445 ppm C02 - and we're supposed to believe it's natural ??

Question

For 400,000 years the ppm for C02 was ruffly 200 - 275 ppm with seasonal fluctuations.....before the industrial revolution of course. Now we're up to 445 ppm in within just 200 years since the start of the industrial revolution.......so how can anyone argue that this is natural ? If it was natural, wouldn't it have had to occur naturally at least once before ?

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png

Answer 1

Some people are just idiots who stupidly think we can't harm the planet.

Answer 2

Why blame it on the industrial revolution? Why not blame it on deforestation of the Amazon? Why not blame it on all the people who are breathing out all that CO2? Why not blame it on all the animals we are raising for food? They are breathing out CO2 as well not to mention all that methane (a green house gas that has a greater effect than CO2)

If it weren't for the environmentalists saying don't dam the rivers and don't build nuclear power plants we wouldn't need to use so much fossil fuel. Hydro and Nuclear power don't generate ANY CO2.

There is no way the US or anyone else is going to go back to how we were living 200 years ago. Maybe you want to go back to living in small log cabins and slow transportation but I don't.

You give the world an alternative energy source that costs less that doesn't produce CO2 and not only will you stop the increase of CO2 (maybe even reduce it)but you will make a ton of money to boot. But then you will probably gripe about the taxes you would be paying and vote for Republicans *LOL*

Answer 3

There seem to be a few things that wikipedia forgot to tell you -- like carbon dioxide being an essential trace gas that underpins the bulk of the global food web.

Commercial growers deliberately generate CO2 and increase its levels in agricultural greenhouses to between 700ppmv and 1,000ppmv to increase productivity and improve the water efficiency of food crops far beyond those in the somewhat carbon-starved open atmosphere. CO2 feeds the forests, grows more usable lumber in timber lots meaning there is less pressure to cut old growth or push into "natural" wildlife habitat, makes plants more water efficient helping to beat back the encroaching deserts in Africa and Asia and generally increases bio-productivity.

If it's "pollution," then it's pollution the NATURAL world exploits extremely well and to great profit. Doesn't sound too bad to me.

So are YOU going to be the one to tell African countries that they can't cultivate their lands? That they have to starve? a TINY increase in CO2 (100 PPMis NOTHING!) is good for the world. and as for our overall contribution, humans might be responsible for 2.5% of the total greenhouse effect. MIGHT.

To reach the dangerous levels proposed by "Prize Winning Algore", To double the pre-Industrial Revolution warming from CO2 alone would require about 90,000ppmv but we'd never see it - CO2 becomes toxic at around 6,000ppmv (0.6%).

BUT- humans have absolutely NO prospect of achieving such concentrations.

think about it- 445 (if it IS that high), when 90,000 would be required to raise temps that high, and at 6000 we're all dead anyways, and we have no means of achieving 6000.

Occam's Razor, man...Occam's Razor.

Answer 4

This is the heart of the issue. Conservatives can't explain it. They're trying to say that the sun is causing the warming and CO2 is an effect of solar warming (as formally dissolved ocean CO2 is released). But we are pumping large amounts of unnatural CO2 into the atmosphere IN ADDITION to what the sun "may"* cause to be released from the ocean. This will only make the greenhouse effect worse.
It defies reason what they are thinking. The only explanation that makes sense is conservatives are protecting the fossil fuel industry- nothing more.

Answer 5

commonly, one is predicted to have faith that the Bible is infallible in concerns of spirituality and morality. traditionally, the Bible is form of a multitude, surprisingly contained in the OT. the actuality that the Bible has gone with the aid of multiple translations and copies in the process the middle a while skill that it's not the comparable e book that it replaced into whilst it replaced into first assembled. God did not write it. human beings did. human beings decrease to rubble. The Bible isn't suitable. people who can study/write Greek retranslate the Bible each and all of the time and locate a lot of problems with English translations. The Bible replaced into initially written in Hebrew and Greek. those factors that weren't Greek have been translated into Greek, so some issues have been lost or misinterpreted in translation. Greek went to Latin. ecu priests copied the Latin textual content fabric infinite cases, turning out to be many small copying blunders that could or will possibly not have dramatically replaced meanings. Latin replaced into translated into vulgar languages (early English, French, German, Italian, Spanish, etc.), added dropping some aspects in translation. distinctive denominations made average transformations to the Bible to extra useful in wonderful condition their denominational ideals. Languages replaced at last to the familiar languages all of us understand right this moment. The Bible persevered to alter and alter alongside with the languages. to assert that the Bible is unchanging is naive and narrow-minded. earlier all you Jesus freaks commence yelling, i'm a Christian. it is not impossible to handle the mistranslations and contradictions provided contained in the English version of the Bible. you in common terms could understand that the Bible is an genuinely human paintings. Divinely stimulated, according to hazard, yet nevertheless bodily restrained entirely to the human realm, and difficulty to the blunders and biases of human beings.

Answer 6

So..I'm supposed to believe that the >TOTAL< output of man's CO2 emissions (That account for roughly .03% of the total yearly world output of CO2) are what is to blame for Earth "Warming" .01% ?

Is that what is also causing a parallel rise in temperature on Mars?

Really?

(For those of you open to even a little bit of contrary informatio/opinion/research)
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/What_Watt.html


T.S.

ARFCOM We run the Interweb!