The CO2 Lie

Editorial
Investors Business Daily
Tuesday, January 5, 2010

Climate Change: A new study shows that Earth's ability to absorb
carbon dioxide from all sources, including man, has remained
unchanged for 160 years. As it turns out, there may be no carbon to
offset.

A major tenet of the global warming religion, straight from the Book
of Gore, has been that the ability of the earth to handle increasing
CO2 emissions is finite and that once the "tipping point" is reached,
the earth will warm uncontrollably. Well, another climate domino has
fallen -- the myth that man-made CO2 is leading to climate
catastrophe.

This "settled science" has been upended by an unsettling (for warm-
mongers) new study out of the University of Bristol in England.
Unlike the Climate-gate charlatans at the Climate Research Unit at
the University of East Anglia, Wolfgang Knorr of Bristol's Earth
Sciences Department followed the data where it led instead of trying
to manipulate it to "hide the decline" in global temperatures the
earth has experienced in the last decade.

The new study, published in the online journal Geophysical Research
Letters, does not deny that increasing amounts of CO2 have been
generated as the world has industrialized, eradicated disease,
produced agricultural abundance and improved man's standard of
living. It does show that only 45% of man's emissions, not 100% as
warmers claim, stays in the atmosphere, and that includes the carbon
emissions of the private jets that flew to Copenhagen last month and
the limos that drove the occupants around.

The rest is absorbed by nature, and that percentage hasn't changed
since 1850. Knorr arrived at that figure by relying solely on
measurements and statistical data, including historical records
extracted from Antarctic ice. He did not rely, as the CRU did, on
badly written computer models with built-in fudge factors to direct
the data to a foregone conclusion.

Another result of this study, reports Anthony Watts at
WattsUpWithThat.com, is that emissions from deforestation, caused in
large part by the clearing of forest land to grow allegedly planet-
saving biofuels, may have been grossly overestimated. This finding
agrees with results published in November in the journal Nature
Geoscience by a team led by Guido van der Werf from VU University in
Amsterdam. It reanalyzed deforestation data and concluded that
resulting emissions have been overestimated by a factor of two.

We have tried to help document this growing disparity between
observable data and apocalyptic computer models that cannot even
predict the past. This post-Climate-gate study provides another nail
in the coffin of cap-and-trade and shows why the Environmental
Protection Agency should not be allowed to destroy the U.S. economy
by absurdly regulating carbon dioxide, the basis for all life on
earth, as a pollutant.

Reputable scientists have concluded that earth's climate is the
result of an infinite number of variables and processes that are not
completely understood. There are more things in heaven and on earth
than are dreamed of in their computer models. Cyclical ocean
currents, solar cycles, even cosmic rays have been documented as
affecting earth's atmosphere and weather.

As Weather Channel founder and eminent meteorologist John Coleman
notes, "The sun has gone quiet with fewer and fewer sun spots, and
the global temperatures have gone into decline. Earth has cooled for
almost 10 straight years. So, I ask Al Gore, where's the global
warming?" More and more Americans are asking the same question as the
earth is under an Arctic siege.

Temperatures in Iowa are 30 degrees below normal. In South
Burlington, Vt., 33 inches of snow fell -- an all-time record for a
storm. Three deaths due to cold were reported in Memphis, Tenn., as
Miami experienced the coldest temperatures in, uh, a decade.
AccuWeather.com chief meteorologist and expert forecaster Joe
Bastardi says this could be the worst winter in 25 years.

As more scientists reveal inconvenient truths, we too ask: Where's
the warming, Al Gore?

More at:
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnal...aspx?id=517128

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

A previous article:

When scientific fraud kills millions

By James Lewis
American Thinker
Saturday, January 9, 2010

Scientific fraud often ends up killing people. Joseph Stalin's
fraudulent "agronomist" Trofim Lysenko caused harvest failures when
Soviet agriculture was ordered to follow his bizarre pseudo-science.
"Scientific Marxism" killed 100,000,000 people, [1] according to
Marxist historians themselves.

The medical truth about the AIDS epidemic, that it was communicated
by anal intercourse, especially among men, was suppressed for
decades, causing thousands of more young men to die. And now it seems
that the global warming fraud, just one aspect of broader EcoFraud,
is killing people in the Third World. The proximate cause? A doubling
of food prices. Why? Because of the diversion of food crops to
biofuels.

In a letter to Australian PM Kevin Rudd, Lord Christopher Monckton
writes: [2]

"Millions are already dying of starvation in the world's poorest
nations because world food prices have doubled in two years. That
abrupt, vicious doubling was caused by a sharp drop in world food
production, caused in turn by suddenly taking millions of acres of
land out of growing food for people who need it, so as to grow
biofuels for clunkers that don't. The scientifically-illiterate,
economically-innumerate policies that you (Kevin Rudd) advocate --
however fashionable you may conceive them to be -- are killing people
by the million."

Read the whole letter. These frauds take their toll in the Third
World long before we see the effects in prosperous nations. For us
the fraud is a luxury. For them it's survival.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_book_of_communism
[2]
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/0...ng/#more-14778

More at:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/..._kills_mi.html

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the
article.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with
Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.

Since newsgroup posts are being removed
by forgery by one or more net terrorists,
this post may be reposted several times.

n0 b o wrote:
> The CO2 Lie
>
> Editorial
> Investors Business Daily
> Tuesday, January 5, 2010
>
> Climate Change: A new study shows that Earth's ability to absorb
> carbon dioxide from all sources, including man, has remained
> unchanged for 160 years. As it turns out, there may be no carbon to
> offset.
>

[snip]

Ah, here we go again...

Someone who does not understand that it is indeed bad news to hear that
the earth's atmosphere is a garbage bin for 40% of the CO2 we burn. If
you burn a ton of carbon, then 40% stays airborne for at least 160
years. This is no good news at all, and you can easily verify it.

Earlier in this newsgroup I posted:

Doing some homework in the meantime. Below is the annual averaged
Keeling curve and the estimated carbon burned. These carbon burn rates
agree roughly with what you find from economic data, see also

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gl...e_to_Y2004.png

The black line shows that we fired off roughly 2500 Megaton/yr of carbon
in 1960, and presently we do around 8000 Megaton/yr.

The conversion assumes that 40% of the burned carbon ends up in the
atmosphere so that we get to see it in the observed CO2 curve measured
at the Hawaii observatory.

year PPM CO2 Megaton Carbon/year
1960.00 316.51 2464.10
1961.00 317.11 2662.41
1962.00 318.03 2983.96
1963.00 318.81 2622.05
1964.00 319.53 1256.76
1965.00 319.53 1499.10
1966.00 320.39 4417.14
1967.00 322.05 4127.38
1968.00 322.74 3343.61
1969.00 323.95 3906.06
1970.00 324.97 3827.68
1971.00 326.14 3365.03
1972.00 326.89 4288.17
1973.00 328.59 4477.38
1974.00 329.45 3598.76
1975.00 330.64 3798.32
1976.00 331.61 3821.10
1977.00 332.82 5713.29
1978.00 334.87 5660.14
1979.00 336.05 5236.93
1980.00 337.86 5603.81
1981.00 339.25 5401.61
1982.00 340.95 3965.65
1983.00 341.51 5156.30
1984.00 343.89 6521.63
1985.00 345.23 4572.97
1986.00 346.50 4884.34
1987.00 348.02 6094.00
1988.00 349.98 7761.88
1989.00 352.45 6239.22
1990.00 353.54 4407.39
1991.00 354.97 4155.27
1992.00 355.91 2677.81
1993.00 356.49 3287.50
1994.00 357.78 5468.95
1995.00 359.62 6408.01
1996.00 361.44 5328.66
1997.00 362.66 6099.62
1998.00 364.92 8851.76
1999.00 367.71 6751.66
2000.00 368.78 4455.30
2001.00 370.25 5691.81
2002.00 372.02 7614.10
2003.00 374.60 8325.88
2004.00 376.77 6220.41
2005.00 378.15 7388.89
2006.00 380.99 7868.70
2007.00 382.64 6911.45
2008.00 384.94 6852.72

To get the third column rates I wrote a matlab script where the file
co2_mm_mlo.txt comes from

ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt

and where you replace the leading #'s by %'s to get it into the matlab
format (wish that textread was smarter).

-------------------------------------------------------------------
clear;
%
data = textread('co2_mm_mlo.txt','','commentstyle','matla b');
%figure(1); plot(data(:,3),data(:,6),'-');
%
Ma = 5.14e18; % mass of the atmosphere (see wiki)
%
n = size(data,1);
BM = 0; % burned carbon mass
i = 0;
for i=2:n,
dc = data(i,6) - data(i-1,6); % carbon change
dm = dc * Ma * 1e-6; % mass change accounting for ppm
dAF = dm / 1e9; % conversion to million tons CO2
dAF = dAF * (12/(12+16+16)) % CO2 has 12+16+16, carbon has 12
dBM = dAF / 0.4; % 40% is not absorbed
BM = BM + dBM;
i = i + 1;
x(i) = data(i,3); % date
y(i) = BM; % burned carbon mass
ppm(i) = data(i,6); % CO2 ppm
end
%
xx=1959:2009;
yy=spline(x,y,xx);
zz=spline(x,ppm,xx);
nn = size(xx,2);
k = 0;
for ii=2:nn-1,
k = k + 1;
rate(k) = (yy(ii+1) - yy(ii-1))/2;
year(k) = xx(ii);
co2(k) = zz(ii);
end
%
figure(2);
subplot(2,1,2); plot(year,rate,'o-')
xlabel('year');
ylabel('megaton / year');
title('Carbon mass burning rate');
%
subplot(2,1,1); plot(year,co2,'o-')
xlabel('year');
ylabel('ppm');
title('Keeling curve');
-------------------------------------------------------------------

It may not be according to all tight software specs, but the Keeling
curve is simply in agreement with our fossil fuel burning. This is the
true meaning behind the "CO2 airborne fraction remained constant message".

[snip]

The rest of the propaganda from the denial machine was deleted.

Q

--
The difference between us and the Titanic is the band.

"Roving rabbit" <rabb1t*dot.com> wrote in message
news:4b49ae94$0$22944$e4fe514c*news.xs4all.nl...
> n0 b o wrote:
>> The CO2 Lie
>>
>> Editorial
>> Investors Business Daily
>> Tuesday, January 5, 2010
>>
>> Climate Change: A new study shows that Earth's ability to absorb
>> carbon dioxide from all sources, including man, has remained
>> unchanged for 160 years. As it turns out, there may be no carbon to
>> offset.
>>
>
> [snip]
>
> Ah, here we go again...
>
> Someone who does not understand that it is indeed bad news to hear that
> the earth's atmosphere is a garbage bin for 40% of the CO2 we burn. If
> you burn a ton of carbon, then 40% stays airborne for at least 160
> years. This is no good news at all, and you can easily verify it.



Really?
So where did this "at leats 160 years" come from then?
Did you pluck it out of thin air?



Atmospheric CO2 Lifetime Is Only 5-10 Years According To MEASUREMENTS

Measurements Trump Models

July 7 2007



QUOTE: "Catastrophic theories of climate change depend on carbon dioxide
staying in the atmosphere for long periods of time -- otherwise, the CO2
enveloping the globe wouldn't be dense enough to keep the heat in. Until
recently, the world of science was near-unanimous that CO2 couldn't stay in
the atmosphere for more than about five to 10 years because of the oceans'
near-limitless ability to absorb CO2."





We are doomed, say climate change scientists associated with the United
Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations body
that is organizing most of the climate change research occurring in the
world today. Carbon dioxide from man-made sources rises to the atmosphere
and then stays there for 50, 100, or even 200 years. This unprecedented
buildup of CO2 then traps heat that would otherwise escape our atmosphere,
threatening us all.



"This is nonsense," says Tom V. Segalstad, head of the Geological Museum at
the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the same IPCC.
He laments the paucity of geologic knowledge among IPCC scientists -- a
knowledge that is central to understanding climate change, in his view,
since geologic processes ultimately determine the level of atmospheric CO2.



"The IPCC needs a lesson in geology to avoid making fundamental mistakes,"
he says. "Most leading geologists, throughout the world, know that the
IPCC's view of Earth processes are implausible if not impossible."



Catastrophic theories of climate change depend on carbon dioxide staying in
the atmosphere for long periods of time -- otherwise, the CO2 enveloping the
globe wouldn't be dense enough to keep the heat in. Until recently, the
world of science was near-unanimous that CO2 couldn't stay in the atmosphere
for more than about five to 10 years because of the oceans' near-limitless
ability to absorb CO2.



"This time period has been established by measurements based on natural
carbon-14 and also from readings of carbon-14 from nuclear weapons testing,
it has been established by radon-222 measurements, it has been established
by measurements of the solubility of atmospheric gases in the oceans, it has
been established by comparing the isotope mass balance, it has been
established through other mechanisms, too, and over many decades, and by
many scientists in many disciplines," says Prof. Segalstad, whose work has
often relied upon such measurements.



Then, with the advent of IPCC-influenced science, the length of time that
carbon stays in the atmosphere became controversial. Climate change
scientists began creating carbon cycle models to explain what they thought
must be an excess of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. These computer models
calculated a long life for carbon dioxide.



Amazingly, the hypothetical results from climate models have trumped the
real world measurements of carbon dioxide's longevity in the atmosphere.
Those who claim that CO2 lasts decades or centuries have no such
measurements or other physical evidence to support their claims.



Neither can they demonstrate that the various forms of measurement are
erroneous.



"They don't even try," says Prof. Segalstad. "They simply dismiss evidence
that is, for all intents and purposes, irrefutable. Instead, they substitute
their faith, constructing a kind of science fiction or fantasy world in the
process."



In the real world, as measurable by science, CO2 in the atmosphere and in
the ocean reach a stable balance when the oceans contain 50 times as much
CO2 as the atmosphere. "The IPCC postulates an atmospheric doubling of CO2,
meaning that the oceans would need to receive 50 times more CO2 to obtain
chemical equilibrium," explains Prof. Segalstad. "This total of 51 times the
present amount of carbon in atmospheric CO2 exceeds the known reserves of
fossil carbon-- it represents more carbon than exists in all the coal, gas,
and oil that we can exploit anywhere in the world."



Also in the real world, Prof. Segalstad's isotope mass balance
calculations -- a standard technique in science -- show that if CO2 in the
atmosphere had a lifetime of 50 to 200 years, as claimed by IPCC scientists,
the atmosphere would necessarily have half of its current CO2 mass. Because
this is a nonsensical outcome, the IPCC model postulates that half of the
CO2 must be hiding somewhere, in "a missing sink." Many studies have sought
this missing sink -- a Holy Grail of climate science research-- without
success.



"It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2
lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that
an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere,"
Prof. Segalstad concludes.



"It is all a fiction."



Prof. Tom V. Segalstad is head of the Geological Museum within the Natural
History Museum of the University of Oslo. Formerly, he was head of the
Mineralogical-Geologic-al Museum at the University of Oslo, director of the
Natural History Museums and Botanical Garden of the University of Oslo, and
program chairman for mineralogy/petrology/ geochemistry at the University of
Oslo. His research projects include geological mapping in Norway, Svalbard
(Arctic), Sweden and Iceland, and have involved geochemistry, volcanology,
metallogenesis (how mineral and ore deposits form) and magmatic petrogenesis
(how magmatic rocks form). He was an expert reviewer to the UN's IPCC's
Third Assessment Report.



http://www.financialpost.com/story.h...b-bdef8947fa4e







Warmest Regards



Bon_0



"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
from natural variation."

Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville

On Jan 10, 5:41Â*am, Roving rabbit <rab...*dot.com> wrote:
> Â*n0 b o wrote:
>
> > The CO2 Lie
>
> > Editorial
> > Investors Business Daily
> > Tuesday, January 5, 2010
>
> > Climate Change: A new study shows that Earth's ability to absorb
> > carbon dioxide from all sources, including man, has remained
> > unchanged for 160 years. As it turns out, there may be no carbon to
> > offset.

>
> Someone who does not understand that it is indeed bad news to hear that
> the earth's atmosphere is a garbage bin for 40% of the CO2 we burn. If
> you burn a ton of carbon, then 40% stays airborne for at least 160
> years.

• Rabbit's brain is about the size of a small walnut Roving rabbit's
is similar. Nothing above is factual and I can prove otherwise.

• Tyndall, in the lab, proved that CO2 will absorb

Â*Â* radiative energy. He also proved H2O will not.
Â* Â* Now all of the atmospheric CO2 arises from

Â* Â* warm waters embedded in H2O and carried
upward where it forms clouds. So how could
that CO2 store sunlight.

Â* Â* IR passes right through the clouds.

• When a cloud bank meets a cold front we get

Â* Â* precip, rain or snow or ..., and when the precip

Â* Â* hits the deck it becomes fertilizer.


Â* Â* Every year 100,000,000,000 tonnes of CO2 is

Â* Â* converted by photosynthesis into biomass.

Â* Â* That includes everything you eat— your coffee,

Â* Â* the sugar and cream, toast etc etc.

• The reality is that "global warming" is a myth

Â* Â* and does not exist. On the other hand

Â* Â* "Climate Change" is functioning as it has for 5

Â* Â* million years or more.

• The AGW fascists are all tied up in trying to
Â* Â* Â*prove that it exists and what might happen

Â* Â* Â*should AGW exist. Their scientists are busy

Â* Â* Â*on what-if. Their papers are full of shoulda,
woulda, maybe, might, if, etc and time frames
are flexible so they can revise them upward.

Â* Â* Â*Then they abandoned 'global warming' and 
Â*
Â* Â* to confuse the populace, adopted climate
Â* Â* change which has been working for 500
Â* Â* million years ot more

Â* Â* Â*Others are studying paleologic history and the
Â* Â* history to date. The CO2 data from 1820 is a
Â* Â* revelation, it shows how the guy that got a
Â* Â* computer model to work dropped everything 
Â*
Â* Â* from 1820 all of which was higher than today,
Â* Â* and cherry-picked only those under 250.

When you have to screw with the data then
you are in serious trouble


—Â*—
| 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

n0 b o wrote:
> "Roving rabbit" <rabb1t*dot.com> wrote in message
> news:4b49ae94$0$22944$e4fe514c*news.xs4all.nl...
>> n0 b o wrote:
>>> The CO2 Lie
>>>
>>> Editorial
>>> Investors Business Daily
>>> Tuesday, January 5, 2010
>>>
>>> Climate Change: A new study shows that Earth's ability to absorb
>>> carbon dioxide from all sources, including man, has remained
>>> unchanged for 160 years. As it turns out, there may be no carbon to
>>> offset.
>>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> Ah, here we go again...
>>
>> Someone who does not understand that it is indeed bad news to hear that
>> the earth's atmosphere is a garbage bin for 40% of the CO2 we burn. If
>> you burn a ton of carbon, then 40% stays airborne for at least 160
>> years. This is no good news at all, and you can easily verify it.
>
>
>
> Really?
> So where did this "at leats 160 years" come from then?
> Did you pluck it out of thin air?

From the GRL article recently written by Knorr.

[remaining unrelated bugger snipped]

Q

--
The difference between us and the Titanic is the band.

leonard78sp*gmail.com wrote:
> On Jan 10, 5:41 am, Roving rabbit <rab...*dot.com> wrote:
>> n0 b o wrote:
>>
>>> The CO2 Lie
>>> Editorial
>>> Investors Business Daily
>>> Tuesday, January 5, 2010
>>> Climate Change: A new study shows that Earth's ability to absorb
>>> carbon dioxide from all sources, including man, has remained
>>> unchanged for 160 years. As it turns out, there may be no carbon to
>>> offset.
>
>> Someone who does not understand that it is indeed bad news to hear that
>> the earth's atmosphere is a garbage bin for 40% of the CO2 we burn. If
>> you burn a ton of carbon, then 40% stays airborne for at least 160
>> years.
>
> • Rabbit's brain is about the size of a small walnut Roving rabbit's
> is similar. Nothing above is factual and I can prove otherwise.
>
> • Tyndall, in the lab, proved that CO2 will absorb
> 
 radiative energy. He also proved H2O will not.
> Now all of the atmospheric CO2 arises from
> 
 warm waters embedded in H2O and carried
> upward where it forms clouds. So how could
> that CO2 store sunlight.
> 
 IR passes right through the clouds.
>
> • When a cloud bank meets a cold front we get
> 
 precip, rain or snow or ..., and when the precip
> 
 hits the deck it becomes fertilizer.
>
> 
 Every year 100,000,000,000 tonnes of CO2 is
> 
 converted by photosynthesis into biomass.
> 
 That includes everything you eat— your coffee,
> 
 the sugar and cream, toast etc etc.
>
> • The reality is that "global warming" is a myth
> 
 and does not exist. On the other hand
> 
 "Climate Change" is functioning as it has for 5
> 
 million years or more.
>
> • The AGW fascists are all tied up in trying to
> prove that it exists and what might happen
> 
 should AGW exist. Their scientists are busy
> 
 on what-if. Their papers are full of shoulda,
> woulda, maybe, might, if, etc and time frames
> are flexible so they can revise them upward.
>
> Then they abandoned 'global warming' and 

> to confuse the populace, adopted climate
> change which has been working for 500
> million years ot more
>
> Others are studying paleologic history and the
> history to date. The CO2 data from 1820 is a
> revelation, it shows how the guy that got a
> computer model to work dropped everything 

> from 1820 all of which was higher than today,
> and cherry-picked only those under 250.
>
> When you have to screw with the data then
> you are in serious trouble
>
>
> — —
> | 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

Lennie's posts are a collection of lies and fabrications.

Q

--
The difference between us and the Titanic is the band.

"Roving rabbit" <rabb1t*dot.com> wrote in message
news:4b4ac21b$0$22940$e4fe514c*news.xs4all.nl...
>
> Lennie's posts are a collection of lies and fabrications.
>

Where do you wankers come from, rabbit? Global Warming Morons United!

Roving rabbit wrote:
> leonard78sp*gmail.com wrote:
>> On Jan 10, 5:41 am, Roving rabbit <rab...*dot.com> wrote:
>>> n0 b o wrote:
>>>
>>>> The CO2 Lie
>>>> Editorial
>>>> Investors Business Daily
>>>> Tuesday, January 5, 2010
>>>> Climate Change: A new study shows that Earth's ability to absorb
>>>> carbon dioxide from all sources, including man, has remained
>>>> unchanged for 160 years. As it turns out, there may be no carbon to
>>>> offset.
>>> Someone who does not understand that it is indeed bad news to hear that
>>> the earth's atmosphere is a garbage bin for 40% of the CO2 we burn. If
>>> you burn a ton of carbon, then 40% stays airborne for at least 160
>>> years.
>> • Rabbit's brain is about the size of a small walnut Roving rabbit's
>> is similar. Nothing above is factual and I can prove otherwise.
>>
>> • Tyndall, in the lab, proved that CO2 will absorb
>> 
 radiative energy. He also proved H2O will not.
>> Now all of the atmospheric CO2 arises from
>> 
 warm waters embedded in H2O and carried
>> upward where it forms clouds. So how could
>> that CO2 store sunlight.
>> 
 IR passes right through the clouds.
>>
>> • When a cloud bank meets a cold front we get
>> 
 precip, rain or snow or ..., and when the precip
>> 
 hits the deck it becomes fertilizer.
>>
>> 
 Every year 100,000,000,000 tonnes of CO2 is
>> 
 converted by photosynthesis into biomass.
>> 
 That includes everything you eat— your coffee,
>> 
 the sugar and cream, toast etc etc.
>>
>> • The reality is that "global warming" is a myth
>> 
 and does not exist. On the other hand
>> 
 "Climate Change" is functioning as it has for 5
>> 
 million years or more.
>>
>> • The AGW fascists are all tied up in trying to
>> prove that it exists and what might happen
>> 
 should AGW exist. Their scientists are busy
>> 
 on what-if. Their papers are full of shoulda,
>> woulda, maybe, might, if, etc and time frames
>> are flexible so they can revise them upward.
>>
>> Then they abandoned 'global warming' and 

>> to confuse the populace, adopted climate
>> change which has been working for 500
>> million years ot more
>>
>> Others are studying paleologic history and the
>> history to date. The CO2 data from 1820 is a
>> revelation, it shows how the guy that got a
>> computer model to work dropped everything 

>> from 1820 all of which was higher than today,
>> and cherry-picked only those under 250.
>>
>> When you have to screw with the data then
>> you are in serious trouble
>>
>>
>> — —
>> | 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
>
> Lennie's posts are a collection of lies and fabrications.
>
> Q
>


Fw: From the Founder of the Weather Channel
We've heard all the crap from Al gore now listen to someone with the
records to rebuff all the doomsdayers projected models. Click on the
clip on the bottom
and enjoy

This is exactly as the USAF Weather Service, the US Weather Service, and
a majority of American PHds in Climatology see it. Spend 3 minutes and
learn.

John Coleman was a Chicago based meteorologist and network weatherman
for many years. He wasn't a talking head that read the forecast.
Coleman actually made the forecast and spent the time on screen telling
you why.


http://www.kusi.com/home/78477082.html?video=pop&t=a
Check it out tell me what you think !! :^)

Hempster

"Roving rabbit" <rabb1t*dot.com> wrote in message
news:4b4ac147$0$22940$e4fe514c*news.xs4all.nl...
> n0 b o wrote:
>> "Roving rabbit" <rabb1t*dot.com> wrote in message
>> news:4b49ae94$0$22944$e4fe514c*news.xs4all.nl...
>>> n0 b o wrote:
>>>> The CO2 Lie
>>>>
>>>> Editorial
>>>> Investors Business Daily
>>>> Tuesday, January 5, 2010
>>>>
>>>> Climate Change: A new study shows that Earth's ability to absorb
>>>> carbon dioxide from all sources, including man, has remained
>>>> unchanged for 160 years. As it turns out, there may be no carbon to
>>>> offset.
>>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> Ah, here we go again...
>>>
>>> Someone who does not understand that it is indeed bad news to hear that
>>> the earth's atmosphere is a garbage bin for 40% of the CO2 we burn. If
>>> you burn a ton of carbon, then 40% stays airborne for at least 160
>>> years. This is no good news at all, and you can easily verify it.
>>
>>
>>
>> Really?
>> So where did this "at leats 160 years" come from then?
>> Did you pluck it out of thin air?
>
> From the GRL article recently written by Knorr.
>


Here's my source ....


Lifetime Of Atmospheric CO2 Is About 12 Years

21st July 2008





The great British-born physicist Freeman Dyson offered an impertinent dose
of reality which illustrates the dangers of relying on theory for both your
hypothesis and the evidence you need to support it.



Since 8 per cent of atmospheric CO2 is absorbed by the planet's biomass
every year, notes Dyson, the average lifespan of a carbon molecule in the
atmosphere is about 12 years.



His observation leaves the "climate scientists" models as immaculate as they
were before, but suggests a very different course of policy action.



It suggests our stewardship of land should be at the forefront of CO2
mitigation strategies.



That's not something we hear from politicians, pressure groups and, yes ...
climate scientists.



http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/21/monckton_aps/





Warmest Regards



Bon_0



"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
from natural variation."

Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville