Europe firmly commited to Kyoto protocols.

[Ecthy]

Originally posted by rah
But what is the percentage of manmade vs. produced by nature?

how would nature produce carbon dioxide in an amount only close to industrial output?

[rah]

That's why I asked the question, I don't know.
I'm assume your answer means, you don't either.

RAH

[Ecthy]

now what is that supposed to mean?

If you inhale a certain amount of air and then exhale it, the share of carbon dioxide has increased by only a small figure.

If you burn coal in a factory, you get tons of carbon dioxide.

The difference is vast, and even 6 billion human beings on Earth produce less carbon dioxide than a considerably low amount of factories or steel works must do.

[rah]

Originally posted by Ecthelion
now what is that supposed to mean?

That you don't know exactly either, you're speculating. I'm not saying you're wrong, I would just like a more concrete answer.

[Ecthy]

Speculating about what?

The effect that I have just described is just about physics, you can't deny that.

And you can't deny that industries produce carbon dioxide to an extremely high extent, either.

It doesn't even matter whether nature produces more carbon dioxide (while it doesn't produce any considerable amount at all, where should it come from?), as long as we know that impure industries on low environmental standards produce an obscene amount of the stuff. If we decrease that CO2 output, we will decrease the effects of global warming. I don't see what some people are trying to deny and to argue about...

[rah]

Do you deny that volcanos add CO2 to the atmosphere?

Do you deny that the oceans absorb some of the CO2 produced?

I asked a question, that you don't have a concrete answer for.
I have not dissagreed with anything that you've said. (yet anyway)

I JUST ASKED A QUESTION, ALL I WAS EXPECTING WAS AN ANSWER NOT A FRICKING LECTURE.

Thank you,

If you don't know the exact answer, just say so, or go look it up. I didn't have a lot of success when I did, there seemed to be some quite contradictory evidence.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by rah
Do you deny that volcanos add CO2 to the atmosphere?

Do you deny that the oceans absorb some of the CO2 produced?

The question is not about how much is going in or out in nature, it is pretty much in equilibrium. CO₂ sinks = CO₂ sources. There are fluctuations but the CO₂ level remained within an upper and lower limit since the last ice age.

What we are doing with industrial output is increasing sources. There will of course be feedback, either negative or positive, but what is sure is that CO₂ levels will rise, as we have introduced a net CO₂ source.

[Ecthy]

There is no need to shout at me, I'm not your son.

The question you asked is irrelevant because it only matters what we can do to decrease global warming.

Can you make volcanos stop producing CO2?

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Originally posted by rah
Do you deny that volcanos add CO2 to the atmosphere?

Volcanoes add CO2 in atmosphere, erosion adds CO2 in atmosphere (and seas).

But such CO2 emission, nature system was able to manage its balance.

Now we are both reducing CO2 bio-recycling systems (Forests and planctons mainly) and increasing the CO2 production.

If we continue to increase our production and destoy the bio-recyclers, we will enter in a vicious circle, if we have not.

Even ifwe are responsable of 5% or even 1% of the CO2 production raise, it could be sufficient to break the balance and throw us in a global warning or maybe in a Ice Age (why not ?).

[DinoDoc]

From the June 2001 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report "Climate Change Science" that made news last year: "The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes are also a reflection of natural variability."

Given the qualifications scientists have added to the assertions linking human activity to global warming in order to cover the uncertainties in the science, I fail to see how one can state categorically that human activity is responsible for causing air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
the qualifications scientists have added to the assertions linking human activity to global warming in order to cover the uncertainties in the science, I fail to see how one can state categorically that human activity is responsible for causing air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise.

You do realise how picky scientists are when making those kinds of statements?

[rah]

Originally posted by Ecthelion
If we decrease that CO2 output, we will decrease the effects of global warming. I don't see what some people are trying to deny and to argue about...

Effects on global warming. (not 100 % proven but the evidence seems to point that way so I'm inclined to believe it.)

I don't think everyone denies it (even though some argue about it just for the sake of arguing)

I'm just interested in the overall effect. You're very simplistic here. The US didn't sign the agreement so they're evil. (Ok, maybe not evil but it sure sounds that way)

Just because the US didn't sign, doesn't mean that nothing is being done. The epa car emissions legislation is in the headlines routinely. But it is prudent to look at the big picture. If you want to make a simple statement and claim that your arguement is right I'll do the same.

If I have the choice to heat my house using inefficient means that cause more pollution (because that's all I can afford) or let my family die due to exposure, it's a slam dunk choice.
Granted this is an extreme statement. But it can help to understand that everything isn't so black and white.

Check out this site.

http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/emis/em_cont.htm

If you see, CHINA has almost doubled it's CO2 emissions in the last 15 years. AND is quickly approaching the US. It took the US almost 50 years to double it's output. (BROAD GENERALIZATIONS) but it raises an issue. WHY whould the US sign a treaty that gives China a leg up?

Maybe there are other solutions. I think it's only prudent that every country judges how a treaty will impact it's population. And just because they don't sign it doesn't mean that they don't agree in principle, they just dissagree with the methods. If the US was doing absolutely nothing in that regard, I would have to agree with you, but we are doing something, (actually quite a few things) Things that are phased in to avoid economic disaster.
Why would the US sign a treaty that penalizes it more than any other signer? Of course you think it's a good deal, but don't expect us to agree. We'll try other methods, thank you.

I do agree that we're proably being too cautious, and that we should be moving forward more quickly. But the treaty was not the answer.

RAH

[Dr.Oogkloot]

Originally posted by Ecthelion

[points 1,2,3,4]
Conclusion: The more carbone dioxide there is, the warmer the atmosphere gets. Carbone dioxide in the air made a high temperature and thereby life and evolution possible. But too much of it makes the atmosphere too warm.

So global warming is caused by a high emission of CO2. And it is a given fact that the US' share of the global CO2 output is 25%. What else is there to deny I wonder....

The effect you describe (the direct effect from the increased CO2) isn't being disputed, but is only responsible for about 0.5 degrees of warming predicted for 2100, IIRC (somewhere in that order at least). Most of global warming is predicted to come from positive feedback effects such as increasing water vapor in the atmosphere. (IIRC 2/3 of projected warming is due to H2O)
This is the part that's in dispute. Those who deny global warming will be as much as predicted claim that the positive feedback effects are smaller and the negative feedback effects are larger.
If you think increased radiation from increased emissions of greenhouse gases causes a few degrees of warming DIRECTLY, you really shouldn't have an opinion on this.

To me the strongest argument against Kyoto is that it will do so little (it will stop only a very small fraction of global warming).
People then claim that Kyoto is only a first step; but the steps after that are certainly not going to be free.
Either there will be bearable economic costs for a CO2 reduction policy that achieves almost nothing (Kyoto), or there will be very large costs for a CO2 reduction that does significantly decrease global warming (or somewhere in between of course). You can't have it both ways. And this is assuming the IPCC predictions are right. Plus, there are things like the positive effects of CO2 on plant growth and avoiding/mitigating the next ice age.

"Kyoto is only a first step" is to me only an argument against it.

[Ecthy]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
From the June 2001 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report "Climate Change Science" that made news last year: "The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes are also a reflection of natural variability."

Given the qualifications scientists have added to the assertions linking human activity to global warming in order to cover the uncertainties in the science, I fail to see how one can state categorically that human activity is responsible for causing air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise.

(0. I don't trust in an American report, since it is Americans that are accused to produce the biggest amount of CO2.)

1. When they say "It probably is man-made", they mean that it is probably man-made. "Not ruling out" that nature produces a decisive share doesn't mean you consider it more effective for CO2 production than man-made things.

2. Your last paragraph doesn't make any sense. As we have already tried to clarify: it doesn't matter how big the share of man-made CO2 emission is, as long as that is the only part of global warming that we can affect. Why should we not do our best to decrease global warming as long as we have the chance to? I think a bit of common sense would be a good sign of responsibility in this regard...

[Dr.Oogkloot]

By the way:

If you inhale a certain amount of air and then exhale it, the share of carbon dioxide has increased by only a small figure.

If you burn coal in a factory, you get tons of carbon dioxide.

IIRC termites produce several times more CO2 than industrial activity. However that isn't really relevant as the recent increase in CO2 levels is agreed to be due to humans.

Andz, am I correct in reading your posts as meaning: we should reduce CO2 emissions no matter how ineffective that would be?