On 18/08/2010 17:29, Giga2 wrote:
On 18 Aug, 11:48, wrote:
On Aug 18, 10:21 wrote:

Strange isn't it. Co2 just keeps plodding along, at the same old rate,
regardless of the worldwide boom in fossil fuel use!- Hide quoted text -

And also completely untrue. Not even Monckton would try to pass that off
as fact. He specialises in presenting plausible denialist lies.

- Show quoted text -

So do temperatures; upwards, of course, just like CO2. There can't be
any link between those two though can there? Not at all according to
you deniers. No chance; can never be. Won't have it. Don't talk about
CO2 because it cannot be playing any part in that temperature rise. At
all.

Stupid. Utterly stupid, to completely deny there could* even be any
link, despite the avalanche of CO2-link science you sit under in the
stupid seats.

Since the 1960s China, India, Brazil plus many others all
industrialise. Any increase in the rate of co2 accumulation in the
atmosphere? Nah! Very strange! Co2 from ff goes up 1800% and co2 in
the atmosphere just keeps going up at the same old rate. Weird!

Actually it doesn't - the rate is increasing. CO2 in the atmosphere is
now going up by about 10ppm in 5 years as opposed to 10ppm in 12 years
back in the 1960s. That is a more than doubling of the rate of change.

http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/graphics_...outh_pole.html

But then you would not let mere scientific data get in the way of your
rhetorical dogma.

If CO2 emissions had remained at 1960's levels then we would expect to
see around 350ppm CO2 in the atmosphere now. Conversely we can predict
that at the present burn rate we will reach 400ppm at the Antarctic
station in around 8 years time. It could be reached sooner than that if
the oceans surface waters saturate with CO2 and stop acting as a buffer.

Don't take my word for it look at the graphs from Scripps - easier to
see it on the red S polar trace which doesn't have so much annual
variation. Place a ruler at a tangent at 1960 or 2010 and the curve is
quite obvious to anyone not wearing ideological blinkers.

You can even see inflections on the curve when there is a serious global
recession like in the early 90's.

Regards,
Martin Brown

On 19 Aug, 12:46, Martin Brown
wrote:
On 18/08/2010 17:29,Giga2wrote:

On 18 Aug, 11:48, *wrote:
On Aug 18, 10:21 *wrote:

Strange isn't it. Co2 just keeps plodding along, at the same old rate,
regardless of the worldwide boom in fossil fuel use!- Hide quoted text -

And also completely untrue. Not even Monckton would try to pass that off
as fact. He specialises in presenting plausible denialist lies.





- Show quoted text -

So do temperatures; upwards, of course, just like CO2. There can't be
any link between those two though can there? Not at all according to
you deniers. No chance; can never be. Won't have it. Don't talk about
CO2 because it cannot be playing any part in that temperature rise. At
all.

Stupid. Utterly stupid, to completely deny there could* even be any
link, despite the avalanche of CO2-link science you sit under in the
stupid seats.

Since the 1960s China, India, Brazil plus many others all
industrialise. Any increase in the rate of co2 accumulation in the
atmosphere? Nah! Very strange! Co2 from ff goes up 1800% and co2 in
the atmosphere just keeps going up at the same old rate. Weird!

Actually it doesn't - the rate is increasing. CO2 in the atmosphere is
now going up by about 10ppm in 5 years as opposed to 10ppm in 12 years
back in the 1960s. That is a more than doubling of the rate of change.

http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/graphics_...nd_south_pole/...


That is strange you would so misrepresent that data. 1990, on the very
graph you linked, 350ppm, 2000ad, its about 360. 1970ad, 323ppm,
1980ad, 333ppm. Both periods of 10ppm in 10 years. We can all pick
data points huh!? Anyway what anyone can see is its gone up and pretty
much the same steady rate since 1960.


But then you would not let mere scientific data get in the way of your
rhetorical dogma.


Wow! That does really sound like projection from my pov.


If CO2 emissions had remained at 1960's levels then we would expect to
see around 350ppm CO2 in the atmosphere now.

So you pick a particular slow year. Do you really think people don't
notice such simple tricks? I know it is almost impossible to make any
defense of this AGW nonsense, but surely you can come up with
*something* better than this. haha.


Conversely we can predict
that at the present burn rate we will reach 400ppm at the Antarctic
station in around 8 years time. It could be reached sooner than that if
the oceans surface waters saturate with CO2 and stop acting as a buffer.


Oh y gosh. All the oceans full of co2. If, if...if this was a parallel
universe perhaps. lol


Don't take my word for it look at the graphs from Scripps - easier to
see it on the red S polar trace which doesn't have so much annual
variation.

Thats what I did,

Place a ruler at a tangent at 1960 or 2010 and the curve is
quite obvious to anyone not wearing ideological blinkers.

There is a slight upwards curve of course. That slight deviation from
the trend is probably the fossil fuel element. The rest is most
probably IMHO the stuff we have done to the oceans.



You can even see inflections on the curve when there is a serious global
recession like in the early 90's.

Tiny little blips, not change in the underlying trend. What does that
actually tell you (clue see above)?