Clearly CO2 is harmful to the planet
graphicconception seems to be leaving out how much of that carbon is absorbed by carbon sinks. One does not get to the truth by only telling half the story do they? It even explains the carbon sink data directly in the link he provided. Currently the carbon that is emitted by fossil fuels use alone stands at 9167 million metric tonnes. converting this into CO2 by multiplying by 3.667 we get 33615.389 million metric tonnes or 33.6 billion tonnes.
1 part per million of atmospheric CO2 = 2.13 gigatonnes or billion tonnes of carbon.
Multiple this by 3.667 we get 7.8 billion tonnes.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/convert.html#3...
Next we look at how much the atmosphere is increasing by. We see it is increasing at a current average rate of 2ppm.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends...
7.8 * 2 = 15.6 billion tonnes.which is less than half of what humans emit. 33.6 < 15.6. The excess is being absorbed by carbon sinks. do you notice he conveniently left this little bit of data out? A person with a bias that is wanting a predetermined outcome is the same type of person that leaves data out without an adequate explanation.
Let's put thing in perspective here.
The oceans give off 332 GT of CO2
Plants give off 439 GT of CO2
So 771 GT is due to nature.
Man emits 29 GT of CO2.
That is less than 3% of the total.
I have included a Skeptical Science link so you can see how they try to explain that away. No amount of weasel words will change the facts, though.
We do not know exactly how much nature produces. If the accuracy is ±1.5% then the possible inaccuracy will completely swamp the human contribution.
CO2 is essential to life on earth. No CO2 means no plants. No plants means no animals.
1. Confirmation bias, and similar brain tricks. Our minds tend to reject "unfriendly" information, however valid; http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2011/0... discusses the matter at length.
2. Lack of scientific understanding. Climate science is kind of complex, and some aspects of it aren't very intuitive ("How can it be snowing, if there's global warming?" and so on). Some people disbelieve what they don't understand. (there's something of the same problem with evolution)
3. Flat-out lying, or at least trusting a lying source. I suspect at least some people who deny global warming are skewing (or even blatantly faking) information because reality does not match their political biases, and/or because they are trying to protect some income source or the like that could be threatened by action to stop AGW.
And, while Pindar is right that CO2 is essential to life... that doesn't mean that more and more of it is good and wonderful. Selenium, for example, is also essential to you--but if you consume too much of it, it will kill you.
The people think carbon dioxide isn't a greenhouse because carbon gas produce human. human day by produce the human act.
Clearly CO2 is harmful to the planet
???
No, it isn't, it's an essential part of life on Earth without which you and I wouldn't be alive.
It is a GHG but it's warming effect logarithmically diminishes with concentration, and most of the warming was done at pre-industrial levels,
CO2 is essential to life, without it there would be no plant life, as it is, it is increasing plant biomass, increasing crop production and greening our planet.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/24/th...
What does the question have to do with the statement? CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It is so designated by the IPCC and a bunch of other rogue scientists. Go back in history. Back in the 50s there was no such thing as a greenhouse gas. The term was invented by people who were trying to scare you. This GHG scare obviously is a great piece of Public Relations work, since it has you, and many other people like you, concerned. That is what it was designed to do and is so stated.
Quote by Club of Rome: "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill....All these dangers are caused by human intervention....and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself....believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or….one invented for the purpose."
You see, you are part of a false hysteria. This hysteria was designed to entrap people like you, who put too much trust in our politicians, news media, universities and scientists. Study the subject thoroughly and you will see that your statement 'Clearly CO2 is harmful to the planet' is absolutely wrong. Without CO2 plants could not live. This planet, without plants, wouldn't survive very long. So you see, your basic statement is wrong. When I was in grade school we were taught that this planet had a natural cycle. Animals breathed out CO2 and the plants breathed in CO2. Conversely, plants breathe out Oxygen and animals breathe in Oxygen. This is a natural cycle and the earth's present existence would not be sustainable if this natural cycle was disrupted.
Notice the admission of the proponents of AGW, "All these dangers are caused by human intervention....and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself." That is what these evil, and I am not saying that without reason, people want you to believe, that which is natural is to be considered unnatural and visa-versa. It clearly is a scheme to have people give up their liberties and money to those who desire to control you, and you are letting them do just that, without proper knowledge. Study the subject thoroughly. Think every aspect through. Don't take the lazy man's way and just trust anyone. The facts are there. Science deals with facts not innuendos like 'Clearly CO2 is harmful to the planet'. That is only a statement by someone who clearly thinks CO2 is a pollutant. It is not, CO2 is a food. This has been proven time and time again, even before you were born.
Do two experiments to prove what I am saying is true. Take a flourishing plant and put it in airtight bell jar and see how long it lives. It will live only as long as there is CO2 in the bell jar. You are going to suffocate it by withholding CO2. Just like if you would put a little mouse in the same bell jar, it would suffocate due to lack of oxygen.
The second experiment is with your instructor who put this foolish idea in your head. As he or she was talking, he or she was expelling CO2, a substance you say is harmful to the planet. Tell that instructor to stop polluting the planet and see how far you get. I'll bet you dollars to donuts your instructor will not stop breathing, for he or she, knows expelling CO2 is essential to life, and that you will not get a very good grade in that class.
You see, just sitting down and using a little reason goes a long way to clarifying the truth. You don't have to get a high degree to do that. Any grade schooler can do it.
Flunky:
The EPA is not a good source It is ran by environmental wackos and commies .
And the CO2 statement is not true .
You'll have to speak up. I 'm puncturing 500 cans of freon and can't hear you very well
yes it is.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html
Clearly CO2 is harmful to the planet
