Green World Trust

[Lucy Skywalker]

I think I've found a cracker of the first order.

I think I've shown that by careful measurement of the Mauna Loa graph, together with careful measurements of the CO2 emissions graphs from CDIAC (both 1800-2000 and 1950-2010) one can prove that the CO2 rise simply cannot be due purely to our emissions; and that the extraordinary close fit between their CO2 seasonally-adjusted curve and the cumulative emissions curve, drawn at 57% total values, and then slid up the y-axis to fit, is a sheer fluke.

I've tried to get the info into a form good enough to submit to WUWT because I think I've cracked an important piece of bad science; but for goodness sake, I might be wrong and I might have missed something obvious. So I'd like to run the piece past the smaller number here first.

I'd appreciate comments on both the science and the style. The piece is called

"Hidden surprises in the CO2 figures
they contain the proof that they cannot be from our emissions!"

[Mike Davis]

Lucy:
I have seen 4% 6% or 8% of the anual CO2 from sources is from human sources. I also have a problem that some 50% of that amount is the amount that is left at the end of the yearly cycle of CO2 source to sink. I think the issue of a warming planet allows more biologicial growth which includes more chemecials moveing through the biosphere. I include the obvious chemecial combinations like water, CO2, Calcium, Nitrogen, the things that are food for plants that allow animals to have more food which allows for more animals which emit more chemicals that are used as food for the plants.
Think about a cows place in the biosphere or any animal. I read a paper that wanted to show a relationship between sea shell growth and temperature of the ocean. In a warmer region there is more rain which disolves more calcium which provides more material for shell growth. CO2 disolves in rain drops and becomes calcium carbonate when it desolves the calcium that is locked up in rocks so it can be used by nature.

That was an attempt to show there is a natural cause for additional sources and sinks in a warming globe which accounts for the discrepency in the climate science guesswork. Instead of disapearing species we can expect increase in species and abundence instead of famine if the globe warms to the level it was dureing the Halocene Optimum when the trees were growing around the Artic Ocean and the ice sheet on Greenland was as little as 20% of todays size.
We are not releaseing anything into the biosphere that was not there before. We may be recombineing natural elements to make things we want. When all is said and done everything is natural. We only hae the ability to modify nature but part of natural activity has always been modification as is seen in historical events/ records.

Warming is related to CO2 but I feel the cause for higher CO2 levels is natural biosphere growth that warming allows.

[hqmonaro]

[Lucy Skywalker]

Thanks for the comment HQ that was badly worded, and really that was not the place to start to get into my basic philosophy, so I've simply removed that paragraph.

Now.... how about the maths, the logic of the maths?

[hqmonaro]

I'm afraid I can't see what you are getting at. It appears to be that, because CO2 levels don't track CO2 production at exactly the same rate, then CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels isn't responsible for the increase in CO2 levels.

[Lucy Skywalker]

I've done more work on the piece, found more, made it all clearer I hope. For a while it looked like I had a piece of evidence the warmists would relish as "proof" of their POV that CO2 is increasing because of us. Well, that strange piece of strong correlation is there, and I cannot duck the mathematical beauty which is a beauty for warmists... Ferdinand, this looks like a big present for you... but it still goes against my commonsense that CO2 increase HAS to be at least in part because of warming.

[hqmonaro]

[Derek]

[hqmonaro]

[Derek]

Given global mean temperature has been in stasis, (and more recently declining) since the late 1990s.
How do increased GHGs therefore increased greenhouse effect explain that.
I'm assuming there is an explanation.........

BTW -
I do not accept a heat trapping gas (with no known way to trap heat) can warm oceans when said gas is absorbed by said oceans.
I'll consider that, if it is first shown how the gas "traps" heat whilst in the atmosphere and
then releases the "trapped heat" into the oceans after being absorbed by the oceans
- utter fantasy.
_________________

An induced feeling of guilt is not sufficient reason
to convict, or punish the human race.

[Derek]

[Derek]

[hqmonaro]

[PAWB]

hqmonaro:

You're talking a load of tosh. What do you mean

[Richard111]

Anyone who claims that heat is trapped in the atmosphere by any means whatsoever hasn't a clue what they are talking about.

Heat can be temporarily stored in the oceans which will, over time, pass that heat to the atmosphere which can only pass that heat, by several mechanisms, up to space and out.