Well, you really can't make such a statement without referencing a period of time
Sigh. Since the start of the Industrial Revolution.
Obviously.
And no, no wild-assed guesses are required. Or squeezing figures. In 1800, an estimated 11 million tons of coal were mined. Now it is over 8 billion tons of coal mined per year. As I stated, the amount of CO2 that resulted from burning just that coal over the past 215 years is roughly the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere right now. Those are the facts. They are indisputable.
Our plant life has, over millions of years, managed to suck huge amounts of CO2 out of our atmosphere. 400 million years ago CO2 levels were 10x what they are now, yet, somehow, plant life managed to draw it down.
It took hundreds of millions of years to do that, i-node. There are carbon sinks. But we have been spewing out more than can be sunk. Which is why the CO2 levels are climbing. Once we slow our rate of increase in CO2 release, the carbon sinks will have a chance to catch up. But we aren't doing that. Just the contrary.
As Robert Carter has stated, you could take 4x the preindustrial levels of CO2 and the planet would still be Oxygen starved. More CO2, in these ranges, just results in a greener planet.
A totally irrelevant point. Plants may be able to deal with higher levels of CO2. But that level of CO2 would mean that temperatures would be really high. Besides, sudden rises in CO2 levels over a short period of time like that have always been associated with mass extinctions.
No one is arguing that something will happen to the planet as a whole. Yeah, the plants should do fine. But the animals won't. And we might not be in the resulting mix. You think the refugee crisis in Europe is bad? Try displacing all of the 3rd world and developing countries.
Right. Because like all religion, there is no debate.
Well, I have presented actual facts. You have presented nothing but your belief. Which is a very religious thing to do. I guess you are right. |
