After a short Twitter conversation with the -usually- formidable, cheeky and clever Ben Kunz, I started to read some of the links he sent me, looking for references, sources, and anything else that could tell me more about the origin of data
I am not a gullible person. I have been an IT consultant since last century and recognise content-free suggestimative BS when I see it. I trust all people as well as their motives, but know that no one of the face of this earth can ever be fully objective
So, I started reading Ben’s links and posts. Viewed graphs, clicked through, deeper and deeper, and made it to Wikipedia. The most objective source on this earth, I’d say, and full of notes and references to sources, a good amount of which online so you can immediately verify it yourself
I learned a few new facts about Global Warming:
- Carbon dioxide is measured in parts per million (ppm) and has been 1-20 times as high as today, over hundreds of millions of years:
- 1 ppm of atmosphere CO2 is equivalent to 2.13 Gigatonnes Carbon, which equals 7.81 Gigatonnes of Carbon Dioxide
- There’s the Keeling Curve, showing that the carbon dixoide concentration fluctuates with the season, yet has steadily increased from 310 ppm in 1958 to 390 in 2010:
- There’s the world population, increasing from 3 billion in 1960 to 6.5 billion in 2010:
- One person produces 1 kilogram of carbon dioxide a day, simply by breathing
- And then there’s the general concensus about human CO2 emissions: around 7% of all emission is caused by humans, around 32 Gigatonnes of carbon dioxide now, and 16 back in 1970
There we have it all. Sometimes life is too easy, really
- Human CO2 emission is double that of 1970
- Human population is double that of 1970
- Ergo: twice the emission with twice the people equals no reason to worry; it means we are not witnessing some unstoppable exponential growth, we are simply seeing a linear mathematical equation
- Ergo: there are too many humans on this planet. Of course they’re only causing 7% of presumed Global Warming, but still
- And who’s been telling people to behave like rabbits since the dawn of times? Exactly – the Church
I rest my case. By the way, double the emission with double the amount of people means that our carbon footpring has actually decreased, of course: we live relatively healthier thus relatively longer, and consume relatively more energy than before, yet our carbon dioxide emission is exactly linear to what one would expect if our lifestyle has remained exactly the same as it was back in 1970
That must mean we’re doing fine the way we are, and don’t need to change. Just make less babies:-)
Update 24th December 1:33 AM CET: after more, more and more comparison of total carbon dioxide output, I put it at 750 Gigatonnes – making the complete “by humans” output a 3.9%, rounded to 4%.
(Cross-posted @ Business or Pleasure? – why not both)
Are you suggesting that the recent increase in atmospheric CO2 is only caused by increase in human breathing due to an increase in population?
Breathing has not impact on the carbon balance of the atmosphere as explained in one of the link you are using (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/fq/emissions.html#q7: …”this carbon dioxide is part of a natural closed-loop cycle and does not contribute to the greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere”). The carbon you reject in the atmosphere when breathing comes from the food you ate which comes from the atmosphere through photosynthesis. So the increase in atmospheric CO2 is not caused by more people breathing.
Atmospheric CO2 is increasing because you and I are using fossil fuels which over a few dozen years re-inject in the atmosphere carbon that was extracted from it over millions of years. And yes, the amount of CO2 added to the air by fossil fuel is small compared to the total amount of CO2 emitted by all the natural processes but the problem is that this “small” increase in emissions is not been matched by any increase in the amount taking out of the atmosphere. This is why CO2 is currently increasing. Eventually a new balance will be found but in the meantime CO2 will continue to increase, temperature will go up, and the environment is going to change as it is adapting.
Now yes, the more people there is, the more fossil fuel is being used, so the size of the human population comes into play but it’s certainly not because of breathing.
Thank you Pascal
I’m not suggesting anything, I’m just showing that the increase of human-caused emission is perfectly in line with population growth
By the way, isn’t carbon dioxide equal to CO2, and isn’t there only one kind of CO2? Like there is only one kind of H2O (water), not one evil one and another that is “part of a natural closed-loop cycle”?
Your story lacks cause-effect arguments, just like the whole global warming religion. Let me show you:
“The carbon you reject in the atmosphere when breathing comes from the food you ate which comes from the atmosphere through photosynthesis. So the increase in atmospheric CO2 is not caused by more people breathing”
That doesn’t make any sense at all now, does it? I mean, even the Bible makes more sense than that. My breathing comes from my food? Really? I thought my breathing comes from my body, regardless whether I ate or not, or where. Do I breath differently when I had a burger at Wendy’s vs McDonalds?
“Atmospheric CO2 is increasing because you and I are using fossil fuels which over a few dozen years re-inject in the atmosphere carbon that was extracted from it over millions of years”
We’ve been using fossil fuels since ages – what’s with the dozen years? You’re just making this up aren’t you, or echo-ing someone else who did
“this “small” increase in emissions is not been matched by any increase in the amount taking out of the atmosphere”
Feel free to make sense of that, I can’t. Is CO2 fingerprinted now? Can you track and trace it all the way into the atmosphere and back? Wow – if only Sherlock knew
I know of all the silly arguments, some of which you quote here, but have you ever questioned them? Have you never wondered about them? Maybe you will now, but please feel free to enlighten me – there is only one kind of CO2, last time I paid attention in science class