This is one way that we know:
http://www.realclimate.org/…-activities-updated/
.
Why do they always report that the CO2 level increased from 280ppm to 380ppm? Why not say say a 0.01% increase in total atmospheric CO2?
The real question ultimately is the resulting temperature rise that the increased CO2 can cause. While there is obviously some uncertainty in this regard, just knowing how C02 and heat/light work, a 0.01% increase is enough to make the earth a few degrees hotter in our lifetimes.
So you can play games with numbers to make them seem big or small, but that doesn’t change the reality of what the effects may be.
Not for nothing, but the mere increase in population will increase atmospheric CO2. Not to mention that we Triathletes are responsible for haigher levels of CO2 production than the average citizen. 
That has to be one of the strangest arguments I’ve ever seen.
What % of lead or uranium are you willing to have in your drinking water? Would a .01% increase be ok with you?
Or something more benign, like MTBE, that requires only about 20 parts per billion to cause taste and odor problems, and then adverse health impacts.
The world is full of things that can have large impacts with tiny, tiny quantities.
This just sounds like another straw man. I have never heard it questioned that the increase in CO2 is primarily caused by man.
I just skimmed the article, but it seems to really body slam that straw man. Very brave author.
Or we could say it increased by 35%…although it’s obvious which perspective your view is skewed to.
Yeah, I’ve had a few friends use that approach in conversation. “But couldn’t some unknown process about our world regulate c02 or temperature back to normal?! Science doesn’t know everything”
Well yes that is possible…but there is no reason to believe it is so, and the world has been, in the past, intolerably hot before.
Dude, that article is complete bullshit: “Since the industrial revolution…” or “over the last 150 years”
Is that all you’ve got?
Relying on ‘data’ like that is gay. 150 years is a blink of the eye in terms of the life of this planet. Although, millions of years ago there were not any self-hating eco-terrorists around to blame shitty weather on themselves and their activities.
The problem with global warming freaks is they refuse to acknowledge that ‘climate change’ has always happened; hundreds, thousands and hundreds of thousands and millions of years ago, the climate of this planet was not static…although that’s what GW freaks would like people to believe…the climate has always been changing over this time. Sometimes it was really hot and sometimes it was really cold…and it continues…
Your report cites “150” years of data to make a point. I have 4.55 billion years worth of data to tell you that global warming is bullshit.
Ok Mojo, I’m going to acknowledge to you and world that climate change has always happened, and always will happen, whether or not humans meddle with things. So we can establish that my problem is NOT as you claim. I just acknowledged the fact that climate change has always happened.
Every serious climate researcher also knows this, and acknowledges it. Please, do not equate crazy hippies and al gore with science. Crazy hippies and crazy conservatives say a lot of stupid stuff, none of the things they say change the facts.
Now, my link is talking about C02, and how we know that humans are increasing it right now. That is the only point being made here. By looking at the isotope ratios of CO2 over the last 100 years, you can tell exactly how much C02 in the atmosphere NOW was made by humans, rather than nature. We can also see that the rate at which c02 is rising, NOW is a faster rate than at any time in those past 4.5 billion years, and that, primarily, is the concern. Rate of change. Fast.
Stating the fact that the climate has always changes does not make it impossible or untrue that humans may affect the climate.
Climate researchers are not claiming that global warming is a problem merely based on the fact that temperatures have been rising lately. The evidence is a bit more nuanced than that, and it appears you are not familiar with it. Honestly I think the totality of global warming is too complex a topic to discuss here in a forum, no progress will be made. You couldn’t even understand what the article I linked was talking about so far, so we wont get anywhere. (Actually, it kinda seems you didn’t get past the first sentence, did you?) That is why I limited the link, and post, to the topic of C02 attribution.
So I’m just going to limit myself to talking about that. Believe what you will about what the result of rising C02 will do.
How is that an argument. I just think it’s funny with all the evidence to back it up they use ppm to make the increase look bigger.
So what do you believe? :climate change’ has always happened, or global warming is bullshit?
Its possible they just picked that arbitrarily, or because the instruments they use to measure it output in PPM and they don’t bother converting it to the expression that looks the smallest.
"We can also see that the rate at which c02 is rising, NOW is a faster rate than at any time in those past 4.5 billion years, and that, primarily, is the concern. Rate of change. Fast."
Are you sure about that? Were you or others around 4.5 billion years ago to record C02 levels? Because of my generous and benevolent nature, I will cede 150 years and leave it to you to explain the remaining 4.5 billion years…
Now, my link is talking about C02, and how we know that humans are increasing it right now. That is the only point being made here. By looking at the isotope ratios of CO2 over the last 100 years, you can tell exactly how much C02 in the atmosphere NOW was made by humans, rather than nature.
Regarding C02 in the atmosphere, can ‘science’ (your sources) distinguish man-made C02 from natural C02 in the atmosphere? If so, how? if not, why not? Does man-made C02 hang out seperately from Natural C02 does it blend easy? Can you take a sample for me?
Now, my link is talking about C02, and how we know that humans are increasing it right now. That is the only point being made here. By looking at the isotope ratios of CO2 over the last 100 years,
Like I said** **“over the last 100 years” gimme a break…
“Ignore mojo, he’s an agitator for agitations sake.”
I disagree. I have learned a lot about GW by reading responses to mojo’s posts. For some reason, mojo elicits responses as if the author is being forced to deal with a mentally challenged child, which means they need to express GW information in simple terms that most folks can understand. I’ll let others decide if mojo actually is a mentally challenged child.
Plus, I do really enjoy reading his rants. They make me chuckle.
“I just skimmed the article, but it seems to really body slam that straw man. Very brave author.”
If anyone knows about straw man beatings, it would be Art.
I don’t remember ever reading a slowman style, gratuitous personal slap absent of any responsive content from you before.
With the possible exception of mojo, can you, for example, quote anyone on this board that has argued the increase in CO2 observed over the last century or so is not largely due to man’s activities?
I don’t know anyone who denies that the rising CO2 levels are predominantly caused by activities of human beings. Do you? That was never the issue.
“Why do they always report that the CO2 level increased from 280ppm to 380ppm? Why not say say a 0.01% increase in total atmospheric CO2?”
I know what you’re saying (100ppm = 0.01%), but it’s actually more correct to say that there was a 35.7% increase, not a 0.01% increase. If you increased your running from 30 minutes a day to 45 minutes a day, that would be a 50% increase–even though the added 15 minutes only represents slightly over 1% of the total day.
Now whether or not that 35.7% increase is something to be concerned about is a separate issue. After all, CO2 is not a toxin in the sense that lead or uranium (mentioned by Fatmouse) is. In fact, CO2 is a necessary component of our ecology.
I think it’s all spin. The amount of CO2 increased by 35.7% compared to the pre-industry levels, but the % of CO2 in the atmosphere increased by 0.01%. It’s all about frame of reference.