How does this NOT contribute to Global Warming?

Question

In 1900 the population was 76,212,168. In 2000, it's risen to 281,421,906-That's just the USA(http://txsdc.utsa.edu/txdata/apport/hist_a.php)

Plus the technology (cars, ac/heating, diff kinds of machinery that use some form of gas for energy) used now has overwhelmingly increased.

The theory seems childishly simple but there are still some who think humans don't have an effect?

Answer 1

The population of the planet is fine.  People just can't comprehend large numbers.

Every person in the world could be given 5 acres of land.  That's more than enough to keep a person feed and sustained.

The population density of the world is less than the population density of New Jersey.

The Earth could easily hold 6 times the number of people that live here now.

Answer 2

It doesn't contribute to global warming because it has no effect upon solar cycles or Earth's irregular orbit.

Childishly simple theories are rarely correct.  The sun doesn't go to sleep at night.  Kisses don't make boo-boos go away.  You won't survive a plane crash by jumping off at the last second.  Rain dances won't make it rain.

Answer 3

There is currently no evidence that man has made any significant contribution to climate change.

Some interesting facts.

1. During most of the past 2,000 years, the temp has been about the same or higher. Currently, we are barely over the average for the last 2,000 years.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index....

2. During the medieval warm period (820 – 1040 AD), Greenland supported farming. Those areas previously farmed are now covered in glaciers. Obviously the melting and reformation of glaciers is a cyclical occurrence.

3. The earth experienced a little ice age which ended around the late 1860's or so. This is about the time man started recording temperatures. This would be like measuring a lake depth after a severe drought, then worrying about it flooding as it rose to normal levels.

4. The earth has been warming for the last 10,000 years, since the last major glacier time period. Also, for most of the last 1 billion years, the earth had NO glaciers or ice coverage.

http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/i...

5. The AGW theory states that CO2 is the primary driver of temperature. They arrived at this idea because they did not know of anything else which could cause it. But during the 70's and during the current decade, temperatures dropped while CO2 continued to rise. This means that natural occurrences are driving temp, not CO2.

6. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation and sun spots provides a much better correlation to earths' temperature than CO2 levels ever have.

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/200...

7. Polar Bears are experiencing a population boom. Coke sales in the arctics are through the roof. Polar Bears have been around for thousands of years, and remember, we are only at the average for the last 2,000 years. They lived through all the previously warmer climates.

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/...

8. The glaciers have been melting now for over 10,000 years. the current rate of melting is similar to previous melting.

9. There is no consensus on AGW. This was a lie that has been propagated by the media.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckt...

10. Yes we emit CO2 into the atmosphere and it is a greenhouse gas, but, we only contribute about .28% of all the greenhouse effect. Water vapor makes up about 95% of the greenhouse effect. CO2 and other trace gases round out the greenhouse gases at about 5% for all of them. Of that 5%, only 3% is CO2, and most of that is natural. Again, our contribution to the greenhouse effect is a paltry .28%

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenh...

11. The spread of disease is not attributed mainly to temperature. If this were the case, Florida would be a giant festering disease ridden cesspool. Economic standing is the primary determining factor in the spread of disease. Poor cultures can not fight the disease or eradicate the pests like more successful nations.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12077886...

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.h...

12. Natural climate disasters (hurricanes, cyclones, etc) have never been scientifically linked to global warming (whether natural or man made).

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppa...

http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?i...

Answer 4

I think it is irresponsible to say it does or doesn't because we simply don't have a way to prove it either way, nor do we have the data to make any real comparrisons.  You can see projections that show the temperature as having risen as well as many that show it's been steady or for that matter fallen.  In fact, in the last 10 years it's gone down.  A lot of people think that we don't have a huge impact because weather isn't affected by these things.  They think the natural methods of gasses escaping the atmosphere, etc, as well as corrections to things by weather & cimate itself take care of the things you listed, and that even in such large numbers, we are just tiny fleas on a big dog.  Others think it makes a huge difference and have the numbers to prove it their way as well.  Taking an extreme opinion on it one way or the other seems to be a waste of time.  The same guy that said that global warming is making hurricanes worse and blamed it for the tragedy in New Orleans recently came out and stated that global warming may actually be making hurricanes less of a problem.  Even the scientists can't decide.

Answer 5

ranger_co_1_75,

The elliptical orbit of the earth is not the cause of Ice Ages and Global warming.  Do you believe the seasons are due to the elliptical orbit of the earth?  

The change in the elliptical orbit, the change in the tilt of the earth and the wobble of the spin of the earth do cause change in global temperature.  

What is the difference you ask?  The CHANGE in the orbit of our earth may change global temperature but this happens on a large time scale.  It takes about 95,000 to 100,000 years for our orbit to change.  

The orbit or tilt of the earth have not changed enough to indicate that these are the causes of global climate change.  What has changed dramatically is the concentration of methane, co2 and water vapor in our atmosphere in the past 100 years.

ivannakatyorbalzof,

Are you saying that our addition to CO2 to the entire amount of atmospheric pool (every possible gas).  Obviously CO2 isn't the largest percentage of the atmosphere but neither are any of the other greenhouse gases.  The idea that since there is much less CO2/methane/water vapor/etc in comparison to N2 and O2 doesn't mean that they don't matter.  Even though all the greenhouse gases only equal a few percentages of our total atmosphere they are keeping this planet habitable.

Answer 6

I actually is not a simple thing.  That is why all the problem.  Your right that as population grows, it has more of an effect on the environment, but people change the way things are used and attempt to reduce the impacts some.  The is not a linear relationship as quoting population numbers tends to suggest.  However, I agree that people are having an effect on climate and need to reduce their impact as much as possible.

As Dr. Jello points out, the Earth can probably support more people given the current conditions.  But change the climate and we will not be sure how many it can support.  This is exactly why action is needed.  Making the change slow down is good insurance.

Answer 7

The Earth’s mass is 528,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg.

That is a big number and no human can grasp this with out simplifying it down to 5.28e-24kg. Global warming has been simplified into simple terms by the global warming alarmists who want to portray population as being a problem.

Even when adding up all the CO2, CFC’s and other pollutants humans contribute to our atmosphere, our contributions are less than 1% compared to naturally occurring events.

Yes I will admit that increasing population does increase our contribution, but the increase is very small when compared to the emissions from the Earth’s bio mass, the Earth’s oceans, and volcanoes.

Answer 8

Green House and Ice Age cycles are a result of the earth having an elliptical orbit around the sun.

You can't stop either one, but you can contribute to hasting them.

Everything, natural and man made contributes to the cycles. Even your breathing and body temperature contributes to the heating of the earth.

So yes population increases and everything that comes with increased populations contributes to the green house cycle.

Answer 9

You need Prozac. The government would love you to become addict to it. Start with a 40mg daily dose.

My 2 cents.

Answer 10

Global warming is mainly brought on by destroying our forests. When we do not have enough plant life to turn the carbon dioxide into carbon and oxygen the increase of the carbon dioxide causes the temperatures to rise.

If technology causes an increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere then it makes sense that we contribute, other than that I do not believe we do.

Answer 11

Yeah it just stems from a lack of understanding of the greenhouse effect.  Few people deny that we've increased the atmospheric CO2 level or that the greenhouse effect exists (although amazingly, some do deny these basic facts), but most 'skeptics' argue that this increase in CO2 isn't causing any significant increase in temperatures.

Of course, they have yet to come up with a plausible explanation as to

a) why the CO2 increase and corresponding 1.6 W/m^2 radiative forcing (more than 10 times stronger than the solar radiative forcing) wouldn't cause significant warming.

b) if not CO2, what has caused the warming?

Simply put, science is not on their side.