Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

Your theory is based on the assumption that any rise in CO2 emissions will immediately show an increase in temperature directly correlating with the increase in CO2 emissions.
Vegetation and other such life suck up alot of CO2, there is nothing to suggest that the amount they remove from the atmosphere could not also increase with emissions, skewing your figures. Unless you have some proof that earths vegetation is at its CO2 sucking capacity for lack of a better term.
Temperature is still going up, just not exactly in line with emissions. It is entirely plausible that if emissions continue to increase as they have been, and with increased deforestation, it will have more extreme negative implications on the Earth's climate going forward.

Gah, stop....I won't get into this.

 

Also by t helatest IPCC report they have quietly gone from predicting a 2 to 7 degree rise to just 1.08 a century.

Alarmis

I am not basing any theory, Co2 is resident in the atmoshpere for years (IPCC) and any increase in emissions will increase the rate of atmspheric CO2 rises. The effects are pretty immediate. Like pumping any gas into a closed system the effects will be immediate, but 13 years.. and no dsicernable increase in CO2 rates.

The only way this could be mitigated is if nature absorbs the CO2 but the IPCC claim that nature's Co2 budget is in perfect balance, they are statid on that claim, even though no one monitors natural sources, no one, and observations are rare.

We are not talking "how much" co2, we are talking the rate of increase. It's 13 years of ever increasing emissions and no increase in rate of Co2, 13 years.

 

To support my argument Here is the result of IPCC mathematical models that predicted the CO2 increases based on emissions, the black line is reality

please log in to view this image

So there you have it, they did indeed model the immediate increase in the rate of Co2 increases based on emissions.

I have shown that to be wrong, not my work obviously but there it is in cold hard data, but hey ho what does science matter in a battle of ideology and politics

 

Stop getting your climate change news from the Guardian mate

 

But the very graph you posted above shows an increase in Co2?!?! Not in direct correlation with the increase in emissions, but still increasing.

 

A big engine will always produce more co2 than a small engine

 

Never read the Guardian in my life.
I do not read any newspapers.
The only tabloid news I get is the ones linked on here.

 

You don't get it, the "rate of incresse" is what we are talking about.

If you pump Co2 intoa greenhouse it will go up at whatever ppmv per min rate. If you crank up the pump 300% the "rate of increase" (not amount) will also go up drastically


The IPCC modelled for this in their predictions, and it failed epically

 

I'm glad you pointed that out.............

 

I can't put it any simpler

If human emissions dictate the increase in CO2 (rate and amount) in a system where no other factor effects CO2 budget balance, then the rate of increase must increase of the sources are emitting more CO2.

Seriously man.

And you'll claim I am wrong jesus christ

 

then you dont understand it either.

He's talking about rising Co2 I am talking about the rate it rises at, they are not the same thing which means you don't have a clue

 

Tobes is so dsperate to agree with you Bo, he doesn't know **** about this so he tags on to your posts

Like those "hear hear" mumbles you hear in the house of parliament during debates

 

Why should the rate of increase in CO2 correspond directly with emissions?
We know that flora and other such substances draw in CO2, theres nothing to suggest that when emissions are increased, the amount of CO2 "sucked up" by vegetation could not also increase. Leaving the difference in the atmosphere.

 

It doesn't that is my point FFS and that proves you are not getting what I am saying

But the IPCC have said and modelled and done their science on the premise that that emissions dictate CO2 rates of emission and actual amount of atmospheric content.

That is patently false. The data proves it.

 

No, thats a flawed argument.
The increase in emissions DOES NOT have to correlate directly with CO2 levels, because there are substances in this planets atmosphere that destroy and suck up CO2. Meaning it would increase but not by the same amount.

 

No I am saying that increased emissions increase CO2 levels, but not necessarily by the same amount.
Ie if our emissions triple, the CO2 levels wont necessarily triple because of other factors in our environment.

 

Data and IPCC predictictions and how they model emissions vs Co2 are not flawed argument

This is a perfect case of denial, you believe in the global warming and fighting data and facts with opinion and completely failing to understand the science both by the IPCC and other scientsits.

Ypu read to go study this before you acn know wtf you are talking about mate, this is not sometihng you just have an opinion on without realy looking into both sides of the science}

You started off with classic character assassination, typical clima loon tactic and then proceed to give opinipons without even looking at anything, ****ing hilarious

 

What makes me laugh is the chart I provided is from a climate scientist, done with mathematical modelling using actual factual non disputed data, and you just dismiss it with an opinion, say it is wrong or not indicative of a flaw in AGW..


Hilarious

 

ITS A CONSPIRACY!!

Sure this will move on to vapour trails next ;-)

 

No, the chart contradicts what you are saying.
You said there hasn't been an increase in CO2 in 13 years, when your chart shows there has.
You then said that because the CO2 levels haven't risen exactly in line with emission levels, then it is a natural phenomenon and not man made. You have provided no evidence to back that up.
I repeat, just because CO2 levels haven't risen the same amount as emissions, does not mean that the emissions increase hasn't affected the CO2 levels.

I am not dimissing anything mate, you pointed out that they haven't increased in line with one another, which is an interesting observation, and certainly a good question to ask, but I countered that there could quite easily be a reasonable explanation for that, and the bottom line is, CO2 levels HAVE gone up, which your chart shows.