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


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.

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


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..............................

Quote:


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:


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:


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:


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:


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:


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:


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:


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:


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

Quote:


Prove it????????

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

Quote:


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

Quote:


Is that because skeptical science says so????

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

Quote:


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

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.

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.



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?

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


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:


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:


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.

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

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

I'll mark my comments in red.
Ajax wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2013 at 9:18am:



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.