Posted: Dec 23, 2016 3:46 am
Pulsar @ #5123
The climate science doubters don't like to complicate their simplistic calculations of how small the annual human CO2 contibution is with inconvenient complications like The Carbon Cycle.
I like to use the analogy of a swimming pool and a trickling hose - that trickle is quite small compared to the amount of water coming into the pool from the largest "source", ie filter return outlet, so climate science denier style logically if the larger volume from the filter return doesn't raise the water level then the trickle from the hose can't cause the pool to overflow! It's an analogy that can be enlarged upon, by having a complex and large filter system that holds more water than the pool itself - just as various carbon sinks hold more Carbon than CO2 in the atmosphere. Some of the "new" water will be drawn into that system whilst "old" water replaces it. The amount of "new" water in the pool will be less than the amount needed to account for the rising water level so climate science denier style logically the rise in level cannot be from the trickling hose!
The climate science doubters don't like to complicate their simplistic calculations of how small the annual human CO2 contibution is with inconvenient complications like The Carbon Cycle.
I like to use the analogy of a swimming pool and a trickling hose - that trickle is quite small compared to the amount of water coming into the pool from the largest "source", ie filter return outlet, so climate science denier style logically if the larger volume from the filter return doesn't raise the water level then the trickle from the hose can't cause the pool to overflow! It's an analogy that can be enlarged upon, by having a complex and large filter system that holds more water than the pool itself - just as various carbon sinks hold more Carbon than CO2 in the atmosphere. Some of the "new" water will be drawn into that system whilst "old" water replaces it. The amount of "new" water in the pool will be less than the amount needed to account for the rising water level so climate science denier style logically the rise in level cannot be from the trickling hose!