Study: More CO2 Now Than Past 650K Years

[marshal zhukov]

Just more evidence about Global Warming:

Read this at Yahoo News, Source AP ( Associated Press):

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/greenhou...fFV9cCs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3ODdxdHBhBHNlYwM5NjQ-

"WASHINGTON - There is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere today than at any point during the last 650,000 years, says a major new study that let scientists peer back in time at "greenhouse gases" that can help fuel global warming."

"By analyzing tiny air bubbles preserved in Antarctic ice for millennia, a team of European researchers highlights how people are dramatically influencing the buildup of these gases."
...
"Those measurements are disturbing: Levels of carbon dioxide have climbed from 280 parts per million two centuries ago to 380 ppm today. Earth's average temperature, meanwhile, increased about 1 degree Fahrenheit in recent decades, a relatively rapid rise. Many climate specialists warn that continued warming could have severe impacts, such as rising sea levels and changing rainfall patterns."
...

More evidence. Can anyone deny that by burning fossil fuel we will cause
Global Warming, and therefore change Earth's climate?

Somebody should show this article to Bush, he should think again about the Kyoto Agreement.

 

[WillJ]

Can anyone deny that by burning fossil fuel we will cause Global Warming, and therefore change Earth's climate?

Of course people can. Some people are just stupid.

 

[Sims2789]

Science schmience. I have my Bible!

 

[SonicX]

Shut up about it
For my political course at univ I gotta write a paper, do a presentation and preferably win a debate over why Kyoto should NOT be ratified by the US and Australia. Don't make it harder for me than it already is

 

[ew0054]

Maybe there's more CO2 because there are more people breathing than there were 650,000 ys. ago. That population is what... 5 billion? Ever think of that?

 

[Warman17]

and what, the millions of tons of fossil fuels don't burn CO2 into the atmosphere?

 

[SonicX]

Maybe there's more CO2 because there are more people breathing than there were 650,000 ys. ago. That population is what... 5 billion? Ever think of that?

Wow, you're far behind, it's 6.5 billion now

 

[blackheart]

Maybe there's more CO2 because there are more people breathing than there were 650,000 ys. ago. That population is what... 5 billion? Ever think of that?

And that would prove that there is more CO2, and more CO2 has a correlation with global warming.

 

[Stylesjl]

650 thousand years is a long time, all kinds of natural things can have increased the CO2 level

However burning fossil fuels definetly increases the CO2 level, but just by how much is the question they didn't answer

 

[Godwynn]

Isn't there a possibility of CO2 just changing normally? Just fluctuating?

 

[MobBoss]

This is rather sensationalistic. If it had been written to actually link the rise in the CO2 levels in more recent decades and correlate it with the recent rise in temperature then maybe they would have something. But a gradual rise in 200 years? Correct me if I am wrong, but in the last 200 years hasnt there been more evidence of weather being cyclic in nature as opposed to it being affected by global warming?

 

[EzInKy]

Just more evidence about Global Warming:

Read this at Yahoo News, Source AP ( Associated Press):

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/greenhou...fFV9cCs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3ODdxdHBhBHNlYwM5NjQ-


More evidence. Can anyone deny that by burning fossil fuel we will cause
Global Warming, and therefore change Earth's climate?

Nobody can seriously argue that human activity is not hastening global warming, but the evidence also shows that climate change is a natural process. Ironically, only human intervention can alter natural processes and they can only do that through technological development.

Somebody should show this article to Bush, he should think again about the Kyoto Agreement.

It makes no sense to harm the economies of the nations with the most technologically capability to develop solutions for climatic change.

 

[Narz]

Isn't there a possibility of CO2 just changing normally? Just fluctuating?

Hahahahahaha.

No.

It's the pollution.

 

[Narz]

Think about it. Where is all that CO2 coming from? What is the most logical explanation?

 

[MobBoss]

Think about it. Where is all that CO2 coming from? What is the most logical explanation?

Logic does not always explain everything. Actual pollution levels in major US cities has fallen in the last five years. Heck, you can even see the sky most days in LA now.

But there could be a lot more factors than just testing little air bubbles in the ice. Has the world experienced more volcanic activity in the last 200 years than in the last several thousand? I am almost positive that wind currents have probably shifted over antartica over 650,000 years...how has that and continental drift effected the reading.

My point is that its always easy to view something as X + Y must equal Z...but in my experience that type of formula is a huge over-simplification of the actual issue and it gives you a false answer.

 

[The Yankee]

Think about it. Where is all that CO2 coming from? What is the most logical explanation?

[devil's advocate]Where was it coming from 650,000 years ago?[/devil's advocate]

I'm not saying that our influence isn't to blame...I'm sure it hastens it or helps it along...plus it just isn't great for us in the very long run. But I'm sure a lot of it is also because of things out of our hands right now.

 

[The Fjonis]

Maybe there's more CO2 because there are more people breathing than there were 650,000 ys. ago. That population is what... 5 billion? Ever think of that?

Thanks for the laugh!

I don't think the debate is whether or not our burning of fossile fuels is causing an increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. What is being debated, is what impact this is actually having on the global climate, and whether it can be blamed for the temperature increases etc seen lately. But that is another matter.

 

[Oerdin]

That's a 50% rise in 200 years.

 

[Mr. Blonde]

Logic does not always explain everything. Actual pollution levels in major US cities has fallen in the last five years. Heck, you can even see the sky most days in LA now.

But there could be a lot more factors than just testing little air bubbles in the ice. Has the world experienced more volcanic activity in the last 200 years than in the last several thousand? I am almost positive that wind currents have probably shifted over antartica over 650,000 years...how has that and continental drift effected the reading.

My point is that its always easy to view something as X + Y must equal Z...but in my experience that type of formula is a huge over-simplification of the actual issue and it gives you a false answer.

CO2 is not a pollution but the endproduct from burning fossile fuels. And as it stands the complementary principle of mass is valid for chemical reactions, so you can indeed calculate precisely how much CO2 comes from burning fossile fuels.

 

[Pikachu]

But we cannot know exactly where the CO2 is going. Maybe all the human emissions are absorbed by some mysterious phenomena, and at the same time some totally independent natural phenomena occurs that releases lots of CO2 independently of human activities?

Likewise, even though everybody knows that more greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere must increase the global temperature if all other parameters are constant, it’s entirely possible that this known phenomena triggers an unknown phenomena that cancels out the effect of the human disturbance, and at the same time an unknown and totally unrelated natural phenomena occurs that causes the increase in the global temperature independently of human activities.

Yeah, that makes sence. Le't blame nature!