Quote:
Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile
I'm not going to get any more political than that, but I do think anyone who thinks that the activities of BILLIONS of human beings don't have an adverse impact on our planet is in denial, or perhaps huffing glue.
|
Ya know, there are better ways to state your position than with attacks.
- Human released CO2 is far less than natural sources:
Quote:
The consumption of terrestrial vegetation by animals and by microbes (rotting, in other words) emits about 220 gigatonnes of CO2 every year, while respiration by vegetation emits another 220 Gt. These huge amounts are balanced by the 440 Gt of carbon dioxide absorbed from the atmosphere each year as land plants photosynthesise.
Similarly, parts of the oceans release about 330 Gt of CO2 per year, depending on temperature and rates of photosynthesis by phytoplankton, but other parts usually soak up just as much - and are now soaking up slightly more.
Ocean sinks
Human emissions of CO2 are now estimated to be 26.4 Gt per year, up from 23.5 Gt in the 1990s, according to an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report in February 2007 (pdf format).
link: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climate-myths-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter.html
|
- CO2 isn't the only greenhouse gas:
- CO2 has been shown to lag behind temperature rises in the past
Just using these three quick hits, there is enough arguing evidence against Human CO2 emissions as being the primary source for climate change. This is why I'm still not decided which side has the better argument. There just isn't enough data yet and the earth cycles (carbon sinks, sun activity, etc) are so complicated that correlation is difficult between causes and coincidences.
This NYTimes article is extremely weak. It hints that the wobbling of the orbit is the only thing that affects the temperature of the planet but that is far from the truth. CO2 emissions are just as incomplete a picture as looking at only the orbit's wobbling.