Buckwheat wrote:Even without humans, there is death. Does that make murder OK?
So are you equating producing carbon dioxide with murder?
Buckwheat wrote:Please find me a quote from reputable climate scientists saying that human contribution of greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere is insignificant.
So, Kim's site is NOT reputable?!!! http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-c ... ssions.htm
Can you say something about my calculations? You and Kim seem to have one type of argument:
"You are wrong Alex. You are using junk science. We have the Truth".
Please avoid ad hominem.
I also did some more calculations:
Person breath out ~1kg of C02 per day. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CO2#Human_physiology
1kg x human population (7.073 billion) x 365 = 2,581.645 Billion of kg of CO2 humans exhale per year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
So even IF, even IF, we would stop ALL industrial emission of CO2 through great sacrifice of living standards , humans would STILL produce 2,581.645 Billion kilograms of C02 per year. What would you propose then? Stop breathing?!
I am saying this: do you want human activity to an abrupt shock to the natural system, or should we live in harmony with the global ecosystem that is the foundation for our lives on Earth? Yes, there have been 5 mass extinction events in 600 million years since the Cambrian explosion. There is also a mass extinction event in the 10,000 years since humans started congregating into larger societies.
Apparently, you only read the paragraph where John Cook states the skeptic position, before dismantling it as a false view:
Before the industrial revolution, the CO2 content in the air remained quite steady for thousands of years. Natural CO2 is not static, however. It is generated by natural processes, and absorbed by others.
As you can see in Figure 1, natural land and ocean carbon remains roughly in balance and have done so for a long time – and we know this because we can measure historic levels of CO2 in the atmosphere both directly (in ice cores) and indirectly (through proxies).
But consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle – by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years).
Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the pre-industrial era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures which is warming the planet. While fossil-fuel derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2.
The level of atmospheric CO2 is building up, the additional CO2 is being produced by burning fossil fuels, and that build up is accelerating.
As for your calculations, they don't really say anything, so it's hard to criticize them. I agree, the concentration of CO2 is low when compared to nitrogen. But Nitrogen (in the atmospheric form of N4) is an incredibly stable, inert gas. Nitrogen is the water, CO2 is the cyanide.
Sotthī hontu nirantaraṃ - May you forever be well.