Australian Politics Forum

Quote:

Essentially we can measure man-made emissions reasonably well, but we can’t measure the natural emissions and sequestrations of CO2 at all precisely — the error bars are huge. Humans emits 5Gt or so per annum, but the oceans emit about 90Gt and the land-plants about 60Gt, for a total of maybe 150Gt. Many scientists have assumed that the net flows of carbon to and from natural sinks and sources of CO2 cancel each other out, but there is no real data to confirm this and it’s just a convenient assumption. The problem is that even small fractional changes in natural emissions or sequestrations swamp the human emissions.

Read the rest here
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/08/blockbuster-planetary-temperature-controls-co2-levels-not-humans/

Quote:

There goes another “fingerprint”…

“
It’s not just that man-made emissions don’t control the climate, they don’t even control global CO2 levels.

Judging by the speech Murry Salby gave at the Sydney Institute, there’s a blockbuster paper coming soon.

Listen to the speech: “Global Emission of Carbon Dioxide: The Contribution from Natural Sources”

Professor Murry Salby is Chair of Climate Science at Macquarie University. He’s been a visiting professorships at Paris, Stockholm, Jerusalem, and Kyoto, and he’s spent time at the Bureau of Meterology in Australia.

Over the last two years he has been looking at C12 and C13 ratios and CO2 levels around the world, and has come to the conclusion that man-made emissions have only a small effect on global CO2 levels. It’s not just that man-made emissions don’t control the climate, they don’t even control global CO2 levels.

...

“It is often asserted that we can measure the human contribution of CO2 to the air by looking at the ratio of C12 to C13. The theory is that plants absorb more C12 than C13 (by about 2%, not a big signature), so we can look at the air and know which came from plants and which came from volcanos and which came from fossil fuels, via us. Plants are ‘deficient’ in C13, and so, then, ought to be our fossil fuel derived CO2.

The implication is that since coal and oil were from plants, that “plant signature” means “human via fossil fuels”. But it just isn’t that simple. Take a look at the above chart. We are 5.5 and plants are putting 121.6 into the air each year (not counting ocean plants). There is a lot of carbon slopping back and forth between sinks and sources. Exactly how closely do we know the rate of soil evolution of CO2, for example?”

Chiefio also found some interesting quotes pointing out that corn (a C4 plant) absorbs more C13, and our mass fields of corn might just muck up the stats… (it’s a good post).

Read the rest here
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/08/blockbuster-planetary-temperature-controls-co2-levels-not-humans/

Yay for junk science.

Enough with your pro-Koch Bothers(-funded) site(s) that eschew real scientific data for this horsehockey nonsense.

Marla wrote on May 14^th, 2015 at 10:27am:

Yay for junk science.

Enough with your pro-Koch Bothers(-funded) site(s) that eschew real scientific data for this horsehockey nonsense.

Ajax's Law 33/B2

Humans can burn as much fossil fuel as they want, clear as much forested areas as they want and there will be NO increase in Atmospheric CO2 concentration.

The Great Ajax masked one has spoken ladies and gentlemen....

Check with Dr Sircus - he does acupuncture and can also cure cancer with Baking Soda and Magnesium tablets

Crack pot City has emerged folks

The caped crack pot crusader is here to save humanity with his Kock Brother profit margins and deranged flat earth lunacy and future child sacrifices

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 14^th, 2015 at 1:58pm:

chimp sometimes you're a real w@nker...!!!!

Ajax exposed as a crack pot denier with his own web Koch copied spin and he doesnt like it ladies and gentlemen

Poor Ajax is getting personal, and clutching at straws as he drowns in his own putrid spin vomit.

Marla wrote on May 14^th, 2015 at 10:27am:

Yay for junk science.

Enough with your pro-Koch Bothers(-funded) site(s) that eschew real scientific data for this horsehockey nonsense.

Sorry Marla, but you have that backwards. The 'junk science' is what the IPCC releases.

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 14^th, 2015 at 2:15pm:

Marla wrote on May 14^th, 2015 at 10:27am:

Yay for junk science.

Enough with your pro-Koch Bothers(-funded) site(s) that eschew real scientific data for this horsehockey nonsense.

Sorry Marla, but you have that backwards. The 'junk science' is what the IPCC releases.

The fossil fuel industry accepts this so called "junk science" Mr Gizmo

They dont rely on crack pots like dr Sircus

Has the Mini Ice Age started yet mate?

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 14^th, 2015 at 5:20pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 14^th, 2015 at 2:15pm:

Marla wrote on May 14^th, 2015 at 10:27am:

Yay for junk science.

Enough with your pro-Koch Bothers(-funded) site(s) that eschew real scientific data for this horsehockey nonsense.

Sorry Marla, but you have that backwards. The 'junk science' is what the IPCC releases.

The fossil fuel industry accepts this so called "junk science" Mr Gizmo

They dont rely on crack pots like dr Sircus

Has the Mini Ice Age started yet mate?

If the fossil fuel industry 'accepts' the IPCC 'science', why do people keep on claiming that "Big Oil' and the Koch Brothers are funding the skeptic scientists and web sites????? Despite the proven fact that oil companies give more money to AGW researchers than they do to skeptic researchers???

Oh, and because Dr Sircus ALSO believes in the possible Mini Ice Age does NOT mean that the other scientists are also 'crackpots' (any more than the skeptics on here are)

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 14^th, 2015 at 5:30pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 14^th, 2015 at 5:20pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 14^th, 2015 at 2:15pm:

Marla wrote on May 14^th, 2015 at 10:27am:

Yay for junk science.

Enough with your pro-Koch Bothers(-funded) site(s) that eschew real scientific data for this horsehockey nonsense.

Sorry Marla, but you have that backwards. The 'junk science' is what the IPCC releases.

The fossil fuel industry accepts this so called "junk science" Mr Gizmo

They dont rely on crack pots like dr Sircus

Has the Mini Ice Age started yet mate?

Dont you know how it works? How old are you?

The Tobacco corporations also accepted that smoking their products caused cancer and other illnesses. Their own internal research demonstrates this causal link.

They never admitted the causal link in public though. In fact if you recall correctly the Presidents from the 5 largest Tobacco firms attended a US congressional hearing and testified under oath that they did not know of any causal links between smoking their tobacco products and adverse health effects and disease in humans. (all 5 presidents resigned soon afterwards, and one can argue that they were being advised by their numerous lawyers to actually plead ignorance of this issue - ie lie)

now Gozmo_3467 the major corporate players in the international fossil fuel industry made a joint statement in 2003 which accepted that humans were causing global warming and therefore effecting the earths climate. They also recommended urgent action to be taken to mitigate these catastrophic effects.

This does not mean that these corporations and vested interested refrain from funding spin doctors and lobbying governments and other institutions to extend their business models and protect their profit margins. Thats what they do because the essence of the fascist corpocracy is corruption and deceit and short term profits and power.

You do understand how the world works dont you Guxmi_6745

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 14^th, 2015 at 5:30pm:

Despite the proven fact that oil companies give more money to AGW researchers than they do to skeptic researchers???

That has been my experience too. Many of the oil and gas corporations have their own renewable energy schemes. The gas companies routinely advertise the fact that they are striving for a smaller carbon footprint.

The worst offender used to be Exxon, but I haven't heard too much about them funding astroturfing groups lately.

Now Big coal is a different story.

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 14^th, 2015 at 7:01pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 14^th, 2015 at 5:30pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 14^th, 2015 at 5:20pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 14^th, 2015 at 2:15pm:

Marla wrote on May 14^th, 2015 at 10:27am:

Yay for junk science.

Enough with your pro-Koch Bothers(-funded) site(s) that eschew real scientific data for this horsehockey nonsense.

Sorry Marla, but you have that backwards. The 'junk science' is what the IPCC releases.

The fossil fuel industry accepts this so called "junk science" Mr Gizmo

They dont rely on crack pots like dr Sircus

Has the Mini Ice Age started yet mate?

Yeah I DO understand how it works...I've been on the Planet for over half a century.

And Baboon_Illogic, the climate debate has NOTHING to do with the Tobacco Corporations advertising campaigns, or their opinions during the various Congressional investigations.

There is a HUGE difference between the testimony given by 'a for profit company', defending their product, and a (large) number of research scientists, giving an opinion on a scientific theory.

Simply put, Bobono_stupidist, the former is a group of people, trying to keep the cash flow going, and the latter is a group of people interested in finding the truth. The profit based group is more likely the pro-AGW researchers...since THEY are the ones who will lose the funding, if the world works out that man-made climate change is actually crap.

Just because YOU don't agree with the idea that man is not causing global warming, doesn't mean you are anymore 'right' than Dr Siracus. After all, the Pope of the time, didn't agree with Galileo Galilei when he said the Earth revolved around the Sun.

Ajax embarrassed at his own thread title and back pedaling BIG TIME....

Poor Ajax - shamed by his own thread title deception. The putrid stench is incredible in here isnt it ladies and gentlemen

Chimp,

Quote:

Has the Mini Ice Age started yet mate?

Yes - see my 62 page thread on this topic full of
video, pictures, graphs & other evidence:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1421385253/915#915

Bobby. wrote on May 14^th, 2015 at 8:35pm:

Chimp,

Quote:

Has the Mini Ice Age started yet mate?

Yes - see my 62 page thread on this topic full of
video, pictures, graphs & other evidence:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1421385253/915#915

Frost in Alice Springs!

207535main_alice_springs_balloon.jpg (36 KB | 56 )

John_Taverner wrote on May 14^th, 2015 at 7:40pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 14^th, 2015 at 5:30pm:

Despite the proven fact that oil companies give more money to AGW researchers than they do to skeptic researchers???

Probably not John..

Bobby. wrote on May 14^th, 2015 at 8:35pm:

Chimp,

Quote:

Has the Mini Ice Age started yet mate?

Yes - see my 62 page thread on this topic full of
video, pictures, graphs & other evidence:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1421385253/915#915

...any graphs on multi-year ice?? :)

Bobby. wrote on May 14^th, 2015 at 8:35pm:

Chimp,

Quote:

Has the Mini Ice Age started yet mate?

Yes - see my 62 page thread on this topic full of
video, pictures, graphs & other evidence:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1421385253/915#915

I missed the other evidence Jethro. I wonder what that evidence was all about ladies and gentlemen

(apparently you can brush your teeth with it as well as make cakes, cure cancer and clean the fridge)

Australian Politics Forum
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl Member Run Boards >> Environment >> Planetary temp'ture controls CO2 levels-not humans http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1431557182 Message started by Ajax on May 14^th, 2015 at 8:46am