Climate debate Know your CO2. Pseudo progressive bullshit. SJW´s Value Signalling useful idiots for Neo Liberalism.

A Face Book Discussion. Know your Atmospheric and ocean Chemistry.

I have become frustrated at the unthinking repetition of parrot fashion dogma. For people who wish to implement radical policy changes based on empirical and proveable data then make sure the data supports your argument. Where one is acting on Faith then say so. My contention is that the CO2 belief dogma of climatism and AGW Climate Change Alarmism is damaging the environmental movement. The Green Party will, as the data increasingly shows AGW CO2 conjecture to be unsupported, be lead into disrepute by  its political leadership being exposed as indulging in Dog Whistle hysteria. This reputational damage  will actually damage the valid arguments against extraction damage. The problem is not the CO2 already this is clearly shown by data now, there are many porblems with Tar sands and Fracking also Oil spills and the like. The CO2 alarmism opens the question as to how trustworthy or knowledgeable are so called experts on those other issues, with CO2 being so comprehensively discredited who will be iopen to looking at valid evidence on environmental damage?

This discussion I think proves the point it applies very well to the EMO type teenaged angst that seems to have lived into middle age in many politicians and agit/prop operatives for ´´Pseudo Environmentalism´´.

“The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy, from the Wikipedia article of Confirmation Bias.

Probably a good idea to save stuff like this… before the new Fossil Fools ‘Administration’ deletes it…

Models that account only for the effects of natural processes are not able to explain the warming observed over the past century. Models that also account…
EPA.GOV

Like

Comment

Comments
Glyn Goodwin
Glyn Goodwin The bureau of alternative facts…
“}” data-testid=”ufi_comment_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · 1 · January 23 at 12:39pm

Roger Lewis
Roger Lewis http://rps3.com/Files/AGW/EngrCritique.AGW-Science.v4.3.pdfThe scientific literature is I think quite safe, the alarm industry is perhaps another question.

“}” data-testid=”ufi_comment_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · January 23 at 2:22pm

Martin Dwyer
Martin Dwyer or looking at it another way, CO2 really has been quite stable for a long time and suddenly isn’t! It’s known that doubling CO2 (from 280 to 560ppm say) results in an energy imbalance or ‘radiative forcing’ of 4W per square metre. That’s plenty enough to screw our happiness if we let that happen. But now CO2 is just over 400ppm, in logarithmic terms that’s half way to doubling so the radiative forcing is now about 2W per square metre

“}” data-testid=”ufi_reply_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · 1 · January 23 at 4:17pm

Roger Lewis
Roger Lewis Martin Dwyerhttp://claesjohnson.blogspot.se/…/summary-of-non… There are other views regarding Radiative forcing and the maths is actually coming out in favour of fundamental flaws in the modelling assumptions. I know Lord Monkton is a pariah in these parts but the 4 errors highlighted in these slides are easily checkable. He also quotes Happer on one of the 4 errors he cites. I model sound so the fourier transform is meat and drink for me others have a bit of a learning curve to see what Monkton is on about in what he calls official error 4.https://chemtrailsplanet.files.wordpress.com/…/slides…
Also see. https://wattsupwiththat.com/…/leading-climate…/

“}” data-testid=”ufi_reply_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · Remove Preview · January 23 at 4:38pm · Edited

Martin Dwyer
Martin Dwyer “Lord” Monckton very rightly is a pariah. As for the Engineer’s critique you posted above, I’m sad to see it contains some really basic errors. An engineer ought to know better. Shame on him
“}” data-testid=”ufi_reply_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · 1 · January 23 at 4:39pm

Roger Lewis
Roger Lewis Martin Dwyer Martin Please could you set out what you believe the basic errors to be Gavin Schmidt was corrected by Dr Glassman if you look at the rebuttal and Glassmans response.http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/…/gavin_schmidt…

“}” data-testid=”ufi_reply_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · Remove Preview · January 23 at 4:42pm

Martin Dwyer
Martin Dwyer well for a start the silly graph claiming that 3.4% of CO2 is caused by human activity. This is false and based upon an inability to understand the difference between carbon flux, and accumulated carbon. A bit like the difference between fuel consumption and the amount of petrol in a car’s fuel tank. This is a serious shortcoming for someone claiming to be an engineer
“}” data-testid=”ufi_reply_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · 1 · January 23 at 4:46pm · Edited

Roger Lewis
Roger Lewis MArtin I think Glassman is perfectly aware of Carbon Flux, what he challenges is that the Carbon sinks distinguish between Anthropogenic and Natural Carbon outgassing. This recent paper on Carbon Fluxes tends to suggest that Segalstad, Glassman, Jarrowski etc are actually correct following Henrys Law and the IPPC has got its understanding of carbon sink processes in a muddle.http://www.biogeosciences-discuss.net/bg-2016-427/

“}” data-testid=”ufi_reply_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · Remove Preview · January 23 at 4:55pm

Martin Dwyer
Martin Dwyer It’s immaterial. Atmospheric CO2 is what it is .. 400+ppm and that has consequences. If it wasn’t for the the fact that more than half the CO2 we emit gets reabsorbed by plants/soil or by oceans (where it causes acidification) then it would already be pushing 560ppm. There are uncertainties in climate science, concerning the effect of water vapour and other feedbacks on climate sensitivity.. and tipping points which are by there very nature unpredicatble, but much of the science eg the planet’s energy balance and forcings, and the primary sensitivity (before feedbacks) of 3.7W/m^2 per C are established with a high degree of certainty
“}” data-testid=”ufi_reply_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · 1 · January 23 at 5:32pm · Edited

Roger Lewis
Roger Lewis Martin what you claim to be settled with a high degree of certainty , simply does not hold up to scrutiny. The idea of well-mixed CO2 being stagnant in the atmosphere is an absurd notion and Henrys law shows that the oceans have almost unlimited absorption capacity for CO2 and the Process by which CO2 is absorbed means that the Oceans will become slightly less alkaline which is not the same as Acidification in the sense that they become Acid. The use of language that way is exaggeration and sensationalisation seeking to stoke a climate of fear. The Rocket Science journal comp+rises 4 not overly long papers that falsify the AGW theory. This series of Articles written with a no dog in the fight balanced approach should put some scientific skepticism into the belly of anything other than the more ardent Climate Catastrophe fundamentalists. Climatism is not scientific.

http://www.free-the-memes.net/…/warming3/ClimateGate3.html

http://www.dailytech.com/Researcher…/article10973.htm

http://www.free-the-memes.net/…/warming2/hottest_year.html

http://www.free-the-memes.net/writings/warming/warming.html

Finally, if you have the stomach for it here is a PDF with a 101 regarding all sides to the argument, Denier, Warmist, Luke Warmist and Alarmist.

https://drive.google.com/…/0B6ZHfkDjveZzYXU3UHh…/view…

Some of the CO stuff
https://drive.google.com/…/0B6ZHfkDjveZzYmtqUVB…/view…

And some Sea Ice extent Stuff.

https://drive.google.com/…/0B6ZHfkDjveZzXzVnTll…/view…

On November 19, 2009, a 61 megabyte file called “FOI2009.zip” started to circulate on the…
FREE-THE-MEMES.NET

“}” data-testid=”ufi_reply_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · Remove Preview · January 23 at 7:40pm · Edited

Martin Dwyer
Martin Dwyer Roger, why on Earth are you peddling this ludicrous nonsense in here? .. wouldn’t you feel more at home in a UKIP appreciation group? Well-mixed greenhouse gases are called that because they are well-mixed, ie fairly uniform concentrations in the atmosphere.. are you suggesting that CO2 concentration varies considerably somehow because it doesn’t? Why on Earth do you suppose that CO2 is now 400+ppm, while before the industrial era accompanied by substantial population growth it was 280ppm for a long time? What else has happened on the planet that could conceivably have caused such a rise? Hint: it isn’t volcanoes
“}” data-testid=”ufi_reply_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · 1 · January 23 at 11:45pm

Roger Lewis
Roger Lewis Martin, calling something ludicrous does not make it so Martin. Everything posted here is supported by the data and explained by known science tested by experimentation. The data itself falsifies the Climate models. Catastrophist Alarmism around the fiSee More

“}” data-testid=”ufi_reply_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · Remove Preview · January 24 at 8:31am · Edited

Martin Dwyer
Martin Dwyer it is ludicrous, facile and utterly lacking in integrity to try to assert that CO2 in the atmosphere is now 400+ppm and rising at the rate of 2ppm/year or more for any other reason than human activity .. and try to explain it with hand-waving explanations about de-gassing or other groundless pseudo-science
“}” data-testid=”ufi_reply_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · 2 · January 24 at 9:33am

Roger Lewis
Roger Lewis Martin Dwyer Read this Martin, I am afraid you seem to have been seduced by over simplified political narratives.http://www.biogeosciences-discuss.net/bg-2016-427/ ´´This global bottom-up value is the opposite direction of what is expected from the atmospheric growth rate of CO2, and would require an offsetting surface C source of 4.27±0.10 PgC/yr. This mismatch highlights large knowledge and observational gaps in tropical areas, particularly in South America, Africa, and Southeast Asia, but also in North America. ´´ The data first does not show what you are claiming and secondly you seem ignorant of the gaps in the data. Glassman is very clear in setting out how the IPPC by adopting a fudged revelle factor and over riding a senior editor , the application of Hnenrys law gives the lie to well mixed long residence CO2 in the atmosphere. ´´Henry’s law, coupled with fundamentals of system science, dictate that ACO2 and natural CO2 may not be modeled as additive and be faithful to physics. CO2 emissions, presumably lighter weight, add to the local, existing CO2 in the atmosphere to create a new isotopic mixture. Thereafter the two gases share a combined partial pressure, pCO2(g), to effect absorption proportional to pCO2(g) and outgassing inversely proportional to pCO2(g), a nonlinear phenomenon dictated by Henry’s law. A linear fit to the nonlinear phenomenon might suit some special application, but any such parametrization needs to be justified against the full model. In general, being nonlinear, a natural carbon cycle may not be reliably added to an anthropogenic carbon cycle as IPCC has done and as its radiative forcing paradigm necessitates. ACO2 is absorbed into the water with, and outgassed against, the partial pressure equivalent of about 380 ppmv.{End rev. 6/10/09}´´
the Takahashi chart which the IPCC draws from shows how the carbon fluxes work from the equator, out gassing and the poles solubuility increas due to the temperature variable there are other variables as well, Glassman points out that these variables are not in the models and are also ignored by IPCC which leads to the mistaken Idealization that the Sea Surface is in equilibrium.http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/…/on_why_co2_is… This in itself is only one part of the climate system equation.

“}” data-testid=”ufi_reply_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · Remove Preview · January 24 at 9:44am

Roger Lewis
Roger Lewis http://www.biogeosciences-discuss.net/bg…/bg-2016-427.pdf ´´5 Outlook and conclusions
25 If we exclude FF from the NCE estimate, we end up with a net CO2 uptake by the Earth surface of 13.6±3.4 PgC / year.
Assuming neutral CO2 exchange for tropical forests (Sect. 3.2) still requires an additional source of about 4 PgC / year (2.5
PgC / year with river outgassing from Raymond et al., 2013), and potential candidates were suggested in Sect. 4.4. The
estimate of 19 PgC / year for NEP seems rather high and in fact exceeds the estimate by Ciais et al. (in revision) over the
RECCAP regions by nearly 9 Pg / year (7.5 Pg / year if the river outgassing by Raymond et al., 2013 is used).´´that from October 2016 paper under review, Glassman said this in 2010.

1. Estimates vary, but climatologists in the Consensus say that the atmosphere contains 730 Gtons (PgC) of carbon and the uptake to the oceans alone is at least 90 Gtons/year. It’s a ninth grade algebra problem to calculate how long it takes to empty a bucket with 730 units at the rate of 90 units per year. If you throw in uptake by photosynthesis at 120 Gtons/year and perhaps leaf water at the IPCC figure of 270 Gtons/year, thus including everything in the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report, 480 Gtons a year is pouring out of the bucket.

{Rev. 6/5/09a}

Turnover time (T) (also called global atmospheric lifetime) is the ratio of the mass M of a reservoir (e.g., a gaseous compound in the atmosphere) and the total rate of removal S from the reservoir: T = M / S. For each removal process, separate turnover times can be defined. In soil carbon biology, this is referred to as Mean Residence Time. AR4, Glossary, p. 948.{end Rev. 6/5/09a}

Now throw in approximately 100% replenishment, and you have an eleventh grade physics or chemistry problem where the level in the bucket is only slowly changed but the solution is quickly diluted. {Rev. 6/5/09b} This is a different question from residence time, elevated to a mass balance problem. {end Rev. 6/5/09b}

Regardless of which way one poses the problem, the existing CO2 in the atmosphere has a mean residence time of 1.5 years using IPCC data, 3.2 years using University of Colorado data, or 4.9 years using Texas A&M data. The half lives are 0.65 years, 1.83 years, and 3.0 years, respectively. This is not “decades to centuries” as proclaimed by the Consensus. Climate Change 2001, Technical Summary of the Working Group I Report, p. 25. See The Carbon Cycle: past and present, http://www.colorado.edu/…/GEOL3520/Topic16/Topic16.html & Introduction to Biogeochemical Cycles Chapter 4,http://www.colorado.edu/…/GEOL1070/chap04/chapter4.html, UColo Biogeochem cycles.pdf; The Carbon Cycle, the Ocean, and the Iron Hypothesis,http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/…/oceanograp…/carboncycle.htm.

When one starts getting into the Atmospheric bomb test data one can start to quote empirical data from a real large scale experiment.

http://www.false-alarm.net/

“}” data-testid=”ufi_reply_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · January 24 at 10:02am

Martin Dwyer
Martin Dwyer yes it’s funny how you can throw around a few scientific sounding terms and make it some preposterous old rubbish sound plausible, but it isn’t
“}” data-testid=”ufi_reply_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · 1 · January 24 at 10:45am

Martin Dwyer
Martin Dwyer how much CO2 do you imagine there is in the atmosphere in total, Roger?
“}” data-testid=”ufi_reply_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · 1 · January 24 at 10:48am

Martin Dwyer
Martin Dwyer I suppose next you’re going to say that CO2 is a trace gas and ‘plant food’? .. this is really deplorable Roger.
“}” data-testid=”ufi_reply_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · 1 · January 24 at 10:58am

Roger Lewis
Roger Lewis CO2 is a greenhouse gas the total ammount of it and the human emmitted proportion surprises most people.A better question is how much water vapour is there in the atmosphere which accounts for 95% of the green house effect, CO2 has a part to play in the dynamic between the two, and Cloud Albedo is also very important.

“}” data-testid=”ufi_reply_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · January 24 at 11:01am

Roger Lewis
Roger Lewis Martin which part of your last statement is untrue? CO2 is a green house gas as that term is generally understood, the question is how it contributes proportionately to the climate with other variables , some of course like Water Vapour being of course rather more significant by any measure.
“}” data-testid=”ufi_reply_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · January 24 at 11:03am

Martin Dwyer
Martin Dwyer it doesn’t matter that there’s only a tiny amount of CO2 present Roger, nor that plants like it, though not enough to stop it rising.. there is sufficient for there to be a significant ‘notch’ at 600-700/cm wavenumbers, in the infrared emission spectrum of the planet. The total area under the ragged curve represents the energy leaving the planet which must remain in close balance with incoming solar energy. When more CO2 is added, the width and hence area of the ‘notch’ increases and thereby reduces the total energy being radiated. In order to restore the balance, the envelope curve, the Boltzmann distribution determined by the the surface temperature must increase. This is essentially how greenhouse gases work

“}” data-testid=”ufi_reply_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · 1 · January 24 at 11:05am

Roger Lewis
Roger Lewis Martin I know how green house gases work the mistake that is made is the so called feed backs. Glassman and Schmidt is worth reading on Feedbacks. Heres a sample.

´´There are many feedback mechanisms in the climate system that can either amplify (‘positive feedback’) or diminish (‘negative feedback’) the effects of a change in climate forcing. AR4, FAQ 1.1, p. 95.

But this residual amplification conjecture is equally bizarre. This model states that the amplified warming somehow releases more CO2, and hence the amplification is a positive feedback.
First, to the extent that this amplification could be so, the instability should soon cause the CO2 record to lead temperature. It never has. Schmidt has no data to confirm his amplification suggestion. Also see Schmidt’s reliance on feedback, below.

Schmidt’s second citation, “How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?”,http://www.realclimate.org/…/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/, 12/22/04, includes only the following with respect to Vostok:

In addition to the data from tree rings, there are also of measurements of the 13C/12C ratio in the CO2 trapped in ice cores. The tree ring and ice core data both show that the total change in the 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere since 1850 is about 0.15%. This sounds very small but is actually very large relative to natural variability. The results show that the full glacial-to-interglacial change in 13C/12C of the atmosphere — which took many thousand years — was about 0.03%, or about 5 times less than that observed in the last 150 years.

plus

CO2 levels are currently higher than for any time when we have direct measurements (directly, from 1950; before that, from air trapped in ice cores), which amounts to the last 780,000 years (see, e.g., a picture here for the last 400 kyr). Various considerations suggest that in the far past CO2 levels were considerably higher. From memory, the last time CO2 levels exceeded present was about 40 million years ago. Response to Comment #4.

This modern increase in CO2 is often found supported by a graph showing the Vostok CO2 concentration in time, with rapidly rising modern data linked added to the end of the Vostok record. Nowhere do the climatologists justify the method linking data taken by different methods, in different locations, and with grossly different granularity.

Data show that carbon dioxide levels are rising, they are now 30% higher than at any time during at least the past 650,000 years, and likely even the past several million years. 31 Mar 2006, Bush on “The Fundamental Debate”, by the group,://www.realclimate.org/…/2006/03/bush-on-the-debate/´´
A further error the IPPC favoured models make is that there is a 4wm2 increas for each doubling of CO2 this is not the case, with each doubling the saturation means the feedback declines. Claes Jonson is very good to read on these questions for well explained applied mathmatics. http://claesjohnson.blogspot.co.uk/…/lacking-evidence…

“}” data-testid=”ufi_reply_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · Remove Preview · January 24 at 11:16am

Roger Lewis
Roger Lewis Martin just on the ammount of co2 point, the ammount of all co2 in the atmosphere at one time is .04 % by volume with 96% of that being naturally occuring, CO2 is a flow and not a stock as such the 3.225% constituent that is human emmisions is a small part of the whole ammount of co2 that has a warming effect in the context of the counter effects causing cooling. As processes are dynamic and constantly changing in some combinations of variables CO2 added to the atmosphere could lead to a counter intuitive cooling effect, that is not a question which is worth considering here for our purposes. Water Vapour, Cloud Albedo and Solar Cosmological phenomena are very interesting at the moment Svensmarks hypothesis has proved more robust than initially given credit for for instance.
“}” data-testid=”ufi_reply_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · January 24 at 11:36am

Martin Dwyer
Martin Dwyer 400ppm or 0.0004% by volume, of the atmosphere is CO2.. 3,000 billion tons in total now. 900 billion tons more than it was before industry and recent population growth. Are you seriously suggesting that there is some alternative explanation for CO2 suddenly rising in the past century or so, such that 30% (not 3%) of the CO2 currently in the atmosphere was not present before?
“}” data-testid=”ufi_reply_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · 1 · January 24 at 11:47am

Roger Lewis
Roger Lewis CO2 in the atmosphere is a natural phenomena and concentrations go up after warming has already occured, The Processes by which CO2 is re absorbed into the Ocean and biological cycles and re introduced due to geological cycles continue regardless of Human emmissions. It is not shown empirically that the small contribution of human emmisions, 3.5% of the total in the atmospheric component of the cycle which is a flow and not a static stcok, act as a catalyst to the run away warming predicted in climate models. Those run away scenarios are not based upon empirical data and are conjectures which a lot of people disagree with Martin. Regarding an equilibrium or normal level of CO2 in the atmosphere, there isn´t one a selection is purely arbitrary, data set matching or grafting has shown some of the assumptions regarding pre industrial levels to be highly speculative, see Segelstads work for details of how much, Segelstad was an early member of IPCC.
This debate on IQ2 is a very good primer even today of the questions that arise when seriously approached in a scientific discussion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-28qNd6ass

“}” data-testid=”ufi_reply_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · Remove Preview · January 24 at 11:55am

Martin Dwyer
Martin Dwyer the primary radiative forcing (before consideration of any feedbacks) is logarithmic due to the band saturation effect and has nothing to do with water vapour or albedo or anything else. Doubling CO2 causes a radiative forcing of 4W per square metre. Feedback mechanisms then add or subtract their own radiative forcings. Water vapour iexerts a strong greenhouse effect but is not well-mixed and behaves in a complex way. Additional water vapour can only be carried in the atmosphere if temperature has risen and in this was behaves as a positive feedback. The effect of clouds is also complex and mixed since low thick cloud has a high albedo and behaves as a negative feedback while hgih altitude cirrus clouds have the oppostie effect
“}” data-testid=”ufi_reply_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · 1 · January 24 at 11:59am · Edited

Martin Dwyer
Martin Dwyer so you really think that the additional 900 billion tons of CO2 that has appeared in the atmosphere isn’t anything to do with human actions ie deforestation, agriculture and fossil fuel combustion? .. releasing something like 36 billion tons of CO2 per year nowadays? You think that’s sensible do you?
“}” data-testid=”ufi_reply_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · 1 · January 24 at 12:08pm

Roger Lewis
Roger Lewis Martin Dwyer ´´The temperature increasing capacity of atmospheric CO2 is real enough, but its influence is known and widely accepted to diminish as its concentration increases. It has a logarithmic in its relationship to concentration. Global Warming advocates and Climate Change sceptics both agree on this.´´

“}” data-testid=”ufi_reply_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · January 24 at 12:08pm

Roger Lewis
Roger Lewis Lindzens is the Green Curve. I like Lindzen his interview with Medhi Hassan is worth watching. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAbELlpAxe8

“}” data-testid=”ufi_reply_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · January 24 at 12:10pm

Martin Dwyer
Martin Dwyer that YouTube vid is laughable Roger. Mail on Sunday journalist? .. seriously????
“}” data-testid=”ufi_reply_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · 1 · January 24 at 1:43pm

Roger Lewis
Roger Lewis Which video Martin?
“}” data-testid=”ufi_reply_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · January 24 at 1:44pm

Martin Dwyer
Martin Dwyer Lindzen is a fuckwit
“}” data-testid=”ufi_reply_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · 1 · January 24 at 1:46pm

Roger Lewis
Roger Lewis Lindzen is very measured, Meddhi Hassan is an Aljazeeera Journalist these days and I find him a very good interviewer.
“}” data-testid=”ufi_reply_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · January 24 at 1:47pm

Martin Dwyer
Martin Dwyer what is his evidence that climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling is so low? (the green curve)
“}” data-testid=”ufi_reply_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · 1 · January 24 at 1:53pm

Martin Dwyer
Martin Dwyer Lindzen is breathtakingly complacent, and dishonest
“}” data-testid=”ufi_reply_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · 1 · January 24 at 1:56pm

Roger Lewis
Roger Lewis Martin Dwyer https://www.google.se/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web… Happers detailed paper but goes back to 1938 Guy Callender paper p.266 here.https://www.rmets.org/sites/default/files/qjcallender38.pdf re.

what is his evidence that climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling is so low? (the green curve)

See Ridley quote form it here at 25.17 minshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5M1qtN62yk

The empiricial evidence is the temperature record which shows considerably less warming, this is explained by AGW propnents by deep ocean warming etc, others think the basic CO2 physics in the models is overcooked.

“}” data-testid=”ufi_reply_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · January 24 at 4:08pm

Martin Dwyer
Martin Dwyer a paper from 1938? .. and a YouTube mention .. hardly conclusive, or even remotely convincing! Yes there is some uncertainty about the extent to which feedback mechanisms are likely to affect climate but they’re likely to be positive not negative
“}” data-testid=”ufi_reply_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · 1 · January 24 at 4:22pm

Roger Lewis
Roger Lewis Martin perhaps you would like to look up when Tyndall and Arrhenius were publishing. Physics in 1938 are the same as physics now If Callender was right in 1938 and has not been falsified he is still correct and as far as I know his work is generally accepted across all camps in this scientific question.The same goes for Maxwells equations, need I go on?
“}” data-testid=”ufi_reply_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · January 24 at 4:38pm

Martin Dwyer
Martin Dwyer no there’s nothing wrong with Maxwell’s equations, they’re even relativity compliant! OK, in 1938, you’ll note that cumulative CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning had been judged to be 150Gt, one-twelfth of the current value. CO2 concentration waSee More
“}” data-testid=”ufi_reply_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · 1 · January 24 at 5:20pm · Edited

Roger Lewis
Roger Lewis Martin are you aware that the climate models have a problem getting the temperatures in the 1930´s correct, they lack hindsight of that kind, we also know they have demonstrated poor forecasting ability. A scientific hypothesis is tested against empiriSee More

“}” data-testid=”ufi_reply_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · Remove Preview · January 24 at 5:32pm

Martin Dwyer
Martin Dwyer GIven that nearly all the additional heat from radiative forcing ends up in the oceans with an ‘effective’ depth of about 1km, it’s possible to estimate the heat capacity of the planet which comes to about 1.6 x 10^24 J/degreeC. This is also the amount of excess heat that builds up in the planet when there is a radiative imbalance of 1W per square metre for a whole century. So the expectation is of a rate of temperature rise of about 1C/century for 1W/m^2 radiative forcing
“}” data-testid=”ufi_reply_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · 1 · January 24 at 5:38pm

Martin Dwyer
Martin Dwyer Unfortunately, this response to a primary radiative forcing does not tell you how strong or weak feedbacks are since it results in a differential equation of the form: dT/t + T x K (1 – x) = F .. where F is primary forcings in W/m^2, K is the basic sensitivity of 3.7W/m^2 per C, dT/dt is the rate of change of temperature displacement, T, in degrees C per century, and x is a parameter expressing all feedbacks which are proportional to temperature displacement, T
“}” data-testid=”ufi_reply_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · 1 · January 24 at 5:54pm · Edited

Roger Lewis
Roger Lewis Martin see this discussion on Science of Doom which is one of my favourite Climate blogs. Particularly the comments section is worth reading, clearly there are valid and persuasive views opposed to those expressed and linked to by me here. I do not know if I am right or not as yet the DATA is still not available over sufficient time periods to make certain claims, that is a two way street, as I say I have a huge respect for the author of and participants in the science of Doom Blog.https://scienceofdoom.com/…/co2-an-insignificant-trace…/
´´
on May 17, 2010 at 7:45 am | Replyscienceofdoom
harrywr2:

Wasn’t it already established in CO2 – a trace gas that the effects from CO2 are logarithmic , hence each succeed ppm has a smaller impact then the previous ppm.

That’s correct.
“Saturated”, to some people, means that each increase in CO2 has no effect.
To others, it means that CO2 has a tiny effect.

To the climate science community it means the optical thickness is greater than 1, which means something quite different.

No one (?) believes it has a linear effect.

Am I wrong to conclude that ‘for all practical purposes at some point adding an additional few parts per million of CO2 makes no discernible difference?

“Discernable” might be a judgement call, but an effect which is logarithmic always has diminishing returns.´´

“}” data-testid=”ufi_reply_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · January 24 at 5:58pm · Edited

Martin Dwyer
Martin Dwyer .. so a feedback mechanism proportional to the temperature displacement doesn’t affect the initial rate of rise in temperature (because temperature displacement is initially zero). A positive feedback will affect the final equilibrium value and increase the exponential time constant in proportion
“}” data-testid=”ufi_reply_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · 1 · January 24 at 5:59pm

Martin Dwyer
Martin Dwyer the logarithmic nature of response to CO2 is well understood. It is erroneous to say that a further increase will have no discernible effect though. An increase of CO2 from 280 to 400 is halfway ‘logarithmically’ to being doubled, which is why there’s a radiative forcing now due to CO2 of about 2W/m^2. IF CO2 reaches 560ppm then it will be 4W/m^2 .. i would call that a discernible effect
“}” data-testid=”ufi_reply_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · 1 · January 24 at 6:03pm

Martin Dwyer
Martin Dwyer In my view anyone referring to CO2 as a ‘trace gas’ or ‘plant food’ has a mountain to climb in winning my trust or respect
“}” data-testid=”ufi_reply_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · 1 · January 24 at 6:04pm

Roger Lewis
Roger Lewis Martin Dwyer Martin that statement is a conjecture you might say it is an educated guess yet it is a guess all the same.This from Tisdales book available on line.

Chapter 9 – Evaluation of Climate Models of the IPCC’s 5th Assessment Report (WG1)
also refers to Mauritsen et al. (2012). See Box 9.1, where they write (my boldface and
caps):
With very few exceptions (Mauritsen et al., 2012; Hourdin et al., 2013) modelling
centres do not routinely describe in detail how they tune their models. Therefore
the complete list of observational constraints toward which a particular model is
tuned is generally not available. However, it is clear that tuning involves tradeoffs;
this keeps the number of constraints that can be used small and usually
focuses on global mean measures related to budgets of energy, mass and
momentum. It has been shown for at least one model that the tuning
process does not necessarily lead to a single, unique set of parameters for
a given model, but that different combinations of parameters can yield
equally plausible models (Mauritsen et al., 2012). HENCE THE NEED FOR
MODEL TUNING MAY INCREASE MODEL UNCERTAINTY.
The final sentence in that quote is important, so I’ll repeat it. “…the need for model
tuning may increase model uncertainty.”
https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/…/tisdale-on…

ALso here is Salbys text book on Atmospheric Physics.
http://users.df.uba.ar/llamedo/compartido/Salby.pdf

The textbooks simply do not get anyone home on doom and gloom forecasts for catastrophe Martin. To get there you have to rely on the more extreme models or worse case scenarios, those have all been reigned in with each successive IPCC report that sort of convergence in Science is a good thing it means we are making progress.

As a cornucopian myself and not a neo malthusian I think that the renewables sector is set fair to revolutionise political economy and usher in a post debt political economy of abundance. I think use of Hydrocarbons will in a pretty short order become expensive and obsolete due to their un competitiveness, including coal. That is the side of the debate I inhabit and the numbers are looking pretty good.

“}” data-testid=”ufi_reply_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · January 24 at 6:15pm

Roger Lewis
Roger Lewis http://www.nytimes.com/…/betting-on-the-planet.html…

In 1980 an ecologist and an economist chose a refreshingly unacademic way to resolve their…
NYTIMES.COM|BY BY JOHN TIERNEY; JOHN TIERNEY IS A REPORTER FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES. HE IS WRITING A BOOK ON ENVIRONM

“}” data-testid=”ufi_reply_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · Remove Preview · January 24 at 6:17pm

Martin Dwyer
Martin Dwyer there is the issue of asymmetry of outcome. If climate science is correct, and urgent action to curtail emissions is needed and such advice is ignored, then it could turn out very badly for our descendants. on the other hand, if climate change deniers are correct (very remote possibility), then we might clean up the planet and make it a better place to live when we didn’t need to .. I’d say it’s a no-brainer
“}” data-testid=”ufi_reply_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · 1 · January 24 at 6:35pm

Roger Lewis
Roger Lewis The main threat to the bulk of humanity is a debt based political economy in my View Martin, If the debt based monetary system is defeated then Renewables will replace Hydrocarbons by default. I suspect that If Political Economy is not reformed from thSee More
“}” data-testid=”ufi_reply_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · January 24 at 6:47pm · Edited

Martin Dwyer
Martin Dwyer debt is dire. It’s impossible to conceive of how such debt held in USA, Europe, UK and Japan can ever hope be paid off. Not just government debt, but also corporate debt, private debt, and financial debt. Historically, things didn’t end well in situations like this. There seems to be only 2 ways out of debt .. default, essentially a train crash .. or devaluation, slow-motion train crash .. the latter is a luxury possible only if debt is held in one’s own currency
“}” data-testid=”ufi_reply_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · 1 · January 24 at 7:00pm

Roger Lewis
Roger Lewis Money created absent usury is the answer Martin. Prohdhon put it this way.

Such is, substantially, Socialism’s theory of Capital and Interest.See More

Source: Socialist Standard, August 1909.Transcription: Socialist Party of Great Britain. HTML Markup: Michael SchauertePublic Domain: Marxists Internet Archive (2007). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit “Marx…
MARXISTS.ORG|BY JACK FITZGERALD

“}” data-testid=”ufi_reply_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · Remove Preview · January 24 at 7:08pm

Glyn Goodwin
Glyn Goodwin Alarm industry?
“}” data-testid=”ufi_comment_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · 1 · January 23 at 2:34pm

Ivan Noke
Ivan Noke THIS ‘Burt Rutan’ Roger Lewis?

(Your article is from January 2011 by the way)

https://www.desmogblog.com/burt-rutan

“}” data-testid=”ufi_comment_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · January 23 at 2:36pm · Edited

Roger Lewis
Roger Lewis Yes Alarm industry, There is a politicisation of Climate Science which is most un helpful to environmental policy making, it will back fire and in some respects already has. Exaggeration or spin is not necessary if the data is on the side of positive arguments. Trump is wrong on Wind Turbines in my opinion although I do think he is correct about ´Clean Coal´He is wrong about Fracking in my opinion but right that much CO2 policy is un supported as yet by the scientific data, AGW was falsified in 2009 , Climate Gate can not be conveniently stuffed into the memory hole. http://www.free-the-memes.net/…/warming3/ClimateGate3.html
“}” data-testid=”ufi_comment_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · January 23 at 2:41pm · Edited

Roger Lewis
Roger Lewis Hi Ivan yes it is from the Burt Rutan Slides, I have read a lot of Jarawoski and Segelstad and think there is substance in much of their critique also Judy Curry is also persuasive in her arguments to my mind. I do not run with the Mann and Cook crowd, I think they damage environmental advocacy more than help.
“}” data-testid=”ufi_comment_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · January 23 at 2:41pm

Ivan Noke
Ivan Noke Hi Roger… I do believe that you and the names you have shared… really are a tiny minority compared to the numbers of scientists, climatologists and agencies etc. who agree that AGW / Climate-Change and its ‘Evil Twin’ Ocean Acidification is caused by human activity.
Not to mention the 150,000 to 400,00 people killed by AGW annually…
“}” data-testid=”ufi_comment_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · January 23 at 3:04pm · Edited

Roger Lewis
Roger Lewis Hi Ivan the 97% consensus as proposed by Cook is found to be a flimsy meme promulgated by political spin machines, not least Cook and his Skeptical Science vehicle and Desmog Blog. Climatology is simply to complex and spread across to many interlocking fields to make hard claims supported by evidence that there is a 97% consensus regarding ranking of variables. There is a 100% consensus that climate changes. Judy Curry sums up the absurdity of consensus claims in science in thise recent interview.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqroK4qg-7A

“}” data-testid=”ufi_comment_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · Remove Preview · January 23 at 3:12pm

Ivan Noke
Ivan Noke Even EXXON knew about Climate Change decades ago Roger… but it funded deniers for 27 more years.

https://www.theguardian.com/…/exxon-climate-change-1981…

“}” data-testid=”ufi_comment_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · January 23 at 3:24pm

Roger Lewis
Roger Lewis Ivan, Climate change has been known about forever Ivan. Exxon can no more cover up CO2 emissions as a smoking gun than Climate models can prove that CO2 is the main driver of climate change. Exxon seeking to cover up the harmful effects of adding lead to petrol is a story, seeking to claim they have sought to coverup something which is simply not suported scientifically by evidence is a fools errand.
“}” data-testid=”ufi_comment_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · January 23 at 3:27pm

Ivan Noke
Ivan Noke I’m sorry Roger, but I really do not have the time or inclination to argue with any denier of the fact that AGW / Climate-Change and its ‘Evil Twin’ Ocean Acidification is caused by human activity.

Have a nice afternoon 🙂

“}” data-testid=”ufi_comment_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · January 23 at 3:32pm

Roger Lewis
Roger Lewis “The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy, from the Wikipedia article of Confirmation Bias.
“}” data-testid=”ufi_comment_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · January 23 at 3:33pm

Ivan Noke
Ivan Noke ‘Denialism is the crutch that cripples the intellect’… no idea who said that 🙂
“}” data-testid=”ufi_comment_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · January 23 at 3:47pm

Roger Lewis
Roger Lewis Ivan, denial and self delusion are clearly not traits we all seek for ourselves, filtering is a survival mechanism as much as anything. The truth or rather true propositions are not damaged or altered by wrong opinions of them. I wish you a pleasant afternoon also for all I know Al Gore will prove to be celebrated as a prescient prophet, I remain though agnostic.
“}” data-testid=”ufi_comment_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · January 23 at 3:53pm

Glyn Goodwin
Glyn Goodwin So what exactly is this alarmist industry then Roger? I think Exxon and all the other oil companies knew way before 1981. Their own research showed that CO2 would cause massive climate change, so instead of saying ‘hey we may have a problem’ they founded heartland and funded denial to the time of billions. All they needed was to cause slight doubt for inaction to occur. They have succeeded only too well.
“}” data-testid=”ufi_comment_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · 1 · January 23 at 4:05pm

Roger Lewis
Roger Lewis The Alarmist industry Glynn is the exaggeration of CO2 as a COntributer to atmospheric temperature and pursuing an agenda moulded to this exaggeration. The Rocket Science Journal sets out the flaws in the Claims made by Climate Change Alarmists and the Mistakes made in Climate models and falsehoods promoted by spin doctors and politically motivated groups who ignore the Data and have systematically fudged the uncertainties which are inherent to such a complex system.http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/…/on_why_co2_is…
if you read Segelstad or Jarrawoski you will find that data presents some challenges which can be interpreted differently , Alarmism is not a measured os scientific position it is an extremist position for this reason one should be circumspect in dealing with its claims some of which are absurd.

“}” data-testid=”ufi_comment_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · Remove Preview · January 23 at 4:16pm

Roger Lewis
Roger Lewis Its a service Industry not an Industrial sector.
“}” data-testid=”ufi_comment_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · January 23 at 4:23pm

Glyn Goodwin
Glyn Goodwin Servicing what?
“}” data-testid=”ufi_reply_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · 1 · January 23 at 4:38pm

Roger Lewis
Roger Lewis Serving an appetite for Catastrophe in the Media.
“}” data-testid=”ufi_reply_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · January 23 at 7:13pm

Ivan Noke
Ivan Noke Denial and “alternative facts” haven’t stopped the Earth from warming to record-shattering levels…

We’re now breaking global temperature records once every three years.

https://www.theguardian.com/…/were-now-breaking-global…

“}” data-testid=”ufi_comment_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · January 23 at 4:38pm · Edited

Roger Lewis
Roger Lewis 0.07 degrees the latest increment to the new record is not even measurable in a meaningful way Ivan , CLimate is also over much longer periods than a few years, I do not see why Alarmists feel the need to exaggerate, if the evidence can not speak for itself, shouting it out will not make it any more or less true.
“}” data-testid=”ufi_reply_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · January 23 at 4:40pm

Gav Electrofried
Gav Electrofried you’re mixing up the statistical significance of a single data point with that of mulitple data points over an extended period of time that clearly point to a trend where the chance of it being simply random noise are absolutely miniscule.
“}” data-testid=”ufi_reply_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · 1 · January 23 at 5:12pm

Roger Lewis
Roger Lewis I bet you didn’t think you were posting up figures that demonstrated the IPCC have got it right when you posted those figures did you?

Gav, The IPCC reports are the source of much of the data accessed and no I am not surprised that the data supports the conclusions in the papers I have linked to.
If you read the PDF´s of all sides of the question I linked to above you will see that the IPCC reports are not the problem the problem is the executive summaries and the Media representation of the actual scientific content.

With the Climate models the initial AGW CO2 Hypothesis has been given to much weighting, this is improving as I note above .

By trying to simplify the science to promote a premature conclusion questions that simply could not be determined until the data was collected were assumed. The Successive reports have with better data seen a convergence towards Data and A Priori hypotheses. The Data is showing though that CO2 has less of a role to play and possibly at a different point in what is a cycle playing out literally over millennia.

The problem with Fossil fuels is not the CO2 it is the myriad other externalities related to Petro Dollar debt based money system.

This report shows some of the econo/Politico problems with Oil and debt and extractive imperialistic capitalism.
My own interest in these questions come from a monetary reform perspective maybe that’s why Bjorn Lombergs work chimes with me.
As a post debt resource focused cornucopian I disagree with Bjorns metric of money based valuation. My view is however that CO2 emissions themselves are not an externality and may in fact be a net benefit by some margin if we can tackle the other externalities. For the record, Tar sands and Fracking make absoilutely no sense whatsoever and have huge externalities negatively impacting all but very narrow capitalist interests.

This report will give you some idea of my own perspective regarding Debt and the Oil Business.

http://priceofoil.org/…/2011/01/DrillingIntoDebt.pdf

“}” data-testid=”ufi_comment_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · Yesterday at 7:06am · Edited

Gav Electrofried
Gav Electrofried all I see from your links is people making false claims about what the IPCC have said, then positing stuff like this 4% of CO2 being anthropogenic as proof that they’re wrong.

They do this not in a way of picking the IPCC up on minor issues with the way they’ve phrased it, but as if to prove that the IPCC have got this totally wrong and AGW isn’t happening.

They and you are completely wrong not on every factoid you’ve managed to pick out to attempt to support your position, but on the way you’re twisting them and twisting the IPCC position to attempt to support an alternative hypothesis that is so full of holes it’d make a sieve look like a positively sensible method of transporting water.

The IPCC position possibly needs some minor tweaks to improve the accuracy, but is essentially correct as proven by multiple different sources and types of data including the data you have supplied. Your position is essentially wrong and has nothing to support it that stands up to any significant level of scrutiny.

“}” data-testid=”ufi_comment_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · 2 · Yesterday at 11:19am

Martin Dwyer
Martin Dwyer anything which contains any of the following can be instantly disregarded .. “CO2 is plant food” .. “CO2 is a trace gas” .. “only 3% of CO” is from humans/anthropogenic” ..”climate has always changed” etc etc
“}” data-testid=”ufi_reply_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · 1 · 23 hours ago

Gav Electrofried
Gav Electrofried Yeah, I just fancied destroying his argument comprehensively being as he was making it so focefully and there seems to be a whole mass of new climate denial stuff made to look as if it has some sort of scientific foundation to it since I last properlySee More
“}” data-testid=”ufi_reply_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · 1 · 23 hrs · Edited

Roger Lewis
Roger Lewis Gav Electrofried MArti and Gav, you are both in denial of scientific argument. Your last exchange trivialises climatology and does not honor the work of all the scientists worrking in the field.
“}” data-testid=”ufi_reply_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · 4 hrs

Gav Electrofried
Gav Electrofried Seeing as we’ve come back to the more public discussion… here’s the image you posted up to attempt to discredit the IPCC position because of only 4% of atmospheric CO2 being from fossil fuel sources.

https://scontent.fman1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/…/16174723…

“}” data-testid=”ufi_comment_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 11:26am

Gav Electrofried
Gav Electrofried and here’s the graph I made from running the IPCC figures that shows that the proportion of atmospheric CO2 that comes from fossil fuel sources should level off at around 4% based on their figures, so your graphic actually proves the IPCC is right.

“}” data-testid=”ufi_comment_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 11:29am · Edited

Gav Electrofried
Gav Electrofried The spreadsheet for those figures is here
https://docs.google.com/…/1rBJTwC…/edit…

Sheet1 Total Atmospheric CO2 level(, Natural emissions, Anthropogenic Emissions, Total…
DOCS.GOOGLE.COM

“}” data-testid=”ufi_reply_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · 1 · 23 hrs

Martin Dwyer
Martin Dwyer it’s distracting to compare the flux of anthropogenic CO2, currently 10Gt/year or so, with natural fluxes which may be large but keep in close balance. The upshot is that over time, roughly half of human-produced CO2 has accumulated in the atmosphere such that 30% of the CO2 now in the atmosphere, some 900 billion tons (containing 250 billion tons of carbon) is there as a consequence of human activity
“}” data-testid=”ufi_reply_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · 1 · 23 hrs

Gav Electrofried
Gav Electrofried I was only doing it to attempt to point out the difference between us being responsible for the vast bulk of the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels vs the exact molecules in the air having to be made up of 30% molecules that come from fossil fuel burning.See More
“}” data-testid=”ufi_reply_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · 1 · 23 hrs · Edited

Gav Electrofried
Gav Electrofried I also thought I should do it before some well meaning person came along and tried to argue that the 4% figure must be wrong, or he managed to fool more people into believing that the figure proved the opposite of what it actually proves as it’s a bit counter intuitive.
“}” data-testid=”ufi_reply_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · 1 · 23 hrs · Edited

Roger Lewis
Roger Lewis Gav and MArtin, this exchange does not change the evidence as presented above. To refute the evidence you need to produce counter factual argument not just say you did, which you have not. WHat you are both doing is singing to the choir in an echo chamber, your statements show that you have not considered, and mostly are unaware of the physics and chemistry of the ocean carbon cycle, and we have not even done the Land carbon cycle.
This is a very good video which is well worth watching.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgmssrVInP0

“}” data-testid=”ufi_reply_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 4 hrs

Roger Lewis
Roger Lewis Here is segelstads argument and also Glassmans and Jarawoskis, Lindzens in fact the scientific argument for why CO2 in atmosphere is not increasing due to Anthrtopogenic CO2 and why Nature does not distinguish between the types of CO2 further the Bomb Test Curve work provided a scientific experiment further demonstratiung the logic of the Reasoning from the empirical science .

´´IPCC identifies 280 ppmv (ppm by volume) as
the preindustrial CO2 value, but that may be
arbitrarily influenced by the selection of low-value
Figure 6.3.1.2.1. A phase diagram for the system CO2—
H2O—CaCO3 at 25°C and water composition of average
sea water. The blue stability fields show the stability of
different aqueous species for given pH and log activity of
bicarbonate. The green star indicates the sea water position,
within the CaCO3 stability field. The diagram was
constructed using the program package “The Geochemist’s
Workbench,” by Craig Bethke.
CaAl2Si2O8 (s) + 2H+
+ H2O ļ Al2Si2O5(OH)4 (s) + Ca2+ (aq) [10]
Aquatic Life
821
CO2 data from ice cores (where measured values up
to 7,400 ppmv were omitted), as well as from the
mismatching of contemporary measurements with
different ages (Jaworowski et al., 1992a; 1992b).
IPCC claims the rise in CO2 to 353 ppmv in 1990, and
379 ppmv in 2005, is due only to anthropogenic CO2
(IPCC, 1990; 2007).
The į
13C value reported for atmospheric CO2 was
-7.489‰ in December 1978, decreasing 10 years later
to -7.807‰ in December 1988 (Keeling et al., 1989).
If the resultant decrease were solely the product of
mixing natural CO2 with CO2 produced from the
burning of fossil fuels or plants (~79% / ~21% CO2
mix; lifetime 50–200 years; IPCC, 1990), the current
atmospheric CO2 į
13C value should be -11, much
lower than reported (Segalstad, 1992; 2008).
The December 1988 atmospheric CO2 composition
has been computed for its 748 Gt C (Gt =
1015 g) total mass and į
13C value of -7.807‰ for three
components: (1) natural fraction remaining from the
preindustrial atmosphere, (2) cumulative fraction
remaining from all annual fossil-fuel CO2 emissions,
and (3) carbon isotope mass-balanced natural fraction.
The masses of component (1) and (2) were computed
for different atmospheric lifetimes of CO2 (Segalstad,
1992).
The result fits a lifetime of about five years, in
agreement with 14C studies (see Sundquist, 1985;
Segalstad, 1998; 2009; for further references). The
mass of all past fossil-fuel and biogenic emissions
remaining in the current atmosphere was -30 Gt C or
less; i.e. a maximum of around 4% of the total,
corresponding to an atmospheric concentration of
approximately 14 ppmv. The implication of the fiveyear
lifetime is that approximately 135 Gt C (18%) of
the atmospheric CO2 is dynamically exchanged each
year (Segalstad, 1992; 1996; 1998; 2008).
The above calculations also demonstrate that over
this 10-year period (1978–1988), at least 96% of the
atmospheric CO2 is attributed to non-fossil-fuel
sources, and this percentage has not likely varied
much in the years since. Hence, it is clear marine
degassing and juvenile degassing from sources such
as volcanoes must be much more important for the
atmospheric CO2 budget than the burning of fossilfuels
and biogenic materials. IPCC has failed to
recognize this conclusion. ´´
http://www.co2web.info/Segalstad_Chapter-6-3-1-2_Ocean…

“}” data-testid=”ufi_reply_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · 1 hr

Roger Lewis
Roger Lewis Here is the Bomb Test Curve reasoning.

http://www.false-alarm.net/

Main inferences provided by the papers:
1. The uptake of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions is controlled by the air level of the gas and a turnover time of about 14 years, without any detecable limitations attributable to saturation effects or slow oceanic events.
2. Anthropogenic emissions and thermal outgassing have provided approximately equal contributions to the rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide during the 20th century.
3. Climate model projections supported by the IPCC are based on carbon cycle models that gravely exaggerate human contributions to future carbon dioxide levels due to neglect of thermal outgassing and of the available empirical information on the relaxation kinetics of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
4. Adequate consideration of thermal outgassing eliminates the ‘missing sink’ problem.

History:
Paper 4 replaces previous Paper 3.
Paper 5 replaces previous Paper 1 and 2

´´Gösta Pettersson, University of Lund, Sweden (May 15, 2014)
Evidence is presented to show that the time-course of removal of the excess of airborne C14 created
by atmospheric tests of nuclear weapons is monophasic and corresponds to a carbon dioxide turnover
time of 14 years.The relaxation curve for the bomb radiocarbon excess can be quantitatively
accounted for by a kinetic model which considers only the exchange of carbon dioxide between the
atmosphere and the hydrosphere, and which attributes the temperature dependence of the process to
the step of carbon dioxide outgassing from the hydrosphere with an Arrhenius activation energy of
about 170 kJ/mol/K.
Since the same model and parameter values have been previously shown to account for observed
effects of temperature and emissions of anthropogenic carbon dioxide on the atmospheric level of
the gas, it may be concluded that the kinetic behaviour now established for C14-carbon dioxide is
representative for carbon dioxide in general. The present results provide independent evidence
corroborating that emissions of anthropogenic carbon dioxide are removed from the atmosphere at
a rate controlled by the air level of the gas and a turnover time of 14 years, without any detectable
delay or multiphasicity attributable to slow transfer of carbon from the sea-surface layer to the
deep-sea regions. ´´
´´The Bern carbon cycle model
The IPCC in its fourth assessment report favoured the view that anthropogenic carbon dioxide
emissions are removed from the atmosphere as prescribed by the carbon cycle model designed by
Siegenthaler & Joos [6] at the University of Bern (the Bern model). To illustrate predictions of that
model, the IPCC made use of the ‘impulse response function’ in Eqn. (7) according to which the
relaxation of a large pulse of excess atmospheric carbon dioxide exhibits three distinct phases
governed by relaxation times of 1.2, 19, and 173 years, respectively [7]:
Remaining fraction = 0.19 Exp[-t/1.2] + 0.34 Exp(-t/19] + 0.26 Exp[-t/173] + 0.22 (7)´´
Petterson goes on to show where the IPCC is wrong with its use of the Bern Model.

´´In reality, global temperatures have increased after 1963 and caused a gradual elevation of the equilibrium
level. This has introduced mathematically significant deviations from a strictly exponential
approach of the bomb C14 excess to the equilibrium level. The observed relaxation curve remains
monophasic, however. The bomb test data lend no support to the idea that the relaxation of airborne
carbon dioxide excesses exhibits a pronunced multiphasicity reflecting saturation effects or ratelimiting
contributions from slow oceanic events. In particular, the green curve in Fig. 4 shows that
the triphasic impulse response function calculated with the Bern carbon cycle model (Eqn. 7) is
qualitatively and quantitatively inconsistent with the observed relaxation of the bomb C14 excess.´´
http://www.false-alarm.net/wp…/uploads/2014/05/paper5.pdf

Earlier in this discussion, I also linked to this Paper which has identified some anomalies which the prediction models of the Bern Theory applied to models etc do not support. The theory is not supported by the empirical facts, therefore, the theory is wrong not the facts??

http://www.biogeosciences-discuss.net/bg…/bg-2016-427.pdf ´´5 Outlook and conclusions
25 If we exclude FF from the NCE estimate, we end up with a net CO2 uptake by the Earth surface of 13.6±3.4 PgC / year.
Assuming neutral CO2 exchange for tropical forests (Sect. 3.2) still requires an additional source of about 4 PgC / year (2.5
PgC / year with river outgassing from Raymond et al., 2013), and potential candidates were suggested in Sect. 4.4. The
estimate of 19 PgC / year for NEP seems rather high and in fact exceeds the estimate by Ciais et al. (in revision) over the
RECCAP regions by nearly 9 Pg / year (7.5 Pg / year if the river outgassing by Raymond et al., 2013 is used).´´that from October 2016 paper under review, Glassman said this in 2010.

1. Estimates vary, but climatologists in the Consensus say that the atmosphere contains 730 Gtons (PgC) of carbon and the uptake to the oceans alone is at least 90 Gtons/year. It’s a ninth grade algebra problem to calculate how long it takes to empty a bucket with 730 units at the rate of 90 units per year. If you throw in uptake by photosynthesis at 120 Gtons/year and perhaps leaf water at the IPCC figure of 270 Gtons/year, thus including everything in the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report, 480 Gtons a year is pouring out of the bucket.

{Rev. 6/5/09a}

Turnover time (T) (also called global atmospheric lifetime) is the ratio of the mass M of a reservoir (e.g., a gaseous compound in the atmosphere) and the total rate of removal S from the reservoir: T = M / S. For each removal process, separate turnover times can be defined. In soil carbon biology, this is referred to as Mean Residence Time. AR4, Glossary, p. 948.{end Rev. 6/5/09a}

Now throw in approximately 100% replenishment, and you have an eleventh grade physics or chemistry problem where the level in the bucket is only slowly changed but the solution is quickly diluted. {Rev. 6/5/09b} This is a different question from residence time, elevated to a mass balance problem. {end Rev. 6/5/09b}

Regardless of which way one poses the problem, the existing CO2 in the atmosphere has a mean residence time of 1.5 years using IPCC data, 3.2 years using University of Colorado data, or 4.9 years using Texas A&M data. The half lives are 0.65 years, 1.83 years, and 3.0 years, respectively. This is not “decades to centuries” as proclaimed by the Consensus. Climate Change 2001, Technical Summary of the Working Group I Report, p. 25. See The Carbon Cycle: past and present, http://www.colorado.edu/…/GEOL3520/Topic16/Topic16.html & Introduction to Biogeochemical Cycles Chapter 4,http://www.colorado.edu/…/GEOL1070/chap04/chapter4.html, UColo Biogeochem cycles.pdf; The Carbon Cycle, the Ocean, and the Iron Hypothesis,http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/…/oceanograp…/carboncycle.htm.

When one starts getting into the Atmospheric bomb test data one can start to quote empirical data from a real large scale experiment.

http://www.false-alarm.net/ see my post jan 24 10.02 am, copied above for ease of reference.

This site  gives you free access to my scientific articles dealing with the rate and extent of removal of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions from the atmosphere. The articles can be downloaded as pdf-files from the top widget to the right.
FALSE-ALARM.NET

“}” data-testid=”ufi_reply_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 1 hr · Edited

Roger Lewis
Roger Lewis The above reasoning gives a range of 4 – 14 years which is quite at odds to the IPCC 50-200 years in table 1.1 p.7 of the
first IPCC assesment.
https://www.ipcc.ch/…/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf
“}” data-testid=”ufi_reply_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · 1 hr

Ivan Noke
Ivan Noke ALTERNATIVE FACT #1…

Too much hot air from Climate Change deniers is melting ALL the worlds ice everywhere!

Global Ice Viewer…
Sentinels of Climate Change:

http://climate.nasa.gov/interactives/global-ice-viewer/#/

Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. Current news and data streams about…
CLIMATE.NASA.GOV

“}” data-testid=”ufi_comment_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1368191779907342#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · 1 · 23 hrs · Edited

Advertisements