Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

Climate change is just a hoax, the IHAPPCA have a graph and thats good enough for some

 

What difference does the rate it's rising at matter?

The point is that it's rising and your own graph showed that very fact, which is why I made my post.

Not had any weed today?

 

Numbers.
From 1990 to 2002 we emitted 0.08GT of carbon, after that we emited .275GT but the rate of increase of CO2 did not budge. That can only be expected if Nature is driving atmospheric CO2 levels, that giant amount of water in oceans for example?

The IPCC say it takes about 30 years for half of the CO2 we produce to leave the atmosphere
IPCC AR4 report "About 50% of a CO2 increase will be removed from the atmosphere within 30 years and a further 30% will be removed within a few centuries"

So, if the increase in rate of emission is not relative to the increase of CO2 rates, tell me where the extra CO2 went because it was not going into the atmosphere if it did not increase CO2 increase rate.

So where did 200% of emissions go if they did not go into the atmosphere, you can't use nature as the IPCC says 20 years for nature to eat half of it.

@Tobes you answer this one mate you have all the answers

 

It is, its just not a 100% correlation between the two
To put it in simple terms, an emission increase of 5 may only result in a CO2 increase of 1.
So its still affecting CO2 levels, just not at a ratio of 1:1.

 

what nonsens are you on about, because this is way over your had you resor to hyperbole.

Tobes knows less than my cat re climate change, embarrassing for him he is even getting involved

 

What? sources, data no ooinion please because I suspect that is complete gash and workaround logic mate.

Back up that with data pal, we are not dealing in opinions here.

 

The chart you posted shows that mate.
Emissions have gone up, CO2 levels have gone up. Not at the same rate, but they have gone up nonetheless.
My source was you.

 

Whether you attribute that CO2 increase to humans, or a natural phenomenon is another matter. But the figures clearly show that both are rising.
Not quite sure why you feel the need to write that off and put it down to some ****ed up conspiracy.

 

You see that is why you really do not understand what you are talking about.

The emphasis of the chart is based on data of actual measurements. To claim the reverse would require a scientifically supported theory as to why this is.

Simply put, if I claim pumping faster when infalting a tyre but claim that the level of air rate is not increasing, I would need to provide some solid evidence of that as opposed to correctly stating that if I increase the rate of air pumped in, the actual rate of air input increases.

Jesus, it's like saying blowing harder on a balloon doesn't put air in faster

You need some pretty strong evidence to support such a claim

I've only used climate science and the actual IPCC to back my point and you are either intentionally playing stupid here or..

Just not accepting the truth is not helping you here mate

 

I don't claim to be an expert on climate change, I've said as much in this thread already.

Pardon me though if I can process simple and straightforward facts

Co2 has increased - tick

Temperature has increased - tick

So their models are wrong and their predictions were alarmist does that alter the basic premise?

Would anyone have reacted with any urgency to the issue if they'd have played it down as being a problem that might only really affect 2 generations hence?

 

If there was a hole in the balloon that let some of the air out, then the balloon would not increase by the same mass as the air you are blowing into it.
We know there are natural phenomenon in our environment that eat up CO2, hence why the amount of emissions we pump out doesnt all end up in the "Airborne Fraction"

 

I am not either mate.
But even I can see that BBF's main argument is based on the fact that CO2 levels havent increased in line with emission levels, and he is right, they havent.
But there is a perfectly good explanation for that that he is choosing to ignore. And that is that the planets plant life eats up CO2, if the emissions are increased, its perfectly reasonable to expect that the amount of CO2 eaten up by said vegetation would also increase, meaning that only what is left would contribute to the rising CO2 level.

Its really not that hard.

 

It's been fun but you pair should be embarrased, you cant even understand what is a very simple matter.

Co2 goes up relative to emissions, BO claims that is not so yet the IPCC claim it is so, yet he is defending the IPCC.



can't make this **** up
The IPCC predicted based on mathematics, know what that is Bo? that with a tripling of emissions the rate of CO2 increase would AT LEAST double.

So you are saying the IPCC are talking bollocks, well I agree, cheers.


You went so hell bent to be right that you agreed with my initial assertion you dope
The Oceans control Co2 rate of increase and atmpspheric content not man.

 

There's actually a word for types like you mate, libtards.

 

So you agree that there is not a direct 1:1 ratio of increase in emissions and Co2?
I aint saying the IPCC is 100% correct either mate.
Just that you are choosing to ignore a very glaring flaw in your logic for the sack of pushing some weird conspiracy theory that has little merit as far as I can see.

 

So, just to ask, do the IPCC charts show that Emissions and Co2 levels directly parallel each other?
They must do right? If they are claiming that.....

 

Again IPCC model predictions on based on emissions.

please log in to view this image

So by Bo opinion science CO2 rate of increase should not increase when you increase output of CO2
The extra outputted Co2 just disappears.
Bo get on to the IPCC and tell them will you, or come join the dark side mate.

 

So they are claiming there is a 1:1 ratio in emissions and CO2 levels then release a chart that shows the exact opposite?
By the way I don't know they are claiming a 1:1 correlation in those two figures, I am just going on your word.
But if they are, then they are the stupidest organisation on the planet. Because that chart (along with yours) shows both increasing, but CO2 levels going up at a slower rate.
I cannot believe they are claiming a 1:1 correlation, i will look it up, because thats just stupid.
They know as well as I that ALL CO2 emitted wont end up in the atmosphere. Plant life eats a lot of it up, thats why we need plants. So that would be dumb,.

 

Thats all very well and good mate but I am only interested in a scientific explanation as to why the increased output of CO2 into a closed system does not increase the rate at which CO2 rises, over a time period of 13 years and counting.

Can you point me to a paper that supports that assertion.

I prefer to use this as a learning curve also y'know. Its an interesting subject you should read up on it some time

 

I've not even got into the fact yet that there has been no global warming in 18 years #denial

Post the cited literature when you are ready, I'll gladly have a look at it. I may learn something new