gizmo_2655 wrote on May 8^th, 2015 at 8:57pm:

LINK, THANX 

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 8^th, 2015 at 11:58am:



You sound like the beloved Chimp with a new nick name.

When the planets pull the earth back into a cold orbit.

What are you talking about?

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 8^th, 2015 at 8:57pm:

Oh dear.  Tin foil hats on everybody!  Here come the conspiracy theories!!

Seriously - do you really believe this garbage?
That all of the worlds scientists are conspiring together and only Andrew Bolt and those brave coal miners can save us?

Just have a think before writing this nonsense - OK?

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 8^th, 2015 at 8:57pm:


The question should be, would a reputable journal publish pseudoscientific crap? No. They'd have to go elsewhere.

Interesting that you should classify it as non AGW.  Was that its intentions, do you think or do you think it genuinely sought to correct errors in the dataset? In this case I agree with you. It's anti- AGW advocacy, and undercooked at that. 

John_Taverner wrote on May 8^th, 2015 at 5:42pm:

Two things to note, pal


CO2 is a tiny proportion of the athmophere.
But what is even more important is that human generated CO2 is a small percentage of that tiny proportion.

The consumption of terrestrial vegetation by animals and by microbes (rotting, in other words) emits about 220 gigatonnes of CO2 every year, while respiration by vegetation emits another These huge amounts are balanced by the 440 Gt of carbon dioxide absorbed from the atmosphere each year as land plants photosynthesise.

Similarly, parts of the oceans release about of CO2 per year, depending on temperature and rates of photosynthesis by phytoplankton, but other parts usually soak up just as much - and are now soaking up slightly more.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climate-myths-human-co2-emissions-ar...

So that's 550 Gt, on round figures.

Human emissions? 26.4 Gt (in 2007).  Less than 5%.

Tiny is correct in every sense and from every angle.

But let's go back to the New Scientist:
How can we be sure that human emissions are responsible for the rising CO2 in the atmosphere? There are several lines of evidence. Fossil fuels were formed millions of years ago. They therefore contain virtually no carbon-14, because this unstable carbon isotope, formed when cosmic rays hit the atmosphere, has a half-life of around 6000 years. So a dropping concentration of carbon-14 can be explained by the burning of fossil fuels. Studies of tree rings have shown that the proportion of carbon-14 in the atmosphere dropped by about 2% between 1850 and 1954. After this time, atmospheric nuclear bomb tests wrecked this method by releasing large amounts of carbon-14.

D'oh. No evidence or explanation of how "we be sure that human emissions are responsible for the rising CO2 in the atmosphere."


To conclude:

Human CO2 IS A TINY amount when looked at as a proportion of all CO2  (iself a small part) in the athmosphere and nobody can or has explained how this tiny proportion of a tiny proportion makes all the huge, catastrophic difference.

And you know why?
Because nobody quite understands how the climate works.

John_Taverner wrote on May 14^th, 2015 at 8:50pm:



Well, you are not one of those gormless fatheads who pretend to understand it all, are you?

Or are you?

Soren wrote on May 12^th, 2015 at 6:11pm:

Black is white 
Black is white  Black is white 

Black is white 
Black is white  Black is white 
Black is white 
Black is white  Black is white  Black is white 
Black is white  Black is white 


Black is white 
Black is white  Black is white 
Black is white 
Black is white  Black is white  Black is white 
Black is white  Black is white  Black is white 
Black is white  Black is white 
Black is white 
Black is white  Black is white  Black is white 
Black is white  Black is white  Black is white 
Black is white  Black is white 
Black is white 
Black is white  Black is white  Black is white 
Black is white  Black is white