It is not in question. Only idiots question that the 40% rise in CO2 is due to man. There is no question that it is. It takes a huge leap into irrationality to say otherwise. Are you rational?
Greenpeace co-founder: No scientific proof humans dominant cause of warming climate
- Thread starter JamesL
- Start date
It is not in question. Only idiots question that the 40% rise in CO2 is due to man. There is no question that it is. It takes a huge leap into irrationality to say otherwise. Are you rational?
jem, you idiot. You're getting tiresome. Up is indeed up.
"The bottom line is that atmospheric carbon dioxide acts as a thermostat in regulating the temperature of Earth. The rapid increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide due to human industrial activity is therefore setting the course for continued global warming.
(understand jem? )
Because of the large heat capacity of the climate system, the global surface temperature does not respond instantaneously to the sharp upturn of the carbon dioxide thermostat, which at this moment stands at 386.80 ppm compared to the normal interglacial maximum level of 280 ppm. Since humans are responsible for changing the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide, they then also have control over the global temperature of the Earth. Humans are at a difficult crossroad. Carbon dioxide is the lifeblood of civilization as we know it. It is also the direct cause fueling an impending climate disaster. There is no viable alternative to counteract global warming except through direct human effort to reduce the atmospheric CO2 level."
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/lacis_01/
"The bottom line is that atmospheric carbon dioxide acts as a thermostat in regulating the temperature of Earth. The rapid increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide due to human industrial activity is therefore setting the course for continued global warming.
(understand jem? )
Because of the large heat capacity of the climate system, the global surface temperature does not respond instantaneously to the sharp upturn of the carbon dioxide thermostat, which at this moment stands at 386.80 ppm compared to the normal interglacial maximum level of 280 ppm. Since humans are responsible for changing the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide, they then also have control over the global temperature of the Earth. Humans are at a difficult crossroad. Carbon dioxide is the lifeblood of civilization as we know it. It is also the direct cause fueling an impending climate disaster. There is no viable alternative to counteract global warming except through direct human effort to reduce the atmospheric CO2 level."
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/lacis_01/
from the same paper
Within only the past century, the CO2 control knob has been turned sharply upward toward a much hotter global climate. The pre-industrial level of atmospheric carbon dioxide was about 280 ppm, which is representative of the interglacial maximum level of atmospheric CO2. During ice age extremes, the level of atmospheric CO2 drops to near 180 ppm, for which the global temperature is about 5 °C colder. The rapid recent increase in atmospheric CO2 has been attributed to human industrial activity, primarily the burning of fossil fuels. This has pushed atmospheric CO2 toward the 400 ppm level, far beyond the interglacial maximum. The climate system is trying to respond to the new setting of the global temperature thermostat, and this response has been the rise in global surface temperature by about 0.2 °C per decade for the past three decades.
jem, now do you understand? It's OK. You just didn't understand the science I guess. You just have poor reading comprehension. Many people on the right have that problem.
Within only the past century, the CO2 control knob has been turned sharply upward toward a much hotter global climate. The pre-industrial level of atmospheric carbon dioxide was about 280 ppm, which is representative of the interglacial maximum level of atmospheric CO2. During ice age extremes, the level of atmospheric CO2 drops to near 180 ppm, for which the global temperature is about 5 °C colder. The rapid recent increase in atmospheric CO2 has been attributed to human industrial activity, primarily the burning of fossil fuels. This has pushed atmospheric CO2 toward the 400 ppm level, far beyond the interglacial maximum. The climate system is trying to respond to the new setting of the global temperature thermostat, and this response has been the rise in global surface temperature by about 0.2 °C per decade for the past three decades.
jem, now do you understand? It's OK. You just didn't understand the science I guess. You just have poor reading comprehension. Many people on the right have that problem.
I agree. The question is not whether man contributes CO2 to the atmosphere, the question is what is its effect on climate. That's the question we seek an answer to.. The original hypothesis that man was significantly and severely affecting the Earths climate is being called into question by the most recent studies and data, which are becoming more and more reliable as our abilities and understanding improve.
This is just the natural progression that occurs in the investigation of any complex scientific question. It's not uncommon for early hypotheses that seem initially to be correct to be overturned by later findings. It's happened over and over again in the past, it will happen over and over again in the future. Do not allow yourself to get so wedded to an idea that seems so plausible that your thinking is paralyzed.
The problem with using C-13 concentration decline as a marker for anthro carbon is that, as much recent work has shown --see for example Schneider's papers-- there were similar periods of declining C-13 concentration long before modern man appeared on Earth. There are now known to be natural mechanisms that produce this same C-13 footprint that don't involve large additions of Anthropomorphic CO2 to the atmosphere. How are we to distinguish these different mechanisms? We need to go further in our investigation before reaching conclusions. We are a long way from being able to pen the final chapter.
Your patience in explaining this to FC is admirable, piezoe. But you cannot persuade a zealot to doubt his religion.
First paragraph. No they are not, quite the opposite. You must be kidding. The science showing man's release of CO2 has caused temps to rise has never been stronger. You must be watching Faux News And reading only right wing websites. You are simply wrong and ludicruosly so. CO2 is responsible for at least 20% of the GHG effect.
The CO2 is due to man. I'll ask again. Are you really so stupid to "think" that the levels just happened go up 40% exactly when, and in lock step with, man's emissions ?
This is why 97% of all the world's climate scientists and all of it's sci orgs are in agreement. It's common sense which apparently you have none of. The science showing man is causing GW is as strong as that showing cigarettes cause health problems.
Are you trying to out-idiot jerm?
Piehole, question.
How could man's release of CO2, remember, it's a GHG, NOT cause temps to rise?
Al Gore was right. You guys must hate that. LOL
How could man's release of CO2, remember, it's a GHG, NOT cause temps to rise?
Al Gore was right. You guys must hate that. LOL
that was non science b.s. from the NASA fakes like hansen.
NASA.science then went out did an experiment in which it was provent CO2 is a coolant and they explained how it acts a thermostat.
your article came out 3 years before the experiment I cited was written up.
you are living in the past... recent science has passed your troll ass by. your agw nutter models failed.
you need a new theory.
NASA.science then went out did an experiment in which it was provent CO2 is a coolant and they explained how it acts a thermostat.
your article came out 3 years before the experiment I cited was written up.
you are living in the past... recent science has passed your troll ass by. your agw nutter models failed.
you need a new theory.