In article ,
Phil Hays wrote:

Steve Schulin wrote:

Even a small
change in that expected value could have a big effect on narrowing down
the uncertainty in atmospheric lifetime value assigned to CO2. The
alarmists typically refer to a century or more. I've seen the data fit
to a 67-year value. IPCC presents an even wider possible range.

Bogus assumption/no sign of learning. There is no single lifetime of
CO2 in the atmosphere, as the IPCC points out. ...

Well, if you can imagine a global mean temperature, surely you can
understand the difference between atmospheric lifetime value closer to
50 years than to 200 years (as presented in he SAR), or between
atmospheric lifetime value closer to 5 years than to 200 years. (as
presented in the TAR).

... There are many
processes that remove CO2 from the air, into many different carbon
stores, and most of these processes are reversable.

Very true.

But then we didn't think that Steve was here to learn. He seems to be
here to present bogus assumptions, bad logic, misleading distractions
and astrology.

Well I'm sorry if Phil has been misled. I've tried to help him
understand so much. I am glad that he doesn't seem to give any credence
to the most alarmist claims, like the WHO claim that global warming is
already killing 160,000 people each year.

Joy to the world, at Christmas and throughout the year,

Very truly,

Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com