- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Before industrialization, the amount of co2 in the atmosphere was about 280 parts per million, or PPM. Today, it is 360PPM, nearly a 33% increase, and is not attributable to volcanic activity, or an organic source. Those who call our contribution minuscule are plain liars, nothing more. If they are not, I suggest they propose an alternate source of nearly a third increase of CO2 in the last 100 years, during which volcanoes were quite well documented, that fits the available facts.
Before us, the amount of co2 was a balance between animals and plants. Since we have upset the balance, the amount in the air has increased dramatically vs recent history, and along with it has come a warming, predicted by science within less than a degree for many decades.
One way to think about it is that if someone spins a ball on their finger, you can upset the balance with a tiny poke of your finger, even though that poke is minuscule compared to the overall force of the spinning ball. Just a little poke will knock the ball off the finger.
However, our contribution from industrial use may now be equal to about 1 ton per person, per year, a number that dwarfs volcanic activity in most years, including the majority of the last 100. Volcanic activity contributes 100s of millions of tons, human activity tens of billions.
These are simply facts: http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html
That is the US Geological survey, and it quite disagrees with the assertions bandied about here, regarding the "real" science, and about what geologists think.
When the conservative think tank scientists funded by Phillip Morris and Exxon come up with a better prediction of global warming than the real scientists, who stand behind their predictions, then their opinion is relevant. Until then, it really isn't.
