Yes it does, but it does not mean we stop breathing, the area consisting more population or the places which are over crowded with very less vegetation can lead to concentration of CO2 in atmosphere, planting more and more trees are only economical solution for it.
Scale.
Here is one way to see it:
The global human population increased by about 1.5 billion from period of the Roman Republic to the late 1800s, with no detectable impact on CO2 levels. By the 1950s, it had gone up by a further billion, and CO2 concentration had increased from agricultural but pre-industrial levels by more than 10%. The difference is that the cumulative amount of CO2 from fossil fuel consumption was small before 1900.
I don't see how people can say this is just part of a natural carbon cycle. You are taking oxygen out of the air. How are you putting it back? You say it is naturally balanced by the plants. But if the number of people jumped from 7 billion to 70 billion, would it increase the CO2 level, or are you going to argue that the number of plants would naturally increase to match that?
My original answer was no because the person breathing original took carbon out of the planet. But when he dies he will put it back.
The CO2 is growing in the atmosphere because the carbon that is part of that CO2 is being taken out of what is known as the geological carbon cycle and being pumped back into the biological carbon cycle faster than would occur naturally. The CO2 in our lungs are already part of that biological carbon cycle. The carbon that is part of the biological carbon cycle is exchanged between plants biomass, animals, oceans, soils, and so on.
Only when you eat foods with "edible oil products". The CO2 that we breathe out are the carbon from the food we eat which hopefully was captured recently by plants though the plants may then have been fed to animals hence it's carbon that came from the atmosphere recently. The CO2 from burning fossil fuels are carbon that was removed from the atmosphere millions of years ago and therefore is being added to our present environment. Of course, it was once contemplated in the 60's and 70's that world famine could be solved with synthetic fuel made from fossil reserves which after all is biomass and we got products such as powdered coffee creamer out of that so the carbon you received from your powdered coffee creamer would result in added CO2 to the environment. Note Subway bread has plastic in it so that's also carbon from millions of years ago but I suspect the plastic may not be digested.
Absolutely! As to how much this affects the global CO2 level is questionable. Right now is is not considered a factor but once the bad actors of this pseudo-science get their way established, they would certainly create a crises of your breath. The have already gone after cattle raising. It didn't get very far but the mere fact that they did that shows there intentions.
Quotes by H.L. Mencken, famous columnist: "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed ― and hence clamorous to be led to safety ― by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." And, "The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it."
The formula is an old one. Create a crises then let people surrender their wealth and liberties due to this crises. Then create another crises. And so on.
No, the carbon in the food we consume came from the atmosphere to begin with, so it is part of the natural cycle. [1] Only a fool would claim otherwise.
The increase CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere comes from humans digging up fossil fuels and dumping the waste products of the combustion process of those fossil fuels into the atmosphere.
Given Sagebrush's chosen site name, he must be a big fan of H.L. Mencken (also know as the Sage of Baltimore) So let me post a quote by H.L. Mencken --- "The Jews could be put down very plausibly as the most unpleasant race ever heard of. As commonly encountered, they lack many of the qualities that mark the civilized man: courage, dignity, incorruptibility, ease, confidence. They have vanity without pride, voluptuousness without taste, and learning without wisdom. Their fortitude, such as it is, is wasted upon puerile objects, and their charity is mainly a form of display." [2]
Now let me add some by Sagebrush (who frequently quotes Nazi's to further his cause)
"Execute all those who voted for OBAMA",
"Sustainability is a codeword for communism",
"Hire the handicapped, they are fun to watch"'
"Justice and equality are codewords for communism",
"God has his hand on the thermostat".
No, completely different it is natural
However eventually over population will be blamed after deindustrialization "mysteriously" won't work. As of now they haven't brainwashed the masses into believing that is a problem. This question you ask however is what is going to lead to mass genocide in the future. These clowns believe anything NASA tells them so it will only be a matter of time till the answer to your question is yes.
Possibly a very small amount in the short term.
However the animals we raise for food make a much more significant contribution.
http://247wallst.com/commodities-metals/...
Of course if there were no creatures to break down plant material, there would be less CO2 in the atmosphere, but the amount is hardly significant.
Yeah, so that means quit breathing. Also, to cut down on sulfer dioxide emmissions we have to quit passing gas too. Toot.
Of course it does, CO2 is CO2 no matter what the source.
But Warmists downplay this fact and say it doesn't count, that's what they say NOW, I wonder what they would say if they already had all the power they are trying to attain. Would they tax us for the very air we breath?
But a more important thing to know is that CO2 doesn't drive temperature anyway. I know that's what Al Gore preaches, but he is liar and anybody that says that CO2 drives temperature is also a liar.
It's a well established scientific fact that CO2 does not and cannot drive warming.
Graphs showing that CO2 does NOT drive Temperature
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/...
If you want to know what really caused the small amount of warming we've experienced over the last 30 years or so, watch and see what the experts have to say below.
Top climate scientists say there is no man-made Global Warming.
The Great Global Warming Swindle
Nooooo....
No not really
