4 ms·

Sorry to burst your bubble, but you may be vastly overreacting. Talking about what's happening in both the Atlantic ice sheets and the Antarctic ice shelves ca

Sorry to burst your bubble, but you may be vastly overreacting. Talking about what's happening in both the Atlantic ice sheets and the Antarctic ice shelves can become complicated, and as far as I can tell (someone please correct me if I'm wrong) not definitive by any means. However, rainforests are by no means the "Earth's inhaler of carbon dioxide (and by extension I took that to mean 'oxygen producer' as well)". According to many sources (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainforest#Tropical http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainforest#Tropical, http://www.columbia.edu/cu/21stC/issue-2.1/broecker.htm http://www.columbia.edu/cu/21stC/issue-2.1/broecker.htm, http://www.iub.edu/~act/files/publications/1992-93/93-03_Deforestation_LandUse.pdf http://www.iub.edu/~act/files/publications/1992-93/93-03_Def...), rainforests do not contribute much to global oxygenation. In fact, organisms like the prochlorococcus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prochlorococcus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prochlorococcus have been theorized to be responsible for at least 50% to 60% of the world's atmospheric oxygen (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v424/n6952/full/nature01947.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v424/n6952/full/nature0... there's a paper in the references there which has that statistic, but I don't remember which). Today, these microbes are still hard at work, churning out oxygen and while some mistakes have been made (iron seeding, etc) they're still the most populous microbe on the planet. I would also contest the point about human beings. (This is my opinion talking now). I will not disagree that the earth's climate is changing rather rapidly (relative to the measurable past). I will argue though that it is arrogant to presume that humans are the root cause. On a micro scale, humans have been rather destructive to specific ecosystems. However, I have yet to see convincing proof that humans can effect climate change to this magnitude on a macro scale.

danmaz74 13y ago
"However, I have yet to see convincing proof that humans can effect climate change to this magnitude on a macro scale" Ok, let's start with something easier. Can we agree on the magnitude of the global changes that humans caused on the extension of forests and on the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere?
yread 13y ago
Humas produce on the order of 3.10^13 kg of CO2 [1] Atmosphere weighs 5.1 . 10^18 [2] so the CO2 we produce is 1/100000 (or 0.001%) of the total weight. Atmosphere contains 0.046% CO2 by weight [3]. So, next year, it's going to be 0.047% [1] http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html [2] http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/earthfact.html http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/earthfact.htm... [3] http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-composition-d_212.html http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-composition-d_212.html
- simon02 13y ago
  So you are saying we increase the relative amount of CO2 with 2% (47/46) per year and try to brush that away as peanuts?
  - yread 13y ago
    I'm sorry you understood it that way. I wanted to point out that it is in fact a pretty big deal! Human produced CO2 (mainly from fossil fuel burning) is changing the global environment pretty dramatically. nathannecro wanted to see evidence that we're doing something on the macro scale, here it is.
- jazzyjaffa 13y ago
  Your argument is completely spurious - the relative weight of our emission is not what determines if we change the climate. It would be like saying the average human weighs 70Kg so 500micrograms of LSD will do nothing as it is only 7.14^-7% of the body mass.
SupremumLimit 13y ago
97% of climate scientists agree that the current climate change is anthropogenic: http://theconversation.com/its-true-97-of-research-papers-say-climate-change-is-happening-14051 http://theconversation.com/its-true-97-of-research-papers-sa... It's not even the first review. How much more proof do you need? I think it's arrogant to ignore scientific consensus.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- nathannecro 13y ago
  I'm fully aware of the PNAS paper (and others like it which have been published). Let me point out a few other times in history where scientists, without clear evidence for their beliefs, were wrong: When Galileo championed the idea of heliocentrism, the vast majority of all other astronomers during his time opposed his views. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei The idea of phlogiston was quite prevalent in the chemistry community for about a century before it was definitively proved to be a pile of combustible turds. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory Even recently, in the early 20th century, physicists believed that: a) The smallest particle of matter (the atom) had been quantified, measured, and fully explored. b) There was no more to discover in the field of physics. Clearly, they were wrong. Let me rephrase my objection more clearly. I believe that the Earth's climate (across all biomes) has been rapidly shifting over recent time. I know that humans can impact local ecosystems and one of the results is a shift in local climate. I have yet to see evidence for (cum hoc ergo propter hoc is a danger when looking at studies) humans causing climate change on a global scale. This does not mean that we should stop our efforts to prevent deforestation. Nor does it mean we should ignore local environmental disasters, but linking local impact to global impact has not been done definitively yet, so as a scientist, I question that belief. It is not out of arrogance that I question, but out of the desire to be a better scientist. I am trained to base my beliefs in: Hypothesis -> Evidence -> Examination -> Belief. What we do have currently is a very good "guesstimate" hypothesis (we observe that humans can cause local ecosystem shifts). What we do not have is evidence. And thus, we do not have the opportunity for discussion or the transition to belief.

danmaz74 13y ago

"However, I have yet to see convincing proof that humans can effect climate change to this magnitude on a macro scale" Ok, let's start with something easier. Can we agree on the magnitude of the global changes that humans caused on the extension of forests and on the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere?

yread 13y ago

Humas produce on the order of 3.10^13 kg of CO2 [1] Atmosphere weighs 5.1 . 10^18 [2] so the CO2 we produce is 1/100000 (or 0.001%) of the total weight. Atmosphere contains 0.046% CO2 by weight [3]. So, next year, it's going to be 0.047% [1] http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html [2] http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/earthfact.html http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/earthfact.htm... [3] http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-composition-d_212.html http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-composition-d_212.html

simon02 13y ago
So you are saying we increase the relative amount of CO2 with 2% (47/46) per year and try to brush that away as peanuts?
- yread 13y ago
  I'm sorry you understood it that way. I wanted to point out that it is in fact a pretty big deal! Human produced CO2 (mainly from fossil fuel burning) is changing the global environment pretty dramatically. nathannecro wanted to see evidence that we're doing something on the macro scale, here it is.
jazzyjaffa 13y ago
Your argument is completely spurious - the relative weight of our emission is not what determines if we change the climate. It would be like saying the average human weighs 70Kg so 500micrograms of LSD will do nothing as it is only 7.14^-7% of the body mass.

SupremumLimit 13y ago

97% of climate scientists agree that the current climate change is anthropogenic: http://theconversation.com/its-true-97-of-research-papers-say-climate-change-is-happening-14051 http://theconversation.com/its-true-97-of-research-papers-sa... It's not even the first review. How much more proof do you need? I think it's arrogant to ignore scientific consensus.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
nathannecro 13y ago
I'm fully aware of the PNAS paper (and others like it which have been published). Let me point out a few other times in history where scientists, without clear evidence for their beliefs, were wrong: When Galileo championed the idea of heliocentrism, the vast majority of all other astronomers during his time opposed his views. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei The idea of phlogiston was quite prevalent in the chemistry community for about a century before it was definitively proved to be a pile of combustible turds. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory Even recently, in the early 20th century, physicists believed that: a) The smallest particle of matter (the atom) had been quantified, measured, and fully explored. b) There was no more to discover in the field of physics. Clearly, they were wrong. Let me rephrase my objection more clearly. I believe that the Earth's climate (across all biomes) has been rapidly shifting over recent time. I know that humans can impact local ecosystems and one of the results is a shift in local climate. I have yet to see evidence for (cum hoc ergo propter hoc is a danger when looking at studies) humans causing climate change on a global scale. This does not mean that we should stop our efforts to prevent deforestation. Nor does it mean we should ignore local environmental disasters, but linking local impact to global impact has not been done definitively yet, so as a scientist, I question that belief. It is not out of arrogance that I question, but out of the desire to be a better scientist. I am trained to base my beliefs in: Hypothesis -> Evidence -> Examination -> Belief. What we do have currently is a very good "guesstimate" hypothesis (we observe that humans can cause local ecosystem shifts). What we do not have is evidence. And thus, we do not have the opportunity for discussion or the transition to belief.