What the FTSE does that post have to do with politicians?!Your logic really are quite unique Cynic. Very special.
So it's the human exhaust that's causing all these. Is that why industrialists and politicians permit fossil fuel? To keep human population in check?
What the FTSE does that post have to do with politicians?!
I just highlighted a correlation, unrelated to our energy choices, that is somehow being overlooked in favour of the carbon crisis fantasy.
No politics required, just a willingness to apply a modicum of basic logic!
I thought you'd need politicians approval to start mining or extracting; need their OK to emit x and do y efficiency standards. But true, pollies do as they're told anyway right.
Anyway, many humans and their breathings could also cause global warming. Yea, maybe 97% of CO2 emission?
Only if increased CO2 levels are actually able to cause warming (I have yet to see any compelling justification behind such claims).
The reality is that the current CO2 levels are almost certainly necessary (possibly even a touch too low) for our current population. If such levels do cause warming, then renewable energy alternatives are almost certainly unable to solve that particular problem!
I have yet to see a compelling reason why there isn't a hundred billion dollars in my account, but you know... things tend to be what they are regardless of what I find compelling or not.
Seriously, CC isn't one of those philosophical question of what causes it - exactly - and what will it do to what degree - precisely.
According to this site, the human population more than doubled during the latter half of the last century.
In light of this information alone, why shouldn't one anticipate elevated levels of atmospheric CO2?
In fact 400ppm appears to be a bit shy of the elevated level that one might otherwise have reasonably anticipated!
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762181.html
Maybe factor in the loss of fauna as civilisation displaces it?
I wonder if migrating birds cause imbalances in CO2 ....hmmm
You are quite correct!
CC alarmism is nothing more than a zealous religious movement. In the eyes of the faithful zealot there is no question! And as such there is no room in the CC ideology for the practice of science.
The aforesaid is clearly evident from the behaviour of the CC alarmists to date.
Also factor in increased farming of livestock for nourishing the larger populace?
So the fact that lakes are now being reported on the ice sheets across eastern Antartica is caused, in your take, by alarmist behaviour. And some sort of religion??? , struth
Go get a life.
"Science alert, 22 aug"
Plod you seem to misunderstand the point of what I am saying here!
I am not saying that the earth is warming.
Nor am I saying that the earth is cooling.
On a living, evolving, mobile planet, within a mobile solar system, galaxy, constellation etc. a static climate would be highly unlikely and nigh on impossible to maintain.
What I am saying is that the climate alarmists (whom somehow claim to be advocates of science, contrary to their blatantly unscientific behaviours) are overlooking the essential need to understand the true causation of the elevated atmospheric CO2 levels.
Much of the current CO2 level is more than likely a necessary (and natural) consequence of the exponential increase in the human population (irrespective of chosen fuel)!
And have never disagreed with that. In fact population reduction is the silent one we need to open up on and even sterilisation are matters I support. Climate change has very many causes including natural, well understood, but it seems to me as a layman that to push to alternative clean energy sources (which is so competitive) is a natural way to go.
Also factor in increased farming of livestock for nourishing the larger populace?
Humans and animals exhale carbon dioxide with every breath. Why is this not considered to be a problem as far as global warming goes?
The carbon dioxide we exhale does not contribute to global warming for the simple reason that we also take up an equivalent amount of carbon dioxide from the air, albeit indirectly. Everything we eat can be traced back to photosynthesis, the process by which plants take up carbon dioxide from the air and use it to produce the vast array of organic compounds needed for life. Our bodies can be regarded as living engines that require fuel and oxygen to produce the energy needed to sustain life. In that sense we are not all that different from a car. Both for us and for the car the source of oxygen is the air, roughly 20% of which is made up of oxygen. An internal combustion engine burns gasoline and spews out water, carbon dioxide and a few combustion byproducts. We, instead of gasoline, burn the carbohydrates, fats and proteins in food. Like gasoline, these organic compounds are converted to carbon dioxide and water, which we then exhale.
How is it then that we don’t worry about the massive amounts of carbon dioxide that are released with every breath taken by the billions and billions of people and animals that inhabit the world? Because every atom of carbon in the exhaled carbon dioxide comes from food that was recently produced by photosynthesis. Everything we eat, save for a few inorganic components like salt, was in some way produced by photosynthesis. This is obvious when we eat plant products such as grains, fruits and vegetables, but of course it is also the case for meat. The animals that we eat were raised on plant products. Indeed, a growing animal is basically a machine that converts plants into flesh. So, since all the carbon dioxide we exhale originated in carbon dioxide captured by plants during photosynthesis, we are not disturbing the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere by breathing.
On the other hand, when we burn fossil fuels such as gasoline, we are releasing carbon dioxide that forms from carbon atoms that had been removed from the atmosphere millions and millions of years ago by photosynthesis and had then been sequestered in the coal, petroleum and natural gas that forms when plants and animals die and decay. By burning these commodities we are increasing the current levels of carbon dioxide. Clearly then, by living and breathing we are not contributing to global warming through the release of carbon dioxide. But can we help reduce global warming by dying? Probably. We no longer exhale carbon dioxide and it will be a long time before the carbon atoms in our body eventually make it back to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. Of course, there are always plenty of new babies who start to respire as we expire.
This is a straightforward explanation of how respiration in mammals affects the world wide amount of CO2.
http://blogs.mcgill.ca/oss/2013/04/...o-be-a-problem-as-far-as-global-warming-goes/
True.
The current way of livestocks breeding/farming meant a lot of water, methane gas, damage to the soil/land... all contributing to environmental degradation and perhaps CC.
Wait, did you just agree that human activities have an impact on the climate?
....
Actually it doesn't! It is just another cc alarmist opinion blog that fails to recognise the blindingly obvious!
I have made numerous postings on this issue now!
On average, how many ppms of CO2 are exhaled by the respirating populace at any given moment?
The cycle between flora and fauna may balance nicely, but there has to be a discernible amount of CO2 in transit between the flora and fauna to facilitate this cycle.
How can an exponential increase in the population not impact the levels of transitory CO2?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?