championis asked in Environment · 1 decade ago

The TRUTH about Co2 levels?

186 billion tonnes of CO2enter the earth's atmosphere each year, of this, 180billion tonnes comes from the earth natural activities, such as plants ,oceans volcanoes etc. Only 6 billion tonnes comes from human activity.

There is no dispute that global warming is occuring, but is it really down to our relatively small contribution to CO2 levels, or is it just a natural process is the life cycle of the earth.

Are we being blamed for what would occur naturally anyway, as this is an extremely good wheeze to raise extra taxes, because the majority have fallen for it ?

Update:

The word 'only' is used because it is relative to the total amount. The fact is co2 levels are much lower than when life began

Update 2:

But adding 3.2% water to your fuel is adding another ingredient. If you add 3% redex it would improve your fuel consumption and clean your car, so your argument doesn't stand up.

9 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    You are absolutely right!! The total human contribution to the greenhouse effect is 0.28%. 0.117% in CO2 and 0.163% of NOX, methane and other misc gases. The warmest period during human existance was the Holocene Maximum Era, 4000 years ago, about 40 centuries before man invented pollution. The global warming THEORY is not supported by historical fact. CO2, the so called major cause of global warming makes up 4/100ths of 1% of the earths atmosphere, and compared to former geologic times the earth is CO2 impoverished. ALL life on earth is carbon based and CO2 is an essential ingredient, without it life does not flourish. CO2 goes into the atmosphere but does not stay there, it is recycled by plants, and the earths oceans are considered the retirement home for most CO2. If we are in a global warming crisis today, even the most agressive and costly attempted to reduce emissions would have a negligable to zero effect on global warming. Global warming has been de-bunked as junk science, by MANY INDEPENDENT scientists. The scientists funded by government are over stating the facts(like usual) are looking to make a name for themselves and secure large amounts of government funding. Like when the govt and their scientists said there was only 20 years of oil left 20 years ago, now they say another 20 years, when in reality it's 100+ years. We haven't even come close to consuming half yet. You think prices are high now, after we have consumed half the price will really go up. Any one who believes their latest lies about no more fish in the oceans in 50 years, is just plain stupid. To think that our puny little race called man, can alter global temperatures, alter NATURE, is just moronic. There is a reason we call her mother, Vesuvius, San Andreas, Katrina, Ring of Fire, among others, any of these ring a bell, did we stop any of these? NO, because mother natures power and vastness is beyond our puny intellect. Land based temperature monitoring systems are unreliable and faulty, satilite imaging have shown a negligable to zero increase in global temperatures from a hundred years ago. The earth has been in a constant state of global warming for the past 18000 years, weather is chaotic, just look up the record highs and lows for any given date. People love to believe and read bad things, just open any newspaper. Global warming sells, just like murder, war and scandal. You thought they lied about Iraq, THIS IS THE BIGGEST LIE YET.

    DON: You seem a learned fellow, with a strong scientific backround. Here are a few things you may find interesting.

    some reading:

    A scientific discussion of climate change. Sallie Baliunas Phd. & Willie Soon, Phd. Harvard, Smithsonian centre for Astrophysics

    Variation in cosmic ray flux and global cloud coverage. H.Svensmark & E.Friis Christiansen, Journal of Atmospheric & Solar Terrestrial Physics, vol. 59, pp. 1225-1232.

    Earth Fidgeting Climate, NASA science news

    Cracking the Ice Age- PBS website, NOVA online

    Geological Constraints on Global Climate Variability, Dr. Lee C. Gerhard.

    A couple quotes:

    " Researchers pound the global warming drum because there is politics and therefore money behind it. I've been critical of global warming and am persona non grata"

    Dr. William Grey, Prof. Atmospheric Sciences @ CSU

    " In the long run, the replacement of the precise and disiplined language of science by the misleading language of litigation and advocacy may be one of the more important sources of damage to society incurred in the current debate over global warming"

    Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Leading climate & Atmospheric science expert, MIT

    Strange, were all these leading scientic minds from some of the best institutions in the world "hypnotised by Exxon" too. I think not.

    Town Clown: please don't state things out of govt approved, adolecent brain washing text book. It's called social engineering, so you don't question the establishment when you are in the real world. There are many textbooks that only reveal half the story, or what you "should" know. If we didn't question the establishment and common thought, the would still think the earth was flat and sun revolves around the earth. How they can produce a textbook that states unproven, unsubstantiated, theory, as fact is diabolical. Ask your teacher to explain how Vikings had settlements and farms on a relatively ice free Greenland that are now covered in permafrost, could it be because the global temps were about 3 deg. celcius higher in the middle ages than they are now? Hmmmmm. Must have been all that idustrialization.

  • 1 decade ago

    I don't think there's an easy answer for this. Maybe our contribution to it is not that big, BUT, think that before man existed there was an equilibrium between what was beeing poured into the atmosphere and what the plantas could retrieve from that. Maybe that six million tons are not manageable by the earth's retireving mechanisms (plants). Add to that the rate at which we are reducing the rainforest and polluting the seas and that becomes even worse.

    CO2 levels were higher in that past, thats true, and if we had the same climate they had it would be catastrophic for us. So that's not a valid argument.

    Maybe it is a reason to raise taxes. We all know that those reasons appear out of nowhere.

    I do believe that mankind is to blame for accelerating a process, but global warming is probably part of the cycle of earth.

    I do think it's pretty lame, however, to rely on polluting activities for a healthy economy, just because it "doesn't necesarily changes the cimate".

  • 1 decade ago

    I love it when 6 billion of anything is given the qualifier "only". Who knows? Maybe humans aren't the cause, and it is all a natural process, and we couldn't stop it if we tried. On the other hand, maybe that "little" 6 billion tons is the straw that breaks the camels back.

    Since however, the potential risks of underreacting outway the potential risks of overreacting, i think we have to consider the human contribution significant until the evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt otherwise.

    _______________________

    I know what you meant. My point was that you seem to be writing off this number as in significant, when it isn't. A 6 billion contribution is about 3.2% of the total, from your own figures. A virus or bacteria is only one-one/billionth the size of a human, yet it can disrupt the equilibrium in your body and kill you. If I add three percent water to my fuel, my car will either not run or the engine will become damaged over time from corrosion. So, it doesn't take a huge contribution to upset the balance. Or, if warming is increasing naturally, that 3% would surely increase the rate.

    Besides, if the government wants to raise taxes, there are easier ways to do it than exaggerating global warming. You can get the population scared of terrorists, and they'll pay for anything. You have to convince people to pay for climate issues.

    _________________________________________________

  • 1 decade ago

    Where the dinosaurs responsible for climate change?.

    Well, if you look at it seriously, the oxygen levels were 30% higher than today at the time of their mass extinction. That's because there were more dinosaurs around then than there are humans today.

    A comet may have crashed on Earth, speeding up their extinction, but they had already over populated the planet. Compared to us land dwellers, dinosaurs were in the air, the sea, the oceans, every continent was covered.

    Once they died out, CO2 levels went sky high because there were not enough creatures around to compensate the balance.

    Today, oxygen levels are rising once more, everything is beginning to balance out. CO2 levels will fluctuate because of over population, and something around the corner will quickly put that back into check-not a comet I add.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    Considering the figure used to estimate the effect of co2 emissions is based on data from the past 2000 years or so, in COMPARISON to the actual age of the earth, then I would definitely say it's an excuse to raise taxes. Are airline companies going to stop flying their planes because of extra taxes ? No i don't think so.

    Co2 levels in the past were 16 times more than the levels that everybody is worried about now, and the human race, and the world survived that.

    Same old tactics : scaremongering then tax it to the hilt

  • Anonymous
    4 years ago

    Basically, if you've actually been thinking about applying hypnosis to be able to get a handle on the end result of discussions to your gain, then you'll possibly have an interest in what's being shown in Black Ops Hypnosis, an online plan you will find here https://tr.im/UEpYu .

     This program, Black Ops Hypnosis consists in 3 main patterns. The practices from Black Ops Hypnosis are very sensible and function effectively in reality.

    Black Ops Hypnosis is one of the most used covert and conversational hypnosis services and products and it's distributed effectively to the a large number of copies worldwide.

  • 1 decade ago

    i think that yes we are responsable for global warming because we do add to the CO2 level and we also cut down trees and the rainforest which decreases the amount of things that can take that out of the air

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Isn't it strange that all the people who lecture us about CO2 emissions travel the world in planes to discuss the problem?

    Taxation, Taxation. Taxation!

    RoyS

  • 1 decade ago

    I'm going to keep this as brief as possible and straight to the point

    Two of the most important greenhouse gases are water vapour and CO2

    to appreciate and fully understand human contribution to the rise in co2 levels in the atmosphere...it would be great to understand the entire carbon cycle

    a change in one carbon resevoir can profoundly affect other resevoirs and this appears to be the case when considering human contribution to the otherwise natural carbon cycle.

    The amount of co2 in the atmospheric carbon resevoir is controlled by the global carbon cycle.

    One of the major and important carbon resevoirs are rocks, which store carbon for up to millions of years. Even small changes in this resevoir as I mentioned, can profoundly affect the atmospheric resevoir, (which appears to be the case)...increasing the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and therefore having an effect on climate changes.

    Burning fossil fuels only accelerates the release of carbon stored in the rock resevoir, about 20 times faster than natural processes.

    So in short, humans have upset the entire balance of the carbon cycle by burning fossil fuels...deforestation etc...

    The proportion of co2 in the atmosphere has risen significantly over the past 250 years and will continue to do so unless we change our ways....not even volcanoes can be blamed for this dramatic increase....if you think about it....the rises are relative to the rise in human economic industrialization, on a global scale.

    Human activity may "appear" to be an insignificant contribution...but when you understand the science, you'll soon learn that even small changes can and DO have dramatic effects.

    What I would say to anyone wishing to understand this topic more, and as I've said in many of my answers, is go and learn the science, forget blogs, forget newspapers, forget opinions...because all of these can be biased....scientists on the whole, base their interpretations on facts.

    Two of the most important greenhouse gases are water vapour and CO2

    to appreciate and fully understand human contribution to the rise in co2 levels in the atmosphere...it would be great to understand the entire carbon cycle

    a change in one carbon resevoir can profoundly affect other resevoirs and this appears to be the case when considering human contribution to the otherwise natural carbon cycle.

    The amount of co2 in the atmospheric carbon resevoir is controlled by the global carbon cycle.

    One of the major and important carbon resevoirs are rocks, which store carbon for up to millions of years. Even small changes in this resevoir as I mentioned, can profoundly affect the atmospheric resevoir, (which appears to be the case)...increasing the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and therefore having an effect on climate changes.

    Burning fossil fuels only accelerates the release of carbon stored in the rock resevoir, about 20 times faster than natural processes.

    So in short, humans have upset the entire balance of the carbon cycle by burning fossil fuels...deforestation etc...

    The proportion of co2 in the atmosphere has risen significantly over the past 250 years and will continue to do so unless we change our ways....not even volcanoes can be blamed for this dramatic increase....if you think about it....the rises are relative to the rise in human economic industrialization, on a global scale.

    Human activity may "appear" to be an insignificant contribution...but when you understand the science, you'll soon learn that even small changes can and DO have dramatic effects.

    What I would say to anyone wishing to understand this topic more, and as I've said in many of my answers, is go and learn the science, forget blogs, forget newspapers, forget opinions...because all of these can be biased....scientists on the whole, base their interpretations on facts

    edit: Nick

    I'm sorry that you feel the Government is misleading people...however, these textbooks are NOT written by government ministers, nor are they edited in any way that suits any kind of political agenda. For that matter, since my learning of GMST's past and present is incorporated into a broad based science degree, then all my books must be brainwashing nonsense. In that case then, your facts are equally misleading and biased. Who/what should we trust here? Science text books that have been written and approved by numerous scientists, providing quantitative data on observable facts, or opinions of the minority?

    Secondly, I could write paragraph after paragraph on the earth's surface temperatures past to present and it still would not affect how human involvement has contributed to the greenhouse effect, because the data is out there.

    Source(s): more or less, give or take, straight out of my science textbooks (with the exclusion of actual comparitive figures....if you wish...I will include them...but I really wanted to provide a qualitative explanation rather than delving into confusing figures)
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.