"Last Post" wrote in message
...
On Jan 2, 2:11 pm, JohnM wrote:
On Jan 2, 7:58 pm, "
wrote:
On Jan 2, 12:48 pm, Rav1ng rabbit wrote:
Realist wrote:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1230184221.htm

The GRL article of Knorr et al is fairly easy to read. It says that
about 40% of the emitted CO2 since the start of the industrial
revolution stays in the atmosphere (the so called airborne fraction or
AF), and that the remaining 60% is taken up by land use and the oceans.

• Right off the start, that is a total no starter.

In the conclusions they say:

From what we understand about the underlying
processes, uptake of atmospheric CO2 should react not to a
change in emissions, but to a change in concentrations. A
further analysis of the likely contributing processes is necessary
in order to establish the reasons for a near-constant AF
since the start of industrialization. The hypothesis of a recent
or secular trend in the AF cannot be supported on the basis of
the available data and its accuracy.

• Nonsense begets more nonsense

Here's the abstract. It shows that the increase in the airborne
fraction is not statistically significant. ...

• That was quoted above and is nonsense

"Several recent studies have highlighted the possibility that the
oceans and terrestrial ecosystems have started loosing part of their
ability to sequester a large proportion of the anthropogenic CO2
emissions.

• ROTFLMAO:— That is nonsense. On one
hand alarmists are complaining that there is
too much CO2 in the oceans (acidity). Now
they fear "loosing [sic] part of their ability to
sequester a large proportion of the
anthropogenic CO2 emissions".

• 96.5% of all of the anthropogenic CO2 is
immediately absorbed in the photosynthetic
process, the balance goes into the waters..

This is an important claim, because so far only about 40%
of those emissions have stayed in the atmosphere, which has prevented
additional climate change.

• If there is only 350, 380 or 400 ppm in the
atmosphere that is hardly one days collection
and that will not be there more than a few days.
Photosynthesis converts around
100,000,000,000 tonnes of CO2 into biomass
per year.

This study re-examines the available
atmospheric CO2 and emissions data including their uncertainties.

• Your "atmospheric CO2 and emissions data"
has all been adjusted to to provide only
warming. However the original data from
1820 and it shows 333 ppm average to 1950.
So your increment a mere 45 ppm in 60
years (0.75%)


• The AGW alarmist pack presume to be able
control a climate on a planet, spun off from
the Sun and still in the solar system and in
the Sun's control.
So I ask them and you 3 questions:

1- Can you make the wind to blow?
2- Can you make the rain to fall?
3- Can you stop a hurricane?

• If the answer to these are no then get the hell
out of town before the lynch mob comes.

• BTW In 1947 or 8 there was a great
experiment where they sent a B29 bomber up
with several tonnes of CO2 pellets to seed the
clouds and nothing happened

— —
| In real science the burden of proof is always
| on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
| neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
| iota of valid data for global warming nor have
| they provided data that climate change is being
| effected by commerce and industry, and not by
| natural phenomena