A little CO2 for breakfast...

[Ironcat]

Australians produce 11 tons of CO2 for each of its people from their power plants -- the highest anywhere -- compared to 9 tons per person in the United States and 2 tons per person in China.

But the United States has the most CO2 emissions (2.79 billion tons), followed by China (2.66 billion tons). China, which soon is expected to pass the United States, is home to three of the world's five most CO2-polluting utilities.

China's Huaneng Power International leads all of the world's power companies, releasing nearly 292 million tons of CO2 annually. That's far more than Southern Co. and American Electric Power, the two biggest U.S. carbon emitters that each account for about 170 million tons a year, ranking sixth and seventh in the world.

[Cannibal23]

plants eat co2 for breakfast. plant more trees and stuff :-)

[Scotty]

Or make humans not produce as much CO2, ie, give humans plant DNA. plants have DNA right?

[XcOM]

don't forget we expel CO2 also, atleast i think we do, Don't we?

[moojoe]

So I guess we'll completely ignore that cows produce more tons of co2 per year then humans do. or dying vegetation. or volcanoes. or even the ocean. all of which produce thousands more tons then humans could ever imagine. we'll also ignore that co2 only accounts for .02% of our entire atmosphere, and that the part that humans produce is measured in the tens of parts per million.

[XcOM]

true, there are far worse green house gasses in the air, which is 9 times more powerful but we seem to ignore it,

Bio fuel for example, if grown with the wrong type of stuff, can produce said gas which is far worse than CO2 will ever be

[Spawn-Inc]

Or make humans not produce as much CO2, ie, give humans plant DNA. plants have DNA right?

yes they do, but there cells are different and we would need chlorophyll which would make us green.


don't forget we expel CO2 also, atleast i think we do, Don't we?

yes we do, about 4.5% of our exhaled breath is CO2.


So I guess we'll completely ignore that cows produce more tons of co2 per year then humans do. or dying vegetation. or volcanoes. or even the ocean. all of which produce thousands more tons then humans could ever imagine. we'll also ignore that co2 only accounts for .02% of our entire atmosphere, and that the part that humans produce is measured in the tens of parts per million.

well lets not forget the fact that the cows are there because we made bred them for use to eat and make leather jackets. but regardless (not irregardless!!!) even if its only .02% its still warming up the earth more than it should, any imbalance will mess anything up.

[moojoe]

well lets not forget the fact that the cows are there because we made bred them for use to eat and make leather jackets. but regardless (not irregardless!!!) even if its only .02% its still warming up the earth more than it should, any imbalance will mess anything up.


I love it when people say that.
please, please oh please give me the scientific data actually proving that co2 warms the earth, and I will give you mine proving that co2 is not the basis for climate change.
I would love to actually go into detail right now, and source every single thing that I say, but right now, I dont have the time. so I'm going to copy summaries from the website http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.co.uk/
if you look along the side, it will give you the summeries that I'm going to give you, plus all the links to all the data for what is said.
so in short, so save you the time of going through the data if you dont want to, here are summaries that ive copied. if you want to research the data that they talk about, feel free to click the link and its all there.

Temperature Record

One central problem for those who promote the idea of man made global warming is the earth’s temperature record – on almost all time scales.

In the last decade, there has been no clear warming trend (as the UK Met Office and IPCC’s own figures demonstrate). In the last century, much of the warming occurred prior to 1940, when human emissions of CO2 were relatively small compared to today. During the post-war economic boom (when one would have expected the temperature to rise) the world cooled, from the 1940s till the mid-70s (again, this is evident from accepted data used by the IPCC).

But it’s important to look back further in time 1,000 years. The climate record which used to be accepted as the standard account of this period was published in the first IPCC report. But this account posed a problem. A thousand years ago there was time a warm period – apparently warmer than today (known to climatologists as the Medieval Warm Period). This was followed by a relatively cold period (known as the Little Ice Age), from which, over the past two to three hundred years, seem to have made a slow, welcome recovery.

This was all rather undermined the idea that current temperatures were either unusual or alarming.

In subsequent IPCC reports the original graph was replaced by another – the famous ‘Hockey Stick’ (so-called because it looks like one). The Hockey Stick was a lot more dramatic, and was featured proudly on the top of the front page of the new IPCC reports. But was it true? The Hockey Stick debate is very telling, and we urge readers to review the links below.

Further back in time, still within our current ‘interglacial period, we find more warm spells – notably what geologists call the ‘Holocene Maximum’ when, for a few thousand years, the earth was significantly warmer than we find it today.

Over longer time periods of course, the earth has been far, far hotter than it is today (with tropical forests covering much of the earth) and also far, far colder, with much of the earth buried under miles of ice. The Earth’s climate has always changed, and changed without any help from us.

But there is another problem, a very major problem, for those who promote the idea of CO2-led global warming. According to global warming theory, if an enhanced greenhouse effect is responsible for warming the earth, then the rate of temperature rise should be greatest in that part of the earth’s atmosphere known as the troposphere, specifically in the tropics. And yet the observations, from weather balloons and satellites have consistently shown that not to be the case. I urge readers to look at the Christy et al papers below. The latest one was recently published in the Journal of Geophysical Research (2007).

CO2 & Temperature

The ice-core data is frequently cited as principal evidence to argue that CO2 is the earth’s main climate driver. It is, in a way, the jewel in the crown of the theory of man made global warming. But the ice-core data does not show that CO2 drives climate. It shows, very clearly, that variations in temperature precede rises in atmospheric CO2 – not the other way round. The two phenomena are divided by a time lag of several hundred years.

There is no evidence that CO2 has ever ‘driven’ the climate in the past, nor is there any compelling evidence that it is doing so now.

According to global warming theory, if an enhanced greenhouse effect (from increased levels of CO2 or indeed any other greenhouse gas) is responsible for warming the earth, then the rate of temperature rise should be greatest in that part of the earth’s atmosphere known as the troposphere, specifically in the tropics. And yet the observations, from weather balloons and satellites have consistently shown that not to be the case. I urge readers to look at the Christy et al papers below. The latest one was recently published in the Journal of Geophysical Research (2007). This may seem like a rather technical issue, but it strikes at the very heart of the theory of man made global warming.

The Sun

One of the most curious aspects of the global warming alarm is the persistent reluctance of some climate scientists to consider the role of the sun. The idea that variations in solar activity, observable in the form of sun spots, influence the earth’s climate has a long, important history, stretching back to the astronomers Maunder, Herschel and beyond. It would be surprising, surely, if the sun did not have a major influence on the earth’s climate (why is summer warmer than winter?). Among those scientists who are actively exploring the solar-climate connection there are different views as to how the relationship between sun and earth is mediated. Names to look out for in research papers include Willie Soon, Sallie Balliunas, Eigil Friis-Christensen, Henrik Svensmark, Nir Shaviv and Jan Veizer. An excellent introduction to the topic is ‘The Manic Sun’ by Nigel Calder, who recently also wrote, with Henrik Svensmark, ‘The Chilling Stars’. Also worth looking at is Willie Soon’s short book on Edward Maunder.



I know, this is a pretty bad way of giving you data, and I appologize, I just simply do not have the time to actually write out everything.
but if you do your research, and look at the data, in the end, it becomes quite clear that CO2 has nothing to do with the temperature, and its actually quite the opposite. the temperature affects the amount of CO2. and when you continue your research, you'll understand that its the sun which effects the tempature.

who would have thought?! that massive thing in the sky which keeps this earth warm actually has something to do with the warming or cooling of the sun?!

[Spawn-Inc]

well going with that (i didn't read it as i'm not here to fight) i never actually said it has to do with warming the earth, i'm just saying that you have to count cows as our fault as there wouldn't be that amount without us.

co2 may have nothing to do with it but something is messing with the earth.

[moojoe]

just to clarify, I wasn't trying to start a fight. I've just run into so many people who are convinced that CO2 is killing everything, and that if you think otherwise, you are a traitor to humanity and yet they have done absolutely no personal research.

I would agree with you that we are doing some seriously wrong things with the earth, and that we should cut down on pollution and deforestation. Though I also think that this warming period that we're going through may be an absolutely wonderful thing for the earth, such as was the case with the Holocene Maximum.

the stuff I posted about human produced global warming wasn't exactly to you. while your comment did trigger it, it was primarily something for anyone who was interested.

[Spawn-Inc]

ya i know i completely see where your coming from. i don't think i have read enough to fully give my opinion, an educated one, yet. i have heard that the warming will help in that we (Canada) can start growing more stuff and reduce the pollution created in shipping all that stuff we can't grow.

[LiTHiUM0XiD3]

heh i got a few suggestion of what to grow.... altho the legalities... hmmm.... only shippin i know of for this such product is from BC... i know there is many other places... but BC has the best

[xRyokenx]

I'll check out some of the links posted here when I get home later... I personally doubt we're causing global warming ourselves... if there even IS any global warming. That and I can't get along with most of the crowd trying to "save the planet" and all that yargle.

[DaJe]

plants eat co2 for breakfast. plant more trees and stuff :-)Not power plants though ;). We need a power plant that runs on carbon dioxide. Maybe we should find a way to construct a giant artificial plant that takes in carbon dioxide and emits oxygen.

[Drum Thumper]

I think George Carlin's on the right track here: "The Earth is fine, it's the people that are F****D."

I've never bought into the whole conspiracy theory that the Earth is warming. We're between ice ages, it's supposed to get warm.

[Xperiment]

I've never bought into the whole conspiracy theory that the Earth is warming. We're between ice ages, it's supposed to get warm.

I couldn't agree with you more.

I don't know enough about the subject to put forward an argument either way but, in my opinion its nothing more than over exaggerating to enable governments to justify yet more tax, yet look like they are doing it for the good of the world.

[xRyokenx]

I couldn't agree with you more.

I don't know enough about the subject to put forward an argument either way but, in my opinion its nothing more than over exaggerating to enable governments to justify yet more tax, yet look like they are doing it for the good of the world.

It's also a good excuse for some people to have something to get angry about. Some of those groups seem to be getting a little out of hand.

[billygoat333]

http://www.physics.isu.edu/~hackmart/anthropogenic_globalwarming.pdf
an interesting link done by my astronomy professor. kinda interesting to see a physicist's point of view.