that is beyond loony. you are even off the agw nutter reservation. that is not how dynamic systems work. show us a link to scientists who make such a claim.
Look. It's pretty simple. CO2 levels are now 40 % higher than they were before the industrial revolution. It's from man's burning of fossil fuels and and land use changes.
That I disagree with. There are natural variations in CO2 levels, historically driven by orbital forcing. It's unlikely Earth's atmosphere would go from 300 ppm CO2 to 400 ppm in a century, or even over 300 ppm, according to the long term chart, but CO2 could (and did) rise 40% at times without Man's influence. I think the isotope analysis of atmospheric CO2 (and industrial emission measuring) are better ways to arrive at the 40% figure.
its not simple... this is not for simple minded folks. it is a complex dynamic system with co2 sinks... off gassing absorption and natural and man made co2. even your agw nutter websites don't agree with you. you are out there by yourself in agw super loony land.
Richter, carbon-13 content of CO2 from any plant matter living or dead is lower than the mean carbon-13 content of the atmosphere. So fossil fuels are just one source of CO2 that is lower in C-13. The natural sources are at least two orders greater than what comes from man's use of fossil fuel, but natural sources may include CO2 of non-plant origin that may be higher in C-13 content. I don't know about volcanic CO2. I always assumed it was mostly from carbonates, but I suppose it might also include some CO2 from plant matter as well. It was originally thought that the decline of c-13 CO2 in the atmosphere was a finger print for CO2 coming from fossil fuels, but now we know that its a finger print for CO2 coming from plant matter in general -- and possibly there are other sources that are also lower in C-13 content. That is making the interpretation of the observed decrease in C-13 content of the atmosphere more difficult than was originally supposed. There has never been a question of whether man is putting a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere. We are! But how much do we put in compared to the total of natural sources of CO2 and the other green house gases combined, the others being mainly water and methane. We are now getting better data to sort this out. Is man's contribution significant over time compared to the huge natural sourcing and sinking of CO2 and the other green house gases? We mustn't forget that the sourcing and sinking mechanisms are dynamic. They are not static. The troposphere functions as a slowly responding, huge greenhouse gas buffer. It is really a very complicated problem. I'm afraid it was made a little too simple by the "early responders". __________ I always assumed that plants are lower in C-13 because of CO2 absorption kinetics. C-13 CO2 should be absorbed and react more slowly than C-12 CO2. Chemically they are identical. I have never read anything on this. It is just an assumption on my part, but that's what we see in general, slower kinetics for the heavier isotope.
I think it's very unlikely that these natural cycles of "sourcing and sinking" changed the percentage of atmospheric CO2 so much in a century as what we're seeing now. [Barring some huge volcanic eruptions, or the like, at times] That, and the crossing of the 400 ppm level--I don't see that level on the long term chart that's been repeatedly posted here.
Be careful, futurecurrents is foaming at the mouth again. let's see... if current CO2 is at 400 ppm..... 40% of that would be... 160 ppm...... mmmm........ that works out to.... 16 one thousandth of 1 percent. OMG......the sky is falling!!!!..the sky is falling!!!! Trivial note: In 2003 the British band Radiohead used the line "Go and tell the King the sky is falling" in their song "2+2=5"
LOL, you are a liar. The 95%ers won't even print that. Did you really have experimental gay sex with your brother as posted prior?
I have never seen a post from futurecurrents claiming to have experimental gay sex with his brother, nor does ET search find such a previous post. I think constantly harping on this alleged "gay sex with his brother" assertion detracts from honest debate in P&R. I may completely disagree with FC's opinion in regards to global warming but I am not about to step over the edge into these type of personal attacks. I hope that others will consider joining me in reducing personal attacks in our P&R debates. Just my 2 cents.