.

All that matters is what is above our heads, thats where the carbon goes, and every day it contributes to the Keeling curve averaged seasonally adjusted and homogenized daily atmospheric co2 volume, by parts per million.

They tell us it is 400ppm.

We know that 3.32% of that is from manmade co2, we know that man churns out about 2.68% 8/9ppm averaged of all co2 in the atmosphere from your own sides wiki page, i linked it to you.

virtually all manmade co2 gets re trapped, residual atmospheric manmade co2 has risen to 4/5ppm, making mans averaged total daily contribution 3.3% = 13ppm


And thats emperical data on an averaged adjusted daily basis, not modeled crystal ball theory about carbon sinks being saturated etc etc, what has happened, and what is happening now.

Now stop flapping and show something to backup your nonsense.



So where are you going to start cutting co2, and what practical use will it be to you ?

And unless you have the answer to stop the population going to 10 billion, and the live stock to feed them, you better get used to a planet with 10 bilion carbon and methane producers along with their huge methane and carbon producing live stock.

All living in the same place 3 billion people lived under 300ppm co2 skies..

manx does it ever occur to you that you and whatever infowars-esque site you got this great 3% ppm insight from have apparently somehow done an end run around all serious scientists? Even the AGW skeptics for the most part seem to be ignoring this devastating bombshell you've discovered - which completely blows the lid off the whole climate change scam.

Does that ever give you a minute of pause?

Stupid eggheads amirite? Can't see the forest for the trees. But manx can!

http://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...an-activities/

http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip...1063/1.1995728

http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/faq/faq.html#faq3

http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=384

Once you know how they distinguish burnt fossil fuel co2 from natural co2, there you will have your answer, burnt fossil fuel co2 molecules can have upto a 5 yr life span.

But well done atlast for trying to educate yourself.

I will put back your cherry picked quotes into the correct perspectives.

What is the difference between "natural" co2 and man-made co2?

just an absolutely incredible amount of time that people are devoting to this nutcase. hours upon hours of your life that you'll never get back.

true fact: manxman posts on UFO forums and believes that the Earth is being monitored by aliens. responding to him in any capacity at all is a 100% waste of time. put him on ignore.

He probably believes that Costa is innocent too

I'm excited to find this out.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-residence-time.htm

Here's the issue plain and simple.

Alarmists claim that the CO2 that humans have produced caused the temperature to rise approximately 0.8 degrees Celsius over the past 100 years.

However, skeptics have pointed out that a significant percentage of that rise in temperature was actually due to the "urbanization bias". For those who are unfamiliar with the term, it refers to the phenomenon where temperatures in urban areas are very slightly hotter than in rural areas. The reason for this is that things like asphalt, concrete, etc. can trap the heat somewhat and make it slightly hotter. So over the past 100 years, if you look at the areas where the temperature measurements have been taken, many of these locations have become progressively more urbanized over the decades. So even though only 1% of the earth's surface would be considered an urban area, about half of our temperature measurements were taken from urban locations. When you just use the temperature records from the non-urban areas, the rise in temperature over the past 100 years is far less.

Another issue is that the measurements taken 100 years ago are not as accurate as the measurements we take today. In fact, in their attempt to make the data more accurate, they have adjusted the temperatures downward in the early part of the 20th century. If these adjustments were unwarranted, it would have the effect of making it appear as if warming occurred in recent decades (where downward revisions did not occur). So we don't know how accurate the data is, and we don't know if the revisions were warranted.

All these measurements have a margin of error.

And finally, it has to be noted that the earth's temperature always fluctuates. Average temperatures were rising and falling long before humans were releasing CO2.

So we're talking about less than a 1 degree Celsius change over 100 years. When you consider the urbanization bias, the adjustments to the temperature records, and the margin of error... it's debatable if the temperature has even risen 0.8 degrees Celsius. It's possible there may not have been any warming at all.

And even if there was some warming, we don't know how much of that warming occurred due to a natural temperature variation, and how much occurred do to the CO2 that humans have been producing.

So when you look at all of these these issues together, maybe the truth is that CO2 caused a rise of 0.2 degrees Celsius over the last 100 years... however we're never going to know for sure. The change is so small that it's virtually impossible for us to get measurements that accurate since we can't go back in time and re-measure everything with modern equipment. And we can't know what is natural and was is caused by human activity.

So since "global warming" caused by carbon dioxide is basically a non-issue, why do so many scientists and politicians make such a big deal about this? I think it's clear why the government benefits from the global warming hysteria. They get to pass carbon taxes and look like they're the savior. It is being used as an excuse to set up a world government (look what Bill Gates recently said). Many scientists I think are not as smart as we think they are. They are working under assumptions that are false. The science became corrupted by the government money and many who know the truth are afraid to speak out because they'll be labeled as some tin-foil hat wearing nut that gets money from the oil companies or whatever. If you're a respected climate scientist, you probably enjoy going to the fancy dinners and going to UN meetings and getting all the respect of your peers. I would imagine that it would be difficult for someone in that position to do a 180 and really expose the fraud.

Meanwhile, there are all sorts of legitimate environmental concerns that no one seems to care about. They all take a back seat to "climate change". How many nuclear power plants are near populated areas and are also on fault lines? How much depleted uranium are we using in the wars in the middle east? I've heard that there are giant garbage islands floating around the oceans. A lot of our lakes and rivers ares still very polluted. And obviously if you look at the situations in many third world countries and especially China, they have really messed up a lot of stuff. I'm not really an environmentalist, but i'm sure a real environmentalist could tell you about all sorts of real environmental problems. Who knows, maybe all that stuff you hear about the bee colony collapse will become a real issue and we'll all get screwed over from the lack of bees while we're busying building windmills and solar panels to prevent the earth from getting 0.1 degrees hotter over the next century.

The Dame of Sark was called the Dame. The Channel Islands have absolutely nothing to do with the Isle of Man, which is a very long way from there. And the Isle of Wight is never called 'Wight'.

Before humans existed, CO2 was released into the atmosphere from a variety of different sources. Volcanoes for example.

So every year, the CO2 that is released into the atmosphere is a combination of man-made sources (e.g. driving cars) and natural sources (e.g. volcanoes).

Heres a clue, get, busy, this is why residual f/fuel co2 is only 0.7% of the Keeling curve totals, which are 24 months averages, not 12 as i stated, 2 yearly averages relect better flux adjustments..




We will be examining this and many more non politically motivated peer reviewed papers.


Essenhigh (2009) points out that the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) in their first report (Houghton et al., 1990) gives an atmospheric CO2 residence time (lifetime) of 50-200 years [as a "rough estimate"]. This estimate is confusingly given as an adjustment time for a scenario with a given anthropogenic CO2 input, and ignores natural (sea and vegetation) CO2 flux rates. Such estimates are analytically invalid; and they are in conflict with the more correct explanation given elsewhere in the same IPCC report: "This means that on average it takes only a few years before a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is taken up by plants or dissolved in the ocean".

Some 99% of the atmospheric CO2 molecules are 12CO2 molecules containing the stable isotope 12C (Segalstad, 1982). To calculate the RT of the bulk atmospheric CO2 molecule 12CO2, Essenhigh (2009) uses the IPCC data of 1990 with a total mass of carbon of 750 gigatons in the atmospheric CO2 and a natural input/output exchange rate of 150 gigatons of carbon per year (Houghton et al., 1990). The characteristic decay time (denoted by the Greek letter tau) is simply the former value divided by the latter value: 750 / 150 = 5 years. This is a similar value to the ~5 years found from 13C/12C carbon isotope mass balance calculations of measured atmospheric CO2 13C/12C carbon isotope data by Segalstad (1992); the ~5 years obtained from CO2 solubility data by Murray (1992); and the ~5 years derived from CO2 chemical kinetic data by Stumm & Morgan (1970).

Revelle & Suess (1957) calculated from data for the trace atmospheric molecule 14CO2, containing the radioactive isotope14C, that the amount of atmospheric "CO2 derived from industrial fuel combustion" would be only 1.2% for an atmospheric CO2 lifetime of 5 years, and 1.73% for a CO2 lifetime of 7 years (Segalstad, 1998). Essenhigh (2009)

"Hottest Year On Record?" Think Again! Meet 'Seasonally-Adjusted' Seasons

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-0...justed-seasons



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/1...l-warming.html

I'm well aware of her name, I was visiting there when she drove by. (Although I was young in the fifties, how old were you back then?) I never implied that the two islands were close, I just said I wanted to live there. I've been to the TT races many times (also years ago), that's obviously what I was alluding to when I was addressing manx in a previous post.

I lived in South Hants for quite awhile, so I know it's the Isle of Wight, lol.

And your point is?

You don't think fossil fuels cause a host of problems other than CO2 and that windmills and solar, in addition to providing jobs, getting very close to and better than grid parity in many location, and soon to be widely cheaper and immensely cleaner don't have other benefits?

What's the #1 source of mercury in the atmosphere?
Sulphur Oxides
Nitrogen Oxides
Carbon Monoxide
Volatile Organic compound
Fine particulates
Lead
Ground level ozone

etc.

There are more than enough reasons to move away from fossil fuels as fast as possible and the doom sayers on the global warming side are much closer to the truth than the reactionary doom sayers who think that the proposed solutions are going to wreck the economy.

I guess if you're right and there isn't warming or it doesn't have significant effects, you can be correct while you choke on the fumes, eat your poison fish, drink your contaminated water and perhaps kill off the bees as well.

If it's debatable then it's possible that warming could have been 2C. Uncertainty doesn't go just one way, you know.

But you are wrong about the urban heat island bias anyway. NASA GISS only uses rural stations. Ground stations have similar trends to satellite temperature measurements over their common time period and the observed ocean warming is not affected by urbanization. Not to mention that increasing temperatures are confirmed by physical factors--sea level rise, glacier mass balance, the changing migration of many species and the change in the beginning of spring.

Then why are you copy and pasting non peer-reviewed garbage?

Yes.. warming could have been +2C over the last 100 years... maybe it was zero... maybe temperatures fell... we don't really know.

If you read the article I posted above, you'll see that the data that GISS used was altered.

Noting that weather stations there were thin on the ground, he decided to focus on three rural stations covering a huge area of Paraguay. Giss showed it as having recorded, between 1950 and 2014, a particularly steep temperature rise of more than 1.5C: twice the accepted global increase for the whole of the 20th century.

But when Homewood was then able to check Giss’s figures against the original data from which they were derived, he found that they had been altered. Far from the new graph showing any rise, it showed temperatures in fact having declined over those 65 years by a full degree. When he did the same for the other two stations, he found the same. In each case, the original data showed not a rise but a decline.

lol at this: "the changing migration of many species and the change in the beginning of spring" is evidence of global warming.

so animals are changing migrations patters because temperatures rose 0.8 C over 100 years? no other reason they might change their migration patterns? it's gotta be that huge change in temperature because there's no other possible reason why migration patters might change.

and you think that spring is earlier now? so is there some record of "the first day of spring" going back hundreds of years that i'm not aware of? is the claim that spring comes one day or two days earlier now because of the 0.8 C increase in temperature? how do you even define the first day of spring? let me guess... this is all based on whether or not a groundhog sees his shadow right?

to me, this post reads like "well, CO2 might not be causing global warming... but fossil fuels are bad anyways and windmills are great... so what does it matter if the science is all BS."

it looks like you've given up on arguing that CO2 causes global warming and climate change... now you're arguing that burning fossil fuels is putting "mercury in the atmosphere" ... this is a completely different topic.

You say "you've" there like I was arguing global warming. I don't argue that, not much anyway, and specifically because it's nowhere near necessary to prove global warming to take action to reduce fossil fuels. Why get into a complicated argument that involves tons of data which can fairly or unfairly be attacked when there are immediately obvious reasons to reduce fossil fuels which have been clear for more than a century. A lot of things add up. You know about 12000 coal miners have been killed in the US since 1900?

Not that I'm a conspiracy nut, but if I were the whole of polluting industry, I'd want environmentalists to be wrapped up in something vague and hard to latch onto with grand claims that are easy to dispute or lie about. That and I'd keep saying "20 years until fusion" no need to do anything else "20 years until fusion."

That said, I don't think my opinion on AGW is important. I haven't studied it. But, the bulk of scientists on one side carries a lot more weight with me and I think the $3+ trillion per year Oil industry is a lot more likely to be making things up than the sneaky professors trying to get that liberal grant money.

Do you have a article that's written by an actual scientist? Posting links to articles written by someone that thinks that intelligent design makes sense doesn't do you any favours whatsoever.

That and the fact that the transition to renewable energy is going to be a benefit to the economy, there's no chance in hell anyone is going to let the economy wreck itself over this because the jobs cry will always be louder than the environment cry, renewable energy is absolutely inevitable and might as well be hurried as much as is reasonable, and fossil fuels are a big source of conflict - I don't see why people would waste their breath lobbying against progress because they want to be right about .8 degrees or 3 degrees.