:
|
The funny thing with global warming is that, from what I hear (which could be wrong), natural sources (e.g. volcanos) actually put more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere than anything humans have made (in fact I think there was a percentage of greenhouse gases contributed by humans, and it was rather small).
|
I hear that one often, and it's not difficult to argue against. Humanity releases 150 times more Carbon Dioxide annually that volcanoes, which due to the aerosols they release actually contribute net cooling.
And yes, overall, natural sources contribute far more Carbon Dioxide than humanity. Plants for example, in autumn the leaves drop and growth dies back, and their carbon returns to the atmosphere. But what happens come spring? The leaves come plant, plan growth begins again and carbon is sequestered in plants once more.
This is true of all natural sources- they are offset by natural sinks at the same rate. However, anthropogenic releases are not, that would take the same processes that created the fossil fuels in the first place, which takes far longer than we consume them, which takes us back to the problem of diminishing, non-renewable resources.
However, the planet has stepped up the plate and increased its sink capacity, in oceans and forest growth, otherwise we would be experiencing much more extreme effects than we are and will, but it cannot, does not and will not sequester it all.
In the past global temperature changes are initiated by forcings such as solar variation, or the polarisation of the Antarctic continent that created the currents of the Southern Ocean, but these are not sufficient by themselves to cause the observed temperature changes by themselves. They did, however, initiate a cascade effect, or positive feedback loop, in which Carbon Dioxide is added to or removed from the atmosphere, enough to complete the observed temperature changes until a new equilibrium is reached.
What we are doing now is bypassing the natural forcing part and directly adding Carbon Dioxide to the atmosphere, which may still activate a positive feedback loop if we continue in this way.
I've seen this video before. He has either read about and reworked or else independently come up with Pascal's Wager, used to show that the possible gains of believing in God outweigh the possible losses. Pascal's flaw is that it assumes that you choose the correct religion, and that God or equivalent rewards belief.
Here, the flaw is that it assumes that taking action now will make any difference, and assumes that there is only one course of action, though in reality there are many, some of which will be less effective than others.
The Most Terrifying Thing you will ever see
