What passes for Republican Science

[flacaltenn]

I'll believe the motives of the left-leaning church of global warming when they run to us and ask us for 120 nuclear plants to save the planet.. Hasn't happened, won't happen.. They are NOT CONVINCED enough to take IMMEDIATE, MEANINGFUL, action...

Comments??

Why should I believe you never heard of the "green agenda", "sustainability", and all that global "social justice" political baggage --- if you really don't want to fix the problem... There must be a reason eh?

It's all about FOISTING that infernal list of alternative energies that never were alternatives, hobbling economic growth, population control, economic redistribution, and all the other "watermelon" baggage.

Cant believe ANY of it is serious til we build out ample CO2 FREE nuclear power... Better hurry your asses up too..

Because 20 reactors are offline in Japan. And ALL of Germany's are slated to go cold..

Right NOW TODAY -- you're forcing the planet to play Russian Roulette

Makes me think everyone of you baptized warmers are bluffing..
There's your "politics of climate change" in a watermelon...

 

[Old Rocks]

Geological cycles. We're but a pinprick.

What geological cycle is increasing the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere?

Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.

Water vapor, the most significant greenhouse gas, comes from natural sources and is responsible for roughly 95% of the greenhouse effect. Among climatologists this is common knowledge but among special interests, certain governmental groups, and news reporters this fact is under-emphasized or just ignored altogether.


Water vapor is 99% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin, except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic.

Good lord. Another dumb ass. Water vapor depends on heat to evaporate into the atmosphere. There have been times in our geological history when the CO2 was at a very low level. And in spite of all of our oceans still being there, they froze nearly to the equator. Water vapor has a residence time of less than ten days in the atmosphere. CO2 a residence time measured in centuries.

95% of the climatologists will tell you exactly what I just said. Not only that, but the contribution to the present level of CO2 in the atmosphere is 40%. We have increased the amount of CH4 by over 150%.

At the depths of the ice age, the CO2 was at 180 ppm. At the time of the start of the industrial revolution, the CO2 stood at 280 ppm. Today it nealy 400 ppm. 100 ppm was the differance between continental glaciers down to the Midwest and the climate of 1850. As the effects of the addition of 120 ppm, plus the increasing amount that is being added every year, are felt, what do you think the results will be?

At present we are feeling the effects of the level of GHGs in the 1980s. And we are already seeing consequences in the melting of the continental ice caps, and the increasing amount of extreme weather events.

Brown T, you need seriously to take some remedial science classes.

 

[flacaltenn]

What a contorted load of shit OleRocks... So many weak and faulty assertions..
And about half a dozen outright lies.. I didn't realize how little you comprehend about this until now.

Say WHAT was the CO2 level during "the ice age"? It didn't vary? Say What - 100ppm caused the glaciers to meltdown in the midwest? No other explanations?

For the sake of the thread, and my research report due tomorrow, I'll just say ----

Run Dorothy --- Run... Take LordBrownTrout with you and go far far away from this repetitive fanatic.

 

[Seawytch]

Do you deny that "big oil" has undue influence over or politics? Where does the "anti" climate change opposition come? Where do scientists that claim there is no climate change get their money?

Opposition to climate change kookery comes from rational people who don't want to return to the stone age.

Yeah, fully sustainable buildings and homes are sooooo "stone age".

http://earthship.com/designs
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2016016390_bullitt28.html

Oh look, they are lucrative too.

http://m.fsinsight.org/m/i/d/green-office-buildings-high-returns

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Do you deny that "big oil" has undue influence over or politics? Where does the "anti" climate change opposition come? Where do scientists that claim there is no climate change get their money?

Opposition to climate change kookery comes from rational people who don't want to return to the stone age.

Yeah, fully sustainable buildings and homes are sooooo "stone age".

Sustainable Green Buildings: Sustainable Green Building Designs
Business & Technology | Ultra-green office building breaking ground | Seattle Times Newspaper

Oh look, they are lucrative too.

Green office buildings, high returns - FSinsight - FSinsight

I don't like the earthship look but some of the straw bale designs are pretty sharp looking. I prefer log houses though.

http://tcpermaculture.blogspot.com/2012/03/straw-bale-homes-are-beautiful.html

 

[Old Rocks]

Do you deny that "big oil" has undue influence over or politics? Where does the "anti" climate change opposition come? Where do scientists that claim there is no climate change get their money?

Opposition to climate change kookery comes from rational people who don't want to return to the stone age.

Yeah, fully sustainable buildings and homes are sooooo "stone age".

Sustainable Green Buildings: Sustainable Green Building Designs
Business & Technology | Ultra-green office building breaking ground | Seattle Times Newspaper

Oh look, they are lucrative too.

Green office buildings, high returns - FSinsight - FSinsight

LOL. But you have to consider that knuckle dragging Pattycake has never left the stone age.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Opposition to climate change kookery comes from rational people who don't want to return to the stone age.

Yeah, fully sustainable buildings and homes are sooooo "stone age".

Sustainable Green Buildings: Sustainable Green Building Designs
Business & Technology | Ultra-green office building breaking ground | Seattle Times Newspaper

Oh look, they are lucrative too.

Green office buildings, high returns - FSinsight - FSinsight

LOL. But you have to consider that knuckle dragging Pattycake has never left the stone age.

Unga Bunga bitch! Old Rocks just wants the govt to tell him what to do. My question is what if they want you to a have a sex change? hmmmmm.. Inquiring minds....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming.

Clearly. LOL!

Thanks, that was funny.

 

[Si modo]

I've got an idea, get all outside influence from lobbyists OUT of our political system & let the science speak for itself.

Interesting that you tie those together.

KISS: Stop politicizing science. Period.

Just stop.

Stop soiling yourself, Sis

Not only are you oblivious to how damaging your hackery is, I actually feel sorry for you.

Your cult-like reality has such a grip on you that you are immune to any deprogramming.

 

[bripat9643]

Opposition to climate change kookery comes from rational people who don't want to return to the stone age.

Yeah, fully sustainable buildings and homes are sooooo "stone age".

Sustainable Green Buildings: Sustainable Green Building Designs
Business & Technology | Ultra-green office building breaking ground | Seattle Times Newspaper

Oh look, they are lucrative too.

Green office buildings, high returns - FSinsight - FSinsight

LOL. But you have to consider that knuckle dragging Pattycake has never left the stone age.

Let's see, I have flat screen TV, cable, internet, VOIP phone service, an iPhone and an iPad and I want to keep it that way, but I'm from the "stone age."

You, on the other hand, want to return to using wind mills, shivering in the dark, riding a bicycle to work and you are supposed to be some kind of high tech guru?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Quoting IPCC...fucking hysterical!

 

[bripat9643]

Yeah, fully sustainable buildings and homes are sooooo "stone age".

Sustainable Green Buildings: Sustainable Green Building Designs
Business & Technology | Ultra-green office building breaking ground | Seattle Times Newspaper

Oh look, they are lucrative too.

Green office buildings, high returns - FSinsight - FSinsight

The term "sustainable" is the ultimate in kookery.

 

[tererun]

These are the same people who use the loch ness monster to try and debunk evolution. They try to declare that the loch ness monster is real and therefor lots of real science is wrong because of something most people know is a fairy tale. These are the same people who think the bible and hana barbera cartoons are true historical references with lots of facts. Arguing with a right winger about science is like arguing with a 2 year old over who is right. Why bother with a person who is so devoid of any intelligence and knowledge. Just laugh at them and tell them to get bac to church with all the other people who are too fucking stupid to grasp extremely simple concepts of reality.

 

[Si modo]

What geological cycle is increasing the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere?

Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.

Water vapor, the most significant greenhouse gas, comes from natural sources and is responsible for roughly 95% of the greenhouse effect. Among climatologists this is common knowledge but among special interests, certain governmental groups, and news reporters this fact is under-emphasized or just ignored altogether.


Water vapor is 99% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin, except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic.

Good lord. Another dumb ass. Water vapor depends on heat to evaporate into the atmosphere. There have been times in our geological history when the CO2 was at a very low level. And in spite of all of our oceans still being there, they froze nearly to the equator. Water vapor has a residence time of less than ten days in the atmosphere. CO2 a residence time measured in centuries.

95% of the climatologists will tell you exactly what I just said. Not only that, but the contribution to the present level of CO2 in the atmosphere is 40%. We have increased the amount of CH4 by over 150%.

At the depths of the ice age, the CO2 was at 180 ppm. At the time of the start of the industrial revolution, the CO2 stood at 280 ppm. Today it nealy 400 ppm. 100 ppm was the differance between continental glaciers down to the Midwest and the climate of 1850. As the effects of the addition of 120 ppm, plus the increasing amount that is being added every year, are felt, what do you think the results will be?

At present we are feeling the effects of the level of GHGs in the 1980s. And we are already seeing consequences in the melting of the continental ice caps, and the increasing amount of extreme weather events.

Brown T, you need seriously to take some remedial science classes.

Let's look at those residence times:

The driver for this study is the wide-ranging published values of the CO2 atmospheric residence time (RT), τ, with the values differing by more than an order of magnitude, where the significance of the difference relates to decisions on whether (1) to attempt control of combustion-sourced (anthropogenic) CO2 emissions, if τ > 100 years, or (2) not to attempt control, if τ 10 years. This given difference is particularly evident in the IPCC First 1990 Climate Change Report where, in the opening policymakers summary of the report, the RT is stated to be in the range of 50−200 years, and (largely) on the basis of that, it was also concluded in the report and from subsequent related studies that the current rising level of CO2 was due to combustion of fossil fuels, thus carrying the, now widely accepted, rider that CO2 emissions from combustion should therefore be curbed. However, the actual data in the text of the IPCC report separately states a value of 4 years. The differential of these two times is then clearly identified in the relevant supporting documents of the report as being, separately (1) a long-term (100 years) adjustment or response time to accommodate imbalance increases in CO2 emissions from all sources and (2) the actual RT in the atmosphere of 4 years. As a check on that differentiation and its alternative outcome, the definition and determination of RT thus defined the need for and focus of this study. In this study, using the combustion/chemical-engineering perfectly stirred reactor (PSR) mixing structure or 0D box for the model basis, as an alternative to the more commonly used global circulation models (GCMs), to define and determine the RT in the atmosphere and then using data from the IPCC and other sources for model validation and numerical determination, the data (1) support the validity of the PSR model application in this context and, (2) from the analysis, provide (quasi-equilibrium) RTs for CO2 of 5 years carrying C12 and 16 years carrying C14, with both values essentially in agreement with the IPCC short-term (4 year) value and, separately, in agreement with most other data sources, notably, a 1998 listing by Segalstad of 36 other published values, also in the range of 5−15 years. Additionally, the analytical results also then support the IPCC analysis and data on the longer “adjustment time” (100 years) governing the long-term rising “quasi-equilibrium” concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. For principal verification of the adopted PSR model, the data source used was the outcome of the injection of excess 14CO2 into the atmosphere during the A-bomb tests in the 1950s/1960s, which generated an initial increase of approximately 1000% above the normal value and which then declined substantially exponentially with time, with τ = 16 years, in accordance with the (unsteady-state) prediction from and jointly providing validation for the PSR analysis. With the short (5−15 year) RT results shown to be in quasi-equilibrium, this then supports the (independently based) conclusion that the long-term (100 year) rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most likely the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature, which is due to other natural factors. This further supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenically driven as an outcome of combustion. The economic and political significance of that conclusion will be self-evident.​

Potential Dependence of Global Warming on the Residence Time (RT) in the Atmosphere of Anthropogenically Sourced Carbon Dioxide - Energy & Fuels (ACS Publications)

[Emphasis added]

 

[flacaltenn]

These are the same people who use the loch ness monster to try and debunk evolution. They try to declare that the loch ness monster is real and therefor lots of real science is wrong because of something most people know is a fairy tale. These are the same people who think the bible and hana barbera cartoons are true historical references with lots of facts. Arguing with a right winger about science is like arguing with a 2 year old over who is right. Why bother with a person who is so devoid of any intelligence and knowledge. Just laugh at them and tell them to get bac to church with all the other people who are too fucking stupid to grasp extremely simple concepts of reality.

Really? I'm not a right-winger, but I'd LOVE to have you argue with me... How about we start with a question..

Has the Average Global Surface Temperature rise been ACCELERATING or DECELERATING over the past 8 or 10 yrs?

 

[TruthSeeker56]

Exposed: The terrifying harassment faced by climate change scientists - The Week

In a sprawling new story in Popular Science, Tom Clynes takes an in-depth look at the seedy but influential range of people who take it upon themselves to make life a living hell for climate-change researchers.

1. Harassment is routine
Climate-change deniers often threaten scientists in attempts to distract them from their research — and the harassment goes beyond nasty emails. One climate modeler describes finding "a dead rat on his doorstep" with "a yellow Hummer speeding away

2. Political associations don't matter
For Katharine Hayhoe, an atmospheric scientist, political conservative, and evangelical Christian, her work can be as thankless as it is taxing — even from her own party. In 2007, Rush Limbaugh discovered her contributions to a book co-authored by Newt Gingrich and ridiculed her as a "climate babe." Following the backlash, Gingrich dropped her chapter on global warming entirely.

3. Research is often stifled by legal action
"Those crude acts of harassment often come alongside more-sophisticated legal and political attacks," says Clynes. Climate change skeptics regularly file lawsuits and Freedom of Information Act requests to disrupt ongoing research. "In 2005, before dragging Mann and other climate researchers into congressional hearings, Texas congressman Joe Barton ordered the scientists to submit voluminous details of working procedures, computer programs and past funding,

4. Efforts to ruffle scientists are increasingly sophisticated
It's not "a bunch of crazy people" fighting against us, says Mann. "These efforts to discredit science are well-organized." "There's really only about 25 of us doing this," says Steve Milloy, a Fox News commentator and self-described "denier." He calls the core group of skeptics "a ragtag bunch, very Continental Army." The deniers often target scientists who speak up publicly, offering bounties to anyone willing to make their lives difficult. In one instance, Milloy offered $500 for anyone

5. Anti-climate change advocacy is well-funded
Following the Kyoto Protocol on global warming in 1998, the American Petroleum Institute put together a $5.9 million task force (which included Milloy) charged with discrediting climate change science to "quash growing public support of curbing emissions."

How come you leftists refuse to answer ONE simple question............

Why did you people change your phrase from "global warming" to "climate change"?

"Climate change" is an all-encompassing phrase that has no finite definition, because every second of every day there is "climate change" everywhere in the world.

 

[bripat9643]

These are the same people who use the loch ness monster to try and debunk evolution. They try to declare that the loch ness monster is real and therefor lots of real science is wrong because of something most people know is a fairy tale. These are the same people who think the bible and hana barbera cartoons are true historical references with lots of facts. Arguing with a right winger about science is like arguing with a 2 year old over who is right. Why bother with a person who is so devoid of any intelligence and knowledge. Just laugh at them and tell them to get bac to church with all the other people who are too fucking stupid to grasp extremely simple concepts of reality.

I don't believe any of the things you claim I believe. So now where does your bullshit argument take you?

 

[flacaltenn]

These are the same people who use the loch ness monster to try and debunk evolution. They try to declare that the loch ness monster is real and therefor lots of real science is wrong because of something most people know is a fairy tale. These are the same people who think the bible and hana barbera cartoons are true historical references with lots of facts. Arguing with a right winger about science is like arguing with a 2 year old over who is right. Why bother with a person who is so devoid of any intelligence and knowledge. Just laugh at them and tell them to get bac to church with all the other people who are too fucking stupid to grasp extremely simple concepts of reality.

I don't believe any of the things you claim I believe. So now where does your bullshit argument take you?

You mean you didn't INVENT the Loch Ness Monster?

 

[Old Rocks]

Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.

Water vapor, the most significant greenhouse gas, comes from natural sources and is responsible for roughly 95% of the greenhouse effect. Among climatologists this is common knowledge but among special interests, certain governmental groups, and news reporters this fact is under-emphasized or just ignored altogether.


Water vapor is 99% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin, except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic.

Good lord. Another dumb ass. Water vapor depends on heat to evaporate into the atmosphere. There have been times in our geological history when the CO2 was at a very low level. And in spite of all of our oceans still being there, they froze nearly to the equator. Water vapor has a residence time of less than ten days in the atmosphere. CO2 a residence time measured in centuries.

95% of the climatologists will tell you exactly what I just said. Not only that, but the contribution to the present level of CO2 in the atmosphere is 40%. We have increased the amount of CH4 by over 150%.

At the depths of the ice age, the CO2 was at 180 ppm. At the time of the start of the industrial revolution, the CO2 stood at 280 ppm. Today it nealy 400 ppm. 100 ppm was the differance between continental glaciers down to the Midwest and the climate of 1850. As the effects of the addition of 120 ppm, plus the increasing amount that is being added every year, are felt, what do you think the results will be?

At present we are feeling the effects of the level of GHGs in the 1980s. And we are already seeing consequences in the melting of the continental ice caps, and the increasing amount of extreme weather events.

Brown T, you need seriously to take some remedial science classes.

Let's look at those residence times:

The driver for this study is the wide-ranging published values of the CO2 atmospheric residence time (RT), τ, with the values differing by more than an order of magnitude, where the significance of the difference relates to decisions on whether (1) to attempt control of combustion-sourced (anthropogenic) CO2 emissions, if τ > 100 years, or (2) not to attempt control, if τ 10 years. This given difference is particularly evident in the IPCC First 1990 Climate Change Report where, in the opening policymakers summary of the report, the RT is stated to be in the range of 50−200 years, and (largely) on the basis of that, it was also concluded in the report and from subsequent related studies that the current rising level of CO2 was due to combustion of fossil fuels, thus carrying the, now widely accepted, rider that CO2 emissions from combustion should therefore be curbed. However, the actual data in the text of the IPCC report separately states a value of 4 years. The differential of these two times is then clearly identified in the relevant supporting documents of the report as being, separately (1) a long-term (100 years) adjustment or response time to accommodate imbalance increases in CO2 emissions from all sources and (2) the actual RT in the atmosphere of 4 years. As a check on that differentiation and its alternative outcome, the definition and determination of RT thus defined the need for and focus of this study. In this study, using the combustion/chemical-engineering perfectly stirred reactor (PSR) mixing structure or 0D box for the model basis, as an alternative to the more commonly used global circulation models (GCMs), to define and determine the RT in the atmosphere and then using data from the IPCC and other sources for model validation and numerical determination, the data (1) support the validity of the PSR model application in this context and, (2) from the analysis, provide (quasi-equilibrium) RTs for CO2 of 5 years carrying C12 and 16 years carrying C14, with both values essentially in agreement with the IPCC short-term (4 year) value and, separately, in agreement with most other data sources, notably, a 1998 listing by Segalstad of 36 other published values, also in the range of 5−15 years. Additionally, the analytical results also then support the IPCC analysis and data on the longer “adjustment time” (100 years) governing the long-term rising “quasi-equilibrium” concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. For principal verification of the adopted PSR model, the data source used was the outcome of the injection of excess 14CO2 into the atmosphere during the A-bomb tests in the 1950s/1960s, which generated an initial increase of approximately 1000% above the normal value and which then declined substantially exponentially with time, with τ = 16 years, in accordance with the (unsteady-state) prediction from and jointly providing validation for the PSR analysis. With the short (5−15 year) RT results shown to be in quasi-equilibrium, this then supports the (independently based) conclusion that the long-term (100 year) rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most likely the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature, which is due to other natural factors. This further supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenically driven as an outcome of combustion. The economic and political significance of that conclusion will be self-evident.​

Potential Dependence of Global Warming on the Residence Time (RT) in the Atmosphere of Anthropogenically Sourced Carbon Dioxide - Energy & Fuels (ACS Publications)

[Emphasis added]

http://people.oregonstate.edu/~muirp/globclim.htm

CO2 persists for quite a long time in the atmosphere; its atmospheric residence time is on the order of decades to a centuries (30 - 800 years; Catalyst fall '07). About ~ 1/2 of the emissions that we put out today will be removed from the atmosphere within 30 years, while ~ 1/5 will persist for ~ 800 years.

 

[Si modo]

Good lord. Another dumb ass. Water vapor depends on heat to evaporate into the atmosphere. There have been times in our geological history when the CO2 was at a very low level. And in spite of all of our oceans still being there, they froze nearly to the equator. Water vapor has a residence time of less than ten days in the atmosphere. CO2 a residence time measured in centuries.

95% of the climatologists will tell you exactly what I just said. Not only that, but the contribution to the present level of CO2 in the atmosphere is 40%. We have increased the amount of CH4 by over 150%.

At the depths of the ice age, the CO2 was at 180 ppm. At the time of the start of the industrial revolution, the CO2 stood at 280 ppm. Today it nealy 400 ppm. 100 ppm was the differance between continental glaciers down to the Midwest and the climate of 1850. As the effects of the addition of 120 ppm, plus the increasing amount that is being added every year, are felt, what do you think the results will be?

At present we are feeling the effects of the level of GHGs in the 1980s. And we are already seeing consequences in the melting of the continental ice caps, and the increasing amount of extreme weather events.

Brown T, you need seriously to take some remedial science classes.

Let's look at those residence times:

The driver for this study is the wide-ranging published values of the CO2 atmospheric residence time (RT), τ, with the values differing by more than an order of magnitude, where the significance of the difference relates to decisions on whether (1) to attempt control of combustion-sourced (anthropogenic) CO2 emissions, if τ > 100 years, or (2) not to attempt control, if τ 10 years. This given difference is particularly evident in the IPCC First 1990 Climate Change Report where, in the opening policymakers summary of the report, the RT is stated to be in the range of 50−200 years, and (largely) on the basis of that, it was also concluded in the report and from subsequent related studies that the current rising level of CO2 was due to combustion of fossil fuels, thus carrying the, now widely accepted, rider that CO2 emissions from combustion should therefore be curbed. However, the actual data in the text of the IPCC report separately states a value of 4 years. The differential of these two times is then clearly identified in the relevant supporting documents of the report as being, separately (1) a long-term (100 years) adjustment or response time to accommodate imbalance increases in CO2 emissions from all sources and (2) the actual RT in the atmosphere of 4 years. As a check on that differentiation and its alternative outcome, the definition and determination of RT thus defined the need for and focus of this study. In this study, using the combustion/chemical-engineering perfectly stirred reactor (PSR) mixing structure or 0D box for the model basis, as an alternative to the more commonly used global circulation models (GCMs), to define and determine the RT in the atmosphere and then using data from the IPCC and other sources for model validation and numerical determination, the data (1) support the validity of the PSR model application in this context and, (2) from the analysis, provide (quasi-equilibrium) RTs for CO2 of 5 years carrying C12 and 16 years carrying C14, with both values essentially in agreement with the IPCC short-term (4 year) value and, separately, in agreement with most other data sources, notably, a 1998 listing by Segalstad of 36 other published values, also in the range of 5−15 years. Additionally, the analytical results also then support the IPCC analysis and data on the longer “adjustment time” (100 years) governing the long-term rising “quasi-equilibrium” concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. For principal verification of the adopted PSR model, the data source used was the outcome of the injection of excess 14CO2 into the atmosphere during the A-bomb tests in the 1950s/1960s, which generated an initial increase of approximately 1000% above the normal value and which then declined substantially exponentially with time, with τ = 16 years, in accordance with the (unsteady-state) prediction from and jointly providing validation for the PSR analysis. With the short (5−15 year) RT results shown to be in quasi-equilibrium, this then supports the (independently based) conclusion that the long-term (100 year) rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most likely the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature, which is due to other natural factors. This further supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenically driven as an outcome of combustion. The economic and political significance of that conclusion will be self-evident.​

Potential Dependence of Global Warming on the Residence Time (RT) in the Atmosphere of Anthropogenically Sourced Carbon Dioxide - Energy & Fuels (ACS Publications)

[Emphasis added]

http://people.oregonstate.edu/~muirp/globclim.htm

CO2 persists for quite a long time in the atmosphere; its atmospheric residence time is on the order of decades to a centuries (30 - 800 years; Catalyst fall '07). About ~ 1/2 of the emissions that we put out today will be removed from the atmosphere within 30 years, while ~ 1/5 will persist for ~ 800 years.

Hmmm, peer-reviewed science or undergraduate course work?

I'll take peer-reviewed.

Thanks.