Originally posted by CranialSponge

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by Alien Abduct

---

Interesting graph. has anyone come up with an explanation for where the extra carbon came from that has never been in the cycle before in order to produce that alleged spike? if they can't come up with a source for the carbon, I'd be inclined to think the spike is an artifact. They can't claim it came from fossil fuels, because that carbon has been in the cycle before, without producing such a spike, so where did it come from?

ETA: Looking at the graph some more, I see that ALL of the CO2 spikes rose abruptly, in a cycle with an average length of 82 million years peak to peak, then gradually tapered back down, only to spike again abruptly. I wonder what caused those abrupt spikes before the invention of the SUV and the advent of mankind - or even mammals?

I'm glad to see someone else paid attention to Alien Abduct's graph and questioned it. I can somewhat answer you're query regarding how much of that spike is anthropogenic...

How science determines the difference of what's manmade CO2 and what's natural:

They measure the C13/C12 isotope ratios in atmospheric CO2. The difference of naturally occurring C13/12 isotope ratios and manmade C13/12 isotope ratios is 2.6% (manmade being 2.6% less C13). So based on those ratio differences, climatologists estimate that roughly 3% of the CO2 in our atmosphere is manmade and the remaining 97% is naturally occurring.


Thus, theoretically speaking, Alien Abduct's big ol' spike showing graph would then represent 3% of it being from man, while the remaining 97% of that spike would then, obviously, have to be naturally occurring if we are to go by what science is telling us about the isotope ratios to date.

So it's yet just another graph being misrepresented by the climatologists for the sake of dramatics and sensationalism... They show this graph, but forget to add in how much of that spike is anthropogenic and how much is natural.

Such is the standard modus operandi of this so-called "open and honest science".

Originally posted by Alien Abduct

Originally posted by CranialSponge

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by Alien Abduct

---

Interesting graph. has anyone come up with an explanation for where the extra carbon came from that has never been in the cycle before in order to produce that alleged spike? if they can't come up with a source for the carbon, I'd be inclined to think the spike is an artifact. They can't claim it came from fossil fuels, because that carbon has been in the cycle before, without producing such a spike, so where did it come from?

ETA: Looking at the graph some more, I see that ALL of the CO2 spikes rose abruptly, in a cycle with an average length of 82 million years peak to peak, then gradually tapered back down, only to spike again abruptly. I wonder what caused those abrupt spikes before the invention of the SUV and the advent of mankind - or even mammals?

I'm glad to see someone else paid attention to Alien Abduct's graph and questioned it. I can somewhat answer you're query regarding how much of that spike is anthropogenic...

How science determines the difference of what's manmade CO2 and what's natural:

They measure the C13/C12 isotope ratios in atmospheric CO2. The difference of naturally occurring C13/12 isotope ratios and manmade C13/12 isotope ratios is 2.6% (manmade being 2.6% less C13). So based on those ratio differences, climatologists estimate that roughly 3% of the CO2 in our atmosphere is manmade and the remaining 97% is naturally occurring.

Thus, theoretically speaking, Alien Abduct's big ol' spike showing graph would then represent 3% of it being from man, while the remaining 97% of that spike would then, obviously, have to be naturally occurring if we are to go by what science is telling us about the isotope ratios to date.

So it's yet just another graph being misrepresented by the climatologists for the sake of dramatics and sensationalism... They show this graph, but forget to add in how much of that spike is anthropogenic and how much is natural.

Such is the standard modus operandi of this so-called "open and honest science".

Its nice to see someone putting forth and breaking down/crunching numbers. What is it then? I mean the data (graphs like these and such) is obviously pointing toward climate change. I don't think that climate change is even a debate anymore.

It seems the only debate is weather humans are having a significant impact on the spike in temp. And, within this debate 98 percent of scientists take the side that humans are indeed having a significant affect on this climate change.

Whats the deal here? Are they just jumping ship?
Why would most of our scientists be interpreting the data this way?

Are they all so blatantly wrong?

-Alien