Does the threat of major climate change justify drastic reductions in CO2 emissions by the US n other nation?

Answer 1

No, it doesn't CO2 appears to be coming to an end as far as its ability to warm the planet, according to the newest research, it hasn’t been peer reviewed yet so I’m not posting links until it has.

CO2 is logarithmic in nature that is the more you add the less effect it has; now man is responsible for about a total of 25% of the rise in CO2. Depending on how you dice the numbers water in all forms is responsible for about 90 to 95% of all global warming.

Now if we take the worst case, so bad the even the IPCC won’t touch it, of 10 c degrees of warming, and assume that water HAS NO additional effect on the warming and that CO2 is responsible to ALL the global warming that means that man would be responsible for 2.5 degrees of change. Now IPCC is saying we might see a 1.8 to 4 c degrees in change so man would be responsible for 0.45 to 1 degree of that..

Now I can make a case that the rise of temperature, is driving up CO2 levels, using the same facts that IPCC has given. It’s not that hard and I can make a very good case for it, maybe even a better case then the IPCC can.

Now I have a question for all the people who wish to stop global warming, one that I still haven’t got an answer too.

What is the ideal temperature of the planet earth?

Most of what I’ve seen of the global warming crowd isn’t concern about global warming, its about controlling what people do, what you buy, and very anti-capitalist. You only have to look at Kyoto to see that. They got a lot of counties to sign on who didn’t have ANY limits on how much CO2 they produce. Even a lot of counties that signed on and said how evil the counties were that didn’t sign on have said they can’t meet their part of the agreement because they don’t want to kill their economy; oh they don’t have a problem if the US economy dies as long as they get theirs.

And where is the outrage over China and their CO2 output? China has just surpassed the US and shows no sign of slowing down anytime soon. Where are the protestors? Why haven’t the protestors gone to China and marched in the streets? Oh wait China won’t put up with protesters, they shoot them, better protest the US and get money for the cause and if a little, a lot really, sticks to my hand so much the better, and think of the power I get over people.

Answer 2

I find squeezie_1999's response assinine because if you look things up and do some math we are majorly responsible. possibly up to 82 percent responsible if I did my calculations based on the right numbers ( I found out my numbers might be off from my originals during the process of writing this). some on other questions have said well we are only 3-5 % responsible. But if you look it up That is just the responsibiliy of what we breathe out. if you say we increased by .1 ppm/16 yr then the ppm we'd be responsible from most likely industrial sources is 256yr to 2006 for the industrial revolution 256/16= 16/10 (1.6) ppm my last research indicates this level too per year right now. the equation becomes 16*(.1+.2+.3+.4+.5+.6+.7+.8+.9+1+1.1+1.2+1.3+1.4+1.5+1.6)ppm =1.6+3.2+4.8+ ... 25.6
ppm = 217.6 ppm so the percent = 217.6/ about 330 =70% even when split in half and adding the other 5 from respiration it becomes 40%. That split would be saying if nature got rid of half of it. we are still a major problem for ghg's( greenhouse gases).

Answer 3

No, as the proposition that CO2 emissions from human activites cause global warming is pure speculation. The data generally indicates that CO2 levels result from global warming, not the other way around. It's like trying to cool off on a summer day by putting on a down jacket, because every time you did it last winter, it started to snow.

Answer 4

The common knowledge that putting unnatural amounts of a substance into the atmosphere is most likely harmful should be enough to prompt action in reducing emissions, with or without global warming.

Answer 5

maybe, but together, the threat of global warming, smog, mercury in the oceans and lakes, terrorism , peak oil, and many more reasons justify drastic reduction in CO2 emissions by the US.

Answer 6

There is no better application of the term "better safe than sorry" than what we're currently doing to our planet. Of course the threat justifies a policy shift. When the possible results of betting wrong are so horrendous, who can just sit and do nothing?

Answer 7

Absolutely, I believe the term better safe than sorry fits to a T