Come on down, Ajax!

:D :D :D :D :D

Depends on context.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 1:51pm:

Come on down, Ajax! :D :D :D :D :D

What is just in time....??????

# wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 1:58pm:

Depends on context.

Ah, well I give you Jedi points for not straying from the truth!

This is an environment forum, so we can go from that point of view basically.  ;)

Ajax wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 2:02pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 1:51pm: Come on down, Ajax! :D :D :D :D :D What is just in time....??????

Manufacturing talk! Go for it punk...  :-* :-*

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 2:10pm:

Ajax wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 2:02pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 1:51pm: Come on down, Ajax! :D :D :D :D :D What is just in time....?????? Manufacturing talk! Go for it punk...  :-* :-*

You first.....................

Ajax wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 2:20pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 2:10pm: Ajax wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 2:02pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 1:51pm: Come on down, Ajax! :D :D :D :D :D What is just in time....?????? Manufacturing talk! Go for it punk...  :-* :-* You first.....................

By asking the question,"What is productivity?", in an environment forum I already have.

  :-*

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 2:22pm:

Ajax wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 2:20pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 2:10pm: Ajax wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 2:02pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 1:51pm: Come on down, Ajax! :D :D :D :D :D What is just in time....?????? Manufacturing talk! Go for it punk...  :-* :-* You first..................... By asking the question,"What is productivity?", in an environment forum I already have.   :-*

fire away...................

Ajax wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 2:29pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 2:22pm: Ajax wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 2:20pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 2:10pm: Ajax wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 2:02pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 1:51pm: Come on down, Ajax! :D :D :D :D :D What is just in time....?????? Manufacturing talk! Go for it punk...  :-* :-* You first..................... By asking the question,"What is productivity?", in an environment forum I already have.   :-* fire away...................

Like I said: i already have!  :-*

At the moment approximately,

Well lets see total amount of CO2 in our atmosphere = 2067 Gigatonnes

Every year CO2 emissions are as follows,

Ecosystems CO2 emissions = 770 gigatonnes per annum

Manmade CO2 emissions = 30 gigatonnes per annum

Productivity (flux) = 800 gigatonnes per annum

Now lets see some percentages,

manmade CO2 over total CO2 =30/2067 = 1.45%

manmade CO2 over flux = 30/770 = 3.89%

Lets not forget water vapor is responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect here on Earth and all other greenhouse gases for the rest which is 5%.

So somewhere in that 5% is the 30 gigatonnes of manmade CO2 emissions every year.

We would have to subtract from the 5% for greenhouse gases the 770 gigatonnes of CO2 from the ecosystems.

The effect of methane, ozone, Nitrous oxide, CFC's.

What percentage from that 5% is actually atrributed to manmade CO2 emissions and global warming....?????

Thats why Antropogenic Global Warming is a lie and a scam.

Today we have 390ppm of CO2 in our atmosphere, we once had 7000ppm of CO2 (all natural) in our atmopshere.

Guess what this never triggered a runaway green house effect.

20 imes more CO2 than today and no greenhouse effect......................................??!!

Yeh, we all know the ol' black is actually white argument!   :D :D :D :D

Ajax wrote on Aug 11^th, 2013 at 12:13pm:

At the moment approximately, Well lets see total amount of CO2 in our atmosphere = 2067 Gigatonnes Every year CO2 emissions are as follows, Ecosystems CO2 emissions = 770 gigatonnes per annum Manmade CO2 emissions = 30 gigatonnes per annum Productivity (flux) = 800 gigatonnes per annum Now lets see some percentages, manmade CO2 over total CO2 =30/2067 = 1.45% manmade CO2 over flux = 30/770 = 3.89% Lets not forget water vapor is responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect here on Earth and all other greenhouse gases for the rest which is 5%. So somewhere in that 5% is the 30 gigatonnes of manmade CO2 emissions every year. We would have to subtract from the 5% for greenhouse gases the 770 gigatonnes of CO2 from the ecosystems. The effect of methane, ozone, Nitrous oxide, CFC's. What percentage from that 5% is actually atrributed to manmade CO2 emissions and global warming....????? Thats why Antropogenic Global Warming is a lie and a scam. Today we have 390ppm of CO2 in our atmosphere, we once had 7000ppm of CO2 (all natural) in our atmopshere. Guess what this never triggered a runaway green house effect. 20 imes more CO2 than today and no greenhouse effect......................................??!!

Roll up Roll up and see the amazing vanishing carbon fluxes.

Amazing sleight of hand. You completely ignore the balancing sinks. Not one mention of them in that whole post, even though the sinks are the key to understanding the whole problem. We have eroded those sinks by cutting down tropical rainforests and changing land use.  You speak of CO2 levels in the past and totally ignore the fact that the sinks have changed enormously, even over historical times.

For millions of years, the carbon fluxes from the atmosphere to the biosphere (forests etc) and to the ocean have roughly balanced the fluxes from the biosphere to the atmosphere and the ocean to the atmosphere.

Let's look at the pre-industrial ocean to start with. The atmosphere  above the ocean contains carbon dioxide at around 300ppm. The deniers say that this is a tiny amount, but this tiny amount is responsible for some pretty massive effects. One of these is photosynthesis. Photosynthesis of plants converts energy from sunlight and  carbon from carbon dioxide to form plant tissues, including photosynthesising plankton (phytoplankton). Other plankton balance this process by the respiration process where CO2 is emitted to atmosphere. Nobody would dream of taking one of these fluxes in isolation from the other unless the intent was to deceive. 

Apart from these biological processes, the oceans themselves are in (metastable) equilibrium with the atmosphere. When it heats, during the days on one scale, or during the summers on another scale, carbon dioxide is released from the ocean. As it cools, the flux operates in the reverse direction. Intimately and intricately connected again.

I have just considered the ocean fluxes so far, but it doesn't take much to understand that the same principles apply to terrestrial carbon fluxes.

So the natural fluxes are thus intertwined and should never be considered in isolation. There have always been natural positive and negative fluxes which balanced, usually with a little bit to spare.

In your post, you are doing exactly that - considering them in isolation, even though they are intertwined.

To divide the fluxes from human activity by the positive fluxes only is dishonest. If you want to do a comparison, you need to consider the net natural fluxes.

In this post, I posted a diagram with the carbon fluxes.
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374222833/23#23

As you may remember, this is what I said, and you had no argument with it from memory:


Quote:

As you can see, the flux from fossil fuel burning and land clearing is +29 gigatonnes. If you ignore the fossil fuel component and look at the natural fluxes, you can see that they are roughly balanced. There is a net negative flux of around - 11 gigatonnes. Now let's look at the net carbon flux including human contribution. If you do the sums: (29+439+332-450-338) What do you get? It's +12 Gigatonnes by my calculation.  So of the 29 Gigatonnes that were emitted in 2006, 12 Gigatonnes enters the atmosphere.

Now after all that, you come out with this gem:

Quote:

I know I know in the past the Earth's sinks have absorbed 7000ppm, every year the Earth's sinks can absorb the 770 gigatonnes the ecosystems throw up but they cannot absorb the 30 extra gigatonnes man throws up. Thats malarkey..............!!!!!!!!!

As you see from the previous post, I already told you that the net increase is around 12 Gigatonnes, not 30, so why are you using a strawman? Why are you saying that I think that none of the 29 (30) Gigatonnes is absorbed? 

Do you honestly believe that the oceanic and terrestrial sinks have an infinite capacity? - that natural systems can adjust to throwing it an extra 30 Gigatonnes per year every year from fossil fuel burning?

How do you suppose that this infinite capacity theory of yours works?

....God?

Now that is malarkey, but it's also a very touching faith on your part.

Quote:

we once had 7000ppm of CO2 (all natural) in our atmopshere.

Well for that matter, the atmosphere was once predominantly carbon dioxide and nitrogen, with practically no oxygen - as much as 300,000 ppm. It's about as irrelevant as your remark, because the world was a very different place back in those days.

Actually I don't know which particular Geological period you're referring to. You didn't say.  How many people lived on the Earth then? None? Am I roughly right? (plus or minus 100%)

OK. So how accurate is the 7000ppm ?

For example, can you find other studies that say that the actual values were around 500ppm? I mean you produced a figure from some bozo such as Ian Plimer and you don't provide any reference data. I presume that you have checked this out, so I don't think that my question is unreasonable.

Ajax doesn't understand systems: if you inject chemical energy into a system why would you not wish to control that injection?

Ajax is a tryhard anarchist and we all know how apologetic they became soon after committing the ultimate sin- everyone, that is, except for Ajax the junior of all juniors!

http://evobsession.com/chinese-electric-bus-charges-in-10-seconds-fastest-in-world/

:-? ........"..i said what????????????"

** no, i wasn't smoking crack  :o :o :o :o nah, definately not- those idioitos are friggin nuts!!