs to deal with the flux only to the extent that we are tracking sources and sinks to make the accounting work.
Atmospheric CO2 has increased by about 25% due to anthropogenic sources since the industrial age. It's not a distortion because it's the atmospheric CO2 that interacts with sunlight and the black body radiation. The stuff that's sequestered doesn't matter as long as it says there.
No, the atmospheric concentration is what causes global warming. One needs to deal with the flux only to the extent that we are tracking sources and sinks to make the accounting work.
Atmospheric CO2 has increased by about 25% due to anthropogenic sources since the industrial age. It's not a distortion because it's the atmospheric CO2 that interacts with sunlight and the black body radiation. The stuff that's sequestered doesn't matter as long as it says there.
The planet is overpopulated. Because of that, as global warming becomes more and more intense, there will be nowhere for people to run to. There will be border wars and water wars. Corporations are already trying to buy up water resources in the world. Bush's new land in Paraguay contains a huge water reserve. Spain is already purchasing water, their shortages are becoming so bad.
We cannot control the entire planet. We can control our contribution to its possible demise.
It is inevitable that we will take measures. The only question will be 'will we do it in time?'
Fortunately, it is McCain who is saying these things, and not only liberals.
In a time of not only national, but world crisis, I would think we are mature enough to unite and tackle this problem, instead of foolish, emotional comments which contribute nothing to the solution.
There are religious fundamentalists who also recognize the problem and are trying to do something about it.
Especially if we have children, we owe it to the future to do our part and not leave a planet in chaos to them.
Atmospheric CO2 has increased by about 25% due to anthropogenic sources since the industrial age. It's not a distortion because it's the atmospheric CO2 that interacts with sunlight and the black body radiation. The stuff that's sequestered doesn't matter as long as it says there.
First of all, as I stated in my original post, there is no conclusive link that increased CO2 levels drive higher temperature. In fact, the correlation is actually the opposite: temperature lags CO2 levels.
Secondly, CO2 levels have been higher and lower than they are now and the planet adjusts. The absolute fact is that human emissions amount to a mere 4% the total global emissions. This is very small and the planet will adjust to it as it always has.
Volcanoes mostly, the majority of what volcanoes spew is greenhouse gases, have that going for a length of time and it is enough to have an impact. Volcanoes caused the previous processes of Ocean Stagnation in which polar ice caps re-freeze, and carbon dioxide sinks to the bottom of our oceans.
First of all, as I stated in my original post, there is no conclusive link that increased CO2 levels drive higher temperature. In fact, the correlation is actually the opposite: temperature lags CO2 levels.
Secondly, CO2 levels have been higher and lower than they are now and the planet adjusts. The absolute fact is that human emissions amount to a mere 4% the total global emissions. This is very small and the planet will adjust to it as it always has.
Actually there is an absolutely conclusive link and if you're one of the denier, I'm wasting my time. Have a nice life.
First of all, as I stated in my original post, there is no conclusive link that increased CO2 levels drive higher temperature. In fact, the correlation is actually the opposite: temperature lags CO2 levels.
Secondly, CO2 levels have been higher and lower than they are now and the planet adjusts. The absolute fact is that human emissions amount to a mere 4% the total global emissions. This is very small and the planet will adjust to it as it always has.
The planet isn't in danger. A lot of people are, though, more so in other, more impoverished areas than here in the US.
I don't think the planet is overpopulated. And if you do, why don't you kill yourself? Or should other, lesser deserving, people make room for you?
Wow! That is the best answer ever to that stupid claim. You're my new hero! REP POINT!
Last edited by laysayfair; 06-03-2008 at 07:58 PM..
Reason: typo
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.
