quote:

If this "delicate balance" theory were true, we would have lost our atmosphere millions of years ago.

note that when the carbon cycle breaks down, we have the five great mass extinctions.

quote:

Also, oceanic and terrestrial biomass cycling in the atmosphere produce 2.2x10^15 kg of CO2 a year.

not really. The oceans absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, which is the basis for most marine ecosystems..

I swear, conservatives are getting stupider and stupider. Must be all the inbreeding. You know, you should really lay off the incest. Creates problems for later generations. You're a perfect example of it.

Now, common sense goes to show that if respirating plants and decomposing organic material creates ten times as much CO2 as humans, adding volcanoes would make it much more than ten times. Make sense? Or are two digit numbers too large for you?

Perhaps an analogy will work for you when you say that an infintesimal (large word, I know) amount of human-created CO2 cannot possibly tip the scales. Imagine a big glass of water, filled to the brim with water. In fact, this glass is so full of water that the level of water is actually above the brim of the cup, with only water tension holding it all in. Now add one drop of water to the cup. It overflows, spilling water everywhere. This is what the situation is like regarding CO2 in the atmosphere. Yes, humans create a small amount compared to natural events, yet even that small amount is the straw that breaks the camel's back.

I hope this is easy enough for your small brain to comprehend. It's not easy writing on the level of a five year old child.

As for proof, does the EPA have enough credibility for you? Go here. I believe it's under the section labeled "Our Changing Atmosphere". And I quote:

quote:

Plant respiration and the decomposition of organic matter release more than 10 times the CO2 released by human activities; but these releases have generally been in balance during the centuries leading up to the industrial revolution with carbon dioxide absorbed by terrestrial vegetation and the oceans.

Not a theory. Fact. Solid, concrete fact. I put in the italics to show you what I mean by balance. Now, was there anything else you needed help with?

quote:

Originally posted by clpo13:
Don't you think volcanoes have already been accounted for in that theory? I was merely mentioning plants and decomposition to make things easier. No need to make numbers even larger by putting in volcanoes, but indeed, they too are part of the balance. Whatever the case, humans are still to blame.

You said absolutely nothing about volcanic activity. Here are you exact words:
"Did you know that CO2 emissions from repirating plants and decomposing organic material is roughly ten times the CO2 output of human activity....said CO2 was in a delicate balance that prevents damage to the atmosphere..."

What you wrote down about your theory has absolutely nothing about any other carbon dioxide producing agents besides plants and decomposing organic material, neither which includes volcanos. Yet somehow there's this "delicate balance" that can be disrupted by a century of human activity, but admits a billion years of CO2 producing volcanic eruptions.

Since this is surely a mainstream theory, widely accepted by scientists, could I see the exact specifications? That would make it alot easier to determine why you left out large portions of the theory.

When large epidemics have occured, CO2 levels have gone down, even as far back as the Black Death or smallpox outbreaks in North America (CO2 data is gathered by examining tree rings). In fact, the amount of greenhouse gases humanity has put into the atmosphere were mainly added during the agricultural revolution. The clearing of land to create farms raised CO2 levels and the building of rice paddies raised methane levels. During times when large amounts of humans died, CO2 levels dropped because less deforestation occured.

Information taken from Scientific American, Febuary 2005.

Don't you think volcanoes have already been accounted for in that theory? I was merely mentioning plants and decomposition to make things easier. No need to make numbers even larger by putting in volcanoes, but indeed, they too are part of the balance. Whatever the case, humans are still to blame.

quote:

Originally posted by clpo13:
Did you know that the CO2 emissions from respirating plants and decomposing organic matter is roughly ten times the CO2 output of human activity? Did you also know that the emission and absorption of said CO2 was in a delicate balance that prevents damage to the atmosphere? And did you finally know that since the Industrial Revolution, the human element has disrupted that balance thus causing increasing temperatures since the early 1900s?

I rest my case.

If we're going to look into CO2 emissions, why not look at natural CO2 emissions outside of plants. On average, volcanic eruptions produce about 5x10^11 kg of CO2 a year. Also, oceanic and terrestrial biomass cycling in the atmosphere produce 2.2x10^15 kg of CO2 a year.
If evolutionary calendars are to be accepted, this has happened every single year for 1,000,000,000 years. Humans produce 17.6x10^12 kg of CO2 every year for about the last 50 years.

If this "delicate balance" theory were true, we would have lost our atmosphere millions of years ago.

quote:

Did you know that the CO2 emissions from respirating plants and decomposing organic matter is roughly ten times the CO2 output of human activity? Did you also know that the emission and absorption of said CO2 was in a delicate balance that prevents damage to the atmosphere? And did you finally know that since the Industrial Revolution, the human element has disrupted that balance thus causing increasing temperatures since the early 1900s?

I rest my case.

Very nice! I belive you. I thought I'd try to look at it from both sides, but it never works.

Did you know that the CO2 emissions from respirating plants and decomposing organic matter is roughly ten times the CO2 output of human activity? Did you also know that the emission and absorption of said CO2 was in a delicate balance that prevents damage to the atmosphere? And did you finally know that since the Industrial Revolution, the human element has disrupted that balance thus causing increasing temperatures since the early 1900s?

I rest my case.

So we should still over consume, and pollute the air which can cause asthma?

Like 4th said, you need to look at more than one report. If this proves to be correct, then thank God the human race has not destroyed everything. We're doing enough damage as it is, though I still believe global warming is happening and is not just a natural cycle. Humans are inducing it.

quote:

Originally posted by reactionary05:
Global Warming is happening but it is all natural, just like global cooling in the mid 1970s. The world goes through natural cycles, and we humans cannot do anything to effect it.

it's more complex than you think. It is not only about the upper atmosphere but about the movements of tides, undersea currents, and the shifts of winds. To totally push CO2 out of the picture would be pehposterous, especially now that the carbon cycle is deteriorating, but it is not the only factor working in Len Dun, for sure. To say that humans cannot effect their enviornment is like saying it is impossible for the mongoose to have been introducted to Hawaii by humans. It totally goes against the theories of cause and effect evolutionary patterns.

And how lond did it take to do this thickening? There might have been an abnormally cool winter, or the wind patterns might have been caught up in an El Niño cyle at the time.

Global Warming is happening but it is all natural, just like global cooling in the mid 1970s. The world goes through natural cycles, and we humans cannot do anything to effect it.

Well that would be good (except I hate the cold, heh heh). Of course this is just one report out of many. I beleive that the bulk of the reports still say global warming is occuring or likely to continue (depending on how you look at it). Don't fall victim to one of the greatest mistakes a scientist should make.

Of course, even if this is accurate, which it very well may be, it could still coincide with global warming. It's not as if everything will just suddenly melt and not produce reprocussions. We have to beat the gaia hypothesis for this to happen and that means overflowing checks and balances.