Secondly, you have obviously not heard about the Carbon Cycle nor its' importance in earth's history in general nor how it is largely responsable for creating our current climatic conditions. What does it matter if we do not 'generate' CO2 but rather release it? The effect is the same.
<<...if that will make the world in habitable then how did humans appear in the first place?>>
Because the Carbon Cycle made it habitable. It is a natural and complex process which assures that there is never too much carbon in the atmosphere (too warm) nor too little (too cold). The Carbon Cycle releases CO2 and captures it, unlike humans who only release it.
And its these human CO2 contributions which, no matter how tiny when compared with those of the Carbon Cycle itself, slowly but surely put the entire system out of balance, in this case making it too warm.
Edit @ Pat:
<
I actually did in the very first paragraph when I referred to the cyclical variations in earth's orbit with cause ice ages to begin and to end.
I say Naruto, that's something I've also contemplated it is carbon that is stored in oil, not CO2 When the carbon is burned, it bonds with oxygen to produce CO2 Hope you find the answer you're looking for Naruto!
Because that CO2 was out of the biological system. Whether it's actually "new" CO2 or not doesn't matter, what matters is that the CO2 hasn't been in the air for millions of years.
Humans appeared under conditions with rather less CO2 than we presently have, to my knowledge.
And, as I have stated many times... the problem is not so much the average temperature, and CO2 level, whatever that may be. The problem is the rapid *change*. We have lived through ice ages and warm periods before, but changes that previously happened over thousands of years are now, in essence, happening over a matter of decades. The faster a change in climate occurs, the harder it is to adapt to it.
It's kinda absurd that as I sat down to type this, I've spilt coffee down my top! Oh well! For starters, the ice age wasn't started by a comet coming down on earth. The ice ages are primarily due to cyclical oscilations in the earth's orbit. You are most likely Take care y'all!
CO2 is not a climate driver, Dr Ian Clark explains it very well here : http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play...
It's an intelligent answer to your question explained by one of the best scientist in the world.
Some will have you believe that the minuscule CO2 that is "re-emitted" back into the atmosphere by humans is unnatural (Humans therefore are not a natural bi-product of the planet) and causes global warming. I think Gringo displayed and then dodged the real science on global warming by stating this
"The ice ages are primarily due to cyclical oscilations in the earth's orbit"
Why wouldn't that be part of why the climate changes, especially when the warming we are talking about is so small?
In the 70s they were concerned about global cooling and temperature records show there was only a 0.1 C drop from 1940 to 1975 yet CO2 output by humans tripled during that time. It's understandable that they consider a 0.4 C rise in global mean temperature (to this point in time from 1975) a considerable rise when CO2 output by humans is the highest it has ever been, but considering the rise in temperature from 1905 to 1940 of 0.45 C when CO2 output by humans was still relatively low, this means nothing.
Our resident expert Gringo states that
"And its these human CO2 contributions which, no matter how tiny when compared with those of the Carbon Cycle itself, slowly but surely put the entire system out of balance, in this case making it too warm."
yet he doesn't tell that our history shows up to a 10 C change in global temperatures at certain points in time when CO2 had absolutely nothing to do with it.
at the start of the industrial revolution atmospheric CO2 was 220 ppm . the last time it went just above 360 ppm , it took 2 million years for the oceans to absorb enough for temperatures to drop back to ' normal ' . today it has hit the 400 ppm level . this is passed the point of no return . the tipping point after which the earth goes into a slow , irreversible , permanent greenhouse effect . at best , we have a few more decades before the seas boil off into space and humanity turns to dust .
money won't help . the secret government bunkers won't help . you deniers die too .
how much does the oil and coal lobby's pay you ?
it is carbon that is stored in oil, not CO2 When the carbon is burned, it bonds with oxygen to produce CO2
This has nothing to do with ice ages or comets of God. We have been adding man made greenhouse gases to the atmosphere CO2, methane, Nitrous Oxides and Low level Ozone
Both CO2 levels and global average temps have been rising for more than 3 decades
If there is no global warming, how is it that the 10 warmest years for global average temp have been since and including 1998 I guess it's magic
You need to go back to beginning science dude
Well never mind where it came from or what it is going to do.
Just think we are burning up our oxygen, atmospheric oxygen levels are dropping
The Carbon cycle has been going on for millions of years. When C02 levels rise, plant matter grows more rapidly and absorbs the Co2. The is a huge closed loop feedback system. The only question is can the additional C02 released by man burning fossil fuels exceed the feedback loops ability to remain in equilibrium. Alarmists claim it cannot, skeptics claim it can. I remain a skeptic.
Your basic assumption is false
How is global warming possible? We ARE burning fossil fuels, but that isn't generating co2, it is releasing previously trapped co2 in the form of dead matter, we haven't created that co2, once in history all the co2 in the atmosphere and more must have been in this atmosphere especially after the comet that started the ice age hit, when many carbon life forms died, which must have produced immense amounts of carbon. We aren't generating co2 from burning fossil fuels, we are re-filling the atmosphere with co2 and if that will make the world in habitable then how did humans appear in the first place?
There is no scientific evidence that CO2 controls the temperature. The earth has been cooling for over a decade while all this time Earth's CO2 level has risen. Scientifically, there is no correlation.
That CO2 mumbo jumbo is just to scare you out of giving up your money and liberties.
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."
i like to say to the libs "if you want to do your part to stop global warming, stop breathing!" i saw a report one time that suggested if you had one less child, it would reduce co2 more than anything else you could do combined! that means all your hybrid cars, solar energy, recycling, efficient home appliances, new windows in your house, etc etc, wouldnt come close to the impact of one person! what about when you exercise? you breath harder and expel more co2!! its a ridiculous theory thats founded on nothing more than dollars and cents, while leaving out any sense. do they ever consider the amount of co2 expelled during a volcanic eruption? the human impact of co2 is very minimal. plant some shrubs and flowers in your yard if it really bothers you.
Life requires carbon. More carbon in the biosphere = more life
