
Originally Posted by
moahunter
^it may have increased, but there is no conclusive proof that humans are the main reason. The level of oxygen is believed to have been much higher in the atmosphere in the times of the dinosaurs, do you blame humans for that? There is also no conclusive proof that this increase is a bad thing (especially given historically, the concentrations have been much higher). It must be nice for plants, and some sea vegetation (algae and other forms of life).
Sorry, you're flat out wrong. This is exactly what I'm talking about. You don't get to just have your own facts. In this very thread (and likely in response to you) I made several posts with links and citations to scientific studies that quite clearly show that the vast majority of the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is the direct result of mankind's actions, whether burning fossil fuels, making concrete, or land use changes.
You completely ignored them because they don't validate your personal beliefs. Why waste my time trying to convince you otherwise, when nothing will do so?
Just for giggles, here's one of those links again:
http://www.gcrio.org/ipcc/qa/05.html

Originally Posted by
Old Dawg
There are several other articles that address this topic but this one is perhaps enough to satisfy your challenge above.
Please fix the formatting, it's a disaster. In general though, the article doesn't argue that the CO2 concentration increase is or is not caused by mankind. It's a scientist saying "well hey it was higher in the past and it's been lower for awhile, so it's a good thing it's going back up!" That's total bunk. In the distant past many other factors were very different, and you can't wantonly say that X level of CO2 is good or bad without taking those in to account as well. Millions of years ago the sun's input was lower, as it is in a slow, steady increase over millions of billions of years. That's just one. There are many others. And no, the sun isn't responsible for the current warming, it's been ruled out repeatedly.
It's actually a laughably bad argument, anyone other than a layman largely ignorant of the earth's history and processes should almost be offended that a physicist would actually think that such a useless argument could fool anyone.
The further links about biomass and productivity again do NOT argue that CO2 concentration increases are not caused by mankind. They argue that it's good for the environment. Which again is laughable as we are in the middle of a massive die off of species and a reconfiguration of biospheres as plants and animals try to find a new equilibrium or niche in the face of a rapidly changing climate. The pace of change is far outside that which would be encountered in normal circumstances outside of massive events like asteroid impacts or massive upticks in volcanic activity. Normally such changes happen over tens of thousands to millions of years, not decades and centuries. Ecosystems are not coping well with such rapid change.
In short, you posted a bunch of talking points from some climate skeptic website that absolutely do not refute the scientific reality that mankind has significantly increase the concentration of atmospheric CO2.
Bookmarks