The warmest year on record....so far

[Mr.Fitnah]

Except that it has also been conclusively proven that CO2 concentrations have followed increases in temperatures, rather than leading/causing them. Moreover, there are uncountable organic ecological processes which would mitigate the situation and seek to maintain an equilibrium.

In short, that Malthusian declinist dog don't hunt.

In the past maybe, but you can't use the past as a template for the future, if underlying conditions have changed. Like, humans putting 60-70 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere DAILY, more in a few days than all Earth's volcanoes emit in a year!

lying asshole

 

[Oddball]

In the past maybe, but you can't use the past as a template for the future, if underlying conditions have changed. Like, humans putting 60-70 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere DAILY, more in a few days than all Earth's volcanoes emit in a year!

Bull....I've seen no really credible estimate that pegs man's contribution to the total planetary output of CO2 at any number above 6%....This source is about as mainstream as they come.

Yet again, the scaremongering Malthusian dog don't hunt.

Dumb ol' Dooodeee....... You haven't seen the real numbers because you have not looked for them.

How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?

About 40% of human CO2 emissions are being absorbed, mostly by vegetation and the oceans. The rest remains in the atmosphere. As a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20.000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years.

Additional confirmation that rising CO2 levels are due to human activity comes from examining the ratio of carbon isotopes (eg ? carbon atoms with differing numbers of neutrons) found in the atmosphere. Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occurring (Ghosh 2003). The C13/C12 ratio correlates with the trend in global emissions.

100 ppm out of 387 ppm is a lot more than 6%.

Comment #1 on that page:

Some additional ball park figures. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide 385 ppm corresponds to 3e12 tons of CO2 in the atmosphere, so we get:

year ppm tons
1970 320 2.49E+12
2005 385 3.00E+12
5.06E+11 increase

apparently the manmade carbon flux has risen from 4E+09 to 8E+09 tons from 1970 to 2005 so on average a flux of 6E+09 for 35 years is 2.10E+11 tons which is 42 % of the total increase and 7 % of the current total atmospheric CO2.

That begs the question, what is the cause of the other 48 % ? And how can a manmade increase of 7 % be the main reason for a global increase in temperature?

Oooooooo...7% is soooooooo much higher than 6%!

 

[westwall]

Bull....I've seen no really credible estimate that pegs man's contribution to the total planetary output of CO2 at any number above 6%....This source is about as mainstream as they come.

Yet again, the scaremongering Malthusian dog don't hunt.

Dumb ol' Dooodeee....... You haven't seen the real numbers because you have not looked for them.

How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?

About 40% of human CO2 emissions are being absorbed, mostly by vegetation and the oceans. The rest remains in the atmosphere. As a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20.000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years.

Additional confirmation that rising CO2 levels are due to human activity comes from examining the ratio of carbon isotopes (eg ? carbon atoms with differing numbers of neutrons) found in the atmosphere. Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occurring (Ghosh 2003). The C13/C12 ratio correlates with the trend in global emissions.

100 ppm out of 387 ppm is a lot more than 6%.

Comment #1 on that page:

Some additional ball park figures. According to Carbon dioxide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 385 ppm corresponds to 3e12 tons of CO2 in the atmosphere, so we get:

year ppm tons
1970 320 2.49E+12
2005 385 3.00E+12
5.06E+11 increase

apparently the manmade carbon flux has risen from 4E+09 to 8E+09 tons from 1970 to 2005 so on average a flux of 6E+09 for 35 years is 2.10E+11 tons which is 42 % of the total increase and 7 % of the current total atmospheric CO2.

That begs the question, what is the cause of the other 48 % ? And how can a manmade increase of 7 % be the main reason for a global increase in temperature?

Oooooooo...7% is soooooooo much higher than 6%!

Now Dude,

Don't be confusin 'em wit facts and figurs now. It might make their little heads hurt

 

[konradv]

Since historical averages are around 300 and we're at about 385 now, I see that as a 28.3% increase. That's HIGHLY significant.

 

[daveman]

So a 10PPM increase in CO2 causes a 1% increase in temperature?

So AGW proponents are endangering the world by exhaling.

Their only solution is obvious.

You're endangering the world with stupid comments. Why would we be endangering the world by exhaling? That's not an argument, that's just an O'Limbeck piece of red meat for the wingnut sheeple.

What do you exhale?

CO2. You know, the greehouse gas that's going to kill us all.

You really have only one course of action. If you believe in your cause, you must stop exhaling.

 

[westwall]

Since historical averages are around 300 and we're at about 385 now, I see that as a 28.3% increase. That's HIGHLY significant.

Wow you must have a PhD in theoritical math.

The misspelling is intentional!!!