The Transportation sector, which involves the movement of people and goods by various vehicles, is responsible for the majority of greenhouse gas emissions. These emissions are primarily carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the combustion of petroleum-based products like gasoline and natural gas. In the United States, the largest source of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions is from burning fossil fuels for electricity, heat, and transportation.
In 2018, the top 10 emitting states contributed half of the U.S. total emissions. In 2022, 13% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions were offset by net sinks resulting from land use and forestry practices. One major sink is the net.
The U.S. has cumulatively emitted the most greenhouse gases by a large margin, and to many countries, U.S. commitments to emissions reductions are a matter of urgency. In 2021, the U.S. emitted more than 6.3 billion metric tons of CO2e, with carbon dioxide accounting for the largest percentage of greenhouse gases.
Human activities are responsible for almost all of the increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere over the last 150 years. The largest source of greenhouse gas emissions comes from burning fossil fuels for energy use, with coal being the biggest producer of emissions in the U.S. Between 1885 and 1943, coal was the largest source of emissions.
To meet these goals, humans can only emit so much more carbon dioxide, whether through fossil fuel burning, cement production, or land use. The top ten greenhouse gas-emitting companies in 2018 were all energy producers, and most emissions in the manufacturing sector come from the chemical and refining industries. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from transportation will likely require a broad range of strategies, including increasing vehicle efficiency, lowering energy use in industry, and shifting to a vegetarian lifestyle.
📹 This tool will help us get to zero emissions
The world needs to get to zero emissions by 2050 if we’re going to prevent the worst effects of climate change. In my book “How to …
Who are the top 5 largest emitters of greenhouse gases?
In 2020, the top ten greenhouse gas emitters were China, the United States, India, the European Union, Russia, Indonesia, Brazil, Japan, Iran, and Canada. These countries accounted for approximately 67 of total greenhouse gas emissions. Land use changes, including energy, agriculture, forestry, and land use change, also contributed to these emissions. Net global greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, forestry, and other land use were approximately 12 billion metric tons of CO2 equivalent, or about 21 of total global emissions.
In areas like the United States and Europe, changes in land use associated with human activities partially offset emissions from deforestation in other regions. These changes in land use contribute to the overall greenhouse gas emissions.
What animal produces the most methane?
Cattle are the world’s leading agricultural source of greenhouse gases, emitting 220 pounds of methane annually. Methane, while shorter-lived than carbon dioxide, is 28 times more potent in warming the atmosphere. As climate change impacts worsen, advocates are urging the public to eat less beef, arguing it’s an unsustainable diet for a world with a population expected to reach nearly 10 billion by 2050. However, Professor Mitloehner challenges this view, stating that forgoing meat is not the environmental solution many believe.
What are the two largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States?
In 2021, the US primarily emitted greenhouse gases from three economic sectors: transportation (28. 5), electricity production (25. 0), and industry (23. 5). The Greenhouse Gas Emissions database recorded 7, 586 facilities emitting 2, 695 million metric tons of greenhouse gases. Power plants contributed 58. 8% of reported emissions, while petroleum and natural gas systems accounted for 11. 7 of total emissions. In 2021, 7, 660 individual facilities emitted 2, 718 million metric tons, accounting for 42. 9 of total emissions. The largest emitters were 1, 332 power plants and petroleum and natural gas systems.
What is the most damaging greenhouse gas?
Greenhouse gases are emitted by various sources, including human activities, energy-related activities, agriculture, land-use change, waste management, and industrial processes. Major greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and synthetic chemicals. Carbon dioxide is the most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas, accounting for the majority of warming associated with human activities. It occurs naturally as part of the global carbon cycle, but human activities have increased atmospheric loadings through combustion of fossil fuels and other emissions sources.
Natural sinks, such as oceans and plants, help regulate carbon dioxide concentrations, but human activities can disturb or enhance them. Methane comes from various sources, including coal mining, natural gas production, landfill waste decomposition, and digestive processes in livestock and agriculture. Nitrous oxide is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities, as well as combustion of solid waste and fossil fuels. Synthetic chemicals, such as hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, and other synthetic gases, are released due to commercial, industrial, or household uses.
Other gases that trap heat in the atmosphere include water vapor and ozone. Each greenhouse gas has a different ability to absorb heat due to differences in the amount and type of energy it absorbs and the “lifetime” it remains in the atmosphere. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has developed metrics called “global warming potentials” to facilitate comparisons between gases with substantially different properties.
Where do most greenhouse gas emissions come from?
The United States has been significantly impacted by greenhouse gases, with human activities being the primary cause of these emissions. The largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the country is from burning fossil fuels for electricity, heat, and transportation. The EPA tracks total U. S. emissions by publishing the Inventory of U. S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, which estimates the total national greenhouse gas emissions and removals associated with human activities across the country by source, gas, and economic sector.
Transportation is the largest source of direct greenhouse gas emissions, with over 94 percent of the fuel used being petroleum-based. Electricity production, which includes emissions from other end-use sectors like industry, accounts for 60 percent of U. S. electricity in 2022. Industrial emissions are the third largest source of direct emissions, accounting for a much larger share of U. S. greenhouse gas emissions when indirect emissions are allocated to the industrial end-use sector.
Commercial and residential sectors also contribute to greenhouse gas emissions, with fossil fuels burned for heat, gases used for refrigeration and cooling in buildings, and non-building specific emissions such as waste handling. These sectors account for a much larger share of U. S. greenhouse gas emissions when emissions are distributed to these sectors.
Agriculture emissions come from livestock, agricultural soils, and rice production, with indirect emissions from electricity use in agricultural activities accounting for about 5 percent of direct emissions. Land use and forests can act as both sinks and sources of greenhouse gas emissions, with managed forests and other lands offsetting 13 of total gross greenhouse gas emissions since 1990.
What causes the most greenhouse gas emissions in the US?
Human activities have significantly contributed to the increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere over the past 150 years, with burning fossil fuels being the largest source of emissions in the United States. The EPA tracks total U. S. emissions and removals associated with human activities across the country by source, gas, and economic sector. The primary sources of U. S. greenhouse gas emissions and sinks in each economic sector include fossil fuels, energy production, and transportation.
What is the largest source of greenhouse gas methane in the United States?
The study highlights the importance of addressing all sources of methane emissions from human activity, with a focus on oil and gas operations as the largest source. The analysis reveals that methane, the main component of natural gas, can be monetized directly in the oil and gas sectors, making emissions reductions cost-effective. This could lead to economic savings or low-cost implementation. The study also suggests that oil and natural gas will continue to play significant roles in the energy system for many years, even under strong decarbonisation scenarios like the IEA Sustainable Development Scenario.
What is the largest producer of greenhouse gas emissions?
China is the world’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide gas, with 11, 397 million metric tons emitted in 2022. The primary source of CO2 emissions is fossil fuels, particularly coal-burning ones. The Global Carbon Atlas reveals China as the worst offender. NASA’s Climate Science division states that the amount of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere has increased by 50 percent since the Industrial Revolution, leading to climate change. Around 90% of carbon dioxide emissions are attributed to fossil fuel use.
Which industry is responsible the highest percentage of greenhouse gas emissions?
Globally, electricity, heat, agriculture, transportation, forestry, and manufacturing are the primary sources of greenhouse gas emissions. Energy production accounts for 72% of all emissions. Carbon dioxide emissions, primarily from fossil fuel combustion, have increased significantly since the industrial revolution. China, the United States, and the European Union are the three largest emitters, with per capita emissions highest in the United States and Russia. Most of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions come from a small number of countries.
What is the biggest contributor to greenhouse gases?
Fossil fuels, including coal, oil, and gas, are the primary contributors to global climate change, accounting for over 75% of global greenhouse gas emissions and nearly 90% of all carbon dioxide emissions. These emissions trap the sun’s heat, leading to global warming and climate change. The world is currently warming faster than ever before, altering weather patterns and disrupting nature’s balance, posing risks to humans and all life forms.
Most electricity is generated by burning fossil fuels, producing carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide, which trap the sun’s heat. However, over a quarter of electricity comes from renewable sources like wind and solar, which emit minimal greenhouse gases or pollutants.
What are the top 3 sources of methane emissions?
Methane, a greenhouse gas, is a byproduct of both natural and human activities. It is primarily derived from agriculture, fossil fuels, and landfill waste decomposition. Natural processes, including wetlands, also contribute to methane emissions. The concentration of methane in the atmosphere has doubled over the past 200 years, contributing to 20-30% of climate warming since the Industrial Revolution. NASA scientists are using various methods to track methane emissions, but identifying its source remains challenging.
📹 ‘Revolutionary’ CO2 maps zoom in on greenhouse gas sources
A new, high resolution, interactive map of United States carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels has found that the emissions …
Just remember that the max concentration in the RAMS atmosphere transport model map’s was around 1500 parts per million. When you exhale, you probably produce a much higher concentration than that in the air around you. Although I found it quite interesting that the overall effect looked like a heartbeat, very appropriate.
I am quite familiar with the details of photosynthesis. I think the focus is on the increase in atmospheric CO2 from the pre-industrial ~280 ppmv to the current ~385 ppmv. What is the basis of you statement referencing “parts per 100”. Please explain. And in your previous post, what piece of the causal chain? All? a part? Be specific. Thanks.
As with the previous discussion thread, you are confusing a gross flux and a net flux. When considering the influence on atmospheric CO2 over timescale beyond a year or two, the net flux is key. The biosphere exchanges ~90 billion tonnes of C each year with the atmosphere but the net is about 3 (a sink). Fossil fuel flux globally is now roughly 8 billion tonnes C/year.
MG4W, you misunderstand the difference between a “gross” and “net” flux as regards carbon cycling. To get a true net flux you have to take into account the source of the carbon in the respired CO2. This is actually key to understanding the difference between fossil fuel derived carbon and carbon that is part of the “fast” cycling.
This effects the trees, giving them more fuel to use in photosynthesis. They then use more CO2, putting out more O2. They also use more water nutrients from the soil. This is one process. It also adds energy to the oceans, which release water vapor, which travels over land, causing different areas to get rain, allowing different typed of plants to grow (and squeezing others out.) This is one process, independent of others, but it effects others.
Hmmmmmm, normally, I’d agree with you, but in this case, I’ll accept CO1 in place of carbon monoxide because it makes a clear distinction between CO1 and CO2, and when reading a discussion, that little bit of extra clarity is nice. (After all, it lets you know that someone didn’t just forget to put the 2 on the end.)
No, people found errors in the satellite software, in particular effects due to the decreasing altitude of the satellites with time not being properly accounted for. It was the newer data that was in error and still may be because the satellite groups have not released their software codes. It is also wrong to call the satellite data more accurate, but that is another very long tale. It is more global in coverage.
Check out 1:07. Notice that the lower tip of Nevada (where Las Vegas is located) is a small red blip on the map. Then go to Google Earth and look at the same area. There had been explosive growth in that entire area since before 1990, but there is very little NATIVE O2 producing vegetation, and almost no trees added (trees take space, which they are filling with shopping/housing/parking/tourist traps instead). How is it, then, that such a large area has such a small impact?
continuing the explanation to samadamscw, “controlled” atmospheric lab tests are hard, as things may work differently in larger volumes, but correlating the tests with real planetary data can help give them validity to a margin of error. All those tests DO affirm: a change in atmospheric composition CAN affect the heat trapping of a planet. The question then becomes “how much change is needed, and “are we changing the atmosphere?”
The point I am making is that it really is a cycle, with factors that we weren’t aware of as little as 50 or even 25 ago, and there are parts we still don’t really understand — after all, deep ocean currents are barely beginning to be mapped, and we know that many large lakes have a turn-over cycle where the air chills the surface until it is colder (and heavier) than deep water, so it sinks, and the deep, cold water comes to the surface. This can happen in the oceans, but why not more often?
samadamscw, you’re unfortunately mixing quite a few elements here, and character count makes responding tough. an example: back when we first sent probes to venus, we were amazed how hot it was- much more than just its proximity to the sun would matter. This started the atmospheric composition theory and tests, which did explain this. The model “solar radiation + atmospheric heat-trapping” accurately predicted this. The next question became, “if we alter the atmosphere, what would happen?”
BTW, the sun puts off light (which we see). The sun also puts off ultraviolet (which has a wavelength that is too short for us to perceive with our eyes). And infrared (which has a wavelength that is too long for us to perceive). And pretty much every wavelength in the electromagnetic spectrum, including x-rays and radio waves, too. And they all matter, so a decrease in the output of visible light = a decrease in light hitting the surface, but is doesn’t mean that less energy is reaching Earth.
@kellygiz So, you are admitting the more accurate data needed to be massaged to come in line with the different, less accurate data. This has already happened far too many times. The old data has never been corrected unless it suited the GW agenda. That is why the IPCC graphs never add up to the old empirical data.
Carbon is a much better common unit in which to track CO2 – it allows one to avoid the mass differences when carbon it tied up in organic and inorganic forms. So, for example, when attempting to compare the mass of carbon in biospheric pools versus an inorganic pool (the atmosphere) you are not misled by the molecule the carbon is tied up in. This is a common practice in the science of this subject.
That’s exactly what I meant. In addition to the vast growth of population (slowed somewhat recently, bit still growing), there are no “Green Spaces” like you find in other cities, simply because to maintain any green space, you need to add a HUGE amount of water, unlike other places. Don’t get me wrong the desert is wonderfully beautiful, but it can’t support plants that need water, so all the water that the area uses needs to be piped in from other places.
The point that many people seem to miss is that the planet has been warming — and cooling — for as long as there has been a planet. Carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and all other atmospheric gases have been in a state of change for the same period of time. In fact, the sun (which we have no control over) has also been in a state of change, and for a longer period (the sun came first, after all.)
The problem is, you’re right about those chemicals. Right now, every is concentrating on CO2, which is actually good for a significant portion of the life on earth (you know, plants.) In reality, we’d only need to worry about if the change was measured in parts per 100. The dangerous stuff is largely ignored because all of the changes that need to be made to control those emissions are localized, machine-specific, and do not require the average person to give more control to the government.
“(we don’t exhale smoke from our mouths if you didn’t notice)” Assuming you’re not smoking, that’s true, but CO2 is colorless. Soda cans don’t emit smoke when you open them either. There’s a whole lot of stuff coming out of an exhaust pipe. CO2, a greenhouse gas, is in there, as are the gases and particles that make up smog.
Maybe we have an effect, but that doesn’t mean that our effect on the local atmosphere necessarily translates into sweeping changes on the entire climate. And I know that someone is going to mention acid rain. Acid rain is a change in the pH of rainwater, and the rain is considered “acid” if the pH changes by .05 (actual, not %). At the beginning of the 19900’s, there was a problem, because it was causing corrosion of metal and stone in large, industrialized cities. (Continued)
I just love how people get so worked up from information that’s to be EDUCATIONAL. I highly doubt that this is meant to “convert” people onto any side of the “Green” debate. It’s only to make it known how much CO2 cities, states, and the nation release such gases in the air. I’m pretty sure that with this kind of information companies and hopefully the government will redesign and make new products that help reduce these emissions.
This is an interesting model but it is evident that it’s been created by calculation rather than actual sample. It reminds me of the 1980’s and the hole in the ozone layers at the planetary poles, then they discovered the ozone (O3) is created at the tropics by UV interaction with simple O2, and that the “holes” have always existed….
Right now, everyone is concentrating on CO2, which is actually good for a significant portion of the life on earth (you know, plants.) In reality, we only need to worry about if the change was measured in parts per 100. The dangerous stuff is largely ignored because all of the changes that need to be made to control those emissions are localized, machine-specific, and do not require the average person to give more control to the government.
The best part of this is that while the US Gov’t is paying people to produce ethanol crops for fuel, they are producing less food crops (like you said.) Food prices go up, and we ALL FEEL IT! And then, they turn right around and pay farmers to not farm, thus keeping the food prices high and food supplies low. If their goal is to starve poor countries so people will die and produce less CO2, then it’s working. If not, then what are they thinking? Or are they thinking?
My reply was to KnightKiller100, who said CO2 emissions are different and may cause the Earth to decrease in our Ozone layer. I don’t understand his reasoning, because while CO2 and O3 are related (they both have oxygen, after all), his comment made no sense. If you want to see the comment I was replying to, hit view all comments, then search for KnightKiller100.
human respiration is the other half of the uptake by vegetation. Other than the widening girth of humans, this cannot be a net sink or source of CO2. The numbers actually show all fauna to be a drop in the bucket on a net CO2 exchange basis which is what is important to atmospheric CO2 over longer timescales (years to decades).
“Follow the money” Cute phrase, but accurate in this case, because there is strong, relevant correlation between who’s paying the scientist and what the scientist says (on both sides.) But in this case, another phrase comes to mind — FOLLOW THE SUNLIGHT. Stronger solar radiation = more heat. More heat = more water vapor. More water vapor = higher temperatures This pattern continues until the sun reduces its output, at which point the earth (and mars, too) gets cooler.
Those two interact with each other. Meanwhile, the sun is putting other wavelengths, that we can’t see but can now measure. the glaciers that are above the tree-line that are receding are very strongly effected by other output, and are shrinking, but it’s not our fault, because we do not effect any of that part of the atmosphere. Volcanoes do, but not us.
Um, actually, it will. I (and several others) have made the point that the sun gives off an incredibly large about of energy, of which a small portion reaches us. Because the output of the sun varies greatly over time, the amount reaching us (insolation) also varies greatly over time. While our eyes cannot detect the difference, recent (in the last 100 years or so) advances in instrumentation have allowed us to measure the change. (continued)
CO2 isn’t the bad thing, its actually good, helps keeps the planet warm, otherwise it would be like the moon, problem is WATER VAPOR which is the bigger greenhouse gas If we create too much watervapor our atmosphere will get hotter but we can’t control it, what we can control IS CO2.Put that much CO2 in our atmosphere and the planet gets too hot and cause water vapor, when it gets hotter leads to more wathervapor which leads to higher temp, which leads to more watervapor i.e. The runaway affect.
**Co2 is a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere that absorb and emit radiation within the thermal infrared range** Thermal heat and Infared light are different forms of radiation Thermal heat is when mass is aggitated. while Ir rays can be emmited by a mass that has gotten “IR hot” A lightbulb gets “Whiite light” hot from electricty Rubbing your hands together will only get “them thermal hot” Bending a paperclip back and forth quickly will sometimes cause “white hot” agitation&smoke
“Hansen compared the corrected troposphere temperatures with the results of the published GISS model, and concluded that the model is in good agreement with the observations, noting that the satellite temperature data had been the last holdout of global warming denialists, and that the correction of the data would result in a change from discussing whether global warming was occurring to what is the rate of global warming, and what should be done about it.”
just some thoughts I have about sustainability…we should be responsible for our actions, just look around and see what is the footprint of the products you use, is it a positive one or a negative one? Does it increase the ability of present or future generations to meet their needs? or diminishes it? If the power of the consumer is the foundation of democracy then the society we have is the result of everyday choices when buying products
I know of no responsible suggestion that altered concentration of CO2 would directly impact human health (except in enclosed space where it could displace O2). This seems like a straw man. The causal link between CO2 and temperature is not proposed as a correlation – it is mechanistic. There is a wealth of scientific work going back decades on this topic (even to late 19th century). Thousands of peer-reviewed papers, reviews, books, etc. I can supply some references if that helps.
The second law involves an isolated system that begins to even out after reaching an equilibrium. The Earth has not reached that point and furthermore is not really an isolated system with respect to the greenhouse gas effect alone. The sun is continually bombarding the Earth with new radiation adding to the system.
Or it could be that higher temperatures cause the oceans to release more dissolved CO2. It could be that the natural solar cycles are what drive global warming, and that CO2 is just a natural result. Correlation is not causation. Just because we see a correlation between increased global temperatures and atmospheric CO2, does not mean that CO2 causes global warming. It could be the other way around. Plants like CO2. They should grow faster with more of it.
M4GW – You are repeating a fundamental misunderstanding about carbon cycling…..nature does not produce more net flux than human sources. Nature produces more gross flux, but when considering the implications for atmospheric CO2, the net flux is the important part. Actually, “nature” is assisting us by removing some of our net fossil fuel emissions through regrowth and ocean uptake. Not all, however. It would help discussion if you do a bit of research on net vs gross flux.
*Japan’s Carbon Detector launched last year……and will be ready to give real CO2 emissions data soon* What I expect will she find 1)Co2 emissions isn’t as claimed,nor in the amounts believed/estimated 2)Co2 is unevenly distributed in the atmosphere around the world 3)Co2 does not climb more then a few meters off the ground in non-aerosol form and won’t be found higher then the evaporation/precipitation cycle 4)Higher Co2 concentrations actually cool local area in(seriously)
What’s the difference between humans and animals breathing out CO2 and power plants outputting CO2? Answer: Nothing, both CO2 outputs are consumed by plants are improve the quality and quantity of agricultural yields. Studies show that CO2 has barely any effect on temperature, so the benefits of pumping CO2 into the atmosphere far outweigh the losses.
Sorry, ozone is O3, is only important in the Ozone layer, and degrades naturally in a very short amount of time. The sun actually makes the O3 in the Ozone layer, which is why every Jul-Aug-Sept there is a hole over Antarctica, no sunlight, no O3. There is also a hole that forms over the Arctic every Dec-Jan-Feb and it gets filled in every summer. (That’s why Eskimos have darker pigmentation.) Nordic peoples don’t because their ancestors have only been in the area for a few thou years, not 13+.
**It would make a huge dent if U.S co2 production went to zero** Well, considering combustion doesn’t “create” CO2 it’s just breaths out the CO2 it took in from air or from stay co2 in ethonal. there isn’t as much Co2 emmisions as claimed…and the Japanese satalite launched last year will soon prove that as it starts to measure real world co2 concentrtions and distribution Fellosw satallites already up there as wel as soon to be launchsed will measure if co2 effects tempature in real time
lol at 4:53 did anyone pay attention to the PPMV that they measured this in? PPMV refers to .0001% of all contaminents in our atmosphere. So when they say 40-60ppmv(high) they rally mean .0040 – .0060 % of pollutants. wow i wish people did a little research before they accepted everything they hear. If u dont belive me Look up PPMV on google, you might see PPM, its still the very same just without stating the measurement is being compared by volume. Its a general term
Have you read the comments on this article? Most of the GW believers have made comments on this stating, implying and/or inferring that, in fact, this article is proof positive that CO2 is the (only) cause of GW, and it’s all our fault, and we’re all going to die if everyone in the US doesn’t change their ways RIGHT NOW! Your may have been using a high level of sarcasm in your comment, but the feelings you were expressing are present in almost all the GW crowd.
@kellygiz Why do you theorise “no change of state”? Even the pro-AGW Solar bods like “drkstrong” say the Sun is still exceptionally quiet. The Solar prediction guys are also predicting it’s going to stay quiet ’til 2013. Some use empirical data for for low activity for up to 30 years from now. The past three years have seen the oceans cooling (GIS Satellite). Oh by the way, oceans heat from underneath, not the surface. It’s an electric universe remember.
samadamscw, the heating trends preceding CO2 have been explained and even anticipated. They do not negate the CO2 heating model, and no reputable scientist has said that. This is a case of nonscientists misrepresenting the meaning of a finding simply to confuse the easily swayed. An educated examination of the very basic principles will demonstrate why this claim is a non-argument for those more interested in soundbite than fact. Take time to study the issue.
@MrROTD, jnewrol10 Similarly, not all of the global climate change is caused by humans, but we surely have a large contribution. What we do changes the global climatic system in an uncontrolled way. For instance, the major aerial and marine currents are slowing down. If these currents stop, the ice cap of the north pole could extend southwards of Canada, and a huge desert could form south of NY. Average temperature stays the same, but life becomes mostly extinct.
Yes. Burning wood/coal releases CO2 into the air, just like breathing. Are you going to outlaw breathing now? Perhaps it would be a better idea to grow plants which take in CO2 than to ban people from breathing wouldn’t it? Maybe not in your world. Burning wood/coal to generate energy with the clean byproduct of CO2 which can easily be recollected by growing trees (absorbing the CO2), then burning them is the most efficient way we can collect energy from the sun.
First and foremost, CO1 doesn’t exist, you must be talking about CO. CO reacts with the oxygen of the air to tranform into CO2, so cars turn out to produce CO2. We also produce CO2, but it is a little amount compared to industry and vehicles (we don’t exhale smoke from our mouths if you didn’t notice). Plants breathe in CO2, but the amount of CO2 produced is far more than plants can use, and this situation is worsened because of massive deforestation. Try to get informed before arguing
@MrROTD, jnewrol10 to say there’s no proof that humans are causing the climate change is like pretending there’s no proof that cigarettes cause lung cancer. Indeed, there are life-long smokers dying of old age. Nevertheless, countless statistical studies have shown that the incidence of lung cancer among smokers (passive and active alike) is hugely larger than among non-smokers.
@kellygiz Was he really? If you read all of his bio you can get a good feel of his mindset and intentions. “noting that the satellite temperature data had been the last holdout of global warming denialists, and that the correction of the data would result in a change from discussing whether global warming was occurring” and of course, what should be done about it. I’ve worked with line managers who were more subtle than this. He fudged to have the numbers doctored.
@kellygiz As long as it is not about some silly climate model trying ti prove some non existant warming trend.. At present we have the Sun entering a Grand minimum, the Pacific is cooling, a strong La nina building again, volcanic acticity is increasing,the magneosphere is weakening allowing more cosmic rays into the atmosphere,we have every level of the atmosphere cooling, and freezing winters. What have you got? a measly trace gas which is a product of past warming by the highly active Sun.
To validate your obvious bias, we have not been able to prove any other reason for the warming other than CO emissions by modern humans. We have compared the CO emission levels with historic levels from arctic and antarctic ice records and global temperature estimations and believe that the rise in global temperatures is related, if not directly related, to our output of CO gases. Believe what you want to now, but ethically ignoring the problem is reprehensible. The truth will emerge.
its funny cause carbon dioxide really doesnt contribute much to “global warming”. currently we are i a cooling phase. but back to CO2… if CO2 is so bad and should be stopped, are we to blame? breathing, releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. if so from what everyone is saying, we should eliminate the human population to stop “global warming”. something else to note: CO2 stimulates plant growth, so if anything, it is helping us.
This is just a model. What is shown is not real time, just a representation as the model was programmed to present. In reality, the air masses flowing from West to East across our country would pick up our industrial CO2 emissions adding them to the atmosphere. So, the CO2 on the East coast should always be higher than that on the West coast. Right? Wrong. Just the opposite. CO2 levels are lower on the East coast. Doesn’t this strongly suggest that our biosystem is absorbing more CO2 than our industries are emitting? Seems so.
The next article will NOT show you the same observations of South America, Asia, Europe or Africa because frankly we don’t want you to have any idea of where the United States stands amongst other nations and it would undermine our propaganda effort to single out the USA as being responsible for all the worlds ills.
@kellygiz Oh really! I never knew that!!!!! lololol. I really should go back to Sunday school. I have lived through several notable Solar states before, twice as many as you and never have been surprised what was dished out to us. It’s all from the Sun. Man’s influence is miniscule. In 1801 an astronomer (Hershel) noted crop yields (via prices) matched Solar activity. Nobody but pro-warmists have an issue with that reality.