Hello
Ahavi,
First, thanks for the links. Unfortunately the
first link doesn't work w/out a subscription.
Ahavi wrote: we are responsible for 27% of the CO2 in the atmosphere right now
You apparently moved a decimal point. That
27% assertion is way off (no one makes that high of a claim)...
Mankind's
total CO2 contribution is usually given as around 2.x%-4.x%, so 2.7% would be right. I've often quoted and linked to a site giving 3% avg.
Your
NOAA link gives man's contributions around 5%, which is among upper-end estimates, so seems reasonable.
...it is a question of how much is natural, and how much is influenced by us. An increasing rate of it comes from our influence.
Again, we are contributing
less than 1/3 of 1% to all greenhouse gases.
That's an increased rate due to our influence, but where's the fire?
Can an increase that small on a system as complex as our climate have a catastrophic effect?
It is not very relevant that the earth has been much hotter (16-17C° higher than our current average).The problem is how the temperature changes will affect us, and with the pase of them evolution can't keep up.
It's generally accepted that the earth has warmed about 1°F (1/3°C) since shortly after the end of the Little Ice Age (around 1850), and that small 1°F increase is what has been causing all of the concern.
The whole Global Warming Theory revolves around the claim that man is responsible for all of that
1/3°C increase.
FWIW, that 1/3°C increase has just about been wiped out as
the earth has cooled in the past couple of years (Temps leveled off and began a slight decline since 1998). The decline in temps has been attributed to a decline in solar activity.
Does that tell you anything?
A 16-17C°increase would be catastrophic, but how much increase would be harmless, or even beneficial?
Who can determine what is the optimum temp. for the biosphere?
We know that England was a grape/wine producing country during the Medieval Warm Period, that Greenland had Viking settlements
which practiced agriculture and that there were settlements (under what is now ice) in the Alps. Civilization has always thrived when the temperatures were higher than they are now, and has declined when it was colder.
But the case is still that many plant and animal species won't have time to adapt, giving us unwanted consequences.
That must be your major concern, as it is with just about everybody. We don't want to be involved in wholesale destruction of the biosphere.
Remember that the biosphere is known to be thriving in the climate as it is now. We think that the slight warming and increase of atmospheric CO2 are probably responsible for the increased lushness of the biosphere. That's a bad thing? Which species haven't been able to keep up?
We have no idea when average temps will rise to the point that the biosphere begins to decline.
We do know that average temps have recently (millenial scale) been a lot higher than they are now.
We certainly don't want to drive up temps at a rate that causes harm, but no one has been able to prove that we can have an effect large enough to cause a change significantly different than naturally occurring processes.
Despite what a bunch of politicians tell us, we just don't know.
I'll have to find a good source for this, but I've read it a few places in the past. Not that it is much of an argument but I just read in the paper that locally here, we've seen a lot of dead moss due to higher average temperatures.
Has anyone confirmed that the moss is dying due to increased temps? Could there be another cause, or are the claims merely anecdotal? Plants from the tropics to the tundra have been shown to be thriving under recent conditions.
Where's "around here"?
Around here (Oklahoma City), my lawn thinks it should be a jungle, and grows at an aggravating rate.
I'm sure scientists on this forum can say good science doesn't work by prooving things
I don't understand what you are saying.
A good scientist should continiously try to find flaws in his theory, not ever call it evidence.
And thus, this discussion.
Since we agree that science should try to find answers, to what extent should we trust any group of politicians who assert that their claims cannot be challenged?