I understand your carbon cycle ‘theory’ perfectly well. If you look at the DOE table 3, page 26 here:

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/environment/057304.pdf

It’s all laid out for you. This data applies to the 1990’s, but even in AR4, that’s the best you’ll get from the IPCC as well. They seem to have forgotten to update.

The DOE tells us 11700 MMT of CO2 were added to the atmosphere per year. That’s about 11700/793100 = 1.5% per year. Spencer uses the figure 0.6% per year and you’d have to ask him about that. As a scientist, I’m sure he’ll have his reasons. How many years will it take to double the CO2 in that case? That’s assuming all those figures are correct and that the carbon cycle operates as they claim it does.

According to Jaworowski, an expert on ice core proxy methods, the IPCC are corrupt. Even if he’s only half right, that’s not good news. We all saw what a mess they made of the hockey stick and how they tried to cover it up in AR4. He has questioned their figure of 270 ppmv of CO2 in the pre-Industrial era, claiming it could be 50% higher. Part of his reasoning is that ice under tremendous pressure, and methods used to extract it, remove a significant number of isotopes from the ice, so the CO2 density reads lower. If he’s right, or only partly right, what does that do to your carbon cycle? Jaworowski insists the IPCC cherry-picked the 270 ppmv value, ignoring other impelling data and theories

The IPCC used to spread innuendo about an imminent disaster, but this year they suggested there’s no hurry. That’s all I’m saying. I’m for reducing emissions, just not in a panic, where terrible mistakes could be made and where people could suffer economic hardships. Remember that CO2 is still a trace gas in the atmosphere at about 0.03%. Doubling it wont make much difference because the science behind it, based on computer models, is plain wrong. Considering that the atmosphere has a mass of several quadrillion metric tons, what difference do you think 11000 MMT per year will make over a century?

Spencer produced his 1 molecule of man-made CO2 added to 100,000 molecules of air every five years to demonstrate the magnitude of the problem. 11,700 MMT of CO2 per year sounds like an awful lot, but broken down, it’s 1 molecule of CO2 added to 100,000 molecules of air, every five years. That is part of your exponential carbon cycle.

With respect to unions, our leader is paid based on the journeyman rate. Our journeyman get about $65000 Canadian a year, meaning he is paid under $100,000 a year. I know the guy personally and have known him for 20 years. He doesn’t come across to me as the kind of sleazebag crook you have in mind.

Eyrie “Do you seriously think that anyone would take any notice of a union if there wasn’t the intimidation and not so subtle threat of violence which the police will do nothing about in this country”?

That’s the point you don’t seem to get. A unionist has nothing but the strike and his willingness to do what it takes to make that strike work. No one could stop Hitler with negotiations and unfortunately it came down to extreme violence to get the job done. If you rely only on negotiations, employers will play different games to put pressure on you. If they don’t think you’ll fight back, they’ll run all over you. They’ll ultimately use the courts, who will use the cops and fines to hurt you. Of course, the courts are run by laws which are passed by anti-union governments influenced by unscrupulous employers.

It’s a game, and the media plays its part by painting the unionists as gangsters or bikers. Of course, people like you buy into the media drivel and wont go talk to unionists to get their side of the story. I know there were crooked unions around and there still might be. I know workers have used unions to hide behind to get good money and do nothing to earn it. Those are not the unions or unionists I have come to know. Most of the jobs I have worked on are run by skilled guys who put in a good days work. The guys we work directly under, like A and B foremen, are union too, and they make sure you keep your nose to the grindstone. The part played by the union and the contract is to make sure they don’t push your face right into the grindstone on behalf of the employer.

I have worked non-union a significant protion of my life, and have not had a lot of complaints. Then again, I was working in a technical field where relationships were cordial between employer and employee. That’s not often the case on construction sites. For some reason, construction bosses tend to be pushy and insulting. I could not imagine enduring them without a contract and a union to back that contract, but even with both of those, life on a construction site is not always a piece of cake.

When you have your manhood insulted on an ongoing basis, only to drag your butt home, dead tired, and have to show up nexy day to do it again, you can become a little testy after a while. When your contract expires, and your employer starts treating you as a twit, offering you cuts in salary, benefits and conditions, and threatening you with scabs to replace you, violence can rear its ugly head. The media always blames it on the unionists and portrays them as troublemakers. Then again, what would you expect from some pussy who makes his living criticizing people and gets his job only because he kisses the butts of the employer creed?

I’m a contractor now, even though I keep up my union membership. I have always understood the employer’s point of view and needs, and have been willing to give a good days work for the dollar he pays me. I would never abide a slacker working for me or someone who wasn’t willing to earn his wage. At the same time, I don’t expect to pay a guy a salary he has trouble living on just so I can enjoy a higher style of living. The employers in our bargaining unit are all millionaires. They haven’t suffered in the least paying us union wages and benefits.

Hey, Bushie…wouldn’t that make the pronounciation ’septical’, as in septic tank? We know a sceptre is pronounced ’septre’, although Scottish is Skottish. It has a lot to do with the kind of vowel that follows. Usually an ’sc’ in English, followed by a soft vowel, like ‘e’, make the ’sc’ soft (scene, sceptre, science), whereas following a hard vowel it becomes hard (scab, scant, Scot, scum, scorn).

I hate to tell you this, but your derivation comes from French and Latin. Since Canada is bilingual (French and English), we Anglos have had it up to hear with French being shoved down our throats. Most of us have nothing against the French (Quebecois) it’s the legislation requiring both French and English be used on many things. If you don’t mind, I’ll stick to the Yank version, and be skeptical.

I hope you don’t spell ’sketch’ as ’scetch’. :-)

What is misleading about taking IPCC figures and breaking them down into visualizations we can understand? Gore went the opposite route, trying to terrify people with gigatons of CO2 being emitted and no mention that 50% is absorbed right off the bat. He failed to point out that gigatons are not even as spit in the ocean compared to the size and mass of the atmosphere (The average mass of the atmosphere is about 5 quadrillion metric tons). A quadrillion is 10 to the 15th power; a billion is 10 to the 9th power.

Spencer took IPCC figures and painted a picture of what it actually means in molecules. It was the IPCC revealed that anthropogenic CO2 is only a fraction of the natural CO2 produced by our lands and oceans. They actually used those words in AR4. They also provided a graph that cohenite linked to. It was the US Department of Energy that made the IPCC graph into a table. What was the IPCC hiding by not providing a table and percentages? Using the IPCC graph and/or the DOE table, one can easily calculate that man-made CO2 is about 3% of all CO2 produced. Why were they trying to keep that from us?

The IPCC also spat out the CO2 atmospheric density of 380 ppmv. They did not explain anywhere I have seen that the 380 ppmv represents the 97% natural CO2 + the 3% man-made CO2. In other words, man is adding about 11.4 parts of CO2 per million parts of air. All Spencer did was convert the parts per million to molecules per million, which is very basic science.

He subdivided the 380 molecules per million of air to 38 molecules of CO2 per 100,000 molecules of air, using simple math and dividing by 10. Then he multiplied the 38 molecules by the average increase of CO2 in the atmosphere due to man, which is about 0.6% per year. That came to 0.228 molecules of CO2 per 100,000 molcules of air. To get a round number, he multiplied by 5 to get 1 molecule of CO2 added by man to 100,000 molecules of air EVERY FIVE YEARS.

Where is the dishonesty in that? Spencer took IPCC number and broke them down into units that could be mentally visualized. Anyone with a science background knows you could get 100,000 molecules of CO2 on the head of a pin, but how many pinheads of air are there in the atmosphere. That’s the whole point.

Gore wants us to freak out because several billion tons of CO2 have been put into the atmosphere by humans. Several billion tons is still 3% of the total number of billion tons put in the atmosphere by the lands and oceans.

If the 97% of existing, natural CO2 did not create global warming, how is it possible for an additional few percent added by man to create a problem? If anyone is misleading anyone here, it’s the IPCC, Al Gore and all the AGW advocates who play with big number without telling the whole story.

Peter; “Robust answers, please.” That’s a bit unreasonable when you’re assertions are hardly robust; consider;

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_TDdxO2FHJPs/SQ2wsVEvoxI/AAAAAAAAACs/DGM5SR0OWWQ/s1600-h/Sea-level_Ice_Temperatures_CO2_20ka_Graph.png

Or this;

http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/eemian.html

Or this;

http://www.junkscience.com/images/paleocarbon.gif

Documentary films such as this usually do not get the publicity they deserve. There are concerns that environmentalist will attempt to have this film banned in many area. Please help us get the word out. Thank You!

i urge everyone to watch the trailer of this on youtube. it makes the claim that scientists are inventing catastrophic scenarios. (funny, they don t.)

on the other hand, the film (and denialists in general) nearly ALWAYS talk about the catastrophes that would follow a minor reduction in CO2 output.

(you will notice how cheap and bad the film is when watching it. “normal people respond to al Gore”. very useful part of the scientific debate!)

What, then, caused natural CO2 sources and natural CO2 sinks to track each other so closely as to keep atmospheric CO2 levels more-or-less constant over the hundreds or thousands of years before man started burning fossil fuels?

Robust answers, please.

You just demonstrated your complete lack of understanding of the CO2 cycle.

The best estimates I’ve seen are that human caused CO2 is about 3.5 to 4% of the total that goes into the atmosphere each year. Roughly half of that amount is the extra CO2 that stays in the atmosphere each year currently. Of course that does not mean that half the human generated CO2 stays in the atmosphere, just that the natural systems for whatever reason cannot sink all of the extra human caused amount, hence the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing. Now it may be that warmer oceans are releasing some dissolved CO2 or that other natural sinks are not working as effectively as previously or it may be that the rate of production of human generated CO2 is greater than the natural sinks can cope with. In any case the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is increasing and if we burn enough coal ,oil and gas will likely double.

The issue is what this will do. We have estimates that range from very little to catastrophic with the catastrophic end depending on a string of assumptions of dubious veracity.

Then we must decide on a response. There does not seem to be any large scale evidence that our technological civilisation can survive with drastic cuts in energy use so the problem becomes one of finding alternate sources of energy that do not depend on burning oil or coal. If you really, really believe CO2 is a problem you should be campaigning for a large scale urgent program to replace coal burning power stations with nuclear power stations. Wind and solar don’t cut it.

As for your love of unions, I’ve been a member of a couple in my time for a short while. Can’t say it did me any good but I’m sure some union officials were making a nice living.

You have of course seen the bank accounts of your union leaders and their families and so can make the statement that the union is clean.

The UAW seems to be doing their members a lot of good, no? Likely negotiate them out of a job by crashing the business. Nice!

As for where I found out about unions – by reading the papers. We had one union “running through ” businesses in Victoria a few years ago causing damage and intimidation, in another case a small business with no union members working there was picketed and prevented from operating to try to force its employees to join the union. It wasn’t so long ago the Australian waterfront was cleaned up after years of unconscionable rorts which put up costs for eveyone in the country.

Do you seriously think that anyone would take any notice of a union if there wasn’t the intimidation and not so subtle threat of violence which the police will do nothing about in this country?

To view a preview of the film, visit the following website and click on link on the
link that says “Must See Film of 09.”

http://www.hootervillegazette.com

Documentary films such as this usually do not get the publicity they deserve. There are concerns that environmentalist will attempt to have this film banned in many area. Please help us get the word out. Thank You!

The Hooterville News

In Australia we use Australian English not American English. Therefore we spell “sceptical” with a “c” and not with a “k” as the Yanks do in “skeptical”.

And yes AGW is certainly a secular religion with the non-scientist Al Gore as High Priest and non-climatologist Tim Flannery as an acolyte. Both of them are doing ever so nicely from promoting their snake oils that Mr Gore recently made a $35million investment in his own name with an Investment Bank in the USA as well as buying a huge gas guzzling motor-yacht. All this when he had only $2million registered in total assets when he campaigned for the US presidency some 8 years ago. He also now has several mansions which are continuously floodlit at night. All aboard the gravy train!!!