Visual Representation of the Amount of Man Made CO2 claimed to be Driving the Climate

[SSDD]

Here is an outstanding visual representation of the amount of CO2 produced by man that cliamte science claims is presently driving the climate of the earth.

The sad thing is that I believe most of them actually believe this wisp of gas is driving the global climate.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYLmLW4k4aI&feature=player_embedded]CO2 Contributed by Human Activity: 12 to 15ppmv / version 1 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Mr. H.]

Maybe it's the skeptic in me, but did she count those grains of rice?


Srsly, cool vid.

 

[SSDD]

Maybe it's the skeptic in me, but did she count those grains of rice?


Srsly, cool vid.

Probably a professor using first years to count....what else do they have to do? It does bring home the silliness of the AGW hypothesis though, doesn't it?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Here is an outstanding visual representation of the amount of CO2 produced by man that cliamte science claims is presently driving the climate of the earth.

The sad thing is that I believe most of them actually believe this wisp of gas is driving the global climate.

CO2 Contributed by Human Activity: 12 to 15ppmv / version 1 - YouTube

Facts Schmacts!

It's time to play everybody's favorite game of predetermined conclusions based upon altered and destroyed data:

Wheel of Climate Change!

(Yes, that's how MIT does climate "Science". The real scientists at MIT should boot these stupid fucks off campus)

 

[Old Rocks]

Isn't it so silly that some people think that something as small a 1 gram of potassium cynide could kill something that weighs almost 100,000 grams. So just go ahead and have some for lunch.

 

[Old Rocks]

Anybody that would buy into that speil is dumb as a post. First, the change from the previous CO2 level is over 100 ppm at present, that is more than 10 or 15 ppm. And the change in CH4 is from about 700 ppb to over 1800 ppb, that is 150%.

Another liar on Youtube presented to us by an equal liar.

 

[Old Rocks]

Current Greenhouse Gas Concentrations

Updated February 2012

Gases typically measured in parts per million (ppm), parts per billion (ppb) or parts per trillion (ppt) by volume are presented separately to facilitate comparison of numbers. Global Warming Potentials (GWPs) and atmospheric lifetimes are from the Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007, Table 2.14), except for the atmospheric lifetime of carbon dioxide (CO2) which is explained in footnote 4. Additional material on greenhouse gases can be found in CDIAC's Reference Tools. To find out how CFCs, HFCs, HCFCs, and halons are named, see Name that compound: The numbers game for CFCs, HFCs, HCFCs, and Halons. Concentrations given apply to the lower 75-80 percent of the atmosphere, known as the troposphere.

Sources of the current concentrations are given in the footnotes. The concentrations given are mostly derived from data available via the CDIAC Web pages; many corresponding links are given in the footnotes below. These data are contributed to CDIAC by various investigators, and represent considerable effort on their part. We ask as a basic professional courtesy that you acknowledge the primary sources when you refer to data from any of these sites. Guidelines for proper acknowledgment are found at each link, except for the ALE/GAGE/AGAGE database where acknowledgment guidelines are given in the "readme" files; links to those "readme" files are given in footnote 9, below. Concentrations of ozone and water vapor are spatially and temporally variable due to their short atmospheric lifetimes. A vertically and horizontally averaged water vapor concentration is about 5,500 ppmv. Globally averaged water vapor concentration is difficult to measure precisely because it varies from one place to another and from one season to the next. This precludes a precise determination of changes in water vapor since pre-industrial time. However, a warmer atmosphere will likely contain more water vapor than at present. For a somewaht more detailed statement on water vapor from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, see NCDC: Greenhouse Gases

 

[SSDD]

Isn't it so silly that some people think that something as small a 1 gram of potassium cynide could kill something that weighs almost 100,000 grams. So just go ahead and have some for lunch.

Only a real idiot would attempt to corelate the effects of such a compound on a living organism with a wisp of gas in the atmosphere.

I knew some idiot would attempt to make that argument but was curious as to which one it would be.

Congratulations.

 

[SSDD]

Anybody that would buy into that speil is dumb as a post. First, the change from the previous CO2 level is over 100 ppm at present, that is more than 10 or 15 ppm. And the change in CH4 is from about 700 ppb to over 1800 ppb, that is 150%.

Another liar on Youtube presented to us by an equal liar.

The numbers are from the IPCC. Of course we all know that they can't be trusted. How many more bullets do you have for shooting yourself in the foot?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Here is an outstanding visual representation of the amount of CO2 produced by man that cliamte science claims is presently driving the climate of the earth.

The sad thing is that I believe most of them actually believe this wisp of gas is driving the global climate.


CO2 Contributed by Human Activity: 12 to 15ppmv / version 1 - YouTube

Wow look. A youtube video. Now that's real science!



Actually humans have contribute more than 15 ppm.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Isn't it so silly that some people think that something as small a 1 gram of potassium cynide could kill something that weighs almost 100,000 grams. So just go ahead and have some for lunch.

CO2 is now a deadly poison? We routinely exhale lethal alkaloids?

No, AGW isn't a cult. Nah, no way

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Isn't it so silly that some people think that something as small a 1 gram of potassium cynide could kill something that weighs almost 100,000 grams. So just go ahead and have some for lunch.

CO2 is now a deadly poison? We routinely exhale lethal alkaloids?

No, AGW isn't a cult. Nah, no way

Where did Rocks say it was?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Anybody that would buy into that speil is dumb as a post. First, the change from the previous CO2 level is over 100 ppm at present, that is more than 10 or 15 ppm. And the change in CH4 is from about 700 ppb to over 1800 ppb, that is 150%.

Another liar on Youtube presented to us by an equal liar.

The numbers are from the IPCC.

No they aren't.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Here is an outstanding visual representation of the amount of CO2 produced by man that cliamte science claims is presently driving the climate of the earth.

The sad thing is that I believe most of them actually believe this wisp of gas is driving the global climate.


CO2 Contributed by Human Activity: 12 to 15ppmv / version 1 - YouTube

This lady is a fucking moron.

1) VOLUME isn't the property of CO2 that causes warming, its ABSORPTIVITY of infrared radiation.

2) Man has actually contributed more like 80 -100 ppm of the CO2 in the atmosphere. Have no idea where she got her ridiculous 15 ppm. She's probably confusing annual production rates with total production because she's stupid.

 

[SSDD]

1) VOLUME isn't the property of CO2 that causes warming, its ABSORPTIVITY of infrared radiation.

So how much CO2 is in the atmosphere is irrelavent to the AGW hypothesis?

2) Man has actually contributed more like 80 -100 ppm of the CO2 in the atmosphere. Have no idea where she got her ridiculous 15 ppm. She's probably confusing annual production rates with total production because she's stupid.

Really? How far did you have to reach up your ass for that number? It's easy math...you would think a physicist shoud be able to follow it.

I bet you are one of those people who believes CO2 hangs around in the atmosphere for hundreds or thousands of years. I mean you believe in backradiation so you will believe in anything...right?

It is understandable that you would feel the need to lash out at people who expose your beliefs as the silliness they are.

 

[Old Rocks]

Oh my, once again SSDD shows his ignorance. How do we get that we have added over 100 ppm CO2 to the atmosphere? Easy.

First, we have direct measurements in the ice cores that have recorded CO2 levels for the last, at least, 600,000 years. In those measurements the CO2 never exceeded 300 ppm in any interglacial, and, for our present interglacial, was at 280 prior to the industrial age.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/vostok.co2.gif

Second, we have records from the companies involved in producing coal, oil, and natural gas as to how much they have produced, from that it is very easy to figure how much CO2 that the combustion of that production has added to the atmosphere.

Global Fossil Fuel Carbon Emissions - Graphics

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

1) VOLUME isn't the property of CO2 that causes warming, its ABSORPTIVITY of infrared radiation.

So how much CO2 is in the atmosphere is irrelavent to the AGW hypothesis?

I'm not even sure WTF you're asking. All the greenhouse gasses cause a greenhouse effect.

2) Man has actually contributed more like 80 -100 ppm of the CO2 in the atmosphere. Have no idea where she got her ridiculous 15 ppm. She's probably confusing annual production rates with total production because she's stupid.

Really? How far did you have to reach up your ass for that number? It's easy math...you would think a physicist shoud be able to follow it.

I bet you are one of those people who believes CO2 hangs around in the atmosphere for hundreds or thousands of years. I mean you believe in backradiation so you will believe in anything...right?

It is understandable that you would feel the need to lash out at people who expose your beliefs as the silliness they are.

I bet you are one of those people who read a few blogs, now thinks he's an expert, and now smugly walks around comforted by the thought that he's smarter than all those silly scientists.