Question:

Global Warming Believers - can you explain this?

by  |  earlier

0 LIKES UnLike

Explain to me how CO2, a NATURAL product of animal respiration is a pollutant?

Also - why is the Sun's activity not to blame for any supposed increase in temperature?

 Tags:

   Report

11 ANSWERS


  1. there has always been a certain amount of CO2 in the atmosphere that is continually taken in by plants, released when the plants died, and breathed by animals.  the current problem is is that we are releasing CO2 into the atmosphere faster than it is being absorbed by plants.  that is what is causing part of global warming.


  2. The warming should be linnear for all the planets if its caused soley by the sun.   Mars temperature rose by 2 degrees.   Mars is twice as far from the sun as earth is.   Cube the change on Mars and thats how much the temperature on earth should have risen.   As far as I know the temperature on earth hasn't risen by 8' C. in the last few years.    The temperature on Pluto has risen lately too.   Since Pluto is 42 times as far away from the sun as earth is, we should be a cinder ball by now.

  3. For starters, CO2 is a pollutant because that's what the (conservative) Supreme Court ruled:

    http://www.dieselnet.com/news/2007/04epa...

    Besides which, lots of natural things are defined as "pollutants".   Arsenic occurs naturally in the soil, for example.

    The Sun's activity is not to blame for the recent increase in temperature simply because the Sun's activity has not increased during that period.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/62902...

    http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-...

    http://greenhome.huddler.com/wiki/global...

  4. believing that global warming is caused by humans emitting CO2 is arrogant. I'm not saying that the planets temp. isn't changing, but to believe that humans are causing global warming is ridiculous.

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...

  5. For CO2 - human activity is slowly killing the planet, far out of proportion and beyond the natural actions of its biosphere.

    As for the sun...well it IS going to nova a a few billion years.

  6. The sun is responsible for the warming. The link between sunspots and temp have around a 95% correlation. CO2 has a poor correlation, and it does not drive temp. It follows temp.

    http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Solar_...

  7. Svenmark, from the Danish space agency and one of the pioneers in the sun theory rebutted the study in Bob's link above by saying:

    Their analysis relies on data on surface air temperature which, they say, "does not respond to the solar cycle". Yet over the past 20 years the solar cycle remains fully apparent in variations both of tropospheric air temperature and of ocean sub-surface water temperature (Fig. 1). Here cosmic-ray flux (inverted) is used as an index of solar activity. Fig. 2 shows an analysis of tropospheric temperatures for the European Space Agency's ISAC project (Influence of Solar Activity Cycles) (ref.[2]). After the removal of confusions due to El Nin~o, volcanoes etc. and also a linear trend, as in the

    middle panel of Fig. 2, the negative correlation between

    cosmic-ray flux and tropospheric air temperatures is impressive. This is in keeping with the direct link between

    cosmic rays and cloud cover previously discussed (refs.

    [6{8] ).

    When the response of the climate system to the solar

    cycle is apparent in the troposphere and ocean, but not

    in the global surface temperature, one can only wonder

    about the quality of the surface temperature record.

    http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=153

    (then click on "reply from Svenmark.")

    Edit:   If you click on my link you can read the full rebuttal to the BBC article.

    The following quote is compelling:

    "Nobody cares, because nobody checks anything!

    Except that even Sloan and Wolfendale don’t show that there is “‘No Sun link’ to climate change”, they say that even with their limited analysis of 20 some years, the Svensmark process on its own contributed perhaps 25% of the warming. That’s not insignificant."

    "You could have asked them to run the identical analysis looking at the correlation between carbon dioxide rise and temperature over the same time period, but you don’t want to rock the boat by showing that the carbon dioxide link is even more tenuous than the Svensmark process you’re trying to bury!"

    Edit2:  I just found a link that rebuts the study mentioned in the BBC reports of Bob's:

    http://www.sciencebits.com/SloanAndWolfe...

  8. First, the Sun.  Solar radiation has been decreasing (slowly) while temperature is going up.

    "Recent oppositely directed trends in solar

    climate forcings and the global mean surface

    air temperature", Lockwood and Frolich (2007), Proc. R. Soc. A

    doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.1880

    http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/pro...

    News article at:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6290228.st...

    The Sun warms the Earth, but it's increasing CO2 levels holding more of that warmth in that causes temperature to rise.

    "Pollutant" is a legal term, not a technical one.  The Supreme Court says it's a pollutant, it's  legal issue, they win.

    Another way to think about it is that pretty much anything can be harmful if you have too much of it.  Water is necessary for life, too much and you drown.  We have too much CO2 right now.

    EDIT - Svensmark's theory is disassembled in the study discussed here:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7327...

    Great quote: "The only problem with putting the last nail in the coffin of solar warming is finding a place to put it."

  9. The CO2 that is released from the burning of fossil fuel, is the big problem. That CO2 was absorbed by plants millions of years ago. The atmosphere at that time was very different than it is today.  Normally there is a "closed loop" of CO2 ,from the growth and decay of plants. Also, when plants are eaten by animals, CO2 from the plants is released.  Now that humans have released 'extra' CO2 into the atmosphere,from the use of fossil fuels,global warming is the result. No hoaxes, no fraud, no scam to raise taxes!  Just Physics!  Real scientists all agree that the reason that there is a rapid change in global climate is because of the rapid increase in 'fossilized' CO2 from the 200 year use of fossil fuels! The ever widening parameters of weather records,is a clear indication that climate change is rapidly occurring!

  10. Many natural substances are considered pollutants if they accumulate somewhere to a level that harms humans.  Let me list a few.  Lead.  Cadmium.  Mercury.  Chromium.  Arsenic.  Asbestos.  Carbon Monoxide. Ozone.  Sulfuric Acid.  Sulfur Dioxide.  Petroleum.  OK, that's enough.  It doesn't affect the definition where they come from.  Natural releases of CO2 from volcanos especially under crater lakes kill thousands every so often.

  11. The CO2 that occurs naturally in the atmoshpere is used by plants and animals for survival. Nature balances itself. The problem isn't just CO2, its the ABUNDANCE of CO2 that humans add to the atmosphere without balancing it out of the atmoshpere (by planting trees, ect)

Question Stats

Latest activity: earlier.
This question has 11 answers.

BECOME A GUIDE

Share your knowledge and help people by answering questions.