Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

The chart is a result of plotted data over scales it is not a correlation. It is fact. The temp and temp rise rate is fact, the co2 rate and Co2 rate of increase is fact. Emission rates and amouts are fact

They are as per AGW interdependent on each other as part of the same system, correlation has nothing to do with it, in fact that is just more evidence you are struggling to understand this mate.

 

Its not a closed system though.
There are elements in the environment that feed on CO2 that account for the difference between emissions and CO2 levels.

Let me ask you anyway, because scientific data aside, I am interested in this conspiracy you are going on about.
Whats the end game? If its a scam, who is profiting? This isn't an accusation, I am genuinely interested in the details regarding your theory.

 

It's a closed mathematical model used by the IPCC to determine Co2 rates of increase over centuries

What are you talking about? We are talking the claims made by the global warming alarmists after all.

You saying that emissions will not increase Co2 increase rates would see you expelled if you dared say that in a climate summit,

You truly do not know what you sre saying and wont accept that which is why I asked for a paper to cite because if there is some science then fine if not.. I don't care for opinions mate.

if you are going to claim all that CO2 does not go into the atmosphere because if it did, the Co2 rise rate increases, which is just simple fact, saying it doesn't is a pretty extraordinary claim, you need extraordinary evidence

 

No mate,

Emissions happen, some of the CO2 is eaten up by vegetation, the rest ends up in the atmosphere, this is called the Airborne Fraction. The fraction of the readable CO2 emitted that ends up residing in the atmosphere (ie it is airborne).
Everyone knows this, so I am not sure where you are getting your information from.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_fraction

 

Airborn fraction represents the proportion of human emitted CO2 that remains in the atmosphere.

The timecales in airborn fraction are like 30 years half life for CO2 meaning you need to air 30 years for half of it to leave the atmosphere. What you are suggesting earlier requires immediate mitigation of CO2, 66% of it in fact. Not 30 years after it is in the air and measurable.

CO2 must go into the atmosphere first, this deals with atmospheric CO2 content vs emissions not the rate at which CO2 increase rises and the fluctuations of said increases relative to emissions.

Also, "However, other sources suggest" is not anything other than suggesting

Look harder

 

Meanwhile I will have a gander at this paper, it was in hte sources of that wiki link
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/47/18866.full.pdf

 

The half life of CO2 is 7 years as far as i understand not 30

 

@Bodanki

neither this paper nor that wiiki explain why CO2 emissions and CO2 growth rate were in tandem from the 70s 80s and 90s at ,04ppmv/yr(2) per .08 GT emissions a year then emissions just went way up and Co2 was like Meh, I'm going this way. Prior to that CO2 and emissions were in perfect step. Like CO2 and temp were in step for about 28 years up to 1998 and have since diverged completely

The IPCC and AGW relied heavily on the early rise of 0.04ppmv/yr per .08GT/yr. It's why their forecasts are all dooma nd gloom, and high estimates are almost 100% off.

The paper also breaks down what they "suggest" are the sources of atmospheric CO2 anthropogenic and natural, clever wording in there, they are basing suggestions on suggestions in other papers too as well as theoretical models which are not measurements. Note the uncertainties involved at the bottom also.

CO2 not doing what emissions are doing..
This "suggests".. seeing as scientists can use it, so can I, this suggests that emissions are not the driver for atmospheric CO2 levels.

We also have temperature not doing what CO2 is going, so this is all falling apart for the IPCC.

 

Mate, I really want to end this.
So I will end with 2 comments.
1) You stated that CO2 levels hadn't gone up AT ALL, then posted 2 charts that contradicted that.
Maybe you meant that CO2 levels hadn't increased in line with emissions, if so I will give you that

2) You then stated that the IPCC claim that all emissions end up staying in the atmosphere and that if I claimed any different I would be laughed out of a climate summit. To which I provided evidence that at least half of all CO2 emitted is reabsorbed back into the environment, so you got that wrong at least.

I don't really want to go any further, mainly because I have reached the limit of my expertise on the subject, but I will independantly research further into it and see if there is any merit in your assertions, because nothing I have read suggests there is.
Also I realised I am having this discussion with someone who doesnt think the World Trade Centre was hit by planes.....so I think I am fighting a losing battle regardless .

You have made me look into this further at least....so I will.

 

Also I realised that I stirred the hornets nest to begin with, with my comment on your sig.
Sorry about that.

 

"1) You stated that CO2 levels hadn't gone up AT ALL, then posted 2 charts that contradicted that."

WRONGGGGG. I said "the rate of increase did not increase with the rising rate of emissions". Total misrepresentation there. As it is a fact which just proves yet again we are not even talking about the same thing, you just admit that you don't know anything about this OK? Just admit you are a believer and saving the planet fits your liberal outlook?

FFS I provided a plot of CO2 going up



2) You then stated that the IPCC claim that all emissions end up staying in the atmosphere and that if I claimed any different I would be laughed out of a climate summit. To which I provided evidence that at least half of all CO2 emitted is reabsorbed back into the environment, so you got that wrong at least.

No I did not say that I said "If you claimed that 2\3rds of CO2 emissions don't go into the atmosphere you would be evicted from a climate summit"
So did I get it wrong?

So not only do you not understand this enough to actually debate it, you don't even know what I am saying in my posts.

This puts into context your assessment of my sig. I don't do beliefs mate, take your climate change snake oil elsewhere

 

You started this with your condemnation and slating of my character over my sig

Should have kept your trap shut

 

If nothing else, that I do agree with

 

You mixed in rocket science at one point!

Telling me a bigger rocket needs more fuel than a smaller rocket.

Yet fail to understand why, you keep quoting some source you believe in.

Then head to China, see the CO2 they produce, Europe is the leader in CO2 reduction while other areas of the world put their fingers in their ears and sing "la-la-la"

Your graph is all I need to know about your knowledge of this

 

That's your problem, it's not a closed system, Bodanki and others are trying to point this out to you, even your own graphs show this.
Global warming is bullshit and alarmist, it's a way to try and govern the limited resources we have (as well as being used as a money making machine) but is being picked apart . Nobody but you has said there is 100% correlation between emissions output and CO2 in the atmosphere (even the IPCC graphs you posted don't claim this) so you are raging for the wrong reasons.
Blame the IPCC and governments for mis-information by all means, but don't put people down for pointing out the odd fails in your argument.

 

At what height?

 

please log in to view this image

 

lol is that Stephen Fry?
Who's the other guy?

 

8"