Posted by: graemebird | September 14, 2008

CO2-Levels CAN Drop Precipitously And Will Drop Soon.

Check out this graph of the way CO2 increases and

reduces again on a yearly basis. Look how it is that

CO2 levels can drop precipitously on a YEARLY basis.

Think of what that means? The earth moves closer to

the sun and then further away from the sun since its

orbit is eliptical. Now our hydrocarbon industries are

working all year long. So as much CO2 as we put in

 the air it is simply powerless to stop this yearly drop.

This yearly cycle is very familiar.

Imbedded energy in the ocean peaks and troughs yearly.

The sea level peaks and troughs yearly.

The average air temperature peaks and troughs

yearly also.

 And all of this driven by the eliptical orbit.

If the story we are getting in the general media

 was true we wouldn’t see a shape like this.

We might see CO2 levels increasing

and then going into plateau….. WITHOUT ANY DROP.

We might see CO2 growing slowly

and then growing quickly on a yearly basis.

What this means is two things.

Human CO2 output is small in relation to what nature

can do. Man is impotent to stop any yearly drop in CO2.

It also means that we will be very hard put to keep

CO2 levels up to EVEN THEIR CURRENT LEVELS

during the Landscheidt minimum.

I’d be happy if someone can fault me

on my logic here.

I was hoping for a carbon-enriched atmosphere

that would help us through the cold times.

The logic of it all implies that  CO2 will soon plateau

and then drop.

In the end we will see all these metrics plateau

and then drop but not all at the same time.

Irradiance from the sun peaked, I believe ,

in about 2001.

Imbedded oceanic energy as measured

by the Argos floats peaked late 2003 I think. 

If you take out 1998 because of El Nino

we might think of air temperature peaking at 2005. 

Sea level may have peaked already

as the yearly sea level peaks for 2006 and 2007

were about the same.

CO2-levels are still on an upward level of growth

 but that won’t last.

CO2-levels should, by my logic, peak

somewhere in the mid-teens one would think.

 Which is a very sad outcome.

CO2-levels clearly CAN drop precipitously.

Hopefully our hydrocarbon industry will make the drop

 gradual and non-catastrophic.

We ought to expand these industries as best we can.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:2006

Advertisements

Responses

  1. what’s with the weird spacing?

    is this some kinda poem?

  2. No what happened is that on my Safari browser I couldn’t read it all. So what I had to do is break up the lines so I could fit it in.

    I seem to have a lot of computer problems. Don’t have the patience to learn how to use them properly.

    Have you seen that Beck study about CO2 levels in the past? Radically different from what we’ve been told and very important. But the alarmists simply Lamberted it out of the air. I myself had thought there was a taint involved with it and so I read it and there didn’t seem to be anything wrong with it.

    So he would be the first to predict an actual drop in CO2-levels coming up. I wanted to try and come in second.

  3. Here’s Becks’ study:

    http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/180_years_accurate_Co2_Chemical_Methods.pdf

  4. and here is why it’s wrong
    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_measurements.html

  5. I know even before I go there that there will be nothing in your link that isn’t just Lamberting and circular reasoning.

    We went through it at Dr Marohasy’s place and the dumb-leftists just had nothing. We had a bunch of pseudo-arguments but we boiled it down to it being a bit odd that CO2 levels had been on a pretty stable upward march since the late 50’s and that was it.

    But in any case anytime some lefty just says, Ho ho we’ve dealt with it…… or…… and here is why it is wrong…. and then makes a link without explaining the basic argument in his own words….

    … Anytime someone does what you are doing we find out its a PARROT-AND-TRUST from the leftists point of view…. and a WILD GOOSE CHASE from the climate rationalists point of view.

    Try again. This time make the argument in your own words. I’m going to have to say YOU ARE LYING.

    YES YOU ARE LYING BY IMPLICATION I can say with near total confidence. Since your implication is that within this link there is a refutation of Becks study that you yourself understand.

    This is a flat out lie. If it wasn’t how was it the leftists on Marohasy’s blog had nothing?

    So yes indeed you have been busted lying.

    But if you don’t think so go again. This time in your own words.

  6. OK so far after reading a lot of stuff I find nothing that is in contradiction to the very careful Beck. A lot of good stuff. But nothing in contradiction with Beck. So he’s pulling a fast one here.

    Next I get this far:

    “5.1. The mass balance
    The amount of CO2 emitted by humans nowadays is about 7 GtC/yr (CO2 counted as carbon). The increase in the atmosphere is about 4 GtC/yr. That implies that there is little to no increase in the atmosphere due to other causes, or the amount in the atmosphere in the case of a natural unbalance should be higher than the emissions, not lower. To show this for the past near 50 years [11]:”

    This simply does not follow at all. So after establishing his authentic knowledge and credentials with stuff that is not material to his argument he pulls a fast one with something that is wrong and which he will likely base his non-argument on. Lets look at it again:

    “5.1. The mass balance
    The amount of CO2 emitted by humans nowadays is about 7 GtC/yr (CO2 counted as carbon). The increase in the atmosphere is about 4 GtC/yr. That implies that there is little to no increase in the atmosphere due to other causes, or the amount in the atmosphere in the case of a natural unbalance should be higher than the emissions, not lower. To show this for the past near 50 years [11]:”

    Get it. So he’s saying that we produce 7 gigatonnes a year. And the CO2 in the air only changes at a rate that would imply 4 gigatonnes per year. This is silly-talk. And this is where you might have been taken in.

    Now supposing it is all up to nature. And we are warming so that the oceans and volcanice activity will expel 2 gigatonnes NET per year. You have all sorts of gross figures going into that. You have ccarbon rain still going on. You have the ocean absorbing CO2 in some places at some times, expelling CO2 in other places at other times. The net figure does not show it all. But if it is a stable net figure it is only because of the highly HOMEOSTATIC nature of the system.

    “5.1. The mass balance
    The amount of CO2 emitted by humans nowadays is about 7 GtC/yr (CO2 counted as carbon). The increase in the atmosphere is about 4 GtC/yr. That implies that there is little to no increase in the atmosphere due to other causes, or the amount in the atmosphere in the case of a natural unbalance should be higher than the emissions, not lower. To show this for the past near 50 years [11]:”

    So we imagined the hypothetical where huge gross figures in a highly homeostatic system lead to a net figure that averaged out over several years was a stable increase of an implied 2 gigatonnes per year.

    THIS DOES NOT IMPLY THAT OUR ADDING 7 GIGATONNES LEADS TO A 9-GIG PER YEAR BUILDUP.

    Not at all. Most of that 7 Gigs is going to be swallowed by the massive homeostatic systems. Whose apparent stability and small net buildup hides simply massive gross figures that will make short work of our 7 gigs.

    If his argument does indeed rest on that smuggle his argument is finished right there and then.

  7. OH FOR CRYING OUT LOUD. His logic just gets more appalling as he goes. He is no doubt a specialist. And I’m not saying that he does not know his stuff. But we have a big problem with logic-deficiency-disorder with the younger science-workers.

    So he’s already explained how CO2 levels change on an hourly basis. They vary from site to site. Its only the aggregated level that looks small and stable. But the gross levels are simply huge. So he’s already shown us this. Shown us that he knows the facts. That he knows his stuff. But look at the appalling logic:

    “The natural seasonal exchange between vegetation and oceans at one side and the atmosphere at the other side is estimated at about 150 GtC/yr.”

    Right. Simply dwarfing anything that humans can do. THE GROSS NATURAL EXCHANGE SIMPLY DWARFS US. But the gross natural exhange is made up of powerful exchanges locally where huge amounts of CO2 can be expelled and sucked in at any time. and differently and different places. We know this because he has shown that CO2 levels can change in one location quite dramatically ON AN HOURLY BASIS.

    Hence BY HIS OWN TESTIMONY the hugeness of what is going on in nature is just astonishing. And we must conclude that even the 150 gigs IS A HIGHLY NETTED FIGURE.

    But just wait for it. Just wait for the unreason. Here it comes. Just ready yourself for the illogic. Get ready for the massive display of the science worker logic deficity…

    “……But that is not of interest for what the change is over a year…..”

    BUT THAT IS NOT OF INTEREST FOR WHAT THE CHANGE IS OVER A YEAR HE RECKONS….

    Well I hope everyone can see that he’s lost the plot.

    If your gross figures are tremendous, in a highly homeostatic system, their output will tend towards the standardized net figure if we add our puny contribution to that gross. So the gross figures are HIGHLY IMPORTANT. And even the official figure of 150 gigs looks like a highly aggregated and netted figure when it comes down to it.

    “……as most of the natural releases are absorbed within the same year.The difference after a year is not more than +/- 2.5 GtC, mainly caused by temperature changes (El Niño, Pinatubo eruption). Thus the natural variations over a year are smaller than the emissions.”

    The netted netted netted netted buildup is smaller than the emissions. But we are adding our tiny contribution to some gargantuan GROSS FIGURE. Not to any netted figure.

    “No matter how high the natural seasonal turnover might be, in all years over the previous near 50 years, the natural CO2 sinks were larger than the natural CO2 sources… ”

    Right. But since we were warming we would have expected the SOURCES TO BE LARGER THAN THE SINKS. So we know from this that nature just took our input, gobbled it up and went forth without so much as breaking its stride.

    “Thus it is impossible that natural sources were responsible for (a substantial part of) the increase of CO2 in the past 50 years. ”

    Totally idiotic conclusion. Just fucking laughable or a disgrace depending what mood you are in.

  8. You’ve read through all that and checked all the peer reviewed literature have you?

  9. Boy George was underated.

    The movie “the crying game” was OVERATED AT THE TIME and has since dropped into obscurity. For a movie to be overated is not the same as saying it was a bad movie. For example the movie contained many terrific acting performances. But this idea that a straight man would wind up going with a transvestite like that????

    Well that was basically an assault on the audience with no redeeming meaning for the work. And its the reason why the movie was over-rated at the time, but audience-abuse aside is now not thought about that often. It would have been a 7 out of 10 on strict marking. The abuse put it two points up because of political correctness. Now no-one wants to watch it lest popcorn gets turned to vomit and coca-cola is spilled all over the floor.

    But all is well that ends well.

    And Steve Munn has taken the great and under-rated talent of Boy George and breathed new life into the lyrics that sprung from Boy Georges artistry.

    “melaleuca Says:
    September 3rd, 2008 at 9:52 pm
    I know all there is to know about the lying game
    I’ve had my fill of the tax-eaters and their lying game

    First there was that Keynesian fraud, then we got stagflation
    And before I new what was happening, the tax-eaters controlled the nation

    One day soon I’m gonna tell the League of Rights about the lying game
    And if the old farts don’t get it straight away, I’m gonna give ‘em pain

    Dont want no more of the lying game
    Dont want no more of the lying game
    Dont want no more of the lying game
    Dont want no more of the lying game”

    Remember that Boy George song about wishing-wells? As gay as him singing it is, it counts in my register of 3.00am fucked-up tunes.

    People who use music merely as a reinforcement of self-image are missing out on a whole new dimension of artisitic appreciation.

    Go and YouTube the tune now. Go on. Do it right now. Or have a couple of shots, psyche yourself up to not be offended by the gayness of i t. And go and YouTube Boy George.

    But I can never reccomend the crying game movie to you. I really really hate climate alarmists. But not that much.

  10. Listen Steve. Really truly?

    Isn’t it about time you left these marxists behind and came over to the bright side of the road?

    Or has Dr Jekyl not found the formula to restrain Mr Hyde?

    Seriously Steve. Its about time you came over.

    All could well be forgiven.

  11. Finally. Here is the one we were after:

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3165090891776977167&ei=CBHOSNzAJJrUqAPXqdmyAg&q=Kung+Fu+Fighting&vt=lf

    But seriously. Here is a performance I saw of his for the first time in Fortitude Valley. Boy George was playing on the stage of this Chinese Cinema. It changed my life. My life will never be the same:


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: