Quote:
Originally Posted by Barrykgerdes
I have been saying this for years. However you are a bit out in your % it was .028% in 1750, .03% when I was at school and is now around .04%. Still quite insignificant. Our whole existance is based on the carbon cycle. As fast as we pump it into the air the more the plants lap it up and re-cycle it as wood and O2. It is a pity our illustrious leader does not make his own investigations instead of listening to his toadies.
Barry
|
This argument is fallacious. Your implication is that small changes produce negligible effects. In fact, there is a mathematical theory around small changes in initial conditions producing enormous long term variations in conditions (chaos theory and "the butterfly effect").
You say that as fast as we pump CO2 into the air the more the plants lap it up. Then why is the increase in atmospheric CO2 accelerating?
Unfortunately the problem is not just CO2. As temperature seems to be increasing, ice sheets receding, we will also have the beginnings of problems with increasing atmospheric water vapour and methane. Under the worst-case scenario, if we managed to initiate a runaway greenhouse problem we could end up like Venus.
I agree with Ron. If the increasing consensus among scientists is that we have a global warming problem related to human induced emissions then we should take notice. The scientific community is its own harshest critic. Any scientist who attempts to produce misguided or non-rigorous conclusions to their research would be stripped of their credulity. If you don't think science works this way then who or what can you trust?
Regards, Rob