[JR: Nylo I am getting close to banning you because simply keep putting disinformation on this website and wasting everybody’s time. One more time and I will. We added 2.4 ppm last year, part of an accelerating trend. See
http://climateprogress.org/ 2008/ 04/ 24/ noaa-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-methane-rise-sharply-in-2007/
and
http://climateprogress.org/ 2007/ 10/ 26/ soaring-carbon-dioxide-concentrations-sinks-saturating/ ]

The big difference between the Delayer and the Warrior paradox is that, regardless of which one is right or wrong about climate change, one will keep us on a path of soaring cancer and respiratory disease rates, of decreasing water and food supplies and collapsing natural resources. The alternative one will create a safer and more secure future for our children in harmony with the natural systems that we are so dependent on.

In other words, Delayers, stop droning over easily manipulable statistics and start recognizing the other benefits of a truly sustainable economy. If we happen to stop ACC on the way, cheers to that, but hopefully we won’t ever even know for sure.

The 2.4 increase for this year has an easy explanation. CO2 in the southern hemisphere’s summer is limited because of the photosintesis of the plants in the southern hemisphere. January 2007 was very hot, exceptionally hot, which means lots of photosintesis and carbon trapping in the southern hemisphere. January 2008 has been very cold, which means the opposite. As a result, the difference between the maximums of CO2 in 2007 and 2008 is very big. But I would rather look at averages for the whole year rather than compare the maximums.

Anyway, this leads to interesting conclussions, like a very strong dependence of the earth’s capability to sequester CO2 and the temperature. Quite a relief. It also means that during the next years of cooling, we are going to see CO2 rise very quickly… and temperatures do the opposite. One more paradox of the GH effect.

Your posts are balderdash. The 2007 PNAS study in that link notes:
1970 – 1979: 1.3 ppm/yr
1980 – 1989: 1.6 ppm/yr
1990 – 1999: 1.5 ppm/yr
2000 - 2007: 2.0 ppm/yr (updated to include 2007)

My patience for your disinformation is fast disappearing.

Ain’t gonna be cooling, but I’d be glad to take a bet….

Keep your comments on the facts and the science, or you won’t even be read.

Having said that, I look forward to my next beer-fuelled midnight rant, when I may just use ‘climate destroyers’ to get arise out of someone. I take umbrage at your sullying of the term ‘extinctionist’ though, since it is precisely the kind of people you rail against that leads me to such a philosophy.

http://www.heathen-hub.com/member.php?u=9

Joe, I give the data as it is shown in the graphics. The graphic doesn’t have much resolution. If you say that the increase has been 2.0 ppm/year in this decade, I will believe it.

I don’t have any graphic showing updated evolution of the carbon emissions. The best I have only reaches 2003. Can you tell for sure whether the ratio of increase in the carbon emissions has remained stable at about +0.1 additional billion tons per year per year, like it grossly did between the eighties and the nineties, or if we have been increasing the ammount we emit every year faster during this decade?

In my opinion, the increased rising ratio of the CO2 concentration during this decade is more due to the stable temperatures we have had compared to the previous decades than to a faster increase of our emissions per year. In fact, if you look at the years that have shown the fastest increases of atmospheric CO2, they are always years which were colder than the year before. This is happening often now, but didn’t happen often in the 80’s and 90’s, and when it happened it was by a little extent. I will make some numbers later on, but the idea is that CO2 concentration should have risen more during the eighties and the nineties, and if it didn’t it was because of the Earth’s better capability to absorb it, as it was becoming warmer, and the warmer it is, the better it absorbs CO2. Now we have increasing emissions without increasing temperatures, so the ratio of increase of the atmospheric CO2 must be affected accordingly.

I like it….getting close…
But how to work in the sick feeling of their ideological/cultish “murder suicide pact”?

They are really Kamikaze or Jihadi like…..or is it Dr. Strangelove?

Since Frank Luntz has had a come to Jesus moment - after doing incalculable damage getting the denial industry rolling - perhaps he could lend a hand and help make the appropriate frame for deniers, delayers, ideologues, extinctionists….
Frank are you out there? Frank give us your best tag for these pathological m-effers, would you please?

Keep ramming your foot down your throat, when the full effects of solar cycle 24 are felt your foot will be down to your intestines.

BELIEVE, is the operative word, isn’t it?
Don’t a majority of Americans also BELIEVE in the literal Biblical Creation story? And many BELIEVE man didn’t evolve from the muck. I’m still waiting to ram my foot down on those too. So don’t hold your breath. In the meantime, might I suggest you read John Milton’s Paradise Lost.

I assure you that I know exactly what I am talking about.

Maybe people do their own private assessment of the risk and figure out that the climate will hang together for the next few decades that most of them expect to live, and if they are really lucky none of the other threats hanging over them (fossil fuel running out, global food shortages, pandemics etc) will get them either.

In the meantime most people figure out that their best personal strategy is to be as wealthy as possible so they can buy themselves a seat on the best lifeboats available.

Sad but realistic.

I live in a small NC town of less than 12,000. Every day I hear talk about this subject, and these people are not cynically planning their escape. They are angry and worried because of the complete lack of action by the people who should be doing something, ie, our government.

Even the southern, high school drop-out rednecks understand the need for action. They simply feel powerless against the likes of those who are referred to here, accurately in my opinion, as “extinctionists”.

In my opinion, only a fool can look at the massive amount of evidence and say there is no cause for alarm.

For them, I think it’s more productive for us to focus on the solutions rather than the problem. People are better-motivated by a positive vision than fear, or best by both.

Every three months I have a get-together of acquaintances and friends, we call it the Geektogether. There are usually a couple of guys who say, “I hate this pub, can we go somewhere else next time?”
I reply, “Sure. Where?”
“I dunno. Just not here.”
“Well, we don’t want to cancel the Geektogethers, so until you suggest an alternative we have to keep coming here.”
“I don’t like it here.”

In response to their saying there’s a problem but not offering alternatives, these people are usually made to feel unwelcome by the group, to put it mildly. And these sorts of experiences are found at every level of group size and over all issues. People respond to positive visions of change, not to simple fear or distress.

I find Joe’s “wedges” a strange way of expressing things, nonetheless they are a positive vision. I think we’d achieve our purpose of global reductions of emissions a lot quicker with more talk of what might be good “wedges” and how to put them into place, and less talk of “deniers r teh st00pid.” Of course deniers are stupid, but saying so doesn’t help us achieve our aims.

The potential energy of the Greenland and Antarctic ice masses is this tool. Energy for all the world for a thousand years, water for all the world for a thousand years. No climate catastrophe any more.

In the UK climate changewas a hot topic up to about a year ago, then the BBC stopped reporting it and reporting elsewhere is very mixed. People were pretty indifferent even when it was in the news. Now they have just stopped talking about completely. The BBC is getting quite excited about escalating oil, petrol and natural gas prices but seems to have lost the connection with cc somewhere along the way.

On the plus side, some of the papers who were firmly in the deniers camp until recently are now reporting cc as a real problem:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ earth/ main.jhtml?xml=/ earth/ 2008/ 05/ 14/ sciplanet114.xml

Why did the Easter Island people cut down their last tree?
They were smart enough to construct gigantic stone statues, but they made huge environmental blunders and went into extinction.

I assume Reader is making a self-referential statement to what happens with the disinformation he has been ingesting