Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
How do we know? Because we can check the other sources & see that have not increased to any extent to cause this current rise.
Really? We know that termites produce more CO2 than we do...how might we determine whether or not there has been an increase or a decrease in termite CO2 production? We know that decay of organic materials release CO2...how might we measure the amount of CO2 being produced by organic decay in any given year? We know that the main source of CO2 in the atmosphere is the ocean...how might we determine whether or not the amount of CO2 from the ocean has increased or decreased in any given year? We now know that we have grossly underestimated the amount of CO2 being emitted by undersea volcanoes...the number of undersea vents and volcanoes, according to science is somewhere between a few hundred thousand and a million...so which is it? A few hundred thousand or more than a million?...and how might we determine how much is actually being emitted? And how might we determine how much that amount varies from year to year?
Clearly you don't have a clue, but I would be interested in hearing how you think we might calculate any of the above with anything like a reasonable degree of accuracy.
I suspect that if we had this monstrous termite explosion, we would be aware of it. Insurance companies would be raising the rates & Terminex stock would be going through the roof.
Actually, those things are studied & yes we would know,
Are you claiming the number of underseas eruptions have increased
We pretty much know.
all you need to do is prove CO2 is bad.
Oooh is this a test. Here you can help prove i. Get yourself a plastic bag and a big rubber band.........
Do you have any actual science which states that the increase in CO2 is actually due to our activities.
"Another, quite independent way that we know that fossil fuel burning and land clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years is through the measurement of carbon isotopes. Isotopes are simply different atoms with the same chemical behavior (isotope means “same type”) but with different masses. Carbon is composed of three different isotopes, 14C, 13C and 12C. 12C is the most common. 13C is about 1% of the total. 14C accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms.
CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases."
How do we know that recent CO<sub>2</sub> increases are due to human activities?
Sorry guy...you have been fed a bill of goods and apparently you gobbled it up. The fact is that natural sources provide the same isotopes as fossil fuels because fossil fuels, are in fact, natural sources...you were lied to ...
What the fuick does the isotopes have to do with it???????? It has to do with more CO2 in the atmosphere.
The change in the isotope ratio over the last 150 years can't be attributed to the natural sources as those sources have been active much longer, the ratio stayed the same till about 150 years ago.
Still doesn't prove the massive catastrophe theories the alarmist propagate.
.........we can measure the concentration of CO2 & note the changes.Tell Me Otto;
Where is your science to rule out all other inputs of CO2?
You dont have them as your gods still have no ability to model the system correctly and thus they can not even make any serious judgment as to what is natural variation and what is man induced. Having this in mind, what part of the 0.6 deg C rise over the last 120 years is attributed to CO2 rise?
IF we look at the current 2.3% CO2 level that some are claiming man has caused and attribute only that percentage to the know temperature rise were less than 0.0013 deg C is mans contribution (AGW). A measurement well within the MOE of our current measuring devices and a level that can not be discerned from noise in our climactic system.
Sooooooo, where is your “natural cause” to cause the rise? A 3 MILLION YEAR cause that just happens to correlate with the Industrial Revolution....
CO2 from your ass?
I have already given you multiple possible causes, and 8 published papers which found that there is no discernible correlation between our CO2 production and the total atmospheric CO2. You seem unwilling to accept anything beyond your uninformed opinion though and certainly haven't shown any actual science that even begins to support said opinion.
We don't need to know the exact volume.
You don't seem to realize that we are a minor producer of CO2 on this earth...termites alone produce more CO2 than we do by a long shot...the fact that CO2 changes from year to hear is only evidence that it changes...it is not evidence of the cause of the change..do you have any actual science that seriously looks at all the natural sources of CO2, and the natural sinks and concludes that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to our activities...I would be interested in seeing it if you do.
My bet is that you don't, and that you have never really looked at any science regarding natural sources of CO2, or the amount they vary from year to year...my bet is that you just believe we are responsible for the increase in CO2...and have seen nothing like actual evidence to support the belief...I also bet that you think the emperor's new clothes are simply fabulous..since you appear to be prone to believe in things whether there is evidence to support the belief or not.
I bet that you have never considered that it really does not make any difference the percent of all CO2 released in to the atmosphere which is man's.
The Earth releases & absorbs carbon all the time. When it is in balance, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is variable within a band width. With the Industrial Revolution, man has been increasing the amount of CO2 emissions & it got to the point where, with man's contributions, more was being emitted than absorbed.
What was the cause? The extra man made emissions.
You this argument you make is plain stupid.
Why do you think it needs to be separated?all you need to do is prove CO2 is bad.
Oooh is this a test. Here you can help prove i. Get yourself a plastic bag and a big rubber band.........
Do you have any actual science which states that the increase in CO2 is actually due to our activities.
"Another, quite independent way that we know that fossil fuel burning and land clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years is through the measurement of carbon isotopes. Isotopes are simply different atoms with the same chemical behavior (isotope means “same type”) but with different masses. Carbon is composed of three different isotopes, 14C, 13C and 12C. 12C is the most common. 13C is about 1% of the total. 14C accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms.
CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases."
How do we know that recent CO<sub>2</sub> increases are due to human activities?
Sorry guy...you have been fed a bill of goods and apparently you gobbled it up. The fact is that natural sources provide the same isotopes as fossil fuels because fossil fuels, are in fact, natural sources...you were lied to ...
What the fuick does the isotopes have to do with it???????? It has to do with more CO2 in the atmosphere.
The change in the isotope ratio over the last 150 years can't be attributed to the natural sources as those sources have been active much longer, the ratio stayed the same till about 150 years ago.
Still doesn't prove the massive catastrophe theories the alarmist propagate.
Of course it can..i am surprised that anyone is still even making that argument since it is pretty common knowledge that the whole isotope claim fell flat some time ago...there never was any way to separate man made CO2 from natural sources...that argument was based on one big assed assumption after another and it all blew up...
I get it. You have no logic. You really have no knowledge about much of anything.
I have actual science...you on the other hand apparently have tea leaves, phrenology, and sheep knuckles...
I have provided 7 peer reviewed, published scientific papers which state clearly that our effect on the total CO2 in the atmosphere is negligible and barely measurable...you on the other hand have thus far, only provided your opinion.
We do know the concentration level of CO2 in our atmosphere has increased & yes we can indeed measure it.
Of course we know how much CO2 is in the atmosphere..but we also know that the amount in the atmosphere varies quite a lot from year to year..in fact, it varies by an amount greater than all the CO2 we produce. Do you have any actual science which states that the increase in CO2 is actually due to our activities...any real science which has looked seriously at all the natural sources and causes for natural variation from year to year? My bet is the answer to that is no...you have opinions and little else.
Typical warmer...you love to talk about what we "know" but can't seem to produce any actual science that supports what you think we "know"
Are you just stupid?
Clearly not...I am the one producing actual science to support my position..you are the one who has apparently swallowed pseudoscience, media bias, and opinion as if it were actually science...that is stupid...
Yes, we indeed to know that man is the cause.
NASA said so. They have real science. You have bullshit.
Gee, soHow do we know? Because we can check the other sources & see that have not increased to any extent to cause this current rise.
Really? We know that termites produce more CO2 than we do...how might we determine whether or not there has been an increase or a decrease in termite CO2 production? We know that decay of organic materials release CO2...how might we measure the amount of CO2 being produced by organic decay in any given year? We know that the main source of CO2 in the atmosphere is the ocean...how might we determine whether or not the amount of CO2 from the ocean has increased or decreased in any given year? We now know that we have grossly underestimated the amount of CO2 being emitted by undersea volcanoes...the number of undersea vents and volcanoes, according to science is somewhere between a few hundred thousand and a million...so which is it? A few hundred thousand or more than a million?...and how might we determine how much is actually being emitted? And how might we determine how much that amount varies from year to year?
Clearly you don't have a clue, but I would be interested in hearing how you think we might calculate any of the above with anything like a reasonable degree of accuracy.
I suspect that if we had this monstrous termite explosion, we would be aware of it. Insurance companies would be raising the rates & Terminex stock would be going through the roof.
Actually, those things are studied & yes we would know,
Are you claiming the number of underseas eruptions have increased
We pretty much know.
You suspect? You think? Do you think all termites, even a substantial percentage of termites live in houses? Are you really that ignorant?
And if those things have been studied, by all means, lets see the science...you keep making claim after claim after claim but don't seem to be able to post up even the first bit of actual science to support any of them.
So you are calling NASA liars????I get it. You have no logic. You really have no knowledge about much of anything.
I have actual science...you on the other hand apparently have tea leaves, phrenology, and sheep knuckles...
I have provided 7 peer reviewed, published scientific papers which state clearly that our effect on the total CO2 in the atmosphere is negligible and barely measurable...you on the other hand have thus far, only provided your opinion.
We do know the concentration level of CO2 in our atmosphere has increased & yes we can indeed measure it.
Of course we know how much CO2 is in the atmosphere..but we also know that the amount in the atmosphere varies quite a lot from year to year..in fact, it varies by an amount greater than all the CO2 we produce. Do you have any actual science which states that the increase in CO2 is actually due to our activities...any real science which has looked seriously at all the natural sources and causes for natural variation from year to year? My bet is the answer to that is no...you have opinions and little else.
Typical warmer...you love to talk about what we "know" but can't seem to produce any actual science that supports what you think we "know"
Are you just stupid?
Clearly not...I am the one producing actual science to support my position..you are the one who has apparently swallowed pseudoscience, media bias, and opinion as if it were actually science...that is stupid...
Yes, we indeed to know that man is the cause.
NASA said so. They have real science. You have bullshit.
So lets see it...you keep making the claim but don't seem to be able to produce any of the actual science...step on up to the plate and support your claims...
Per man has nothing to do with it.you have no idea the balance. As I already stated in here, the CO2 concentration pre man was much much higher than today. why?.........we can measure the concentration of CO2 & note the changes.Sooooooo, where is your “natural cause” to cause the rise? A 3 MILLION YEAR cause that just happens to correlate with the Industrial Revolution....
CO2 from your ass?
I have already given you multiple possible causes, and 8 published papers which found that there is no discernible correlation between our CO2 production and the total atmospheric CO2. You seem unwilling to accept anything beyond your uninformed opinion though and certainly haven't shown any actual science that even begins to support said opinion.
We don't need to know the exact volume.
You don't seem to realize that we are a minor producer of CO2 on this earth...termites alone produce more CO2 than we do by a long shot...the fact that CO2 changes from year to hear is only evidence that it changes...it is not evidence of the cause of the change..do you have any actual science that seriously looks at all the natural sources of CO2, and the natural sinks and concludes that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to our activities...I would be interested in seeing it if you do.
My bet is that you don't, and that you have never really looked at any science regarding natural sources of CO2, or the amount they vary from year to year...my bet is that you just believe we are responsible for the increase in CO2...and have seen nothing like actual evidence to support the belief...I also bet that you think the emperor's new clothes are simply fabulous..since you appear to be prone to believe in things whether there is evidence to support the belief or not.
I bet that you have never considered that it really does not make any difference the percent of all CO2 released in to the atmosphere which is man's.
The Earth releases & absorbs carbon all the time. When it is in balance, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is variable within a band width. With the Industrial Revolution, man has been increasing the amount of CO2 emissions & it got to the point where, with man's contributions, more was being emitted than absorbed.
What was the cause? The extra man made emissions.
You this argument you make is plain stupid.
Nope it's the second law that doesn't distinguish the difference.You seem not to be able to differentiate the difference between molecules striking a surface and energy transfer.
Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.
You have to understand it from context that it doesn't refer to kinetic energy of a waterfall. That means the sentence is ambiguous the way it is. Fortunately the Hyperphysics site cleared that up.
You are a shameless liar. I never said that. I said the molecules with random kinetic energy in a cold gas must strike an adjacent hotter surface. I did not say nor imply anything about radiation..refer to the time you tried to claim that blowing cold air molecules against a warm wall was proof of energy radiating from cold to warm...what an idiot.
.
Always funny watching these hard core deniers trying to outdo one another at spouting complete nonsense page after page, then suddenly preach actual mainstream physics when they think doing so might help their cause.
Melting ace does not release CO2.well sure, there's still ice in the arctics correct?The Ice Age that ended 11,700 years ago??? That one?nothing. ever hear of an ice age? we're supposed to be coming out of one. as we do, the oceans release CO2. that is why CO2 follows temps. as already proven to you all.how did they do that?
OK, so wjat else changed that created this excess CO2 in the atmosphere?
all you need to do is prove CO2 is bad.
More CO2 => Heightened greenhouse effect => higher temnps
proven science.
you know when ice melts there, CO2 is added to the atmosphere? right? does the ice melt yearly in summer? and then add up 11,700 years of melt and refreeze. dude.
Always funny watching these hard core deniers trying to outdo one another at spouting complete nonsense page after page, then suddenly preach actual mainstream physics when they think doing so might help their cause.
And the wait continues for you to post the first piece of actual empirical evidence to support your claims..
Always funny watching these hard core deniers trying to outdo one another at spouting complete nonsense page after page, then suddenly preach actual mainstream physics when they think doing so might help their cause.
And the wait continues for you to post the first piece of actual empirical evidence to support your claims..
Well here is your side brought by sonny perdue.
"You know, I think it's weather patterns, frankly. And you know, and they change, as I said. It rained yesterday, it's a nice pretty day today. So the climate does change in short increments and in long increments."
senator imhoff found a snowball in his frig, so theres another one.
Always funny watching these hard core deniers trying to outdo one another at spouting complete nonsense page after page, then suddenly preach actual mainstream physics when they think doing so might help their cause.
And the wait continues for you to post the first piece of actual empirical evidence to support your claims..
Well here is your side brought by sonny perdue.
"You know, I think it's weather patterns, frankly. And you know, and they change, as I said. It rained yesterday, it's a nice pretty day today. So the climate does change in short increments and in long increments."
senator imhoff found a snowball in his frig, so theres another one.
And then there's Al Gore who said the ice caps would be all gone and NYC underwater.
Hey dumbass...no one claims that man is the only thing that can put CO2 into the atmosphere...but man certainly is doing so NOWthe killer one is that folks like him can't explain why CO2 was higher than now, back when man wasn't around. that's their kryptoniteTell Me Otto;
Where is your science to rule out all other inputs of CO2?
You dont have them as your gods still have no ability to model the system correctly and thus they can not even make any serious judgment as to what is natural variation and what is man induced. Having this in mind, what part of the 0.6 deg C rise over the last 120 years is attributed to CO2 rise?
IF we look at the current 2.3% CO2 level that some are claiming man has caused and attribute only that percentage to the know temperature rise were less than 0.0013 deg C is mans contribution (AGW). A measurement well within the MOE of our current measuring devices and a level that can not be discerned from noise in our climactic system.
Sooooooo, where is your “natural cause” to cause the rise? A 3 MILLION YEAR cause that just happens to correlate with the Industrial Revolution....
CO2 from your ass?
It was rising before then dumb ass.
.
Thus far I have provided 7 peer reviewed published papers stating that our contribution to the total atmospheric CO2 is so negligible as to be unmeasurable...you got any actual science that says otherwise or just an uninformed opinion?
Always funny watching these hard core deniers trying to outdo one another at spouting complete nonsense page after page, then suddenly preach actual mainstream physics when they think doing so might help their cause.
And the wait continues for you to post the first piece of actual empirical evidence to support your claims..
Well here is your side brought by sonny perdue.
"You know, I think it's weather patterns, frankly. And you know, and they change, as I said. It rained yesterday, it's a nice pretty day today. So the climate does change in short increments and in long increments."
senator imhoff found a snowball in his frig, so theres another one.
Always funny watching these hard core deniers trying to outdo one another at spouting complete nonsense page after page, then suddenly preach actual mainstream physics when they think doing so might help their cause.
And the wait continues for you to post the first piece of actual empirical evidence to support your claims..
Well here is your side brought by sonny perdue.
"You know, I think it's weather patterns, frankly. And you know, and they change, as I said. It rained yesterday, it's a nice pretty day today. So the climate does change in short increments and in long increments."
senator imhoff found a snowball in his frig, so theres another one.
Are you under the impression that was science? If so, I see how you came to be such a dupe. I asked for some actual science to support your claims and that is really the best you can do? What a doofus...
Hey dumbass...no one claims that man is the only thing that can put CO2 into the atmosphere...but man certainly is doing so NOWthe killer one is that folks like him can't explain why CO2 was higher than now, back when man wasn't around. that's their kryptoniteSooooooo, where is your “natural cause” to cause the rise? A 3 MILLION YEAR cause that just happens to correlate with the Industrial Revolution....
CO2 from your ass?
It was rising before then dumb ass.
.
Thus far I have provided 7 peer reviewed published papers stating that our contribution to the total atmospheric CO2 is so negligible as to be unmeasurable...you got any actual science that says otherwise or just an uninformed opinion?
You have provided bullshit.
Always funny watching these hard core deniers trying to outdo one another at spouting complete nonsense page after page, then suddenly preach actual mainstream physics when they think doing so might help their cause.
And the wait continues for you to post the first piece of actual empirical evidence to support your claims..
Well here is your side brought by sonny perdue.
"You know, I think it's weather patterns, frankly. And you know, and they change, as I said. It rained yesterday, it's a nice pretty day today. So the climate does change in short increments and in long increments."
senator imhoff found a snowball in his frig, so theres another one.
Are you under the impression that was science? If so, I see how you came to be such a dupe. I asked for some actual science to support your claims and that is really the best you can do? What a doofus...
Everything that you need has already been provided. YOU choose to deny and that is your burden.
Always funny watching these hard core deniers trying to outdo one another at spouting complete nonsense page after page, then suddenly preach actual mainstream physics when they think doing so might help their cause.
And the wait continues for you to post the first piece of actual empirical evidence to support your claims..
Well here is your side brought by sonny perdue.
"You know, I think it's weather patterns, frankly. And you know, and they change, as I said. It rained yesterday, it's a nice pretty day today. So the climate does change in short increments and in long increments."
senator imhoff found a snowball in his frig, so theres another one.
And then there's Al Gore who said the ice caps would be all gone and NYC underwater.
Al Gore will be right given time and the continued policies of conservative deniers.
