Bad tempered, I see no bad temper at all, I see a poignant analogy, maybe you're overly sensitive who typically wants to give it out but can't take it.
We who are speaking of man's impact has a much better understanding of the impact we are having on our little bubble. This is 2020 and we have plenty of data from all forms of life on what consequences have been happening from surmountable waste.
What we want to do is rectify that. Understand, that the only thing we DO have control over is what we do with our waste, in every for. Got it? Who should be absorbing THAT expense are the companies benefiting by their extreme profits. Yes extreme.
Your water pistol analogy is ignorance to the highest degree.
Natural greenhouse gas emissions vs. manmade: what’s the difference?
Before the Industrial Revolution in the middle of the last century, the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere were rather steady. This was not a snapshot: they were steady for thousands of years.
That’s because natural CO2 is not static, meaning it is not simply in the air, sitting there. Naturally-generated CO2 is a part of a very natural cycle in the atmosphere. That’s why the levels remained stable.
The carbon on land and in the ocean has stayed in balance. By measuring ice cores and using proxies, we have been able to study historic CO2 levels both directly and indirectly. The Earth has been able to generate, absorb, and cycle through carbon dioxide naturally for generations.
Now, consider what happens when manmade carbon dioxide sources begin their ascent. Yes, the natural cycle of carbon in the atmosphere has been handling 750 gigatons of CO2 every year. Our 32 ½ gigatons seem paltry and inconsequential compared to that, right?
Well, not so much. Our world is made to handle the 750 gigatons naturally. Adding more than 30 gigatons is devastating because the land and the ocean do not have the capability to absorb that CO2.
Picture the Earth as a 2-quart bowl. Now imagine it filled with exactly two quarts of water. The bowl can easily handle that 2 quarts. But now, take another cup of water and dump it into the bowl. Immediately, you see the problem: that cup of water is going to overflow the bowl.
There are some who consider naturally-occurring sources of carbon dioxide to be proof that man made CO2 isn’t that big of a deal. But think of that bowl: the problem isn’t that the bowl has two quarts of water in it - the bowl is designed to handle that much water. The problem is the extra cup of water.
The same is true for us: the problem isn’t the 750 gigatons of CO2 that our planet can already handle - it’s the extra CO2 that we’re releasing into the atmosphere that it can’t handle.
The Earth is doing its best: about 40% of the extra CO2 in the air is being absorbed. But what happens to the rest of the CO2? It sits in the atmosphere.
What is the effect?
Because greenhouse gases have increased 31% since the Industrial Revolution, there is an extra buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere.
That carbon dioxide traps heat in the atmosphere, causing global temperatures to increase.
Yes, natural carbon dioxide contributes to this. But human activities are devastating the carbon cycle. The National Center for Atmospheric Research predicts a 90% chance that human activities - like the fossil fuel burning we’ve discussed here - will cause an increase in global temperatures of 1.7 to 4.9 degrees Celsius by the year 2100.
http://www.arcadia.com/energy-101/environmental-impact/greenhouse-gas-emissions-natural-vs-man-made/Another age-old climatic skeptic myth, is that the CO2 is coming from volcanoes – first time I had to rebut this was as a young postdoc in the 1990s. The total volcanic emissions are between 0.04 and 0.07 gigatonnes of CO2 per year, compared to the anthropogenic emissions of 12 gigatons in 2016. Anthropogenic emissions are now well over a hundred times greater than volcanic ones. The volcanic emissions are important for the long-term CO2 changes over millions of years, but not over a few centuries.
Bad tempered, I see no bad temper at all, I see a ... (