Global Warming for Dummies

[EternalOptimist]

But I am not refuting the paper; I am sure it is perfectly sound, I am disputing the interpretation placed upon its conclusions.

Every week, along comes another 'nail in the coffin' for AGW, every week it is shown to be no such thing, in this case evidenced in the analysis I linked to.

Here's another one Knorr (2009): Case in point, Knorr (GRL, 2009) is a study about how much of the human emissions are staying the atmosphere (around 40%) and whether that is detectably changing over time. It does not undermine the fact that CO2 is rising. The confusion in the denialosphere is based on a misunderstanding between ‘airborne fraction of CO2 emissions’ (not changing very much) and ‘CO2 fraction in the air’ (changing very rapidly), led in no small part by a misleading headline (subsequently fixed) on the ScienceDaily news item

And another

where do you get the notion that a coffin lid is held on by a single nail ?
sometimes you have to make sure that the stiff stays buried

[BlasterBates]

The conclusions of Knorr are self evident, if he's right the projections are way off.

I mean you can read the paper and believe his conclusions or not.

[sasguru]

The conclusions of Knorr are self evident, if he's right the projections are way off.

I mean you can read the paper and believe his conclusions or not.

Weak. Which part of PJ agrees with Knorr did you not get?
PJ is wiping the floor with you. Pick yourself up man and try to string a coherent argument together.
I'm not holding my breath though, since you haven't managed it in your previous hundreds of posts on the subject

[AtW]

try to string a coherent argument together.
I'm not holding my breath though, since you haven't managed it in your previous hundreds of posts on the subject

You are the one to talk.

[sasguru]

You are the one to talk.

My first post on this thread was coherent and to the point. Several pages later none of my assertions have been disproved.

HTH

[AtW]

My first post on this thread was coherent and to the point. Several pages later none of my assertions have been disproved.

HTH

WIS

[BlasterBates]

Weak. Which part of PJ agrees with Knorr did you not get?
PJ is wiping the floor with you. Pick yourself up man and try to string a coherent argument together.
I'm not holding my breath though, since you haven't managed it in your previous hundreds of posts on the subject

The CO2 projections assume all Anthropogenic CO2 goes into the stmosphere and stays there.

This refutes that assumption. Projections therefore wrong.

[sasguru]

The CO2 projections assume all Anthropogenic CO2 goes into the stmosphere and stays there.

This refutes that assumption. Projections therefore wrong.

I think you've suffered a brain overload malfunction. A kind of Master Bates blue-screen.
You see PL explains this adequately in his last 2 posts.

[BlasterBates]

I think you've suffered a brain overload malfunction. A kind of Master Bates blue-screen.
You see PL explains this adequately in his last 2 posts.

The Co2 projections are wrong because they are based on the wrong assumption.

Pcj said the CO2 would still continue rising.

However at a lower rate, ie the projection is wrong.

Comprendo?

(God you're thick)

[sasguru]

Comprendo?

(God you're thick)

If I'm thick, you're a retarded cretin

You're not getting this distinction are you?

"a misunderstanding between ‘airborne fraction of CO2 emissions’ (not changing very much) and ‘CO2 fraction in the air’ (changing very rapidly)"

keep digging though, its fun.