The earth may be getting warmer but it isn't man that is doing it. Just look at the facts! According to all the experts the most important greenhouse gas is CO2. All of the green house gasses taken together along with many other gasses in the earth's atmosphere make up what are called trace gasses.
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is .000383%. That's right, .000383%! If you segregated all of the CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere into one place it would cover an area, not quite the size of North Dakota. Take a look at a globe and compare the size of North Dakota to the total earth and you get the picture. So first off I have a hard time believing that amount of CO2 could cause global catastrophe.
As far as man's contribution to the CO2 levels, from what I have read, and the numbers vary wildly, the total amount of CO2 released into the air each year is between 150 to 210 billion metric tons. This is CO2 from all sources. Man's contribution? Take a wild guess. Haven't you seen Al Gore's movie? Man is the primary source of CO2 right? Wrong!!!!!!! Man contributes between 6 to 7 billion metric tons of CO2 to the atmosphere each year. Nature provides the rest. That means that man provides about 3% of the total CO2 discharge into the atmosphere each year.
You know why the scientists say man is responsible for global warming? Because even this small amount is enough to throw the CO2 balance out of ####. You see the earth naturally produces that 150 to 210 billion metric tons of CO2 and then absorbs it again, kind of like a bellows blowing it out and then sucking it back in. According to the scientists the reason for global warming is that man's little 3% increase in CO2 is more than the earth can reabsorb and so it is causing a run away green house effect.
The next time a scientist tells you that the way they know global CO2 levels are higher now than in the past, ask him how he knows. He will tell you that they have taken measurements from ice cores in the arctic and from glaciers in high mountain regions. Now tell him that you know that CO2 levels are not uniform over the entire planet. Ask him where the CO2 levels are highest, and he will tell you over the mid latitude oceans and over tropical rain forests. Then ask him where the CO2 levels are lowest. You think it might just be over the arctic and high mountain glaciers? No wonder their measurements show that CO2 levels were lower in the past if their using ice cores from places where CO2 is naturally found in its lowest concentrations.
Sorry, I don't buy in to the whole "Man is destroying the planet with CO2" thing! I think too many greedy people see dollar signs in the Global Warming issue and want to make a buck, including the scientists. I have no problem with striving to be more efficient with the energy we expend, and taking care of the planet. But I want to do it because it's the right thing to do. Not because a bunch of thieves think they they can scare us into making them rich.
Think about it!
"Sorry, I don't buy in to the whole "Man is destroying the planet with CO2" thing! "
Well, it's this way: at this point in the argument, if you deny Global Warming you will be declared irrelevant. So, to deny it is to promote whatever the GW enthusiasts decide to do.
No one really knows. Doesn't matter, there are enough people who are convinced, that something is going to be done about it. Setting your feet and denying the whole thing just puts you out there with the Flat Earth Society.
Well, that's not a response I was expecting!
What if no one had the courage to say the king had no clothes on? What if too many people believed Chicken Little when he said the sky was falling? There are a lot of things we could just throw our hands up and say it's too late to do anything about. Does that mean we should keep our mouths shut, not rock the boat, let them believe what they want to believe?
Think about all of the time, and potential energy that will be wasted trying to fix something we have no power to fix. What could we have done with all that time and energy? What better, more important things could we have done?
It's never better to just let something happen. Better to be a lone voice in the wilderness! Better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness.
I'm no scientist, but instead of just listening to what people said, I looked this stuff up. I did my homework. I checked what was being said, and found that I was being lied too. You should do the same. It's all there, even if it is hidden, and it takes a while to figure out, but you can do it just like I did, and using the scientific method, you too can determine what you believe based on something other than what Al Gore is telling you.
So glad to hear someone else seeing through the hype on our being the cause of global warming. I believe also it is a natural planetary cycle. Please see my response to Joe Soul under Where are the bees? It's too long to repeat .
The Great Global Warming Swindle, a brilliant British documentary, can be seen on You tube. Another good reference to be googled is an article called "Kyoto Sinks Europe". It appears global warming can facilitate everything from corporate profits to government land and resource grabs. The UN also stands to profit from a myriad of global warming related tax. Is it any wonder the skeptics are quickly silenced or discredited? Manmade global warming is truly a scam and the urgency to "end the debate" has more to do with decreases in solar activity (which signify a gradual cooling) and the fear the public will wake up before global taxes and regulations are imposed.
There are so many errors in the OP that I don't know where to begin. If you're looking to convince people of any argument it helps not to lace your text with so many mistakes and misconceptions.
"The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is .000383%. So first off I have a hard time believing that amount of CO2 could cause global catastrophe."
Quite apart from the fact that your numbers are one hundred times to small (atmospheric CO2 is 0.0383% - but what's two orders of magnitude between friends?), what matters is potency, not absolute concentration. Or would you be happy breathing air containing 0.0383% hydrogen cyanide? It's a tiny amount, surely...
"That means that man provides about 3% of the total CO2 discharge into the atmosphere each year. "
The key point is that we are still contributing billion of kilograms to the atmosphere - isotopic evidence confirms that increasing atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic. We used to be in equilibrium. We're not anymore.
"According to the scientists the reason for global warming is that man's little 3% increase in CO2 is more than the earth can reabsorb and so it is causing a run away green house effect."
Nothing like mispreresenting the science, hey? No one is claiming there'll be a runaway effect. They may be positive feedback in the short term, but this planet ain't no Venus. Maybe you need another analogy. Take a bath with the tap running and water leaving the plughole at an equal rate. The water level is constant. Now open the tap another 3% and see what happens... :)
"Now tell him that you know that CO2 levels are not uniform over the entire planet."
CO2 is a well-mixed gas; there are regional and temporal variations in it (e.g. larger variations seasonal variations over temperate zones which are blunted in polar regions), but these are minor. As you can show by simply comparing CO2 records from these different zones.
And as for The Great Global Warming Swindle - I'd hardly descirbe it as a 'great documentary (#7)'. It's been ridiculed for its inaccuracies, for its made up data, for its wilful misrepresentation of facts and scientists. But if it says what you want to believe then I guess that's OK, huh?
Jestbill, I have pasted here below the response I gave to Joe Soul on "Where are the bees?" It addresses global warming. I think you're all right.
I don't have time right now to do the research but I will soon. It's a very big subject, obviously. I have done some minimal research on the Mayan calendar, enough to convince me it's true. Our entire calendar is based on the Mayan calendar, 365 days/year, 7 days a week, etc. I'm an astrologer and the actual astronimical configuration makes sense that it would be a major change for the earth. Why should we be surprised that the earth has cycles when we do? Where is earth's history, or should I say our history on it? The planetary raising of the Kundalini brings about upheaval, as it does for an individual. Hence the wars and storms. It brings up past lives, the buried animosity. (Of course, Iraq is about oil but they are inciting people to violence using deep past divisions.) I have become convinced of this beginning with looking for where I want to buy a house, and I got the I AM America map, which is supposed to show what will be left of the United States after the California earthquake (which even the government is preparing for). Have you seen it? I recommend getting the Six Map Scenario. In it is recounted *possible* coming events, but says if you see these things happening, you will know it's starting. Some of those things are the government going bankrupt due to weather disaster funding, a man coming out of the East in the Middle East (Iran), etc. I can't get any more into it. I work at night and I need to work. I recommend this map at www.Iamamerica.com. Keep an open mind. The maximum number of people need to survive, along with their techology, knowledge, skills. I am planning much bigger activity on this. You will hear from me in the future. The map isn't totally accurate. I live in Montana, and the (map guys) even say that they agree the Yellowstone supervolcano will go off (not on the map).
Have you heard about the mitochondrial DNA bottleneck? Shortly after they discovered the Yellowstone supervolcano (by satellite because it could not be seen from down here), geneticists discovered that our mitochondrial (female) DNA (which can trace the mother's lineage) indicates that everyone on earth has descended from approximately *30* women. THey trace this bottleneck back to about 650,000 years ago, if I remember correctly, I believe the same period that they say is the last time Yellowstone went off. This is science.
**It is possible to survive so let's plan on it.**
There is no question that the intense weather is from GW. It is only going to increase. Even professional geologists/weather whatevers say that. For instance, they know that New Orleans will be pretty much in the middle of the ocean in 20 years or so. They say that for every degree the ocean warms, the hurricanes increase by one level of severity.
(It's not a "cult.")
Let's see if I can summarize what is known. I promise to type very very very very slowly for you.
There SIMPLY isn't a single soul out there on the planet with any credibility who is saying that the climate isn't warming. With 12,000 independent studies, each using different metrics, this simply isn't a question. That is irrefutable point number one.
Next, there is a principal of science and technology called "SUPERPOSITION". The first engineering class you take, that is a word you will hear. Superposition says that effects are additive. So, the contribution from nature PLUS the contribution from man are additive. The existence of the Principal of superposition is irrefutable. Take a look at the bridge collapse in Minnesota if you want to see an example of the existence of superposition.
For example, you have the gas from erosion, you have the gas from volcanoes, you have gas from all these natural sources. Man can't do a #### thing about these. These sources are a cyclic load on the environment. They will always be there. Each component will appear or disappear, increase or decrease over geologic time. This is irrefutable. The concern occurs when a peak in one metric occurs during the same time period as peaks in others.
When that occurs, stupendous percentages of species have disappeared, civilization changes, even the formation of groupings of humans and the switch from hunter/gathering to domestication/cultivation coincided with one of these.
And that is SIMPLY nature's component in the equation.
Now, mankind's component. We have NEVER seen, in the history of our planet, a mankind component of this magnitude. More importantly, mankind's component isn't cycling as nature's component does. Man's component just keeps on increasing. Doesn't stop ................................................ EVER.
We did testing on steel ((stress-strain curve) where you just apply increasing loads to a test specimen until it breaks to derive a stress-strain curve of load vice deformation. Steel stretches and stretches until it loses its ability to stretch any more then it breaks. Impressive.
We can do something about man's component. In fact, it is EASIER to lessen man's component than it is to continue to let it run amok. The solution to man's component is an easy fix, it is actually far cheaper to lessen man's impact on warming than it is to continue the status quo. It reduces disease, it reduces stress, it reduces consumption, it keeps more money in your pocket, it eliminates the need for us to kill everyone on the planet just to be able to drive to work. We don't have to sacrifice a generation of young people as cannon fodder.
But this solution will not put millions of dollars in the pockets of imbeciles like Dick Cheney.
One final irrefutable fact .......................................... there sure are a lot of knuckle dragging, mouth breathing cretins who are going to spend a lot of time steering you away from the above truths. Their game is SIMPLY to prevent the expression of the crisis in the above terms. They get paid the big millions to make sure a clear discussion of facts never occurs.
You will hear them attempt to reframe the discussion in such terms as:
"it is ridiculous to think that man is totally responsible for global warming". If you hear someone say this, immediately pick up the closest baseball bat and hit him in the face. Why? No one is out there saying that global warming is only caused by man. Gore didn't say that.
"The sun has always warmed the planet cyclically. There have been ice ages in the past". Find your baseball bat. Again, this person is lying to distort a reasonable discussion of the facts. The sun does indeed go through cycles, but that is beside the point. It is the superposition of man's effects with natural effects that will wipe out mankind.
The solutions are fairly simple.
I remember during one of the elections in the 1980's, a Republican candidate wen to Detroit and got the auto workers all in a tizzy by saying that the Dem candidate was going to take their jobs away by insisting on raising the fuel efficiency of the cars they make.
I mean seriously, how many jobs are going to be lost by building a 60 MPG vehicle vice a 15MPG vehicle. You are still going to need someone to put a bumper on the car. In fact, Detroit auto makers have lost market share because they continue to build obsolete SUVs.
For crying out loud, THINK people.
Science84, at the risk of being repetitious (maybe some of you have read this), I have pasted here below the response I gave to Joe Soul on "Where are the bees?" It addresses global warming. I think you're all right. We should stop complaining and start looking at surviving. It's much more serious than just the temperature going up. I think this is part of a much larger planetary cycle that we may be speeding up by a few years, but inevitable. I wish I could talk more but got to work... It's going to take a lot more careful thought than electric cars... And I'm gratified to see there are some enlightened thinkers in this discussion.
You make a good case...
However, the question ultimately is this...does CO2 cause global warming? If it does then what should we do?
Should we attempt to cease all "man made" CO2 output? Considering the fact that all of civilization has developed during the relatively short inter-glacial period that we are in now, couldn't reducing CO2 levels put us "back on track" thus allowing the next glacial advance? At it's last peak, permanent ice flows existed as far south as Pennsylvania. Would this be a favorable outcome?
Again, if we establish that CO2 is a contributing factor then we might want to determine what, if any, above the "natural variations" we might want to contribute to avoid a next advance if at all possible. Without going into detail, NOTHING, aside from nuclear holocaust, could be worse for man than another advance.
Unfortunately, the data I have seen indicate that CO2 has little effect on global warming. It correlates roughly to temperature fluctuations but actually has a delay of as much as 800 years which would indicate that the warming came first, then the higher CO2 levels followed.
A few questions...
If superposition is at play now, why was it warmer 1000 years ago? Eric the Red cultivated on a place he named Greenland...too cold to do that now.
Why are the ice caps receding on Mars also?
Why was the planet locked in an ice age (as it is now) during the Late Ordovician Period when CO2 levels were over 4400 ppm (12 times higher than today)?
I do not agree that reducing CO2 emissions will save us money. In the long run, we must find viable alternatives to fossil fuels but not because of the CO2 factor. I am all for reducing pollution (CO2 is not a pollutant by the way), saving forests, reducing land fill waste, etc., but this global warming scare mongering has got to be put in check. If we look take into account our planet's long history, we will see that CO2 levels have mostly been higher than today, excluding the late Paleozoic. So perhaps the reducing of CO2 emissions will do very little to help control climate. We live on a planet with a long and diverse history. Climates have changed in the past, continue to change now, and will do so in the future, regardless of what we do.
Yes! You are so right! This is part of a much larger earth cycle. Did you read my (long) note above? It's about #12 or so. I'm so glad people are seeing through the fear-mongering. I also want an electric car, etc. But, that's not going to do much.