First, I would like libertine to show us what credibility he has in determining what science is credible, and what is not? He says the corporations have brainwashed us, but im curious as to what funds his sources.
Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.
You always can tell when you are reading advocacy vs. science just by the language used.
Contrarians always try to downplay things. You hear words like "only" and "just" a whole lot. Well, "only" a few degrees in raised temperatures cause a dramatic drop in crop production. "Just" a few degrees can expand deserts for many mile.
Now, to relate this to the quoted statement above. Those "only 6 billion" tons add up. Its 6 billion, plus 6 billion the next year plus 6 billion the next. It increases a whole lot. Since 1980 we have put 120 billion tons in the atmosphere. This matters for a few reasons.
1) CO2 has an atmospheric lifespan of around 100 years. This means that the emissions we put in, last longer than we do. This allows the great buildup.
2) The earth has carbon sinks. These are things that absorb co2. Well, before the industrial revolution, the output from the natural sources, and the input from the sinks were at about equilibrium. Now, we are upsetting that balance and creating a net increase. The oceans are reaching their limit (becoming acidic as someone mentioned) and, because of the warming, we are seeing a negative feedback where the oceans warm, and as we know, gases cant dissolve as well in warmer water, so more co2 is released. This negative feedback is often included in "natural" co2 statistics, when it actually come from anthropogenic sources.
This is why not a single scientist in the field would give any consideration to anything in the above quoted statement.
At 368 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth's atmosphere-- less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth's current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished.
As I predicted, it is belittling reality. How many of us would be able to survive in "former geologic times"? Crops would never be able to grow, people on the coasts would be flooded, drought would be rampant. Sure, co2 has been much higher, but people were not also around then for it to matter.
As for co2 being a "minor constituent" Well, only 2*10 -6 grams (micro grams) of VX gas can kill someone. Just because something is small, or occurs in minute quantities doesn't mean it cant have grave effects.
CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life-- plants and animals alike-- benefit from more of it. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide.
As a botanist, this is just bullshit. Higher co2 concentrations retard plant growth, and often times can be harmful.. High O2 concentration are equally as damaging to humans.
This also displays an ignorance of science because its well known that more co2 would only benefit plants if co2 was the limiting factor in plant growth. Any living thing can only grow as fast as what is the limiting factor in its growth. CO2 has never been one of them.
CO2 that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there but is continually recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth's oceans-- the great retirement home for most terrestrial carbon dioxide.
It is cycled, but the oceans can only take in so much. But i thought you said earlier, the oceans release co2?
If we are in a global warming crisis today, even the most aggressive and costly proposals for limiting industrial carbon dioxide emissions would have a negligible effect on global climate!
Last, but not least, contrarians always add in the "cost" issue. Im curious as to what a drop in crop production, limited availability of water, coastal cities flooding, increased disease would cost?
I know libertine will never respond to this, or even debate the science with me. Contrarians never do. They can only post scientifically inaccurate talking points about issues they themselves dont even understand.
However, if Lib does wish to debate the science, I will respect him for that, however, from my experience with him, and other contrarians, ive learned to to hold my breath.