As of 2013 the U.S. had well over 2 times the CO2 emissions than China and over 9 times India on a per capita basis. China has about twice the total CO2 emissions of the US in aggregate because they have over 4 times as many people.

 

?Never before seen? spring snowfall in the Caribbean islands ? & Colorado Ski Resort snowiest in 50 years ? Snow chaos in Germany | Climate Depot

 

Well, two comments.

First, there was an article years ago about how the 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines put more CO2 into the atmosphere than man had since the beginning of the Industrial Age.

Second, living in the largest state in the union, I often see a perfect bumper sticker: Alaskans FOR Global Warming.

That is all ...

 

Completely and demonstrably WRONG!

Which produces more CO2, volcanic or human activity?

Gas studies at volcanoes worldwide have helped volcanologists tally up a global volcanic CO2 budget in the same way that nations around the globe have cooperated to determine how much CO2 is released by human activity through the burning of fossil fuels. Our studies show that globally, volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually.

This seems like a huge amount of CO2, but a visit to the U.S. Department of Energy's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) website (Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC)) helps anyone armed with a handheld calculator and a high school chemistry text put the volcanic CO2 tally into perspective. Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value.

 

It is amazing to see a bunch of pilots think we know more about the climate and with such certainty than the overwhelming majority of climate scientists in the world. The sources that deniers cite and their lack of facts, credentials and independence is also impressive. Very interesting.

 

I'm not saying I know more....I'm saying I'm not convinced.

And, even if I was, I don't think I'd do much differently.

 

I'm equally amazed to see the hubris inherent in a bunch lemmings who actually believe that human efforts can have a positive or negative effect on the earth's climate on a global scale. You want catalytic converters to reduce a city's smog issues on a local level - I'm with you. Stop dumping toxins into a river to avoid obvious issue downstream, in the local water table and local food supply - let's do it.

Creating some kind of fantasy where paying personal carbon taxes, buying curly-cue lightbulbs and wringing our hands over the gas we exhale with every breath is going to somehow change the natural course of the global climate is a joke. We are insignificant travelers on God's earth and His plan is going to happen no matter what we do.

No matter what source you cite, its producer has an agenda at this stage of the game. For every expert you find to support your doomsday scenario, there's one that will refute it. It this point, I really don't care what any of them say.

I'll stick with simple common sense. We can no more control the global climate on our planet than we could stop the sun rising tomorrow.

 

Ever hear of nuclear bombs?

'Hubris' is right.

 

Why yes. So, are you implying that our global climate would be different today if not for the approximately 520 atmospheric nuclear bombs tested 40-60 years ago? I wasn't aware that nuclear detonations changed the climate. Wasn't the big issue the spread of radioactive material. How much further away from disaster would we be today if not for all the big booms? Would our average temperatures be .01 degrees warmer or colder?

Shoot, if we're going to worry about 60 year old nuke tests, maybe we should do something about all the coal that got burnt at the turn of the century during the industrial revolution. Probably should charge the ancestors of those pesky iron workers a hefty carbon fine - maybe make them buy an extra green lightbulb, adopt a polar bear whose iceberg is melting and call it good.

I think you've got the market cornered in that department. Please explain to me how accepting our insignificance in terms of global climate control somehow exemplifies hubris to you.

Frankly, I think it's time to euthanize all the cows that keep farting so much and have one big save the planet cookout. We'll charge everyone $10 to cover their carbon footprint. Does Kingsford make a green charcoal briquette? If not, then never mind.

 

Oh no, we'll need those cows to pull our oxcarts and till the soil when motor vehicles are outlawed. Of course, agricultural production will tank and people will starve, but that should reduce greenhouse gases even more!