Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If volcanoes weren't such an insignificant source of CO2 compared to human emissions, that might have made sense.
Don't you mean to say "mans emissions are insignificant compared to natural sources." After all, man's contribution to the GLOBAL CO2 budget is 5% of the total. Totally insignificant in the overall scheme of things.
If volcanoes weren't such an insignificant source of CO2 compared to human emissions, that might have made sense.
Tell us how many million of metric tons of CO2 humans put into the air, then tell us how many millions of tons of CO2 are absorbed by plant life? We are surrounded by idiots that believe everything that is thrown at them without research, and even more useful is COMMON SENSE!... What the fuck is a Mamooth?
This, of course has NOTHING to do with the increase in CO2!
2013: New Record Set for Volcanic Eruptions in any Given Year!!!
2013 has seen more volcanic eruptions than at any time since records began. As reported in Seven Volcanoes In Six Different Countries All Start Erupting Winin Hours Of Each Other, vulcanism is on the increase. In an average year, 50-60 volcanoes erupt. So far this year there have been 83, not including any eruptions when writing this article.
An extra 23-33 eruptions (so far) may not seem like much, but those extra eruptions represent a massive amount of gases and ash being blown into the atmosphere. Millions and millions of metric tonnes which can have a profound effect on life on Earth.....
2013: New Record Set for Volcanic Eruptions in any Given Year - Apparently Apparel®
If volcanoes weren't such an insignificant source of CO2 compared to human emissions, that might have made sense.
Tell us how many million of metric tons of CO2 humans put into the air, then tell us how many millions of tons of CO2 are absorbed by plant life? We are surrounded by idiots that believe everything that is thrown at them without research, and even more useful is COMMON SENSE!... What the fuck is a Mamooth?
You are an idiot that does not know the meaning of research. If you go the the USGS comparing volcanic emissions to human emissions, you can get the numbers. And if plant life were absorbing what we emit, why then has the atmospheric load of CO2 gone from 280 ppm to 400 ppm in a bit over a century and a half?
This, of course has NOTHING to do with the increase in CO2!
2013: New Record Set for Volcanic Eruptions in any Given Year!!!
2013 has seen more volcanic eruptions than at any time since records began. As reported in Seven Volcanoes In Six Different Countries All Start Erupting Winin Hours Of Each Other, vulcanism is on the increase. In an average year, 50-60 volcanoes erupt. So far this year there have been 83, not including any eruptions when writing this article.
An extra 23-33 eruptions (so far) may not seem like much, but those extra eruptions represent a massive amount of gases and ash being blown into the atmosphere. Millions and millions of metric tonnes which can have a profound effect on life on Earth.....
2013: New Record Set for Volcanic Eruptions in any Given Year - Apparently Apparel®
Buddy boy, the size of the eruptions make a big differance. All 23 do not add up to one Krakatoa.
If volcanoes weren't such an insignificant source of CO2 compared to human emissions, that might have made sense.
Don't you mean to say "mans emissions are insignificant compared to natural sources." After all, man's contribution to the GLOBAL CO2 budget is 5% of the total. Totally insignificant in the overall scheme of things.
Outright lie.
The normal global budget of CO2 includes both emission and absorption. Prior to the use of fossil fuels, the norm for the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere for the last few thousand years was about 280 ppm. In other words, the emission and absorption balanced out. Today, after 200 years of intensive fossil fuel use, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 400 ppm. That is a 40% increase that we are responsible for.
If volcanoes weren't such an insignificant source of CO2 compared to human emissions, that might have made sense.
Don't you mean to say "mans emissions are insignificant compared to natural sources." After all, man's contribution to the GLOBAL CO2 budget is 5% of the total. Totally insignificant in the overall scheme of things.
Outright lie.
The normal global budget of CO2 includes both emission and absorption. Prior to the use of fossil fuels, the norm for the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere for the last few thousand years was about 280 ppm. In other words, the emission and absorption balanced out. Today, after 200 years of intensive fossil fuel use, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 400 ppm. That is a 40% increase that we are responsible for.
Don't you mean to say "mans emissions are insignificant compared to natural sources." After all, man's contribution to the GLOBAL CO2 budget is 5% of the total. Totally insignificant in the overall scheme of things.
So you don't think outgassing from warmer oceans has contributed anything to atmospheric CO2? It happened every time it warmed up in the past, why not this time?
So you don't think outgassing from warmer oceans has contributed anything to atmospheric CO2? It happened every time it warmed up in the past, why not this time?
Since we directly measure the oceans absorbing CO2, claiming that the oceans are outgassing CO2 is delusional.
And "It happened like that in the past, so it must act the same way now, even if conditions are wildly different!" is an obvious logical fallacy. Most deniers rely heavily on that fallacy.
de Grasse Tyson was right about deniers.
de Grasse Tyson was right about deniers.
Yes, he was. You clowns don't adhere to the scientific method at all. You deniers wipe your bottoms with it. Pathetic. Your fall has been fun to watch though. Real fun!
de Grasse Tyson was right about deniers.
Yes, he was. You clowns don't adhere to the scientific method at all. You deniers wipe your bottoms with it. Pathetic. Your fall has been fun to watch though. Real fun!
I don't actually know what Tyson had to say about deniers, but I can imagine. And, you are right. You don't adhere to the scientific method and your failures to do so are pathetic. However, it has not been fun to watch.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha04600x.html
Hansen et al. 1981
Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, 213, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.
The global temperature rose 0.2°C between the middle 1960s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980s. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage
It doesn't matter what is said on this board, you manage to make a comment that is either misinformed, an outright lie, or just plain stupid.
It doesn't matter what is said on this board, you manage to make a comment that is either misinformed, an outright lie, or just plain stupid.
Hey kook, where'd you crib that list of dishonestly misrepresented and cherrypicked links from?
I can check quick, since there are only a couple denier websites willing to lie that brazenly for TheCause. "CO2 science"? Nope. "Principia Scientifica International"? Nope. "The Hockey Schtick" ... DING! WE HAVE A WINNA!
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds rivers and lakes are large net sources of CO2 to the atmosphere
So not only is SSDD a fine brainless parrot, he's not even honest enough to tell us where he was cribbing his links and descriptions from.
, good luck trying to get anyone to fall for your dishonest cherrypicking and misrepresentation. The oceans are CO2 sinks; that's the actual science.
other well-established science you'd like to overturn by cherrypicking and making crap up? No, not the backradiation again, we've already been over your failure to understand the Second Law.
And despite all the claims from the AGW church not one of their loyal lobotomized saps has been able to produce one link with datasets and source code that proves their AGW religion.
