Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

Not so sure about that.  The world is still warming up from the last ice age and Maunder minimum.  Like your beer carbon dioxide is less soluble in warm ocean water and there is also an increase in microbial respiration with temperature.  Microbes releasing CO2 from old rock would also cause a relative depletion of C13 in atmospheric CO2. 

Well, again, natural concentrations tend to be between 250 and 300 ppm, over the last million years.



And now we're at 410. 

If there are microbes releasing carbon from old rock to get us to 410 and deplete C-13, these microbes are doing something they've never done in a million years. While at the same time we KNOW we're burning a metric $#!+-ton of coal and natural gas that has been locked under the earth's surface for most of history that emits CO2. 

I'd venture that we can apply Occam's razor here and rule out the microbes. 

I've always wondered why people use the word "metric" in front of ton (or $hit-ton) in order to represent extreme emphasis.

While it's true that a metric ton represents more weight than a standard American ton, it's really only ~200 lbs more, which is only 10%.  To me, that's not enough of a difference to warrant using it for extreme emphasis.

You could also say a "English long $hit-ton" because an English "long" ton is also roughly 200 lbs or 10% larger than an American "short" ton.  But again, I don't feel that a mere 10% translates to extreme emphasis.

The French use metric units to make their country seem bigger.  You see a sign "Marseille 440" and think it must be a ways away, but it's not really that far.

So if I understand right without man the world is in sinc but along comes man who dumps an additional 4% into the atmosphere and all of a sudden the world doesnt know what to do with it

the first 96% is fine and mother nature says no problem I got this but adding 4% more and mother nature says hey man I cant handle that

I don't think you're understanding. 

Man didn't add 4% to the total CO2 in the atmosphere. Man added 4% every year for over a century* and it has progressively built up to the point where man is now responsible for roughly 1/3 of the total CO2 in the atmosphere. 

A better example than beer. We all need to eat, right? So let's say you're 25 years old, and your metabolism is such that you burn 2500 calories every day. But each day, you consume a mere 4% over that, to be 2600 calories per day. And then 10 years later, you wonder why you're 100# overweight? After all, it's only 4%?!?! Well, that 4% is additive, not total. 

 (* It probably hasn't been a consistent 4% over the last 150 years, I think that's a current number instead.)

(* It probably hasn't been a consistent 4% over the last 150 years, I think that's a current number instead.)

cause that would be a SHIT TON more if it was 4% over the last 150 years

I don't think you're understanding.

Man didn't add 4% to the total CO2 in the atmosphere. Man added 4% every year for over a century* and it has progressively built up to the point where man is now responsible for roughly 1/3 of the total CO2 in the atmosphere.

A better example than beer. We all need to eat, right? So let's say you're 25 years old, and your metabolism is such that you burn 2500 calories every day. But each day, you consume a mere 4% over that, to be 2600 calories per day. And then 10 years later, you wonder why you're 100# overweight? After all, it's only 4%?!?! Well, that 4% is additive, not total.

(* It probably hasn't been a consistent 4% over the last 150 years, I think that's a current number instead.)

Im not buying this

when we talk about non man co2 at 96% that too is being replenished each year as well

that 96% didnt just happen one time and bingo lasted in the atmosphere for ever

to suggest mans co2 never goes away and just builds up for 100 years does not nake sense

i

Okay, think of it differently then.

Prior to human industrialization, the natural processes of the earth emitted 100% of all CO2, correct?

Now, we've added to that. So the natural processes of the earth PLUS the activity of human industrialization is emitting 104% of the previous amount.

Total annual CO2 emissions have increased by 4%, and natural processes cannot pull that extra out of the atmosphere so it is accumulating.

your making an assumption that prior to man the earth could only deal with the level of co2 that existed

how do you know that the capacity of the earth to deal with co2 was at 100%

nature tends to adjust to deal with what comes its way

again this is 4% vs 96%