Quote:
Originally Posted by HOZ
I will hedge my bet on the 99% mass versus your 330ppm on what is the primary cause of temperature change on our planet.
|
I don't see anywhere where I said that 330ppm was the primary cause of temperature change on our planet...
Do you deny that it has an impact? What part of it do you disagree with? Keep in mind that how much heat gets absorbed by CO2 is dictated purely by physics, and is easily testable in a lab.
I don't really know a whole lot about the debate as a whole, but I look at it this way.
The earth is about equilibrium. As I said the greenhouse gasses that exist moderate the temperature of the earth, and life has evolved to fit into that temperature and thus helps maintain that temperature. To maintain an equilibrium, there has to be sources and sinks.
Over billions of years life itself has been a sink for the second most important greenhouse gas, trapping it in the fibre of its bodies in life and in death. Hence fossil fuels.
Now we're taking billions of years worth of the planet's effort to maintain an equilibrium and setting it free in a span of hundreds of years.
To say that has zero impact is foolish, at the very least sinks would have to compensate, or the equilibrium will shift. The question then becomes how much impact. That I don't know.
But I agree with the above posters. Even if there is no climate change due to increase in greenhouse gasses, moving from a fuel source we know is limited to one that is not, one we know is dirty to one that is cleaner, is a natural progression for us. Even if it's just to eliminate the toxic chemicals that get thrown into the atmosphere. Just like learning about germs makes us wash our hands, now that we know how dirty fossil fuels are, it's time to clean it up.