In response to:

63 Percent Chance Weather Predictors Are Skeptics on Global Warming

dhensley813 Wrote: Nov 25, 2013 9:47 AM
Well, I think you're right that we need to move away from fossil fuels, and you're right that nuclear power is a good way to do that. But you're mistaken about volcanic eruptions as a big contributor of CO2. While in theory a single big enough eruption, as in, bigger than any in all recorded history, could contribute more CO2 than a single year of human industry, there has been no such eruption. The biggest eruptions since we began recording CO2 levels have not even shown up as wrinkles in the plot of that quantity over time. What is seen at the monitoring station is a drop in CO2 every northern spring and summer, as northern-hemisphere vegetation captures atmospheric CO2, and a larger rise every northern fall and winter, as leaves decay and release that captured CO2---with the extra, year-over-year rise in CO2 coming from human fossil fuel use, or to a lesser extent, from deforestation. All other sources of CO2 are just rounding errors.
justemptypockets Wrote: Nov 25, 2013 10:24 AM
The Discovery Channel (online) before they caved to the "Green Giant" had a page on their site that showed the annual amount of "greenhouse gasses" from human activity by country. At the end they showed the total. I'll dispense with building suspence: ALL human activity (including livestock raising) accounted for less than 10% of the total. They also said that every year of the earth's existence there averages 3 to 4 volcanic eruptions any one of which contributes more than all himan activity. Not just CO2 but methane gas and others. Then add earthquakes which release methane and other "pollutants" into the atmosphere and consider just how many earthquakes there are in the world EVERY DAY. Doesn't take a "big one" to release gas.

Seems the earth has its own ideas regarding climate and humanity, like the bears and the ants are along for the ride.

Pollution--real, dangerous taxic pollution--should be continually reduced as we've already been doing without the heavy hand of gov't to force us. Seems that the more prosperous a population is, the cleaner they want their "neighborhood" to be. Imagine that! Prosperity to reduce pollution instead of Big Brother. Who'd a thunk it?