There is no such thing as AGW its a scam devised by bankers to create a $2 trillion dollar market where once again they will have busts and booms when it suits them.

If anyone has done their research/homework they would have found that the computer simulated models in the IPCC's computers is the only evidence they have to tax us all the whole planet on the air we breath.

This evidence suggests that 10 to 12 klm's above the Earth (tropopause) around the equator there is a hot spot where manmade CO2 is accumulating and trapping heat in.

Instead of this heat escaping into space it forms this hot spot which in turn produces more water vapour and traps even more heat and the cycle keeps going around more manmade CO2 more water vapour, crykies if we dont stop it we will have a runaway green house effect and end up like venus, the planet that is.

Well emprical data (thousands of weather baloons) and satelitte data (temperature analysers) just cannot detect this hot spot, the only evidence they (IPCC) have on their computer models doesn't exist in the real world.

Not to mention the way the data is entered into the computers which really fail to approximate anything close to the real world, in other words sh!t in sh!t.

The IPCC, Al Gore/Goldman Sachs and all these other alarmist pigs that get millions for trying to find proof that climate change is real never ever tell you facts but rather try to scare the be-jesus out of us all.

Like for instance that 97% of the CO2 in our atmospohere comes from the ecosystems, you know the land, the sea, animals, humans breath out CO2.

Thats right all of humanity only produces 3% of the CO2 in our atmosphere.

The other 97% is natural and produced every year, if the sun catches a cold and sneezes our way, mans steady flow of 3% CO2 remains steady at 3%.

The other 97% that is natural has the potentional to double in size depending upon how much energy the sun sends our way.

They never tell you that if we took away all the trace gases like CO2, methane, ozone etc etc. that 95% of the greenhouse effect will be left on earth.

Thats because water vapour is the dominante greenhouse gas and its responsible for 95% of the warming we have here on Earth not CO2 which is a minor trace gas.

The other thing they dont tell you is that in our past history we have had 20 times the amount of CO2 we have today in our atmosphere and guess what it never triggered a runaway greenhouse effect, life actually flourished when we had 20 times more CO2 in our atmopshere.

The blatant lie that CO2 emissions correlate with the Earth's temperature is a blatant lie, CO2 follows the Earth's temperature by a lag of about 800 years.

The fact that alarmists scientists want to hang other scientists (skeptics) who are not convinced of their theories just goes to show how politicized the Anthropogenic Global Warming religion really is, science doesn't work that, we still have people today trying to prove Newton and Einstein wrong but we dont call them herectics and ask for their death now do we.

Yes climate change is real is has been apart of the Earth since the Earth formed into a lava invested planet, climate change has always and will always happen, the Earths temperature is controlled by the SUN and everything else that takes place is because of the sun and cosmic rays from outer space.

Can anyone show where in our history climate change has stood still????......Now I'ld like to see that.

AGW is false no the seas aren't rising, no natural distaters are not from manmade CO2 emissions causing global warming its all part of the natural cycle of the Earth where we have hot periods and ice ages.

This religion is really sad, but sader still are the goody two shoes who think selling carbon credits on the stock exchange will some how clean up manmade pollution.

They are going to trade carbon credits for CO2 emissions in a $2 trillion dollars market where your superannuation and any other investments you make will find its way, then bang there will be booms and busts and some of us will loose everything, timing is the key i guess.

Ajax wrote on Jul 19^th, 2013 at 6:33pm:

This evidence suggests that 10 to 12 klm's above the Earth (tropopause) around the equator there is a hot spot where manmade CO2 is accumulating and trapping heat in. Instead of this heat escaping into space it forms this hot spot which in turn produces more water vapour and traps even more heat and the cycle keeps going around more manmade CO2 more water vapour, crykies if we dont stop it we will have a runaway green house effect and end up like venus, the planet that is.

You probably need to read up on the basics of the greenhouse effect and radiative forcing before commenting, I've posted a sticky thread. Once you've done the basic self-education bit, tell me which part you disagree with (if you still do). Nobody has actually been able to do that. OK, they'll clutch on to an opening comment and say that it's false, but blissfully ignore the details of the explanations that back up the comment.

Your sources are flawed.

Maybe the approach of the carbon tax or emissions trading is wrong. The basic atmospheric physics is sound, but the best way to approach it needs to work along with basic human nature.

muso wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2013 at 8:02am:

I've posted a sticky thread.

Yes.  And it opens with a hypothesis:

"Climate change is happening and humans are contributing to it."


::)

Hi Muso

First I’m all for cleaning up manmade pollution that’s all the chemicals that corporations throw in our waterways and dump in landfills to save themselves some money, I’m not a grennie but I hate yobbos who litter our country and so do most of us now that’s a fact.

I have done my homework on AGW and yes I do understand how the greenhouse effect is suppose to work, I don’t need highly politicized IPCC propaganda to understand the science, like in your sticky above.

It’s simple and you don’t need to be a professor to understand it, the hypothesis the IPCC presents is that of the tropopause is heating up it may create a runaway greenhouse effect as I have explained above in my previous post.

This means that the temperature in the tropopause should be greater than the temperature at ground level, but guess what the exact opposite is true in the real world; this phenomenon is only found in their computer simulated models which cannot approximate the climate of the Earth at all.

Thousands of weather balloons and satellite data have failed to detect this hot spot which is the only piece of evidence coming out of the IPCC computer models, now why do you ignore this vital piece of information.

If the tropopause is heating up then the weather balloons and satellite data would have detected the hot spot but it doesn’t exist in the real world.

If that’s not the nail in the coffin I don’t know what is?

What about the fact that the IPCC amplify the effects of CO2 on their computer models to get the desired result, this leads to the hypothesis that more CO2 will lead to more water vapor and the cycle goes on.

This being the case there should be an abnormal amount of water vapor and CO2 around the equator, but guess what again empirical data has failed to show this is true, meaning that these theories don’t exist in the real world only on their computer models.

Not to mention that most of the warming in the last century happened before 1940 now they don’t tell you this do they?

Or that 1/3 of all manmade CO2 was released into the atmosphere AFTER 1998 yet we have had cooling not warming since 1998, meaning that the temperatures after 1998 have not surpassed the 1998 values, even the IPCC agree on this!

What happened to unequivocal warming??

Unfortunately I cannot post any sources because I have to reach 100 posts, so how do you know my sources are flawed?

Are you saying that CO2 drives warming here on planet Earth?

Because most scientists even the alarmists agree that CO2 lags temperature by about 800 years, they don’t tell you that do they.

BTW those graphs in your sticky that show the correlation between CO2 and temperature why are they all at around 450000 years scale, I’ll tell you because at this scale it looks as though CO2 & temperature correlate.

But we all know they don’t because CO2 follows temperature, temperature doesn’t follow the tiny amount CO2 in our atmosphere.

Water vapor is responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect here on Earth….fact!!!!!

You should do your homework so Al Gore and his cronies cannot pull the wool over your eyes dude.

BTW do you know Al Gore has set up a company to sell carbon credits to the whole world??????

Ajax wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2013 at 12:03pm:

I have done my homework on AGW and yes I do understand how the greenhouse effect is suppose to work,

No you haven't.
No you don't.

Take Muso's advice and stop making an idiot of yourself.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2013 at 8:43am:

muso wrote on Jul 22nd, 2013 at 8:02am: I've posted a sticky thread. Yes.  And it opens with a hypothesis: "Climate change is happening and humans are contributing to it." ::)

No Greggery.  That is a statement of fact.

If it were a hypothesis it would be expressed in terms such as:
"If humans were to significantly increase the concentration of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere as a result of anthropogenic emissions, then the global climate would change significantly due to global warming."
This is a testable hypothesis because we can measure the increase in the concentration of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere as a result of anthropogenic emissions, and we can measure the ongoing warming of the planet and the subsequent changes in climactic conditions.

?

?

double post

Ajax wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2013 at 2:11pm:

[quote author=Ajax link=1374222833/7#7 date=1374466228][quote author=Ajax link=1374222833/6#6 date=1374466103][quote] No you haven't. No you don't. Take Muso's advice and stop making an idiot of yourself.

Yes i have
Yes i do

When the truth is realised by all, then the greenies better take cover.

Today we have some of the coolest temperatures the Earth has ever experienced.

Today we have the lowest levels of CO2 the Earth has ever experienced.

Since we're coming out of an ice age it only makes sense that temperatures will rise then followed by a CO2 rise.

Remember CO2 increases with an 800 year lag with respect to temperature.

Like i said today we are experiencing some of the lowest temperatures in our history and the lowest amounts of CO2.

Dont listen to the IPCC and the UN who are both owned by bankers.

No big deal the Earth experiences hot periods & Ice ages all without the help of man's poultry 3% CO2 emissions.

Its like in the 1970's because we were on a downward trend with temperatures these very same clowns where calling for global cooling and they even thought about melting the arctic, didn't worry about polar bears then ehhh.

Now where on upward trend in regards to temperature and these clowns are taxing us on the air we breath.

Well the sun is going into abit of a hybernation in the next couple of decades with regards to sunspots this will mean that temperatures should go down as time will tell.

The sun controls Earth's temperature not the 0.0039% of CO2 in our atmosphere.

And from that 0.0039% only 3% is manmade.

Wake up and smell the CO2 dude???!!!

muso wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2013 at 8:02am:

Nobody has actually been able to do that. OK, they'll clutch on to an opening comment and say that it's false, but blissfully ignore the details of the explanations that back up the comment.

For example:


greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2013 at 8:43am:

Yes.  And it opens with a hypothesis: "Climate change is happening and humans are contributing to it." ::)

muso wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2013 at 5:49pm:

muso wrote on Jul 22nd, 2013 at 8:02am: Nobody has actually been able to do that. OK, they'll clutch on to an opening comment and say that it's false, but blissfully ignore the details of the explanations that back up the comment. For example: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 22nd, 2013 at 8:43am: Yes.  And it opens with a hypothesis: "Climate change is happening and humans are contributing to it." ::)

Is there any chance at all that the AGW hypothesis could be incorrect?

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2013 at 5:51pm:

muso wrote on Jul 22nd, 2013 at 5:49pm: muso wrote on Jul 22nd, 2013 at 8:02am: Nobody has actually been able to do that. OK, they'll clutch on to an opening comment and say that it's false, but blissfully ignore the details of the explanations that back up the comment. For example: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 22nd, 2013 at 8:43am: Yes.  And it opens with a hypothesis: "Climate change is happening and humans are contributing to it." ::) Is there any chance at all that the AGW hypothesis could be incorrect?

What hypothesis are you referring to?

Spell out for us the hypothesis you are referring to and we can tell you whether or not it has been falsified.

Ajax wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2013 at 2:12pm:

Today we have some of the coolest temperatures the Earth has ever experienced. Today we have the lowest levels of CO2 the Earth has ever experienced.

Go away troll.  No food for you here.

Ajax wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2013 at 2:12pm:

Yes i have Yes i do

Well let's see


Quote:

When the truth is realised by all, then the greenies better take cover.

Do the "greenies" include every National Academy of Science, The Bureau of Meteorology, the CSIRO? What about the Conservative Party in the UK?


Quote:

Today we have some of the coolest temperatures the Earth has ever experienced.

What? Pull the other one.  Cooler than the last few glaciations? Maybe if we ignore the last few million years.


Quote:

Today we have the lowest levels of CO2 the Earth has ever experienced.

Only if you ignore the last 5 million years.


Quote:

Since we're coming out of an ice age it only makes sense that temperatures will rise then followed by a CO2 rise. Remember CO2 increases with an 800 year lag with respect to temperature.

We had an Ice Age 800 years ago?


Quote:

Like i said today we are experiencing some of the lowest temperatures in our history and the lowest amounts of CO2.

It doesn't matter how much you repeat it. It's not backed up by data.


Quote:

Dont listen to the IPCC and the UN who are both owned by bankers.

Which bank? Can you provide a link to their prospectus that confirms that piece of "wisdom" ?


Quote:

No big deal the Earth experiences hot periods & Ice ages all without the help of man's poultry 3% CO2 emissions.

3% of CO2 emissions come from rearing chickens?


Quote:

Its like in the 1970's because we were on a downward trend with temperatures these very same clowns where calling for global cooling and they even thought about melting the arctic, didn't worry about polar bears then ehhh.

The vast majority of papers in that period predicted global warming.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/GlobalCooling.JPG


Quote:

Well the sun is going into abit of a hybernation in the next couple of decades with regards to sunspots this will mean that temperatures should go down as time will tell.

http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/sunspot.gif

Under normal circumstances, global temperatures should have dipped slightly. In fact they increased.


Quote:

The sun controls Earth's temperature not the 0.0039% of CO2 in our atmosphere.

Without that 0.0039% CO2, the mean global temperature would be around minus 18 degrees C. It's called the Greenhouse Effect. Are you denying the fact that the Earth has a Greenhouse effect?



Quote:

And from that 0.0039% only 3% is manmade.

Incorrect. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased from 315ppm to 394ppm between 1958 and 2013.

That's an increase of 25% over a 55 year period. Isotope abundance analysis reveals that the increase is largely due to the combustion of fossil fuels.



Quote:

Wake up and smell the CO2 dude???!!!

CO2 is an odourless gas at atmospheric concentrations.  ;D 

Why don't you wake up and smell the websites that you obviously  frequent. They are definitely on the nose..... dude. 

Now what about demonstrating some of the knowledge that you claim to have? 

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2013 at 5:51pm:

Is there any chance at all that the AGW hypothesis could be incorrect?

About the same probability that the global mean temperature is actually minus 18 degrees and that there is no greenhouse effect, and that the sea off Sydney is actually frozen but we perceive it to be  in liquid form.

Now don't be lazy, and read the explanation that backs up the opening remark, and tell me where you actually disagree.

Ajax wrote on Jul 19^th, 2013 at 6:33pm:

Thats right all of humanity only produces 3% of the CO2 in our atmosphere.

This particular chestnut keeps popping up, so maybe I should add another post to the sticky thread about it.

That 3% is a misleading figure because it's expressed as a proportion of positive fluxes from the biosphere to the atmosphere  only, and omits the fact that these fluxes are balanced by negative fluxes from the atmosphere to the biosphere.

In other words, 3% contribution to total fluxes to the atmosphere is not the same as 3% of net flux. That's the sleight of hand manoeuvre used by confusionalists and it is blatantly dishonest. I refuse to use the term "sceptic" for the few snake oil salesmen that we're describing, because they give true sceptics a bad name.

It's a bit like having a 30 ml drink out of a 1 litre whisky (single malt of course)  bottle and trying to argue with the bartender that you only have to pay 3% of $12, or 35 cents.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2013 at 5:55pm:

Ajax wrote on Jul 22nd, 2013 at 2:12pm: Today we have some of the coolest temperatures the Earth has ever experienced. Today we have the lowest levels of CO2 the Earth has ever experienced. Go away troll.  No food for you here.

Truth hurts dont it??!!

Yep TODAY we have some of the lowest temperatures the Earth has ever experienced and also some of the lowest levels of CO2.......FACT..............................

muso wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2013 at 6:52pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 22nd, 2013 at 5:51pm: Is there any chance at all that the AGW hypothesis could be incorrect? About the same probability that the global mean temperature is actually minus 18 degrees and that there is no greenhouse effect, and that the sea off Sydney is actually frozen but we perceive it to be  in liquid form.

A simple 'yes' or 'no'.

Me: Is there any chance at all that the AGW hypothesis could be correct?  Yes.

You: Is there any chance at all that the AGW hypothesis could be incorrect?  ...

Quote:

Do the "greenies" include every National Academy of Science, The Bureau of Meteorology, the CSIRO? What about the Conservative Party in the UK?

I think you'll find that if you studied roos and their effects on the land you might get a small government grant.

If you now tell the government that you are studying roos and their effects on the land with respect to climate change your piggy bank will increase considerably.

CSIRO common down!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Quote:

What? Pull the other one.  Cooler than the last few glaciations? Maybe if we ignore the last few million years.

Hhhhmmmmm.....so are you saying that TODAY its hotter than ever before??

Show me on a time scale of millions of years, becuase i cant post links until i get to 100 posts, now why is that????


Quote:

Only if you ignore the last 5 million years.

The study of climate includes our past history, thats the only way we'll be able to tell whats really going on, taking a snap we couldclaim global cooling global warming and anything inbetween.



Quote:

We had an Ice Age 800 years ago?

The little ice age happened after the medieval warm period did it not?????

The Earths climate will always change just as our history proves, there has always been hot periods and cold ones.

You cannot make the climate stand still, well i'ld like to see you try.


Quote:

It doesn't matter how much you repeat it. It's not backed up by data.

Any inteligent person reading this post can go off and goggle what i'm talking about its all there, like i said i cant post links yet until i get to 100 posts, how about changing these silly rules!!!!!


Quote:

Which bank? Can you provide a link to their prospectus that confirms that piece of "wisdom" ?

Its not the world bank is it??.............They certainely have allot to say about what pie the UN dips its fingers in???

You must know that banks have spent billions of dollars promoting climate change....???!!!


Quote:

3% of CO2 emissions come from rearing chickens?

No thats mans contribution to the total overall CO2 in our atmosphere the other 97% is from the ecosystems and like i said this natural CO2 thats 97% has the potential to double in size if conditions are right.


Quote:

The vast majority of papers in that period predicted global warming.

To anyone reading this post just google global cooling in the 1970's.

Are you kidding me you follow skeptical science blog, i call these guys algorians because he's their messah, all that dribble he blurted out in and inconvient truth these guys defend to the bitter end, even though the british courts said he had 9 fundamental errors in thet movie.

BTW that site is anything but skepctical it promotes the religion of AGW.


Quote:

[quote]Under normal circumstances, global temperatures should have dipped slightly. In fact they increased.

I think you better start visiting a few more unbiased blogs because skeptical science blog has got you hook line and sinker.


Quote:

Without that 0.0039% CO2, the mean global temperature would be around minus 18 degrees C. It's called the Greenhouse Effect. Are you denying the fact that the Earth has a Greenhouse effect?

Prove it????????

I disagree, water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas and is responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect here on Earth!!!!!!!!!


Quote:

Incorrect. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased from 315ppm to 394ppm between 1958 and 2013.

I'm not denying that but is it natural or manmade thats the crux of the arguement??!!!


Quote:

That's an increase of 25% over a 55 year period. Isotope abundance analysis reveals that the increase is largely due to the combustion of fossil fuels.

Is that because skeptical science says so????

Wake up and smell the CO2 dude???!!!


Quote:

Now what about demonstrating some of the knowledge that you claim to have?

When you remove these shackles i will be happy to do so.

muso wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2013 at 7:11pm:

Ajax wrote on Jul 19th, 2013 at 6:33pm: Thats right all of humanity only produces 3% of the CO2 in our atmosphere. This particular chestnut keeps popping up, so maybe I should add another post to the sticky thread about it. That 3% is a misleading figure because it's expressed as a proportion of positive fluxes from the biosphere to the atmosphere  only, and omits the fact that these fluxes are balanced by negative fluxes from the atmosphere to the biosphere. In other words, 3% contribution to total fluxes to the atmosphere is not the same as 3% of net flux. That's the sleight of hand manoeuvre used by confusionalists and it is blatantly dishonest. I refuse to use the term "sceptic" for the few snake oil salesmen that we're describing, because they give true sceptics a bad name. It's a bit like having a 30 ml drink out of a 1 litre whisky (single malt of course)  bottle and trying to argue with the bartender that you only have to pay 3% of $12, or 35 cents.

Known Data

From thermodynamics (ideal gas)

One mol at one atmosphere (101.3 Kpa)

@25° C = 24.465L/mol
@0° C = 22.414L/mol

From the periodic table (Molar mass number)

Carbon (C) = 12.011g mol-1
Oxygen (O) = 15.999g mol-1 use 16g mol-1

Therefore the molar mass of CO2 is
CO2 = 12.011 + (2x16) = 42.011g mol-1

From Wikipedia

Current concentrations of CO2 in our atmosphere are at 0.039%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Calculations to find the total volume of CO2 in one cubic metre of air

Now one cubic metre of air is equal to one thousand litres (1000L).

Where L = Litres

Therefore the total volume in Litres (L) of CO2 in one cubic metre (1000L) of air is

1000 x 0.00039 = 0.39 L (Total volume of CO2 in one cubic metre of air)

97% CO2 comes from the ecosystems = 97% of 0.39 = 0.3783 L _ (378.3 milliliters natural CO2)

3% CO2 comes from man = 3% of 0.39 = 0.0117 L _ (11.7 millilitres manmade CO2)

Australia’s emissions are (1.5% of all manmade CO2) within that one cubic metre (1000L) of air our contribution of CO2 volume is

1.5% x 11.7 = 0.1755 millilitres that’s not even one millilitre


2. Calculations to find the total mass of CO2 in one cubic metre of air

The formula to find the mass of CO2 in one cubic metre (1000L) of air is,

m = n x M

Where m = mass in grams
n = moles
M = molar mass

Therefore one mole of CO2 = 0.39/24.465 = 0.01594

And the total mass of CO2 contained in one cubic metre (1000L) of air is

m = n x m
m = 0.01594 x 42
m = 0.6695 grams that's not even one gram

97% CO2 comes from the ecosystems = 97% of 0.6695 = 0.649415 grams (natural)

3% CO2 comes from man = 3% of 0.6695 = 0.020085 grams (manmade)

Australia’s emissions are (1.5% of all manmade CO2) within that one cubic metre (1000L) of air our contribution of CO2 mass is

1.5% x 0.020085 = 0.000301275 grams that’s way below one gram.

Your calculation is severely flawed. The 3% figure that's touted by Watts and his crooked mates comes from fluxes, not from atmospheric concentration.

97% CO2 comes from the ecosystems

That's the part that's wrong. It's not a net flux. There are balancing fluxes. 97% is emitted from the biosphere, but 97% gets absorbed back into the biosphere.

Apart from that, it's also inaccurate. You need to say which year that figure of 3% of net positive fluxes applies to. Do you have that information? It's important, because as you can see from the graph, CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning is not steady state. It has been increasing from year to year.

http://www.energytrendsinsider.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Global-CO2-1024x697.png

muso wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2013 at 6:52pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 22nd, 2013 at 5:51pm: Is there any chance at all that the AGW hypothesis could be incorrect? About the same probability that the global mean temperature is actually minus 18 degrees and that there is no greenhouse effect, and that the sea off Sydney is actually frozen but we perceive it to be  in liquid form. Now don't be lazy, and read the explanation that backs up the opening remark, and tell me where you actually disagree.

As simple 'yes' or 'no' is all that's required.

Is there any chance at all that the AGW hypothesis could be incorrect?

So ... ?

Look, here's a hint.  The diagram is a snapshot from about 2006.

As you can see, the flux from fossil fuel burning and land clearing is +29 gigatonnes. If you ignore the fossil fuel component and look at the natural fluxes, you can see that they are roughly balanced. There is a net negative flux of around - 11 gigatonnes.

Now let's look at the net carbon flux including human contribution. If you do the sums:

(29+439+332-450-338) What do you get? It's +12 Gigatonnes by my calculation.  So of the 29 Gigatonnes that were emitted in 2006, 12 Gigatonnes enters the atmosphere.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Carbon_Cycle.gif

If you do the dishonest thing and ignore the -450 and the -338, you can work out the proportion of positive flux by dividing 29 by (439+332). What do you get? I get 3.76%. So in 2006, the percent of positive emissions was 3.76% human derived.

That's where the 3% comes from. So using the graph, and assuming that natural carbon fluxes are steady state (they are not, but it's an approximation), in what year were the human derived positive fluxes 3% of total positive natural fluxes?

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2013 at 11:12am:

muso wrote on Jul 22nd, 2013 at 6:52pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 22nd, 2013 at 5:51pm: Is there any chance at all that the AGW hypothesis could be incorrect? About the same probability that the global mean temperature is actually minus 18 degrees and that there is no greenhouse effect, and that the sea off Sydney is actually frozen but we perceive it to be  in liquid form. Now don't be lazy, and read the explanation that backs up the opening remark, and tell me where you actually disagree. As simple 'yes' or 'no' is all that's required. Is there any chance at all that the AGW hypothesis could be incorrect? So ... ?

Greggary - you can join in the calculation too if you like. See what you get. There might be a prize.  ;)

muso wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2013 at 11:02am:

Your calculation is severely flawed. The 3% figure that's touted by Watts and his crooked mates comes from fluxes, not from atmospheric concentration.

Its not flawed at all why is it flawed???

The 3% is right now today, you have proven this yourself by supplying the net amount of CO2 in our atmosphere.

Your image says that

land supplies 439 gigatonnes every year

sea supplies 332 giga tonnes every year

man supplies 29 giga tonnes every year

439+332=771 giga tonnes every year from the ecosystems.

29/771 = 0.038%

How is the calculation wrong then.


Quote:

That's the part that's wrong. It's not a net flux. There are balancing fluxes. 97% is emitted from the biosphere, but 97% gets absorbed back into the biosphere.

Why isn't it a net flux, its all the CO2 present in our atmosphere every year from the ecosystems and manmade CO2???????

Ok now i understand what your saying, your saying that the Earth can absorb the 771 giga tonnes nature throws up but cannot absorb the 29 giga tonnes man throws up.

Thats malarkey and you know it, the Earth had no probelems absorbing the CO2 which got to 7000ppm in our past why should it have problems now.

Did you every think about deforrestation and the effcets that has?? like the melting of the glasiers and the ability of the Earth to absorb CO2????


Quote:

Apart from that, it's also inaccurate. You need to say which year that figure of 3% of net positive fluxes applies to. Do you have that information? It's important, because as you can see from the graph, CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning is not steady state. It has been increasing from year to year.

The year is right now the evidence is

29/771 = 0.038%

Sure it may change alittle here and there but thats about the bottom line.

Ajax wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2013 at 9:07am:

Are you kidding me you follow skeptical science blog, i call these guys algorians because he's their messah, all that dribble he blurted out in and inconvient truth these guys defend to the bitter end, even though the british courts said he had 9 fundamental errors in thet movie.

No. I studied atmospheric physics as part of my degree.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2013 at 8:41am:

muso wrote on Jul 22nd, 2013 at 6:52pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 22nd, 2013 at 5:51pm: Is there any chance at all that the AGW hypothesis could be incorrect? About the same probability that the global mean temperature is actually minus 18 degrees and that there is no greenhouse effect, and that the sea off Sydney is actually frozen but we perceive it to be  in liquid form. A simple 'yes' or 'no'. Me: Is there any chance at all that the AGW hypothesis could be correct?  Yes. You: Is there any chance at all that the AGW hypothesis could be incorrect?  ...

What is the actual hypothesis you are referring to?
Can you elaborate for us?

Ajax wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2013 at 12:10pm:

muso wrote on Jul 23rd, 2013 at 11:02am: Your calculation is severely flawed. The 3% figure that's touted by Watts and his crooked mates comes from fluxes, not from atmospheric concentration. Its not flawed at all why is it flawed???

- because it's concerned with atmospheric concentration. The 3% figure is about (annual) fluxes, and the year is about 1994 for 3%. Nowadays, it's closer to 5%.

Natural fluxes balance out because there is a limited capacity for the oceans and the terrestrial ecosystems to absorb CO2. Without the fossil fuel burning, it worked out around minus 11Gigatonnes. That's not flexible. That's all you've got. 

Today, it's actually less than that.

I'll mark my comments in red.

Ajax wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2013 at 9:18am:

Known Data From thermodynamics (ideal gas) One mol at one atmosphere (101.3 Kpa) @25° C = 24.465L/mol @0° C = 22.414L/mol From the periodic table (Molar mass number) Carbon (C) = 12.011g mol-1 Oxygen (O) = 15.999g mol-1 use 16g mol-1 Therefore the molar mass of CO2 is CO2 = 12.011 + (2x16) = 42.011g mol-1 (32 + 12 = 44 (44.011), not 42) From Wikipedia (Don't trust Wikipedia without checking) Current concentrations of CO2 in our atmosphere are at 0.039% -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Calculations to find the total volume of CO2 in one cubic metre of air (Hint: mol% is close enough to being vol% for our purposes) Now one cubic metre of air is equal to one thousand litres (1000L). Where L = Litres Therefore the total volume in Litres (L) of CO2 in one cubic metre (1000L) of air is 1000 x 0.00039 = 0.39 L (Total volume of CO2 in one cubic metre of air) 97% CO2 comes from the ecosystems = 97% of 0.39 = 0.3783 L _ (378.3 milliliters natural CO2) (That's where you go wrong- if you accept the 29 gigatonne per annum figure that I gave you from the carbon fluxes (2006 data), then you'll find that it's closer to 25% when applied to the atmospheric concentration. The 3% figure can't be applied to total atmospheric CO2 because it's about fluxes, not concentrations) To calculate the percent that's due to human activity, you need to integrate the net CO2 flux per year since, say 1958 and take the number of gigatonnes emitted divided by total atmospheric mass. THat will give you percent by mass. To convert to mole %, divide each figure by its molecular weight and normalise. I'll do the calculation for you if you want, but have a go yourself. 3% CO2 comes from man = 3% of 0.39 = 0.0117 L _ (11.7 millilitres manmade CO2) Again, that's a non sequitur. Australia’s emissions are (1.5% of all manmade CO2) within that one cubic metre (1000L) of air our contribution of CO2 volume is 1.5% x 11.7 = 0.1755 millilitres that’s not even one millilitre It's a global problem. We're contributing to it at about the same rate of emissions per capita as the USA. 2. Calculations to find the total mass of CO2 in one cubic metre of air (why?) The formula to find the mass of CO2 in one cubic metre (1000L) of air is, m = n x M Where m = mass in grams n = moles M = molar mass Therefore one mole of CO2 = 0.39/24.465 = 0.01594 (at SATP) And the total mass of CO2 contained in one cubic metre (1000L) of air is m = n x m m = 0.01594 x 42 m = 0.6695 grams that's not even one gram (Should be 44, but I don't see the relevance of your calculation) 97% CO2 comes from the ecosystems = 97% of 0.6695 = 0.649415 grams (natural) (It doesn't - see previous note) 3% CO2 comes from man = 3% of 0.6695 = 0.020085 grams (manmade) Australia’s emissions are (1.5% of all manmade CO2) within that one cubic metre (1000L) of air our contribution of CO2 mass is 1.5% x 0.020085 = 0.000301275 grams that’s way below one gram.

What's the significance of 1 gram?

By the way, I don't want to totally dismiss or ridicule your calculation. Bravo for having a go. You just made a couple of wrong assumptions and a minor calculation error.

Check your calculations and if you've checked everything thoroughly, in the end, the result must be correct.  I'm happy to take you down that path if you want.

muso wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2013 at 12:30pm:

Ajax wrote on Jul 23rd, 2013 at 12:10pm: muso wrote on Jul 23rd, 2013 at 11:02am: Your calculation is severely flawed. The 3% figure that's touted by Watts and his crooked mates comes from fluxes, not from atmospheric concentration. Its not flawed at all why is it flawed??? - because it's concerned with atmospheric concentration. The 3% figure is about fluxes, and the year is about 1994 for 3%. Nowadays, it's closer to 5%. Natural fluxes balance out because there is a limited capacity for the oceans and the terrestrial ecosystems to absorb CO2. Without the fossil fuel burning, it worked out around minus 11Gigatonnes. That's not flexible. That's all you've got.  Today, it's actually less than that.

What are you talking about.

The concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere is, as your little diagram shows.

771 giga tonnes for the ecosystems. (96.6%) Natures total emissions per annum

29 giga tonnes for man. (3.6%) mans total emissions per annum

Ok today it may be a little different maybe mans emissions are at about 32 giga tonnes per annum.

It doesn't change the fact or the bottom line that total concentrations of CO2 in our atmosphere are about 0.039%.

And from that total CO2 concentration (0.039%) in our atmosphere man contributes around about 3.6%.

Thats the bottom line.

Even if it is 5% its still to small to make a difference.

Especially when 95% of the greenhouse effect is because of the water vapor in the air.

Quote:

Muso wrote; By the way, I don't want to totally dismiss or ridicule your calculation. Bravo for having a go. You just made a couple of wrong assumptions and a minor calculation error. Check your calculations and if you've checked everything thoroughly, in the end, the result must be correct.  I'm happy to take you down that path if you want.

Its ok its there abouts with some sort of correction factor.

Thanks for taking the time.

Getting it spot on really means nothing, i'm more interested in the bottom line not by how many percentage points we might be out.

BTW the per capita statistic is one of the most useless statistics invented by economists to justify some sort of comparison between nations.......its a zero in my books and being a scientist your self i would have thought you would look on it in a similar manner.

The gum tree outside my house has x amount of leaves per capita.

The gum tree outside you house has x amount of leaves per capita.

What does this tell us about your gum tree and my gum tree what does it tell us about the leaves or the local weather in both places etc.etc.

Per capita.......meaningless jargon invented by economists.

Ajax wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2013 at 1:58pm:

What are you talking about. The concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere is, as your little diagram shows. 771 giga tonnes for the ecosystems. (96.6%) Natures total emissions per annum 29 giga tonnes for man. (3.6%) mans total emissions per annum Ok today it may be a little different maybe mans emissions are at about 32 giga tonnes per annum. It doesn't change the fact or the bottom line that total concentrations of CO2 in our atmosphere are about 0.039%. And from that total CO2 concentration (0.039%) in our atmosphere man contributes around about 3.6%. Thats the bottom line. Even if it is 5% its still to small to make a difference. Especially when 95% of the greenhouse effect is because of the water vapor in the air.

Do you understand the difference between fluxes and inventory? Convince me.

Ajax wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2013 at 2:06pm:

Quote: Muso wrote; By the way, I don't want to totally dismiss or ridicule your calculation. Bravo for having a go. You just made a couple of wrong assumptions and a minor calculation error. Check your calculations and if you've checked everything thoroughly, in the end, the result must be correct.  I'm happy to take you down that path if you want. Its ok its there abouts with some sort of correction factor.

Actually you are far off the mark. I'll explain further when I have the time.

What happens to the density of air when you increase the water vapour concentration? (increase the dew point)

muso wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2013 at 3:05pm:

Do you understand the difference between fluxes and inventory? Convince me.

Please explain it to me and all others that might be interested.

muso wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2013 at 3:07pm:

Ajax wrote on Jul 23rd, 2013 at 2:06pm: Quote: Muso wrote; By the way, I don't want to totally dismiss or ridicule your calculation. Bravo for having a go. You just made a couple of wrong assumptions and a minor calculation error. Check your calculations and if you've checked everything thoroughly, in the end, the result must be correct.  I'm happy to take you down that path if you want. Its ok its there abouts with some sort of correction factor. Actually you are far off the mark. I'll explain further when I have the time. What happens to the density of air when you increase the water vapour concentration? (increase the dew point)

Unless you have some sort of new and credible data i dont know about.

The total concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere is 0.039%
and man's emissions are 3.6% of 0.039.

Even the IPCC and other alarmists agree with this figure or there abouts, i'm not really interested in minor adjustments.

So please show and tell what you know that the world doesn't???

Ajax wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2013 at 3:39pm:

muso wrote on Jul 23rd, 2013 at 3:05pm: Do you understand the difference between fluxes and inventory? Convince me. Please explain it to me and all others that might be interested.

OK, the total atmospheric mass is 5 x 10^18 kg or 5 million Gigatonnes (you can look that up or I'll show you how to derive it if not convinced). Multiply through by the Wt% of CO2, which is 0.059% and you get 2963 Gigatonnes total atmospheric inventory.  (see spreadsheet)

Can you see that is different from the positive (Biosphere to atmosphere) fluxes, and can you understand why?


Quote:

What are you talking about. The concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere is, as your little diagram shows. 771 giga tonnes for the ecosystems. (96.6%) Natures total emissions per annum 29 giga tonnes for man. (3.6%) mans total emissions per annum

(That comes to 800 Gigatonnes.)

That's a false statement. Have a think about it.

---

Ajax wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2013 at 3:42pm:

muso wrote on Jul 23rd, 2013 at 3:07pm: Ajax wrote on Jul 23rd, 2013 at 2:06pm: Quote: Muso wrote; By the way, I don't want to totally dismiss or ridicule your calculation. Bravo for having a go. You just made a couple of wrong assumptions and a minor calculation error. Check your calculations and if you've checked everything thoroughly, in the end, the result must be correct.  I'm happy to take you down that path if you want. Its ok its there abouts with some sort of correction factor. Actually you are far off the mark. I'll explain further when I have the time. What happens to the density of air when you increase the water vapour concentration? (increase the dew point) Unless you have some sort of new and credible data i dont know about. The total concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere is 0.039% and man's emissions are 3.6% of 0.039. Even the IPCC and other alarmists agree with this figure or there abouts, i'm not really interested in minor adjustments. So please show and tell what you know that the world doesn't???

You're totally wrong on both counts. The IPCC doesn't agree with that figure. See if you can work out the difference between inventory and flux and it should come to you. 

In 1958, the Atmospheric CO2 inventory was about 2300 Gigatonnes (315ppmv/463ppmw). Today, the atmospheric CO2 inventory is about 2960 Gigatonnes.

The difference is about 640 Gigatonnes, or about 11 Gigatonnes per year on average. 

Make sense?

Think of it like a big water tank. There is a hose running into the bucket and water running from from the bottom. The volume of that tank represents the total atmospheric inventory. The in and out represent the fluxes. The natural fluxes from the terrestrial and oceanic biospheres can be represented by a paddle wheel. 

The flow rate of the hose is about 3.7% of the water returning from the paddle wheel, but the result is that the total inventory is rising a little bit each year..   

Ajax wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2013 at 9:07am:

Quote: [quote]What? Pull the other one.  Cooler than the last few glaciations? Maybe if we ignore the last few million years. Hhhhmmmmm.....so are you saying that TODAY its hotter than ever before??

I'm saying that your original statement that the temperatures today are cooler than we have had in the past is clearly incorrect. The glaciations were obviously cooler.

By the way, the "Little Ice Age" is hardly in the same league as an Ice Age/ glaciation.

muso wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2013 at 11:28am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 23rd, 2013 at 11:12am: muso wrote on Jul 22nd, 2013 at 6:52pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 22nd, 2013 at 5:51pm: Is there any chance at all that the AGW hypothesis could be incorrect? About the same probability that the global mean temperature is actually minus 18 degrees and that there is no greenhouse effect, and that the sea off Sydney is actually frozen but we perceive it to be  in liquid form. Now don't be lazy, and read the explanation that backs up the opening remark, and tell me where you actually disagree. As simple 'yes' or 'no' is all that's required. Is there any chance at all that the AGW hypothesis could be incorrect? So ... ? Greggary - you can join in the calculation too if you like. See what you get. There might be a prize.  ;)

You're starting to look like a (closed-minded) coward now.

Is there any chance at all that the AGW hypothesis could be incorrect?

'yes' or 'no'?  A very simple question.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2013 at 7:20pm:

muso wrote on Jul 23rd, 2013 at 11:28am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 23rd, 2013 at 11:12am: muso wrote on Jul 22nd, 2013 at 6:52pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 22nd, 2013 at 5:51pm: Is there any chance at all that the AGW hypothesis could be incorrect? About the same probability that the global mean temperature is actually minus 18 degrees and that there is no greenhouse effect, and that the sea off Sydney is actually frozen but we perceive it to be  in liquid form. Now don't be lazy, and read the explanation that backs up the opening remark, and tell me where you actually disagree. As simple 'yes' or 'no' is all that's required. Is there any chance at all that the AGW hypothesis could be incorrect? So ... ? Greggary - you can join in the calculation too if you like. See what you get. There might be a prize.  ;) You're starting to look like a (closed-minded) coward now. Is there any chance at all that the AGW hypothesis could be incorrect? 'yes' or 'no'?  A very simple question.

Greggery.  A hypotheses are falsifiable.  By definition.

We are still waiting for you to actually tell us what this "AGW hypothesis" you are referring to actually is, so we can tell you whether or not it has been falsified.

Now, we both know that your grasp on this subject is very tenuous indeed - so it really would be a good idea if you could spell out for us what this hypothesis you keep referring to actually is.

Could you do that?

Or are you just repeating something you heard Jonesy say?

Ajax wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2013 at 9:07am:

To anyone reading this post just google global cooling in the 1970's.

...and you will come up with references to 2 articles in the popular media by journalists about global cooling.

If you however search the scientific literature of the 1970s, you will find that even then the majority atmospheric physicists and chemists writing on the subject were concerned about warming due to anthropogenic emissions

An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2013 at 7:20pm:

You're starting to look like a (closed-minded) coward now. Is there any chance at all that the AGW hypothesis could be incorrect? 'yes' or 'no'?  A very simple question.

Bah Popperism. I'm not going there.

http://educationalphilosophy.blogspot.com.au/2008/05/poverty-of-popperism.html

Read my lips - Observational Science.

muso wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2013 at 8:57pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 23rd, 2013 at 7:20pm: You're starting to look like a (closed-minded) coward now. Is there any chance at all that the AGW hypothesis could be incorrect? 'yes' or 'no'?  A very simple question. Bah Popperism. I'm not going there. http://educationalphilosophy.blogspot.com.au/2008/05/poverty-of-popperism.html Read my lips - Observational Science.

Closed-minded, unscientific cult member (who puts his faith in blogs) it is then.

I thought as much.

You can no longer be taken seriously.

Popperism is a cult about Science promoted by naïve non scientists.

Hey muso

Thanks for taking the time to show me the diference between fluxes and inventory.

I never ever thought to calculate the total mass of CO2 in our atmosphere based on 0.039% volume.

Yes you are correct about CO2 fluxes and inentory.

Its been an education for me and certainely puts abit of the puzzle together, for that i thank you.

The crux of AGW is how much CO2 in our atmosphere is natural and how much is manmade.

The problem with the IPCC reports is that they attribute all CO2 rises in our atmosphere to antropogenic emissions.

This is their down fall and as long as they manupulate and adjust figures to fall in line with the keeling curve based only on athropogenic CO2 emissions their computer models are not worth the time taken to produce them.

The rise of CO2 in our atmopshere has been from athropogenic emissions and the degassing of the hydrosphere and land use.

Of the total amount of CO2 that has been pumped into our atmosphere from nature and man since the start of the industrial revolution, (285-395ppm) about 110ppm only about half can be attributed to man the other half is natural.

This brings us to the temperature rise since the industrial revolution, yes man's emissions may have contributed in some small way but nature or the degasssing of the hydrosphere is the main reason temperatures have increased by 0.5 degree celcius.

CO2 in our atmosphere is 0.039% in volume, too small to drive temperature change, even when we had 20 times the amount of CO2 that we have today this still didn't trigger a runaway greenhouse effect.

CO2 doesn't drive temperature, temperature drives the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere, and the temperature is controlled by our sun.

CO2 has never driven temperature or any runaway greenhouse effect in our past why should it today??

And man's poulty contribution of 3% to 5% (less if you use inventory) in the overall scheme of things will certainely NEVER drive climate change.

The other thing you have to keep in mind is that the UN and the IPCC are both infuenced by bankers who have pumped billions of dollars in AGW.

People should be asking themselves why are bankers pumping so much money into AGW?

And what have they got to gain from it?

Well fossil fuels will eventually run out and there will be nothing to tax.

But the air that we breathe will always be here as long as humans exists something to tax us all based on the lie that is AGW.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2013 at 8:15pm:

Ajax wrote on Jul 23rd, 2013 at 9:07am: To anyone reading this post just google global cooling in the 1970's. ...and you will come up with references to 2 articles in the popular media by journalists about global cooling. If you however search the scientific literature of the 1970s, you will find that even then the majority atmospheric physicists and chemists writing on the subject were concerned about warming due to anthropogenic emissions An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales.

Hey RT

I'm not going to argue with you.

All i'm saying is just like today with global warming in newspapers, tv shows, movies, radio c etc.

Back then it was global cooling because temperatures fell from 1940 to about 1975 so these very same clowns that have frightened the be-jesus out of us today about global warming.

Where running around telling the world we are headed for an ice age, they even suggested to melt the arctic.

Never thought about those cuddly polar bears back then did they??

The Erath;s temperature and the CO2 content in our atmosphere has never flat lined nor will it ever, its made up of continuous peaks and troughs.

Too bad on this peak these elite mogul pigs have managed to tax the whole world on the air we breathe based on the lie that is AGW.

Ajax wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2013 at 12:03pm:

Hi Muso First I’m all for cleaning up manmade pollution that’s all the chemicals that corporations throw in our waterways and dump in landfills to save themselves some money, I’m not a grennie but I hate yobbos who litter our country and so do most of us now that’s a fact. I have done my homework on AGW and yes I do understand how the greenhouse effect is suppose to work, I don’t need highly politicized IPCC propaganda to understand the science, like in your sticky above. It’s simple and you don’t need to be a professor to understand it, the hypothesis the IPCC presents is that of the tropopause is heating up it may create a runaway greenhouse effect as I have explained above in my previous post. This means that the temperature in the tropopause should be greater than the temperature at ground level, but guess what the exact opposite is true in the real world; this phenomenon is only found in their computer simulated models which cannot approximate the climate of the Earth at all. Thousands of weather balloons and satellite data have failed to detect this hot spot which is the only piece of evidence coming out of the IPCC computer models, now why do you ignore this vital piece of information. If the tropopause is heating up then the weather balloons and satellite data would have detected the hot spot but it doesn’t exist in the real world. If that’s not the nail in the coffin I don’t know what is? What about the fact that the IPCC amplify the effects of CO2 on their computer models to get the desired result, this leads to the hypothesis that more CO2 will lead to more water vapor and the cycle goes on. This being the case there should be an abnormal amount of water vapor and CO2 around the equator, but guess what again empirical data has failed to show this is true, meaning that these theories don’t exist in the real world only on their computer models. Not to mention that most of the warming in the last century happened before 1940 now they don’t tell you this do they? Or that 1/3 of all manmade CO2 was released into the atmosphere AFTER 1998 yet we have had cooling not warming since 1998, meaning that the temperatures after 1998 have not surpassed the 1998 values, even the IPCC agree on this! What happened to unequivocal warming?? Unfortunately I cannot post any sources because I have to reach 100 posts, so how do you know my sources are flawed? Are you saying that CO2 drives warming here on planet Earth? Because most scientists even the alarmists agree that CO2 lags temperature by about 800 years, they don’t tell you that do they. BTW those graphs in your sticky that show the correlation between CO2 and temperature why are they all at around 450000 years scale, I’ll tell you because at this scale it looks as though CO2 & temperature correlate. But we all know they don’t because CO2 follows temperature, temperature doesn’t follow the tiny amount CO2 in our atmosphere. Water vapor is responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect here on Earth….fact!!!!! You should do your homework so Al Gore and his cronies cannot pull the wool over your eyes dude. BTW do you know Al Gore has set up a company to sell carbon credits to the whole world??????

Is Dave Letterman past your bedtime or something  :D :D :D :D ?!!

Ajax wrote on Jul 24^th, 2013 at 1:27pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jul 23rd, 2013 at 8:15pm: Ajax wrote on Jul 23rd, 2013 at 9:07am: To anyone reading this post just google global cooling in the 1970's. ...and you will come up with references to 2 articles in the popular media by journalists about global cooling. If you however search the scientific literature of the 1970s, you will find that even then the majority atmospheric physicists and chemists writing on the subject were concerned about warming due to anthropogenic emissions An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. Hey RT I'm not going to argue with you. All i'm saying is just like today with global warming in newspapers, tv shows, movies, radio c etc. Back then it was global cooling because temperatures fell from 1940 to about 1975 so these very same clowns that have frightened the be-jesus out of us today about global warming. Where running around telling the world we are headed for an ice age, they even suggested to melt the arctic. Never thought about those cuddly polar bears back then did they?? The Erath;s temperature and the CO2 content in our atmosphere has never flat lined nor will it ever, its made up of continuous peaks and troughs. Too bad on this peak these elite mogul pigs have managed to tax the whole world on the air we breathe based on the lie that is AGW.

Ajax- or should I call you Junior- the nuclear Industry has actually been using Global Warming as a tactic to try and sell its industry since the 60s... even in little ol' Perth!

Can you wrap your laughing gear around that???

So why don't you go get some more prawns and crayfish off of Daddykins, watch him smoke a million cigarettes and discuss....  ;D ;D ;D ;D