Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
Well, I've put together almost 2,000 posts in numerous climate change threads over the years,
|
Wow 2000 posts on climate change; you must be an expert.
Quote:
|
... and I've never seen anyone say there is a difference between CO2 produced 'naturally'....and the C02 humans create. Or any kind of CO2 for that matter. Hell, is there even a difference?
|
Apparently, not.
The difference is that we have reached a point of general climate equlibrium which is highly stable, generally warm and condusive to a high degree of biodiversity and human carrying capacity on Earth with the amount of carbon in the carbon cycle. If we use that carbon which is already on the surface of the Earth for fuels and other uses then we will not disrupt the balance because we will not be increasing the concentration of atmospheric CO2. It's called being carbon neutral. We use the carbon in plants to heat our homes or power our cars which goes up into the atmosphere, the carbon already there will be uptaken but new plant growth and there is no NET increase of carbon to the whole system.
Quote:
|
Isn't everything natural? Or a byproduct of something that was naturally created? Oil, gas, even nuclear waste.....all from 'natural' resources.
|
What's up with skeptics and semantic arguments in this thread? It looks desperate. The carbon we emit from fossil fuels is not natural because it's not apart of the carbon cycle. It has been sequestered underneath the Earth's surface for millions of years. I guess you are correct that at some point that carbon was natural because it was apart of the cycle, but the Earth was considerably warmer during that time, ocean levels were MUCH higher and the steady state would likely not have been condusive for humans. If we burn up all of the fossil fuels and do not rapidly expand forest cover then we will increase the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to its highest levels since life on Earth. In other words we are introducing carbon to a carbon cycle that was already in equilibrium. The system will now have to find a new point of equlibrium. If we were happy with the old climate that was highly condusive to rapid human dispersion and expansion then this introduction of new carbon should be alarming.
So your argument here doesn't old.
Quote:
|
Unless someone stuck his foot into his mouth, which wouldn't be surprising, because I simply do NOT understand that argument.
|
Yep, when it doubt try to slag the messager in the attempt of discrediting the content.