Those who think the question of global warming is settled enough to spend multi-billions of dollars world wide aimed at reducing human CO2 emissions are simply not paying attention to the full spectra of information available from science.
Either it should be spent on new technology filters that exist today,though if the reduction in pollution is minimal? That 100 billion should be put to research alternative energies.
The way I look at it?Pollution is still energy in an altered state. We have to learn to RECYCLE pollution or preferably look for alternative energy resources.
First, there is the question of the relationship between CO2 and warmer temperatures. Certainly a correlation has been solidly established for the last 600,000 years; a correlation which can be further extrapolated to cover the past 2-3 million years. The problem is the correlation falls apart rapidly when one looks at conditions earlier than 6 million years. There were periods of relatively stable temperatures millions of years long while CO2 concentrations decline. There was a period where temperatures fell off rapidly from well above current temps to below current temps while CO2 was almost 10 times current values and rising. In short, to claim that CO2 and mean global temperatures are closely related, one would have to ignore the vast majority of geologic history and only concentrate on, in geological terms, only the most recent events.
The problem is not CO2. It is the other pollutants associated with burning fossil fuels. These are toxic to the air, plants, animals, humans, to our bodies of water, soil, ect....
If plant life is endangered by toxic soil, air and rain and CO2 is not converted into oxygen? THEN you have a MAJOR problem with CO2. Since CO2 is toxic to humans and animals.
Second: CO2 as a forcer in mean global temperatures has not been established. In fact the available data would indicate the CO2 concentrations are a symptom of temperature fluctuations rather than a cause of them. The first indicator of this is the well-established fact that CO2 levels always follow rather than precede significant temperature fluctuations.
That makes sense since the increase of temperatures would accelerate plant life to convert CO2 to oxygen. When temperatures decrease it would cause CO2 levels to remain more constant.
THOUGH thanks to deforestation, this will not always be the case. More CO2 production, less conversion to oxygen.
Then there is the following study which clearly concludes that heat retention differences are statistically insignificant when CO2 concentrations fall below 1000 ppmv. The study also found that CH4 concentrations are way too low to make a difference in heat retention of the atmosphere.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=ba13432389dabfd1253e8b7b8a8b702b
Really?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ch4
Methane is created near the Earth's surface, and it is carried into the stratosphere by rising air in the tropics. Uncontrolled build-up of methane in the atmosphere is naturally checked—although human influence can upset this natural regulation—by methane's reaction with hydroxyl radicals formed from singlet oxygen atoms and with water vapor.
Methane(CH4) in the Earth's atmosphere is an important greenhouse gas with a global warming potential of 25 kg CO2 over a 100-year period. This means that a methane emission will have 25 times the impact on temperature of a carbon dioxide emission of the same mass over the following 100 years. Methane has a large effect for a brief period (a net lifetime of 8.4 years in the atmosphere), whereas carbon dioxide has a small effect for a long period (over 100 years). Because of this difference in effect and time period, the global warming potential of methane over a 20 year time period is 72. The Earth's methane concentration has increased by about 150% since 1750, and it accounts for 20% of the total radiative forcing from all of the long-lived and globally mixed greenhouse gases.[16] Usually, excess methane from landfills and other natural producers of methane is burned so CO2 is released into the atmosphere instead of methane because methane is such a more effective greenhouse gas. Recently methane emitted from coal mines has been successfully converted to electricity.
ALSO did you know that CH4 is an asphyxiant?How is that good for the enviornement? At low levels it is controlled but at high levels?
Methane is not toxic; however, it is highly flammable and may form explosive mixtures with air. Methane is violently reactive with oxidizers, halogens, and some halogen-containing compounds. Methane is also an asphyxiant and may displace oxygen in an enclosed space. Asphyxia may result if the oxygen concentration is reduced to below 19.5% by displacement[citation needed]. The concentrations at which flammable or explosive mixtures form are much lower than the concentration at which asphyxiation risk is significant. When structures are built on or near landfills, methane off-gas can penetrate the buildings' interiors and expose occupants to significant levels of methane. Some buildings have specially engineered recovery systems below their basements to actively capture such fugitive off-gas and vent it away from the building. An example of this type of system is in the Dakin Building, Brisbane, California.
Third: Other forcers in mean global temperatures have been studied, with results strongly supporting the hypothesis that solar flux is more directly attributable to observed temperature changes than any changes in atmospheric content.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=ba13432389dabfd1253e8b7b8a8b702b
Nope. Observations from NASA state otherwise. Read my posts and see for yourself.
Almost every single major source has stated that greenhouse gases made by man are the cause. Again, read my posts.
Four: The Earth has a very long history, and natural climate change is part of that history. The headline grabbing statistics such as "CO2 highest in over 800,000 years!" are quite laughable when on considers that period is less that 0.02 percent of the Earth's existence. Additionally, the reason ice core data does not go back farther is the fact that a million years ago, (still less than 0.02% of the Earth's age) there was no ice to trap bubbles from ancient atmospheres. In the grand scheme of things, it is not unusual to think of the Earth as being too warm to hold "permanent" ice caps. Yet, due to the fact that there have been ice caps going back to the point that human predecessors, our own egocentrism has us (or at least some of us) convinced that the temperatures and climate patterns we are most used to are somehow "normal" and changing from those "norms" is "unprecedented" and "not normal" therefore "man made".
And how much of that 98.98% of the earth's existence supported life and how many mass extinctions were there?
Have you heard of something called the ice age??? And the periods of super tropical temperatures that preceded them?That is why there is no previous data. It melted.
When it comes to reacting to observed phenomenon such as retreating ice caps, unstable weather patterns, etc. the question to ask BEFORE reacting is what can actually be done? Do we spend massive amounts of limited resources reducing our CO2 output based on shaky, questionable, and in some cases falsified research, or do we look at the bigger picture, and put those resources into preparing for and adjusting to what is most likely going to happen no matter what we do with our carbon footprint?
Almost EVERY SINGLE respectable institution AGREES that man is responsible for GW.You call that shaky and questionable? All you have to go by on fasified research is the CRU and I believe it was a set up to help the anti-warmers with some ammo. They were paid to discredit themselves.
The bigger picture is as Industry grows, the automotive industry grows, pollution will increase and pollution is toxic for the enviornment.
And increased deforestation is not helping the mater.
