Raw mustard
Thanks for the site but it still doesn't counter the point I was making.I don't claim to support the dooms day predictions only that the sinks are rapidly filling and there are consequences.

BTW the sources are all from scientist who are actually doing the work.

Merely saying you're mainstream sceptic doesn't make you any more right than any member in a lynch mob.

Also NB I do not support Rudd's solutions from a scientific position only from a democratic one. As for 'inconvenient truth' interesting, but it is geared to inform the arm chair non scientific viewer.

All the parameters, caveats, perspectives would be lost on most people. Read my post's carefully don't pigeon-hole me I don't fit in your simplistic view.

Spindoc,

As I understand it CO2 goes is the air but most of it is then taken up by carbon sinks. Therefore there is a time lag between the release of CO2 and appreciable differences in the environment (air/sea temperature etc.). Hence my filling bucket example. However, as we get to the end of filling the various buckets/sinks,( Plants and sea.) there are small but increasing changes to some or many of the elements that make up the environment. Each has their own impact either negative or positive on the weather and then the climate (but not necessarily in evenly or constantly it depends on other factors too. )

consider the home fish tank as an analogy .
If the water is neutral PH then small amounts of Ammonia & Nitrates are necessary to feed the bacteria to keep this stable.

My fish themselves can live in reasonably high PH (alkaline)to mildly acidic water however at either end the level of Ammonia or Nitrates become increasingly toxic. Additionally the water temp can effect all three dramatically the amounts of Ammonia and Nitrates that can be dissolved in the water.
If any of these 4 get out of appropriate balance it affects the dissolved O2 and all 5 then combine to weaken the ability of the fish's immune system to combat the bacteria naturally in their environment .
Different species react differently with these changes. Hence some fish they can exist in a wide range but to breed and flourish need precise conditions.

Take sea turtles, the gender of hatchlings is dependent on the nest temperature, the hotter tolerances produce males. Recent hatchings are unusually disproportionally males. Give they don't breed for 30 odd years therefore in 30 years time turtles numbers will slump having adverse influence on other life.

The key is the subtlety of wide ranging effects, the lag times involved and the cumulative effects. I hope this helps. lack of recognition of them is a key flaw in the logic of many sceptics.

I have never pretended to be a scientist... but even I know that "carbon" is a primary element necessary to sustain all life on this planet

I am told carbon exists in, on and around the earth in different forms ... some of it

CO - Carbon Monoxide (one carbon and one oxygen atom bonding together to make a modecule) is not nice

CO2 - Carbon Dioxide (one carbon and two oxygen atom bonding together to make a modecule) is not very nice either, but then nor is too much oxygen or nitrogen by itself.

I am also told that trees and other flora absorb C0 and / or CO2 and through a process necessary for flora, separate the molecules back into their primary elements so "fauna" can breath the oxygen along with a few other gaseous elements which make up "air" and expel the CO / CO2 which flora needs

However, for me, the most interesting form of carbon is that which my wife likes to regularly hang off her ears and from around her neck and wrist.

This form of carbon is extremely tough and expensive. My wife has about $100,000+ of the stuff (although, when asked, she tells people it is "Rubic Zirconia", so she does not get mugged).

I am not sure how Rubic Zirconia fits otherwise into the cycle of carbon with flora and fauna. Maybe a scientist can tell me

but not a climate scientist... who have burnt their credibility by clearly demonstrating less knowledge on the topic than me.

OK Examinator, we are missing a BGO (Blinding Glimpse of the Obvious) here.

Question: If we accept the cdiac carbon figures, that is total carbon emissions since 1750 and the residual atmospheric carbon in ppm, what we have is 1,280% increase in total carbon emissions and a resulting 30% increase in (residual) atmospheric carbon over the same period. Right?

So, now we say we need to cut carbon human emissions. Even I can accept that the emissions growth is staggering. To test the hypothesis of emissions “reversal’, we logically need to go through the same process that got us to where we are today, Right?

If a 1,280% increase in total emissions has caused a 30% increase in residual carbon, by how much do we need to reduce current emissions to give us say, a 20% reduction in residual carbon and over what period?

My math says if we need to reduce emissions by roughly 20% of the 30% over 15 years, this means we must reduce our atmospheric carbon by 103.999% p.a. over 15 years, right?

Now, what has generated the 30% increase over what period? Well, we are told by cdiac that 1,280% in total emissions have generated 30% increase in residual carbon over 260 years, which on a non linear scale is 4.92% per annum for total carbon and 0.115% in residual carbon, right?

Next we must determine, from your own data, just how much we must reduce emissions to produce a 20% reduction in residual carbon by 2025, yes?

So, 4.92% p.a divided by 260 = 0.284%, multiplied by 15 = 4.25 %. That is by how much we must reduce total emissions, Right?

So, what will that produce in terms of reduced residual carbon? We will reduce atmospheric carbon from the 30% increase by the same formula, which is 0.115% p.a divided by 260 (non-linear) = 0.000445% times 15 =0.00667%.

Col Rouge is spot on when he says, we are not climate scientists who have << burnt their credibility by clearly demonstrating less knowledge on the topic than me.>>

We are joking, yes?

Spindoc

No we can't reverse the process by simply reducing carbon.

Much like filling a bucket once you stop it's at the same level. It is only the natural system can empty the bucket. Simply put it's the trees etc that perform that process. Hence the ETS isn't a good scientific solution all that does stop the flow not reverse.

From that perspective the carbon tax has the same affect stops the flow. Hence as I've said before based on *my the current understanding*, I have said I support the ETS on democratic grounds NOT scientific. Neither system ostensibly reverses anything.

I have difficulty believing that stopping carbon flows will do much other than stall the problem, god help us if some natural calamity like 2 or 3 Pinatubos happen at once.

The recovery system is so compromised, it also need help to drain the sinks .....more trees not as offsets for current carbon but for carbon past.

Col,
I forgot, you mean CUBIC zirconias . They are made from a different element Zirconium Oxide. which is hard but not as hard as diamonds.