Comments on: Global politics is being influenced by the climate fawners

By: Joanne Nova

Joanne Nova — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 07:35:26 +0000

Guys, a big thank you goes out to Steve from http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/.

The star – he’s finally managed to get me that PREVIEW button on comments that we’ve been waiting for! I’m so pleased, I’ll announce it again on a newer thread too… (there are quite a few threads busy today.)

Cheers Joanne

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Matt Buckels

Matt Buckels — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 14:45:32 +0000

Brian just saw your 141 sorry I missed action on this thread. HOnestly no time to answer now, but will get to it:)

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Adam Soereg

Adam Soereg — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 14:18:05 +0000

The second main problem is that the annual amount of increase in atmospheric CO2 tends to lag the global temperature anomalies by 6 to 8 months. Larger temperature anomalies can be associated with larger increases in “carbon” and vice versa. Surprisingly, it now takes approx. +0,15c global temperature anomaly more to achieve the same level of CO2 rise/year as it did in 1979. With the human emissions rising rapidly in the time interval 1979-2008, one could imagine that it would be the other way around, that CO2 rises came with still smaller temperature rises needed. But no, its becoming “harder and harder” to make CO2 rise in the atmosphere.

See this graph for further details (comparing CO2 data from MLO and UAH MSU TLT temp. anomalies): http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/lansner2.png

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Adam Soereg

Adam Soereg — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 14:16:07 +0000

Joanne:

Steketee stated the following: “..emissions are rising faster than generally predicted”

It is true. Antropogenic CO2 emissions are rising faster than predicted, mainly because of the rapid economic growth in China and India. The main problem is with the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. While global anthropogenic CO2 emissions almost tripled since 1970, the annual amount of increase in CO2 levels remained almost steady. The more carbon we emit, the more will be removed by something from the atmosphere.

This means only one thing: Steketee doesn’t understand even the basic numbers and facts in the topic of climate change.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Brian G Valentine

Brian G Valentine — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 12:24:05 +0000

Thanks, Brendan, iawuufh iifh sigvtr5f4b ijsfvgtr54b fn jkzbx kwbd nb kkndjcb hzbjl.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Brendan H

Brendan H — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 07:25:43 +0000

Brian: “the stratosphere is the stratosphere bec of the lack of vertical motion”

Are you sure? I seem to remember Superman flying up through the atmosphere with the greatest of ease.

“But greenhouse cooling of the stratosphere would be accompanied by convection in the vertical direction. HAH. Do you see why?

Because Superman is hot?

“Brendon I apologise for not welcoming your contributions before because now you have me thinking”

Think nothing of it, Brian. If I can help an old codger stave off alzheimers, I’m happy. Just remember to add my name to the peer-reviewed paper. That’s “Brendan” with an “a”.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Brian G Valentine

Brian G Valentine — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 23:46:32 +0000

The second catabolic should be anabolic, obviously,

just like you, when you want to build up your muscle and stored glycogen, the harder you have to excercise

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Gary Radke

Gary Radke — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 23:16:28 +0000

Brian Valentine

…”therefore there must be a catabolic phase of their metabolism, this accelerates more rapidly than the catabolic phase, “…

Is this really what you meant to say?

Just trying to understand.

Gary

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Brian G Valentine

Brian G Valentine — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:35:00 +0000

Green plants have to live, therefore there must be a catabolic phase of their metabolism, this accelerates more rapidly than the catabolic phase, the steepness of the gradient of CO2 conc in the ice cores would suggest the total amount of thriving biomass

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: co2isnotevil

co2isnotevil — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 16:54:22 +0000

Brian,

There also seems to be a general consensus (whatever that means) that the net primary production is over 100 G tonne (1E14 kg) of Carbon,
This is the *NET* and CO2 weighs more than 3 times carbon, so at a minimum, 300 G tonne of CO2 is converted into biomass every year. The total CO2 in the atmosphere is 3000 G tonne. Some of the glucose in plants is respired (converted back to CO2 and H2O) and this is specifically excluded in the net production values, which are derived from satellite measured changes in biomass. Even if this was 0, 10% of all CO2 in the atmosphere is consumed by plant life over the course of a year.

Don’t the AGW proponents know this and/or how to they hand wave around it? It seems unambiguously clear that based on the ratio of the CO2 flux to the steady state CO2 levels, that biomass is limited by CO2 and that the CO2 levels in the ice cores can be nothing other than an indication of the total global biomass.

George

Like or Dislike: 0 0