The Anthropocene

[ding]

And empirical climate evidence of the geologic record shows the climate is insensitive to CO2. As well as simple physics showing that too.

1C per doubling of CO2. That's it.

 

[ding]

420 / 280 = 1.5.

A 50% increase.

Which according to simple physics would account for slightly more than 0.5C.

 

[BackAgain]

Your link Disagrees with you and your minimalization attempts you Stupid @sshole.
That's it's whole point in fact.

`

Wrong you pathetic twat. It substantiates the 33% claim.

I know you’re retarded. We all see that plainly. So you don’t need to post so much to constantly prove it. You fucking moron.

 

[BackAgain]

Did you realize you were posting a fact check correcting your own claims?

You’re almost as retarded as apu dumfuk.

 

[Crick]

Wrong you pathetic twat. It substantiates the 33% claim.

I know you’re retarded. We all see that plainly. So you don’t need to post so much to constantly prove it. You fucking moron.

You claimed 3% and then repeatedly stated that humans had added 33% to the total. That is incorrect. We ADDED 50%. Our addition now makes up 33% of the total.

 

[abu afak]

Humans are responsible for a significant amount of CO2 in the atmosphere | Fact check

The atmosphere is roughly 0.04% CO2, but humans have contributed about one-third of that since 1850.

www.usatoday.com

You’re almost as retarded as apu dumfuk.

YOUR LINK Under the Bridge Troll:

The claim: CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere and humans have contributed only 3% of that​

A May 26 Instagram video (direct link, archive link) shows an Australian broadcaster talking about climate change and economic policy on a talk show.

"How much carbon dioxide is the problem," he asks. "How much carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere? It's 0.04%. And of that 0.04%, human beings around the world create 3%. And of that 3%, Australia creates 1.3%. So, for the 1.3% of the 3% of the 0.04%, we then decide to have a national economic suicide."

The video was liked more than 8,000 times in four weeks.


Follow us on Facebook! Like our page to get updates throughout the day on our latest debunks

Our rating: Partly False​

The atmosphere is roughly 0.04% CO2, but humans have contributed about 33% of that, not 3%, since 1850. Australia has contributed around 1.4% of accumulated human CO2 emissions during that timeframe − similar to the number stated in the video. However, that's 1.4% of around 33%, not 1.4% of 3% (or 1.3% of 3%) as claimed in the video. The overall proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere is relatively small, but researchers say the total amount of CO2 is more important than its proportion as it relates to climate change.

Humans responsible for significant portion of CO2 in the atmosphere​

CO2 levels in the atmosphere have reached 421 parts per million, or 0.0421%, according to NASA. That's similar to the amount the person in the video claims is in the atmosphere.

However, the claim that humans are only responsible for 3% of that CO2 is wrong, according to Gavin Schmidt, a NASA climate scientist and director of the Goddard Institute of Space Studies.

In 1850, the atmospheric CO2 concentration was about 280 parts per million. The increase to the current level of 421 parts per million is all a result of human activity, Schmidt told USA TODAY in an email.

So roughly a third, not 3%, of the CO2 currently in the atmosphere has been contributed by humans since 1850.


Fact check: Global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels are correlated, contrary to claim

Australia was responsible for about 1.4% of human emissions between 1850 and 2021, according to Carbon Brief. This is close to what is stated in the video. But, again, that's 1.4% of one-third of the amount of CO2 currently in the atmosphere, not 1.4% of 3% (or 1.3% of 3%) as claimed in the video.

Additionally, between 1990 and 2019, Australia's per capita CO2 emissions from industry, land use change and agriculture were among the highest in the world, outpacing the U.S., China and Russia, according to Climate Watch.

For climate change, total amount of CO2 is more important than proportion of CO2​

The video ((and BackAgain)) implies the relatively small proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere can't drive climate change.

However, in the context of climate change, the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere is less relevant than the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, Grant Petty, a professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and author of two textbooks on atmospheric physics, told USA TODAY in an email.





That's because atmospheric CO2 molecules trap heat in the atmosphere by intercepting energy released from Earth's surface. The molecules then re-emit the energy, but some emit it back toward Earth instead of allowing it to escape into space.

"The ability to trap infrared heat depends on the probability of a photon (energy) from the surface encountering a greenhouse gas molecule – so the more molecules, the more trapping," Schmidt said. "Thus, it is the total amount of CO2 that matters, not so much its concentration. On Mars, for instance, the air is 95% CO2, but there is much less air – 150 times less than the amount on Earth – so the greenhouse effect is much less."

Humans contributed more than 1 trillion metric tons of CO2 to the atmosphere through fossil fuel emissions and land use changes between 1850 and 2022, according to the 2022 Global Carbon Budget.


There are multiple lines of evidence that show these emissions have caused modern climate change, Josh Willis, a NASA climate scientist, previously told USA TODAY.

"The amount of warming we see matches what we expect based on the increased CO2 we've added," he said in an email. "The timing of the warming matches the timing of the CO2 increase caused by people. Not only that, the timing of global sea level rise matches the CO2 increase."

Global warming causes global sea level rise because warming ocean water expands. Additionally, melting glaciers and ice sheets have increased the amount of water in the oceans.

USA TODAY reached out to the Instagram user who shared the post for comment but did not immediately receive a response.

The claim was also debunked by AFP.


`

 

[BackAgain]

You’re almost as retarded as apu dumfuk.

Don’t fret baboon dumfuk. You’re still the most retarded.

 

[BackAgain]

YOUR LINK Under the Bridge Troll:

The claim: CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere and humans have contributed only 3% of that​

A May 26 Instagram video (direct link, archive link) shows an Australian broadcaster talking about climate change and economic policy on a talk show.

"How much carbon dioxide is the problem," he asks. "How much carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere? It's 0.04%. And of that 0.04%, human beings around the world create 3%. And of that 3%, Australia creates 1.3%. So, for the 1.3% of the 3% of the 0.04%, we then decide to have a national economic suicide."

The video was liked more than 8,000 times in four weeks.


Follow us on Facebook! Like our page to get updates throughout the day on our latest debunks

Our rating: Partly False​

The atmosphere is roughly 0.04% CO2, but humans have contributed about 33% of that, not 3%, since 1850. Australia has contributed around 1.4% of accumulated human CO2 emissions during that timeframe − similar to the number stated in the video. However, that's 1.4% of around 33%, not 1.4% of 3% (or 1.3% of 3%) as claimed in the video. The overall proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere is relatively small, but researchers say the total amount of CO2 is more important than its proportion as it relates to climate change.

Humans responsible for significant portion of CO2 in the atmosphere​

CO2 levels in the atmosphere have reached 421 parts per million, or 0.0421%, according to NASA. That's similar to the amount the person in the video claims is in the atmosphere.

However, the claim that humans are only responsible for 3% of that CO2 is wrong, according to Gavin Schmidt, a NASA climate scientist and director of the Goddard Institute of Space Studies.

In 1850, the atmospheric CO2 concentration was about 280 parts per million. The increase to the current level of 421 parts per million is all a result of human activity, Schmidt told USA TODAY in an email.

So roughly a third, not 3%, of the CO2 currently in the atmosphere has been contributed by humans since 1850.


Fact check: Global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels are correlated, contrary to claim

Australia was responsible for about 1.4% of human emissions between 1850 and 2021, according to Carbon Brief. This is close to what is stated in the video. But, again, that's 1.4% of one-third of the amount of CO2 currently in the atmosphere, not 1.4% of 3% (or 1.3% of 3%) as claimed in the video.

Additionally, between 1990 and 2019, Australia's per capita CO2 emissions from industry, land use change and agriculture were among the highest in the world, outpacing the U.S., China and Russia, according to Climate Watch.

For climate change, total amount of CO2 is more important than proportion of CO2​

The video ((and BackAgain)) implies the relatively small proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere can't drive climate change.

However, in the context of climate change, the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere is less relevant than the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, Grant Petty, a professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and author of two textbooks on atmospheric physics, told USA TODAY in an email.





That's because atmospheric CO2 molecules trap heat in the atmosphere by intercepting energy released from Earth's surface. The molecules then re-emit the energy, but some emit it back toward Earth instead of allowing it to escape into space.

"The ability to trap infrared heat depends on the probability of a photon (energy) from the surface encountering a greenhouse gas molecule – so the more molecules, the more trapping," Schmidt said. "Thus, it is the total amount of CO2 that matters, not so much its concentration. On Mars, for instance, the air is 95% CO2, but there is much less air – 150 times less than the amount on Earth – so the greenhouse effect is much less."

Humans contributed more than 1 trillion metric tons of CO2 to the atmosphere through fossil fuel emissions and land use changes between 1850 and 2022, according to the 2022 Global Carbon Budget.


There are multiple lines of evidence that show these emissions have caused modern climate change, Josh Willis, a NASA climate scientist, previously told USA TODAY.

"The amount of warming we see matches what we expect based on the increased CO2 we've added," he said in an email. "The timing of the warming matches the timing of the CO2 increase caused by people. Not only that, the timing of global sea level rise matches the CO2 increase."

Global warming causes global sea level rise because warming ocean water expands. Additionally, melting glaciers and ice sheets have increased the amount of water in the oceans.

USA TODAY reached out to the Instagram user who shared the post for comment but did not immediately receive a response.

The claim was also debunked by AFP.


`

As I said, crock. About 33%. It’s math. Learn it

 

[Crick]

As I said, crock. About 33%. It’s math. Learn it

We ADDED 50% to the pre-industrial total.

 

[BackAgain]

We ADDED 50% to the pre-industrial total.

No. 50% higher doesn’t mean we added it.

In 1850, the atmospheric CO2 concentration was about 280 parts per million. The increase to the current level of 421 parts per million is all a result of human activity, Schmidt told USA TODAY in an email.

So roughly a third, not 3%, of the CO2 currently in the atmosphere has been contributed by humans since 1850.

420 minus 33% is 282. As I said, do the math.

It’s not half. It’s about a third. (And even that presumes that every bit of the information increase is human caused.)

 

[Leo123]

Another fake theory in order to promote fake human-caused climate change.

Geologic Eras are vast stretches of time, almost inconceivable to our brief life spans. There is something strange about being at the beginning of what is likely a new era,and being of the species that defines it

Canada’s Crawford Lake could mark the beginning of the Anthropocene

The mud of a Canadian lake holds an extremely precise record of humans’ influence on Earth. But the Anthropocene isn’t an official geologic epoch yet.

www.sciencenews.org

…Still, attempting to define the Anthropocene in geologic terms underscores humanity’s rapid and intense impact on the planet, Turner says. “We’ve become a geological force.”

Sorry, I put no faith in the alt left rag Science News. Anything from Canada is suspect anyway.

 

[BackAgain]

We ADDED 50% to the pre-industrial total.

Assuming the increase came from us (an assumption I don’t share) our contribution constitutes only 1/3 of the total.

 

[Crick]

No. 50% higher doesn’t mean we added it.

The bookkeeping studies and the isotopic analysis says we added it and the numbers say it was 50% we added to the preindustrial level.

420 minus 33% is 282. As I said, do the math.

You're not this stupid.

Starting from a pre-industrial level of 280 ppm, our emissions increased that level by 140 ppm, or 50%. Now think of each 140 ppm as a unit. There were originally two of them (making the 280 ppm). We added one (bringing it up to the curent 420 ppm). That makes 3 units of 140, one of which came from us. We added 50%. Our addition now constitutes 33% of the total.

It’s not half. It’s about a third. (And even that presumes that every bit of the information increase is human caused.)

You stopped taking math classes in the 8th grade didn't you.

 

[Lastamender]

Geologic Eras are vast stretches of time, almost inconceivable to our brief life spans. There is something strange about being at the beginning of what is likely a new era,and being of the species that defines it

Canada’s Crawford Lake could mark the beginning of the Anthropocene

The mud of a Canadian lake holds an extremely precise record of humans’ influence on Earth. But the Anthropocene isn’t an official geologic epoch yet.

www.sciencenews.org

…Still, attempting to define the Anthropocene in geologic terms underscores humanity’s rapid and intense impact on the planet, Turner says. “We’ve become a geological force.”

What is the "we" shit. Someone looking for a government grant for more junk science.

 

[Crick]

What is the "we" shit. Someone looking for a government grant for more junk science.

By "we" he means humanity.

Not very bright, are you.

 

[BackAgain]

The bookkeeping studies and the isotopic analysis says we added it and the numbers say it was 50% we added to the preindustrial level.

You're not this stupid.

Starting from a pre-industrial level of 280 ppm, our emissions increased that level by 140 ppm, or 50%. Now think of each 140 ppm as a unit. There were originally two of them (making the 280 ppm). We added one (bringing it up to the curent 420 ppm). That makes 3 units of 140, one of which came from us. We added 50%. Our addition now constitutes 33% of the total.

You stopped taking math classes in the 8th grade didn't you.

You are this stupid.

But I’m glad that you’ve finally grasped that an addition of half means that the additional part is only 1/3 of the total.

I’d be proud of you if I had any respect for you.

 

[The Duke]

Geologic Eras are vast stretches of time, almost inconceivable to our brief life spans. There is something strange about being at the beginning of what is likely a new era,and being of the species that defines it

Canada’s Crawford Lake could mark the beginning of the Anthropocene

The mud of a Canadian lake holds an extremely precise record of humans’ influence on Earth. But the Anthropocene isn’t an official geologic epoch yet.

www.sciencenews.org

…Still, attempting to define the Anthropocene in geologic terms underscores humanity’s rapid and intense impact on the planet, Turner says. “We’ve become a geological force.”

You should see them umm..aw geez.. kinda like horseshoe crab thingies from my neighborhood.

They said they were extinct, but I know where a bunch are.

 

[Lastamender]

By "we" he means humanity.

Not very bright, are you.

I think she means just the stupid ones.

 

[Crick]

You should see them umm..aw geez.. kinda like horseshoe crab thingies from my neighborhood.

They said they were extinct, but I know where a bunch are.

These?

They are endangered but not extinct.

 

[ding]

According to so called climate scientists everything everywhere is an endangered species.