Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
You should understand that's not a valid argument to continue to put tons of carbon into the atmosphere
Satellite data proves Earth has not been warming the past 18 years - it's stable
- Thread starter sheskunk
- Start date
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
I don't understand how anyone could continue to deny that given the overwhelming amounts of evidence
Nutes and Nugs
Well-Known Member
And plug those nasty volcanos.
If all the data were scientifically true, why does it still exist?
According to the show, by 2050 we will all be burning in a man made hell.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
As the episode said, volcanoes present about 2% the amount of carbon dioxide introduced into the atmosphere each year, human activity is the overwhelming cause
Nutes and Nugs
Well-Known Member
I thought they said 3% but nonetheless the other 97-98% caused by man is a bunch of shit.
I remember a story on cows farting and causing global warming and warned we all should become vegetarians.
Bunny would agree.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
How would adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere at a rate 98% higher than volcanoes not cause a change in the environment?
It's odd, when volcanoes were the cause determined by the denialists, they were the overwhelming majority, to them the amount added to the atmosphere by volcanoes trumped human activity hands down! Now, when they realize human activity is actually the main cause of the increase in CO2, not volcanoes, at such a rate no less, all of a sudden it's not so serious..
This is how I know your argument is bullshit. You are inconsistent
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Are you saying humans cause 98% more greenhouse gas emissions than volcanoes?
Do you really wanna walk that path?
Doer
Well-Known Member
The problem is we add carbon very quickly and take none up. When we (done deal) pump down the atmosphere and sequester all the carbon then we will have the natural 6th Extinction.
Instead, we will have the 6th Extinction, as man-made. Oh no. Same-same, right?
http://www.whatsyourimpact.org/co2-sources.php
There are both natural and human sources of carbon dioxide emissions. Natural sources include decomposition, ocean release and respiration. Human sources come from activities like cement production, deforestation as well as the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil and natural gas.
Due to human activities, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has been rising extensively since the Industrial Revolution and has now reached dangerous levels not seen in the last 3 million years. Human sources of carbon dioxide emissions are much smaller than natural emissions but they have upset the natural balance that existed for many thousands of years before the influence of humans.
This is because natural sinks remove around the same quantity of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere than are produced by natural sources. This had kept carbon dioxide levels balanced and in a safe range. But human sources of emissions have upset the natural balance by adding extra carbon dioxide to the atmosphere without removing any.
Instead, we will have the 6th Extinction, as man-made. Oh no. Same-same, right?
http://www.whatsyourimpact.org/co2-sources.php
There are both natural and human sources of carbon dioxide emissions. Natural sources include decomposition, ocean release and respiration. Human sources come from activities like cement production, deforestation as well as the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil and natural gas.
Due to human activities, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has been rising extensively since the Industrial Revolution and has now reached dangerous levels not seen in the last 3 million years. Human sources of carbon dioxide emissions are much smaller than natural emissions but they have upset the natural balance that existed for many thousands of years before the influence of humans.
This is because natural sinks remove around the same quantity of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere than are produced by natural sources. This had kept carbon dioxide levels balanced and in a safe range. But human sources of emissions have upset the natural balance by adding extra carbon dioxide to the atmosphere without removing any.
Ceepea
Well-Known Member
Doer
Well-Known Member
Humans are more important than the earth,
The earth is doomed no matter what, I think secretly, this is a secret suicide pact to keep our hated DNA out of the Galaxy,
If what they say is true we should be throwing everything at lunar and Lagrange colonies,
Yet, we insist on restoring the ice age, Nuts,
The earth is doomed no matter what, I think secretly, this is a secret suicide pact to keep our hated DNA out of the Galaxy,
If what they say is true we should be throwing everything at lunar and Lagrange colonies,
Yet, we insist on restoring the ice age, Nuts,
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Youre gonna mention 3 million years in terms of the age of our planet?The problem is we add carbon very quickly and take none up. When we (done deal) pump down the atmosphere and sequester all the carbon then we will have the natural 6th Extinction.
Instead, we will have the 6th Extinction, as man-made. Oh no. Same-same, right?
http://www.whatsyourimpact.org/co2-sources.php
There are both natural and human sources of carbon dioxide emissions. Natural sources include decomposition, ocean release and respiration. Human sources come from activities like cement production, deforestation as well as the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil and natural gas.
Due to human activities, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has been rising extensively since the Industrial Revolution and has now reached dangerous levels not seen in the last 3 million years. Human sources of carbon dioxide emissions are much smaller than natural emissions but they have upset the natural balance that existed for many thousands of years before the influence of humans.
This is because natural sinks remove around the same quantity of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere than are produced by natural sources. This had kept carbon dioxide levels balanced and in a safe range. But human sources of emissions have upset the natural balance by adding extra carbon dioxide to the atmosphere without removing any.
What is with people and tiny relative sample sizes?
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
So...?
We're talking about planetary age, saying we're at the highest level of atmospheric carbon dioxide in 3 million years says nothing.
3 million years is approximately 0.06382979% of this planet's age.
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Youre arguing the wrong argument with the wrong person, I think we should put huge investment into genuine R&D, like into the US National Labs being one example, to move on from carbon fuel because I believe its a natural (common sense) progression we need to make as an advanced species.
I don't however agree with punishing people and damaging the world economy on essentially bad science (because its based on unusually small relative sample sizes) just so the world Govts can "sequester" even more funds from the herd for moar boondoggles.
heckler73
Well-Known Member
Only 29 days before we finally start getting proper maps of global CO2.
kinetic
Well-Known Member
Shell Oil Company disagrees with the naysayers
http://www.shell.com/global/environment-society/environment/climate-change/more-energy-less-co2.html
So does BP
http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/sustainability/the-energy-future/climate-change.html
Add Chevron to the list
http://www.chevron.com/globalissues/climatechange/
http://www.shell.com/global/environment-society/environment/climate-change/more-energy-less-co2.html
So does BP
http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/sustainability/the-energy-future/climate-change.html
Add Chevron to the list
http://www.chevron.com/globalissues/climatechange/