and
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/14/th...nds/#more-65647

Our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is small compared to the 900 odd gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year... (some 3%)

If human emissions comprise 3% of the natural emissions / carbon cycle, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with the statement that: "Yearly human produced carbon dioxide is 0.001% of the atmosphere".

Assuming we accept the alarmists position that 30% of the current CO2 in the atmosphere is from us (as the alarmists tell us), then (30% of 0.000390) is some 0.000117 - being the total amount of human produced CO2 in the atmosphere.

You're not understanding the misleading statement by Alan Jones.

On March 15, Alan Jones made this ludicrous claim: “Nature produces nearly all of the carbon dioxide in the air. Human beings produce point 001 percent of the carbon dioxide in the air.”

Media Watch pointed out that Jones's figure was just a little off the mark — it's actually 30,000 times more than 0.001%!

In response to Media Watch’s enquiries, Professor Steven Sherwood from the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales explained: “There is no question that humans have produced all of the extra CO2 that has appeared in the atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial revolution, or about 28% of the current total (plus a similar amount that has gone into the oceans, plants and soils).

link

If you look at this quote in the original you will see southern hemisphere, i didnt think i needed to put it in again for the second post.

So, those 8 were enough were they?

Flawed models making fuzzier climate picture
BY: TOM WHIPPLE, LONDON From: The Times June 15, 2012 12:00AM

THE more we know about climate change the more uncertain our models become - and scientists need to explain this if they want the trust of the public, a senior climatologist has said.

Mark Maslin, a former director of the UCL Environment Institute, was speaking yesterday at the Cheltenham Science Festival in Britain before publication of a commentary in Nature.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/wor...6-1226395997725

Your original claim was:

"The 1880s were constructed with 1 thermometer in the southern hemisphere."

This pic shows that your original claim was not correct.



You then claimed:

"1860 had 8 with only 1 in Australia"

This pic shows you were wrong again. There is more than the 1 station in Australia and way more than 7 in the rest of the world.



Look at this link that shows a complete record of all the stations used.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/station-data/station-data.zip

Open it in wordpad. Use the find menu and type in 1860

You will notice that there are several hundred stations in the 1860's

Did you get that?

In the 1860's there are - hundreds - of stations, not - 8 - as you claim but - hundreds -

I wonder how many of those were accurate??

Good question - why not flick Phil an email and ask him?

Phils unavailable as his deleting the original data..

Getting back to the Alan Jones issue...

What Jones could have said and been correct is that human produced CO2 is only 0.001% of the total atmospheric air by volume.

The statement “Human beings produce point 001 percent of the carbon dioxide in the air” is wrong. The current level of CO2 in the atmosphere is 390ppm (or 0.039%) by volume. The commonly accepted figure for pre-industrialization is 280ppm. The difference of 110ppm is the portion attributed to human activity, expressed as a percentage of the current CO2 level of 390, this is 28%.

Why does it matter what a "shock jock" says, he is no scientist, so who cares really! Ring him up on his show and tell him to settle that!

can someone enlighten me please .

And if it has to be you CB . be nice ....

I've seen many shows where they're recording the official Co2 PPM in specific spots like Tasmania' west coast and Mauna Loa in Hawaii .
I realise that these tow spots would be ideal in recording naturally occurring levels of Co2 in the Atmosphere . And specifically Mauna Loa is often refered to as even better as its elevation gives insight into levels of Co2 at various levels in the Atmosphere . Obviously as Humans and Plants come into contact with Co2 at near to ground level . I presume that the majority of measurements are taken close to ground level at whatever elevation . ( close by meaning less than 50m above ground ) . How many readings are taken from tethered Balloons and or from the Top of NON industrial Towers in remote areas . Apart from variations of differing PPM reading concentrations on different places around the Globe .Obviously uneven due to Industrialised concentrations .
What other fluctuations would we see at different levels of the Atmosphere , am i missing something ? How can they decide the Percentage of makeup for the entire Atmosphere % wise . And forgive me if I'm wrong but isn't the Mass Gravity density of Co2 1.5 times that of 90+ % of the Atmopshere . Wouldn't this see it concentrate in the lower couple of hundred metres of the Atmosphere ? And if correct , wouldn't it hug the contours of the Earth , Regardless of Elevation ????

PIty me if I'm way off track , and please amuse everyone else in correcting Me ! ?

Good questions. CO2 is transported and mixed throughout the atmosphere by jet streams and weather systems. Simply put the wind blows it about!

Are you aware of the NASA Earth Observing System's Aqua satellite's Atmospheric Infrared Sounder(AIRS)?

"AIRS uses cutting-edge infrared technology to create 3-dimensional maps of air and surface temperature, water vapor, and cloud properties. With 2378 spectral channels, AIRS has a spectral resolution more than 100 times greater than previous IR sounders and provides more accurate information on the vertical profiles of atmospheric temperature and moisture. AIRS can also measure trace greenhouse gases such as ozone, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and methane."

Check out this page that shows maps of the CO2 distribution around the Earth.

http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/image_gallery/gases/carbon_dioxide/



This image was created with data acquired by the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder, AIRS, during July 2008. The image shows large scale patterns of carbon dioxide concentrations that are transported around the Earth by the general circulation of the atmosphere. Dark blue corresponds to a concentration of 368.2 parts per million and dark red corresponds to a concentration of 386.2 parts per million. The effect of the northern hemisphere mid-latitude jet stream is to set the northern limit of enhanced carbon dioxide. The zonal flow of the southern hemisphere mid-latitude jet stream results in a belt of enhanced carbon dioxide girdling the globe, fed by biogenesis activity in South America, forest fires in both South America and Central Africa, and the clusters of gasification plants in South Africa and power generation in southeastern Australia.

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/spaceimages/details.php?id=PIA11194

I have spent the best part of a week trying to discover how a 3.2% contibution could cause a forcing of temprature increase and the short answer is that it is physically impossible unless you add in water vapour, which we aren't responsible for, and which is the elephant in the room of cAGW.

The feedback you are striving to find (but don't want to because we had nothing to do with it so we can't be blamed for causing the problem)is water vapour not CO2.

And that is well documented and the main sticking point, though there other feedbacks as well. New discoveries are being made all the time, but the whole point is its not possible for Co2 to have the warming effect that the AGW crowd sprouts forth.

Heh - Water vapor alone cannot explain the rising temperature trend. The climate is currently being forced by CO2. The science on the warming effect of CO2 is well and truly settled.



http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-2-1.html

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2.html

CB ,

Right they are using Satellite IR imagery , but not ordinary IR ," Super " IR which is then analysed and a figure given . Sounds like alot of room for Human Error .

And this sounded interesting if you break down the explanation .

" AIRS has a spectral resolution more than 100 times greater than previous IR sounders and provides more accurate information on the vertical profiles of atmospheric temperature and moisture.

So they are getting vertical Profiles of these two elements .
Are they actually getting vertical profiles for the Trace gases' , or is that just Calculated .

" AIRS can also measure trace greenhouse gases such as ozone, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and methane. "


Is it vertically profiled as well . ?

And lastly that July 2008 image seems askew . July being the dry season is when many of the Islands in that overpopulated island chain country of Indonesia is Furiously Burning off in . And not a trace high concentrations of CO2 to be seen in that region , but as you said if the Lows that usually placed in that area are strong enough to lift a gas that is 1.5 times the Mass gravity of the rest of the ATmosphere ( bareing in mind that this includes water vapour ) ? then it would be nice to know that we aren't just seeing a particular image of High and Low pressure systems for that particular day/ week month ?

Would be nice to know if it was descending , ascending or moving laterally within said genral makeup of the atmosphere ...
And more importantly I'd be happier if more Imperically clear methods were used .?

There's plenty of info on the AIRS website. It'll be worth your while spending some time there.

How AIRS Works

Settled by who? The IPCC? Or peer reviewed papers that are reviewed by friends?

The IPCC has no credibility at all. Temps are under all 23 climate models of the AR4..and well under Hansens Zero emissions scenario C.

So you can keep posting till you are blue in the face, no one on here or anywhere else is listening. Anyone can peer review graphs showing Co2 is a primary driver, whether its true or not.

The facts are that any information you provide is from orginastions that are discredited in the scientific community. And after the next decade or so they will all be out of business from embarrassment.