CO2 – The Root Of Global Warming
February 7, 2008
| “The doubling of carbon dioxide is a guarantee for global disaster … In the last million years it’s never been more than one degree Celsius warmer than it is now [but] what we’re doing with the human-made greenhouse gases … we are very close to the slippery slope...” | |
|---|---|
| - James Hansen, director of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and one of the first scientists to sound the alarm about climate change. | |
Every switch we flip, every plug we use and every button we push to turn something on inevitably leads back to a power plant most likely running on fossil fuel — the coal, oil or natural gas that comes from burning the fossilized remains of prehistoric plants and animals.
 |
| "We are very close to the slippery slope..."- James Hansen, director of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies |
Nearly 90 percent of the world’s energy consumption is through fossil fuel, which produces carbon dioxide (CO2) when burned.
CO2 rises into the atmosphere and, along with water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide and ozone, forms the “greenhouse gases” that float like a dome over the planet, retaining just enough of the sun’s reflected energy to maintain temperatures that support life.
As the amounts of those gases increase, they trap more heat and can radically affect the climate all over the planet.
For the last 250 years, “greenhouse emissions” have soared as we find more and more ways to use more and more energy. As the amount of CO2 rises, so does the average temperature all over the planet.
In the United States, there is probably more CO2 released every year from the making and consumption of cheeseburgers than from driving SUVs. Here is how it breaks down: Americans eat an average of three cheeseburgers every week, which is equivalent to 150 per person a year. The total energy needed to make that many burgers releases almost 200 million metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year. The carbon footprint of each burger measures all the energy that was consumed every step of the way for each of a cheeseburger’s component parts — from the feedstock that feeds the cattle to the wheat that is grown to make the buns to processing the milk into cheese, and trucking, refrigerating and cooking the end product.
The dangerous level of carbon dioxide molecules in the atmosphere is about 450 parts per million — we are already at 383.
Researchers and climate modelers around the world can reasonably predict what could happen as temperatures rise another 2 to 3 degrees Celsius, but almost all agree that 3 degrees of warming would be a tipping point that irreversibly changes how we live.
We may reach the tipping point of 3 degrees warmer as early as 2050 if we don’t pay attention to the warning signs and alter our production and consumption of energy sources.
Comments (15)
You need to contact the email add above. I am following this man and his work, as I see it, after reading a document passed to me by a colleague, he is about to change the energy industry and reverse climate change for the better.
Contact him.
www.globalenergy.wordpress.com is an outline of the issue, contact him for the solution.
Hayden Panettiere
Posted by Hayden Panettiere | February 8, 2008 3:07 AM
If all of the carbon in the entire atmosphere of our planet were represented by a one-hundred story biulding, the amount of carbon that mankind effects would amount to the 1/8 inch thick linoleum on the first floor. STOP SPREADING FEAR and LIES!!! It's going to get you prossecuted when the truth comes out.
Posted by Ronald James Ferderer | February 10, 2008 6:20 PM
I'm beginning to believe that the global warming scenario is crap.
Just take a close look at the National Geographic Channel.
They have shows about global warming, but they don't even know the capital of Alaska. They continue to state that Anchorage is the capital city of Alaska.
Their name is NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC for Pete's sake..
Their credibility is nil. Their employees are nugatory. National Geographic has little or no integrity and has become a political organization spouting only what is politically correct at the time.
They obviously don't check their facts, and as such can not be believed. A world leader in geography and cartography my ass!
Posted by Jerry | February 10, 2008 7:53 PM
Many in the scientific community have refuted the facts behind the CO2 scare. As a teacher the past 35 years I have taught students that nothing in science is certain if the burden of proof has not been met correctly. Computer models respond to the information inserted....The theory of global warming is just that..a theory...My theory is that a warming of the earth would be benficial in terms of a better climate in the temperate regions...thus increased food production...In case of a warming earth the poles and temperate regions would warm a greater degree than the equator regions...thus reducing the severity of storms etc.....so the question is..Which theory is correct??
Posted by Rich Wright | February 10, 2008 9:53 PM
Omg is that really Hayden Panattiere?
anyways, im scared of what to come. im also scared about whats going to happen in 2012...
Posted by Dee | February 11, 2008 6:25 AM
Neither Al gore or National Geographic is responsible for the scientific consensus that Global Warming is occurring. No credible scientific body denies this despite the seemingly divided opinions among scientists in recent years. This is no longer under debate in the science community.
“With the July 2007 release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Wikipedia has a comprehensive list of every major scientific body and direct links to the official position statements by these organizations which all ring to the same tune. Anyone wishing to discredit the claim that Global Warming is real or that man can influence climate, is doing so in direct opposition of all major scientific institutions and organizations in the world. Just because some individuals are in denial doesn’t mean this is somehow still under debate. If you still don’t believe this is real, you are in denial and do not agree with science. You also most likely will not help to do anything about this major problem and you are therefore against the preservation of humanity. Congratulations, your grandchildren ought to be proud.
Posted by Modern Science | February 11, 2008 12:12 PM
"No credible scientific body denies this despite the seemingly divided opinions among scientists in recent years."
Yes, warming is happening. So what? Climate change happens. Always.
It is completely irresponsible of NatGeo to build upon that accepted fact with the hubristic assumption that human activity has anything to do with it.
Do you think maybe the SUN might be involved? Better hope not, 'cuz it looks like the expected solar maximum of 2011 isn't shaping up.
Speaking of "Six degrees that could change the world" how about six degrees COLDER? The little ice age is thought to have been about four degrees colder than present. Just imagine how lucrative some well-cultivated Golbal Cooling hysteria might become!
"Let's scare the CRAP out the chilluns - that always sells!"
Posted by Joe Ryan | February 13, 2008 3:24 PM
I am watching "Six Degrees." Let's lead off with a completely discredited EX- NASA 'scientist.' Hansen is on his own mission, and the people still hopping on the global warming CO2 bandwagon are in it for the money. Heard about "Carbon taxes" yet?
The real cause of global warming may just be linked to the sun (Imagine that!). Ever heard of the Maunder Minimum?
Posted by A.W. | February 14, 2008 11:17 PM
Your entire organization should be embarrassed after airing the program “Six Degrees Could Change the World”. The horror visions of a rising sea level, melting pole caps and developing deserts in North America and in Europe are fictitious consequences of fictitious physical mechanisms as they cannot be seen even in the climate model computations. The emergence of hurricanes and tornados cannot be predicted by climate models, because all of these deviations are ruled out. The main strategy of modern CO2-greenhouse gas defenders seems to hide themselves behind more and more pseudo explanations, which are not part of the basic science portion of academic education. Good examples are the radiation transport calculations, which are probably not known by many. Another example is the so-called feedback mechanisms, which are introduced to amplify an effect which is not marginal but does not exist at all. Evidently, the defenders of the CO2-greenhouse thesis refuse to accept any reproducible calculation as an explanation and have resorted to irreproducible ones.
As far as CO2 is concerned, it is not a pollutant. In simple terms, CO2 is an integral component of the survival of plants. No CO2, no plant life. No plant life, no humans. Why has National Geographic made every effort to ignore this basic scientific fact?
Thus, I ask that National Geographic provide the scientifically valid data that proves the causal link between CO2 levels and changes in global average temperatures. And, by proof, I do not mean the output of climate models.
I will be waiting for the National Geographic response to my request...
Posted by An Engineer | February 15, 2008 4:49 PM
I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but Co2 is the cause of global warming, and global warming is the cause of the limited chance of plant survival. If you think about it, it's just a big cycle. 1)Co2->2)Global Warming->3)Pant survival->and all the way back to the plants needing Co2. Now see if you looked at it more closely maybe you would notice that Co2 is the answer to Global warming and the program "Six Degrees Could Change the World" has every right to make as many predictions as they want based on climate models. Although that doesn't mean you have to believe them, but thats your problem if you don't, because not like anyones forcing you to anyways.
Posted by Smiley | February 26, 2008 2:56 PM
There is an invisible unconsidered factor that’s been overlooked by the scientific community that is actually directly responsible for the rapid rate at which our planets ice is melting away, a situation that the CO2 accumulation could not ever generate. It is the expanding reversal of the downwards direction of conduction within our planets colder regions. This reversal of conduction is why the ice is melting in areas where the temperatures are actually the same or lower than they were at times when the ice was shown to be stable in the past. This situation has been generated by humanities aquatic thermal contribution steadily and increasingly accumulating over the past century, which is now spilling over into the planets colder regions thought the movement of our planets normal tidal flows. Everyone please bring up this reality to your governmental officials and university professors. I’ve done the study, analysis, and experimentation to gather the necessary evidence to support this theory, and it clearly does. One very telling piece of evidence, being that the rate at which ice melts increases by as much as 90 to 95 percent, simply by removing this natural downwards direction of conduction without changing the actual water temperature a single degree. Thank you! Randall Scott
Posted by Randall Scott | March 26, 2008 6:51 PM
The facts are this. C02 levels always FOLLOW!!! climate change. You can go back millions of years with ice core samples and they all show that C02 levels change hundreds of years after major climate change. Our (meaning humans) contribution of C02 is minor compared to the ocean and other factors. The sun drives climate change far more than any other factor. But real science isn't necessary for the press or celebrities. They'll jump on a popular bandwagon and ride it to death. Enviromental responsibility should concern everyone, but pushing global warming due to rising human-caused C02 is bad science. Doomsday scenarios are false and irresponsible. Please educate yourselves people and don't be fooled by the mass(all the untruth thats fit to print) media. Sermon over!
Posted by carl de vries | March 27, 2008 12:57 AM
Anyone citing the predictions of computerized climate models (so-called GCM simulators) as evidence in the climate change discussions can be dismissed out of hand.
All the simulation programs are just for testing the predictions of admittedly incomplete theories to see how they diverge from reality. This process then yields suggestive support for extensions to the theory in question. Many, if not all, of these programs include fudge factors ( i.e. parameterizations which have no theoretical justification) to make the output from their test cases more closely resemble the real world data.
None of them is a real world predictor.
Someone mentioned Hansen; wasn't he the bureaucrat who got caught lying to congress in order to get his budget increased? What he did accomplish was to make the unscrupulous pols appreciate what a great scare machine could be made out of climate variation.
And it's not just NGC pushing this stuff; the History Channel recently reran one of their old programs using the discredited "Mann Hockey Stick" as evidence.
Posted by Thos Sumner | March 30, 2008 5:23 PM
I wanted to share with you a new group in New Orleans, called Green Corridor, with a plan to bring enough renewable energy to the Mississippi River to power 1/3 the US. The plan uses barges with paddle wheels to generate hydro electricity and fund the rebuilding of Louisiana's depleting wetlands.
Posted by Perryn Olson | April 13, 2008 11:13 PM
Global warming is happening but thats not the immediate problem we are facing.
The fact is there are too many people on this planet for the planet to sustain and its only getting worse. Oil production is maxxed out now, food prices are skyrocketing due to shortages of basic food supplies and every year the billions of people in China and India become more and more like us.
Population keeps growing but the planet isn't... doesn't take a rocket scientist to see we have a major problem.
Within the next 10 years there are going to be "resource wars", where countries go to war to get the resourses they need to keep their country going just like it is because nobody is willing to change or to stop population growth.
Posted by Ron | April 17, 2008 4:00 PM