I'm looking for a quantity, and can't seem to find it. Pounds or tons would be best, if anyone knows how much we make. I'm trying to do a little independent research and possibly experimentation. I just need to know what kinda scale we're using here.
The carbon dioxide - CO2 - concentration in a room with people can be used as an indication of the ventilation systems efficiency. It's even possible to modulate the ventilation system capacity to the number of people and their activity by measuring the carbon dioxide concentration in the air. The carbon dioxide emission from persons and their activity: ActivityRespiration per Person (m3/h)Carbon Dioxide Emission per Person (m3/h)Sleep0.30.013Resting or low activity work0.50.02Normal work2 - 30.08 - 0.13Hard work7 - 80.33 - 0.38 Example - Carbon Dioxide Emission in a Cinema In a cinema with 100 persons at low to normal activity the emission of carbon dioxide will be in the range of 0.02 to 0.08 m3/h per person. The total emission will be in the range of 2 to 8 m3/h. http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/co2-persons-d_691.html http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/co2-comfort-level-d_1024.html
THE GREENHOAX While atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by 28 percent over the past 150 years, human-generated carbon dioxide could have played only a small part in any warming, since most of the warming occurred prior to 1940 - before most human-caused carbon dioxide emissions.
Here's a couple of links that may be helpful http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita http://www.nef.org.uk/energyadvice/co2calculator.htm To Brandydawn - Yes, I'll admit that research on global warming is subject to interpretation and we can't know with complete certainty to what extent human activity is contributing to it. However, here are a few things to consider: First, we know that greenhouse gasses DO trap heat, otherwise the Earth's temperature would be much colder than it is. Therefore we know that a certain amount of global warming does naturally exist. Second, the infamous "hockey stick graph (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png ) shows, over a spread of studies, a sudden, sharp increase in global temperature coinciding EXACTLY with the start of the Industrial Revolution. True, this doesn't conclusively prove that the two events are causally linked, but it's as strong a piece of circumstantial evidence as you're ever going to find. Third, since we know that the Earth's atmosphere already retains heat, thanks to greenhouse gasses, we know that as we continue to pump out ever greater amounts of those gasses, the Earth WILL retain more heat. An analogy is a car driving over the speed limit on a twisty road. You may be able to get away with going a bit over the speed limit. If you're a good driver you may be able to get away with going a lot over the limit, but if you continue to go faster & faster, at some point you WILL crash. The usual argument against curbing greenhouse gas emissions is that it will be such a burden on industry that we'll wreck the economy. The Bush Administration has spent nearly half a TRILLION dollars on the war in Iraq, with no discernable harm to the economy. If our country can spend that much on this war, it seems reasonable to assume that we can afford to spend the much smaller amount it would take to curb our greenhouse gas emissions. Why not do it? It's good insurance for the future.
Firstly, for those that don't realise, wikipedia is only as reliable as the last person who had their input. Many environmental 'facts' are lies, exaggerations and unscientific claims to manipulate the masses in the classic Hegelian Dialectic: create the problem, create opposition to the problem, then present your own predetermined solution. Global warming is a perfect example. Scientists do not agree that human activity measurably affects global climate. The evidence supporting this theory is weak. Most scientific experts directly concerned with climate thoroughly reject the theory. Brilliant comment you make about the amount of money spent on war - by the US. Whats a few million thrown toward a non existent environmental problem - a vote snatching scheme? The US government needs to do a what it can to draw support from as many groups as possible? In the past few yrs, George Bush has caused more economic harm, and created more worldwide hatred (toward his country - yes the data is available to support this) - within only a 12mth period than any other "political" leader in the worlds history. And, as I pointed out earlier, the most reliable of all data "the global satellite data" is there to be viewed. Mother nature has its way - we are fools to think we should try to alter it in any way. We have screwed with old mum nature so much already, to the point of worldwide population problems - our need unaturally prolong life. And, to be totally cynical - what is the point in "environmental rescue schemes" when a country can so happily murder mass numbers of people unenvironmentally? I have the opinion that the best insurance for our future is too stop killing innocent people - perhaps if the US government stopped this, America wouldn't be one the most financially in debt countries in the world. I really dont understand how the US public continues to be fooled into thinking they are such a world power - financially they have lost the battle - pretty much since Bush corrupted his way into power?
In the interest of knowing better what I'm talking about, I'm gonna have to research the issue some more. On the one hand the media (and I'm including the scientific media, like Scientific American & Nature) promote the idea that global warming is an established fact. On the other hand, even scientists & researchers can fall victim to hearsay arguments if it's on something out of their field of expertise. Where can I find info on the global satellite data you're talking about? Is this a specific study or are you refering to just the general chunk of satellite data? Like I pointed out above, though, warming due to greenhouse gasses occurs naturally, so it seems to me the global warming issue isn't a question of "is it happening at all?", but rather a question of "at what point do our emissions have a discernable impact on the environment?". I'd view money put toward green technology as preventative medicine, at least, and not money thrown at a nonexistent problem. When you stop to think about it, though, our concern about global warming is kind of self-centered thinking. In light of the fact that life on Earth has recovered repeatedly from asteroid impacts & other nasty events, I certainly don't think we could destroy all life on Earth. I think the most harm that could come from global warming is that we throw everything out of kilter for a few millenia. Not much time, geologically speaking. Maybe by the time the environment balances itself out our hypermaterialistic society will have snuffed out & somebody a little wiser will be running things. I think you're right about stopping the killing. Fat f***ing chance while Dick Cheney & his pet monkey are in the White House.
Others on here have asked about the average human CO2 output, and we seem to have answers in cubic metres per hour, which I don't find that useful; I would like to compare it in the same terms as car CO2 output. It has been said that a car and 4 passengers, relaxed and breathing genly together produce less CO2 than a supposedly "green" cyclist who is giving it some effort keeping up with traffic - so who should be taxed more? Much INDEPENDENT (i.e. not sponsored by Government or other vested interests) scientific research indicates that COs is NOT a causal factor on climate change, so why is it posted as the villain by Governments? Um,....taxation? Suppose you wanted people to be complaisant about paying punitive taxes, or at least not to rail against them too much? If you made them feel guilty about destroying the planet with their selfish actions, would that do it? It also absolves the Government from corrective action, apart from revenue collection, is solving the climate change problem. Yes, there is agreement on the existence of climate change, just NOT the cause - informed and reliable opinion has it as due to water vapour in the atmosphere and cyclic activity of the Sun. These are factors beyond our control, and are untaxable! Am I saying we should ignore it, therefore? NO, just recognise what is likely to be the consequences of climate change (rising sea levels, etc) and make provision to protect us against them. This in itself could well give rise to increased taxation to cope with the costs of such defensive action, but at least it would be presented honestly and not as a guilt-ridden attack on the taxpayer, and we could use cars, planes and industrial processes with a clear conscience. Faraday.
Well, I don't want to contribute to a nutfest about global warming. However, the OP asked for numbers. One number that I do know is that burning one litre of gasoline produces about 2.3 kilos of CO2.
