Jennifer Marohasy posted the above graph to her blog as partial justification as to “why I am an Anthropogenic Global Warming Sceptic”. According to her interpretation:
“Since the IPCC’s task is to prove any global warming is due to human CO2 emissions, they decided to proclaim that carbon dioxide was long-lived in the atmosphere – a fabricated assumption.
“They did this despite the overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed studies (and corroborating empirical measurements) finding that CO2 in the atmosphere remained there a short time. Literally, a fabricated assumption, driven by political agenda, became a cornerstone of fraudulent climate model science. As a result, billions spent on climate models that are unable to predict climate with any accuracy…
It took just one post to correct Marohasy on this:
Two distinct concepts may both be referred to as ‘residence time’. One is the time that a given CO2 molecule, individually, spends in the atmosphere before it is transferred into the oceans or the biosphere. All the black lines – every single one – refer to this ‘residence time’.
The other is the time taken for the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere to reach equilibrium, after it’s been pushed out of equilibrium. The red line refers to this ‘residence time’
So your comparison is meaningless, and it’s the old question once more – are you being stupid, or dishonest?
Don’t expect Marohasy to actually own up – Tim Lambert has tried to pin her down on the dishonesty and lack of truth before with little success (see here and here too). Which leaves the honest (and unanswered) question: stupid, or just dishonest?