NOAA/NASA Caught With Their Pants Down On Global Warming Numbers...

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: Greven
Because first of all the natural sources of CO2 emissions are not constant from year to year, and any given year the difference in natural CO2 emissions can be higher than the total amount of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

Second of all, CO2 levels have been higher in the past than now and instead of warming there was a cooling period. Likewise, there have been times during the geological record of Earth's history when CO2 levels were lower than now and temperatures were much higher than now. Such as the Medieval Warming Period, the Roman Warming Period, and the Minoan Warming Period.

The claim that CO2 causes massive warming is false. Like I showed, higher levels of atmospheric CO2 is in fact BENEFITIAL to the Earth. The claim that there is an "imbalance" due to anthropogenic CO2 is nothing more than a romanticized lie.

Is there still human-emitted CO2 in the atmosphere? If yes, then we are clearly causing some impact. I believe raymunduko answered that one earlier.

And solar irradiance was different in the past, the Sun's output was different, etc. There are many, many factors - not just CO2.

You deny that CO2 can cause warming?

You ignore science dating back into the late 1800s. More CO2 in an atmosphere will cause warming, ceteris paribus. This is beyond question. I fail to see a reason to keep responding to posts if you believe this.

originally posted by: SonOfTheLawOfOne
I in no way was mocking or demeaning you. I was pointing out the irony in your comments about Beck's work being put in a crappy journal, and yet the journal your tried to publish your work in has had "some issues with the journal" as though your excuse is supposed to be any different than the one you applied to the journal that published Beck's work.
...
Your argument here is nothing more than trying to obfuscate things. I only gave my criticism of things that you said which are not supported by empirical evidence, or papers based purely on models and not empirical data or observation.
...
Ask yourself, why does your graph look so different from mine if you are using the same GISS as the data source? Did you bother to look at it?

Because your source is (emphasis mine):

GLOBAL Temperature Anomalies in 0.01 degrees Celsius base period: 1951-1980
sources: GHCN-v3 1880-05/2014 (meteorological stations only)
using elimination of outliers and homogeneity adjustment
data.giss.nasa.gov...

(see graph above)

My source:

GLOBAL Land-Ocean Temperature Index in 0.01 degrees Celsius base period: 1951-1980
sources: GHCN-v3 1880-05/2014 + SST: ERSST 1880-05/2014
using elimination of outliers and homogeneity adjustment
data.giss.nasa.gov...

And this is EXACTLY what us "deniers" get pissed about is when data is incorrectly represented.

You are now guilty of it too, regardless if your graph is wrong or your source reference is, it's a reflection of this entire post and everything I've been saying.

Now, maybe you should go model some climate from that graph and tell everyone that the rise in temperature is going to kill everyone if we don't do something to stop it.

Anyone can read what you wrote and draw the same conclusion that I did.

You claimed proper peer review for papers that you cited, whereas I rather doubt that happened considering the integrity of that journal is in question.

You're getting ahead of yourself. Here's the Global Temperature Anomalies from GISS plotted with Global Temperature Index:

They are not that dissimilar, really.

The reason they look much different is because I was plotting average annual temperatures, rather than monthly temperatures. But let's do that and compare it to your chart, with the Index rather than the Anomalies:

Still doesn't look like there's any decline in warming. Why are the trends reversed? Why does it appear that the Y-axis is shifted 0.1 degree Celsius lower than the data from GISS?

Also, look what happens when you shift the start year to 2000 and the end month to May:


I fail to see what I am guilty of. Go plot these yourself, you'll see the exact same thing. Who actually made that chart you're using?

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
... O2 is not going down, and if it is it will be due to deforestation, not to an increase in CO2... The higher the levels of CO2, the more that plants and trees have for food. Not to mention that higher levels of atmospheric CO2 makes all the green biomass to use water more efficiently, which means they use less water leaving more for humans and animals...

The problem of rising CO2 & temperature on agriculture has been studied seriously by scientists for a long time in much more sophisticated detail. There are some upsides in some areas (more CO2, all else being equal, which won't be true, does increase growth for some plants), but many downsides in others. It is foolish to present one part of it as a cudgel to people to make them think "oh everything will be perfectly fine and better" without the other parts of it.

In practical agriculture, growth is limited by H2O availability, not CO2, and changes in climate will disrupt weather patterns severely, most prominently where agriculture is irrigated by melting snowpack. With global warming and higher winter temperatures, you'll have less snowfall accumulation, and when water comes down it will come down in a spring flood (very bad for agriculture) instead of a consistent emission throughout the growing season. In particular California and much of Northern India which have enormous agricultural productivities will be affected.

And increases in night-time temperatures decrease yield of important crops.

originally posted by: Greven
You ignore science dating back into the late 1800s. More CO2 in an atmosphere will cause warming, ceteris paribus. This is beyond question. I fail to see a reason to keep responding to posts if you believe this.

I agree. This is even more idiotic to argue, as the increases in infrared emissivity is a measured experimental fact in the atmosphere, not just theory and supposition.

The fundamental boundary conditions and energy balance has changed and will change much more. There's no way to weasel out of that basic physics which has been there since the beginning.

originally posted by: SonOfTheLawOfOne

That does not mean that we are the cause of temperature rising, especially in light of temperature rising before CO2. So are we the cause of the temperature rising? Because CO2 rising is not what is responsible for the temperature, it is the other way around and has an enormity of support with hard data.

Except for basic facts of physics.

So what is the cause of the increase in temperature? What does temperature do to the release of CO2 from various sinks?

Why then did the CO2 suddently get released from those sinks so so so so much faster after 1750, and especially accelerating in the 20th and 21st century? Show the physical mechanism, backed up by experimental data which confirms this hypothesis, and how the combustion of fossil fuels was actually magically sequestered.

You know, there can be feedback and interactions in both directions. Temperature increases can change geological & biological processes which cause more CO2 which causes more rapid temperature increase which cause more emissions. This doesn't negate the physics of CO2 in the atmosphere which is a confirmed scientific fact and not a myth.

Now, with humans that historical natural cycle is broken because obviously there's a totally new source of carbon which is NOT the result of whatever was happening in prehistoric eras.

It's based on physics, not mechanism-free statistical correlations based on an inappropriate measurement period.

I would think it's more important to understand why temperature is increasing (NOT CO2) if we have more evidence that supports CO2 increases lag temperature increases, both recently and historically.

Sillly person, the fact that CO2 increases temperature does not rely on any paleoclimate sources---it comes from electromagnetism and chemistry. CO2 emitted at time T causes temperature increases throughout [T,T+1000] or so.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: Greven
Yes I did, and this fact does not refute the evidence. Not to mention that people such as yourself often times just post your own opinions without referring to any research or facts. I will prove my point in other responses to you below.

That research extends to the year 2010, or 4 years ago.
www.co2science.org...

Yes the Sargasso Sea temperature graph was researched on that particular paper until 1999...

It is a "suggestion" because rice farming releases methane...

Now you are taking the research completely out of context and making your own conclusions which are wrong...

...the Medieval Warming Period, and the Roman Warming Period were "global occurrences", and they were not local, as even you have tried to imply.

Err, first of all the temperatures during the CURRENT Warming Period were not taken from reconstructions of oxygen content in the ocean... Temperatures for the Current Warming Period have been taken directly from the atmosphere... So when you are implying that the present acidification of the oceans now should make this research invalid is either dishonest on your part, if you knew what you were talking about, or it once again shows you just don't know what you are talking about at all.

"Years before present" generally means either 1950 or 1850, not whatever year the chart was made. This is why I ask for dates when I see charts that do not actually state what year 0 is.

The Alaska study only focuses on July temperatures. This is rather specific. It's also a very small range - less than 2 degrees Celsius across the entire chart. This is, apparently, a more stable environment than that of the next chart. Recall again what has been said about local climates.

There is a rather detailed article on SkS regarding charts like that one. It is clear to me that you are incorrect - that chart ends around about 1950. Even if you do not bother to look at those comparisons, consider the Y-axis values. The entirety of that chart is within a range of about 3.5 degrees Celsius. A more accurate year 0 point would be at or above the high point in the MWP. It visually exaggerates the scale of change.

Neither the article I relied on nor the abstract of that work you cited mentions methane at all. Is methane mentioned somewhere within the study? Again, I do not have access to stuff behind a paywall.

I'm asking why two studies of tree rings in a relatively similar area show somewhat different things.

Science has not fully determined that the Medieval Warm Period was a global event. If you can show conclusively that it is, even through a literature review, I'm sure you will get a publication of your own out of such research. Although, WUWT already claimed a paper has done so. On the other hand, SkS claims the same paper shows that the oceans are heating faster in the CWP than in any other period.

It really isn't my area of expertise, no. I very well could be mistaken, but that wasn't my point. From what I know of δ18O, it's a measurement of isotope ratio of O18/O16; (Sample / Standard -1)x1000 ppm, where I assume the standard they are using is VSMOW (~2005 ppm). Additionally, a higher δ18O is associated with lower temperature, ceteris paribus. That study claims a higher δ18O and warmer temperature (the opposite), but also lower salinity (which could indeed mean warmer). I don't have access to the journal itself, so I really cannot comment on it that much more.

originally posted by: mbkennel

Except for basic facts of physics.

That made absolutely no sense in reference to what you quoted.

What basic facts of physics are you referring to?

You must mean the incalculable ones, you know, the facts like how much heat is transferred through convection? (a major unknown physical fact as it relates to climate)

Or the effects of CO2 sinks that are known but not measured by any current means? (such as from bacteria, and again, another unknown fact as it relates to climate)

Or the role that water vapor plays on transfer of heat through the troposphere, which shows how little a role CO2 plays?

If you look at what you actually quoted me saying, you have not provided any explanation on why the temperature increases before CO2? Once you eliminate it as a cause of temperature changes (since cause infers it came FIRST), the culprit is no longer CO2.

My original question:

So what is the cause of the increase in temperature? What does temperature do to the release of CO2 from various sinks?

Your follow-up:

Why then did the CO2 suddently get released from those sinks so so so so much faster after 1750, and especially accelerating in the 20th and 21st century? Show the physical mechanism, backed up by experimental data which confirms this hypothesis, and how the combustion of fossil fuels was actually magically sequestered.

You are answering my question with a question? That's not how it works, especially since you are asking me to provide proof for a hypothesis that I didn't propose. I asked a question. You want to chime in to the thread, but completely avoid the question I posed, in favor of your own.

I'm asking why the temperature increased FIRST, which provided absolutely no reason for you to ask ME to provide YOU experimental data to answer a question YOU asked. Arrogant much?

Not only that, but you are in essence, just echoing exactly what I've been saying. There is no empirical data for what you're asking for, on either side of the argument. I never once claimed that the experimental data exists, and have in fact been arguing the merits of basing global warming claims on predictive models and data that is not empirical.

I also didn't say anything about how CO2 is sequestered, but there are obviously other sinks, as well as forcing and feedback mechanisms from other sources that overpower or counter the ones of CO2 that we know about - if nothing more than by the fact that the models and predictions from the CRU and IPCC didn't occur (hot spot, large increase in temps, ice cap disappearing, etc.). So something is not being accounted for even though the CO2 is increasing, and it's NOT more CO2.

1750 is not some magic year when all of a sudden, millions of coal burning ovens showed up and started pumping out CO2, so that year is statistically insignificant, and likely nothing more than a convenient circumstance to use as a marker in our history to relate to.

The real boom in industry happened almost 50 years later, so the fact that changes started occurring in 1750 is correlation, not causation since there is not observation or measurements from that time to provide sufficient evidence for that argument. If the increase began closer to 1800, that would be more correlative but still wouldn't provide CAUSE.

However, if you consider the evidence that supports temperature increasing FIRST, and then CO2 increasing as a result, that evidence shows that the lag has an average time of 800 years, with a tolerance of 200. It is very possible that the rapid increases in CO2 that started during the 18th-19th century are a result of the warming that occurred in the MWP (Medieval Warming Period). There is no evidence to believe it's not possible.

Further considering that El Nino can have a profound impact on the amount of CO2 released from the ocean (between a 30-80% increase) due to the temperature changes in the water (not a sudden change in CO2), is evidence that temperature changes have a more direct impact on CO2 changes rather than the other way around.

Your questions are extremely presumptuous of you. You believe that we have discovered every source in nature that can cause a change in our temperature or CO2 levels, or that we know of every possible sink for sequestered CO2?

With such large unknowns, it's dangerous to have such a deep assumption that the current theory is correct in the face of such contradicting evidence, and even worse, to try and base any predictions AT ALL against missing variables.

You know, there can be feedback and interactions in both directions. Temperature increases can change geological & biological processes which cause more CO2 which causes more rapid temperature increase which cause more emissions. This doesn't negate the physics of CO2 in the atmosphere which is a confirmed scientific fact and not a myth.

This negates common sense. If you had a synergistic link between temperature and CO2 the way you describe (in both directions), there would be evidence of a runaway effect eons ago, and that never happened in any of our historical records that we are aware of. At some point, a plateau for the feedback occurs, or equilibrium would occur, and this is what the temperature and CO2 records tell us DID happen.

It doesn't change the fact that a temperature increase occurs FIRST, and then whatever reaction occurs with CO2 happens as an EFFECT from that CAUSE. None of this negates physics in any kind of way. You are ignoring the evidence.

Now, with humans that historical natural cycle is broken because obviously there's a totally new source of carbon which is NOT the result of whatever was happening in prehistoric eras.

This is complete and utter speculation on your part.

What natural cycle have we broken that wasn't broken before by something else?

How do you know the "natural cycle" hasn't been broken 100 times over the history of our "cycles"?

Can you back up with experimental data, your outrageous hypothesis?

Just because the new source of carbon is being emitted from us today, does NOT mean that there were not sources of higher carbon emissions in the past (large volcanoes, bacteria, ???), from the same biological or geological processes you speak of.

That is a very presumptuous statement to make.

It's based on physics, not mechanism-free statistical correlations based on an inappropriate measurement period.

I'm pretty sure you didn't read any of my previous posts, but you are pretty much re-stating one of the points I've been making about the accuracy of measurements and the danger of basing climate models and predictions from it.

Sillly person, the fact that CO2 increases temperature does not rely on any paleoclimate sources---it comes from electromagnetism and chemistry. CO2 emitted at time T causes temperature increases throughout [T,T+1000] or so.

At least I can read before I quote someone!

Let me spell out what I said one more time.

Temperature changes usually precedes CO2 changes. Cause and effect. No residence time or CO2 emissivity calculation needed, the relationship is not causative, it is an effect.

You silly person you. LOL

~Namaste

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

CO2 and radiative forcing, there is a link.

More CO2 more radiative forcing, more CH4 more radiative forcing....

originally posted by: Greven
Is there still human-emitted CO2 in the atmosphere? If yes, then we are clearly causing some impact. I believe raymunduko answered that one earlier.

And solar irradiance was different in the past, the Sun's output was different, etc. There are many, many factors - not just CO2.

You deny that CO2 can cause warming?

You ignore science dating back into the late 1800s. More CO2 in an atmosphere will cause warming, ceteris paribus. This is beyond question. I fail to see a reason to keep responding to posts if you believe this.

The impact of Anthropogenic CO2 is negligible... IF it wasn't then your idols wouldn't have a need to lie, to delete raw temperature data, they wouldn't need to try to stop researchers and scientists from investigating. Yet they do the contrary. Can you not understand it? If anthropogenic CO2 caused the massive warming claimed by the AGW camp, they wouldn't have a need to the devious tactics that they have been caught doing on many occasions...

There are many other factors occurring that anthropogenic CO2 would have no say on the matter. Such as the increase magmatic activity in underwater volcanoes which are heating many areas, including the Antarctic and the Arctic. Obviously the Earth's core is reacting to something new in the environment, and it's not CO2.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: charlyv

These are real numbers. Within the last few hundred years, the very rightmost x value on this timescale , CO2 increase in the atmosphere has gone asymptotic. Can anyone really believe that there will be no ramifications to our climate from what you see here? If not, please explain why it is not important.

The Earth started to warm at the beginning of the 1600s, over 200 years before the advent of the industrial revolution.

Global borehole temperature data has shown this.

The map above shows the location of borehole sites in the database that we have analyzed to date. The diagram below is a global perspective of surface temperature change over the last five centuries, averaged from 837 individual reconstructions. The thick red line represents the mean surface temperature since 1500 relative to the present-day. The shading represents ± one standard error of the mean. Shown in blue for comparision is the global mean surface air temperature (five year running average) derived from instrumental records by P.D. Jones and colleagues at the University of East Anglia .

www.ncdc.noaa.gov...

Throughout the history of Earth's geology the data shows that temperatures increases lead before CO2 levels increase by an average 800 years. While mankind has released anthropogenic CO2, hence it's term as anthropogenic. There is no real evidence that shows this increased level of CO2 will cause the dramatic warming claimed by the AGW camp. in fact most of the warming attributed to CO2 is caused by water vapor, and not CO2. But since water vapor is 99.999% natural, world leaders can't use the increase in water vapor to control people.


Let's see the surface temperature from borehole stations side by side to the increase in CO2 levels.

That is a very nice and thorough analysis.
My point in the ice cores data is that this spike in Co2 is asymptotic. It would seem that whatever breaks such a cycle has to be a (hopefully temporary) traumatic change in the climate, lest it go out of control completely and then one only has to look at Venus to see evidence of the worst scenario.

originally posted by: Greven
If there are so many papers floating around, you wouldn't mind linking a few, would you? Otherwise, I'm skeptical of your claims.

I fail to see how the salinity of the ocean decreased during a time when ocean levels should have been on the decline. Perhaps you can link a source to this, as well?

My claims?... It is you who keeps making up claims that are wrong. How the hell do you figure that ocean levels should have been on a decline during WARMING periods such as the Roman and Medieval Warm periods?...

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Doom doom doom, and you accuse me of being an AGW activist who believes anything AGW article I read. I do appreciate the irony.

Why do so many not want to take care of this planet?

As I person who grew up on the beaches and ocean in a tourist destination, I have observed all kinds of people and all kinds of behaviors. Most have no problem picking up their trash when they leave the beach, yet there is always some who think it is okay to leave all their garbage including their baby's diapers when the leave.

Most of us want to clean up this planet. We have allowed those who think there is nothing wrong with leaving their trash behind to gain power. Now those type of people are trying to convince others it is okay to leave there trash behind because 'the tide will wash it way' or it is too timely and expensive to clean-up their mess.....

CO2 is vital to life on this planet. The spike in concentrations that we are experiencing needs to culled. We are causing the spike.

When it comes to science I am a realist. I find it ironic that once again you are trying to imply that CO2 is a pollutant, when it isn't. Atmospheric CO2 doesn't "need" to be culled as you claim...

If you really want to clean up the planet, you should worry more about the real toxic chemicals being released into rivers, lakes, the oceans, land and the atmosphere itself.

You just keep showing that AGW, and this absurb claim that "CO2 needs to be culled" comes from nothing more than the religious fervor that is plaguing the AGW camp.

Then again, you, and those members who gave you stars, seem oblivious to the contradiction of your entire response. More so in your last statement in which you first state "CO2 is vital for life", which is true. But then you claim "it must be culled...

BTW genius, I wonder how you think it would be possible to just "cull", I am guessing you mean to sequester the amount of CO2 that is in the atmosphere and is anthropogenic. Hint: It is not possible.

Even after I showed you facts on how higher levels of atmospheric CO2 in the atmosphere are in fact beneficial, you keep ignoring the facts.

Oh and btw, you better get out of your house, and never go inside a building with A/C (air conditioning) or heaters because the levels of CO2 inside closed buildings is an average of 1,000ppm +. Yet you claim, alongside the liars like Mann, Hansen, Jones et al that levels of atmospheric CO2 of 380ppm -400ppm or even 500ppm "are catastrophic" for life and the planet...

It is also ironic how you claim to think that AGW is a hoax, and then you proclaim that it isn't and fall back to claiming that "CO2 must be culled"...

originally posted by: charlyv


That is a very nice and thorough analysis.
My point in the ice cores data is that this spike in Co2 is asymptotic. It would seem that whatever breaks such a cycle has to be a (hopefully temporary) traumatic change in the climate, lest it go out of control completely and then one only has to look at Venus to see evidence of the worst scenario.

Thank you for the compliment. As for the ice core data spike, if you notice the spikes are just one data point, which could have been caused by anomalous natural events. As for the Earth turning into Venus? That is highly unlikely unless some major astronomical even caused such a disastrous event. CO2 levels on Earth have been 7 times and even 12 times higher than they are now, yet Earth did not turn into Venus.

If you are asking whether the ongoing "Natural Climate Change" will continue, or if it would stop? Mankind has nothing to say about it. All mankind can do is adapt to such changes as mankind has done for millennia. If the changes are catastrophic there is really nothing we can do sort of building large spaceships capable of transporting safely humans out of the Solar System and ahead of the catastrophe if it does happen.

Oh, and as to your statement that the CO2 spike is asymptotic. Asymptotic to what exactly? You have to remember that Earth has had 12 times as much atmospheric CO2 as it exists now on and there was no tipping point. If that's what you are referring to. If Earth didn't turn into Venus when CO2 levels had been 4,000ppm+, why would it turn now when CO2 levels are around 380ppm-400ppm?

The only thing that would turn Earth into Venus is if some major astronomical, and catastrophic event occurs.

However, the big question is If the encounter of our Solar System with the new region of the Local Fluff is going to be catastrophic. I don't know that answer. Only time will tell.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Are you trying to tell the good people who read ATS that there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature?

Specifically the radiative forcing aspect of CO2? Is that just a myth too?

originally posted by: jrod

...
For the record: never have I claimed to have a PHD, I cited Dr. Windsor a PHD who taught an atmospheric chemistry class at Florida Institute of Technology in 2003

Please kindly do not misrepresent what I write, it takes away from your credibility.

Really?... When in the page before you posted, and I quote...

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Dr Lazarus is still at FIT. He can verify that Dr. Windsor was indeed there in 2003, and I indeed was enrolled there. Ask Sallie Mae.

my.fit.edu...

There is an email address somewhere on that site or one of the sub-pages to Dr. Lazarus. Proof that I have a genuine PHD to back my claims up.

Wow...just wow...

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Are you trying to tell the good people who read ATS that there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature?

Specifically the radiative forcing aspect of CO2? Is that just a myth too?

What?... wow... I have shown how you have contradicted your own statements on several occasions by directly QUOTING YOU... How about you find a quote where I have stated that CO2 is not a ghg and doesn't absorb radiation... You won't find it...

You see, in your ramblings you continue to not understand that what members like SonOfTheLawOfOne and I differ from members like you on the topic of AGW is that we do not think CO2 absorbs as much radiation as people like you claim it does... Not to mention that we actually back our statements with proof...

You sir, maam are INSANE... You keep contradicting yourself throughout this thread, and now you are even claiming that I wrote something I actually NEVER wrote...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Sorry. Your posts can be confusing. I must have mis-read what you wrote.

With science, the best answer is a simple one. A lot can be lost in those overly wordy postings.

BTW, there is something we as a species can do to cull the CO2 that is accumulating in our atmosphere.

(edited for double post)

originally posted by: SonOfTheLawOfOne

originally posted by: mbkennel

Except for basic facts of physics.

That made absolutely no sense in reference to what you quoted.

What basic facts of physics are you referring to?
...


~Namaste

Unfortunately there are people who seem to think that making such generalized claims supports their opinion.

Heck, look at jrod's claims. He/she stated that "he believes AGW is a hoax" in one of his responses, and then he makes another post in which he backs the AGW claim by implying that "CO2 must be culled", and makes analogies of how similar those of us who don't "believe" in the AGW claim are to "people who don't want to clean garbage from the beach"...

These people don't see a difference between the real toxic chemicals to gases that are essential to life. They don't understand, or want to understand, that just because CO2 is a ghg it doesn't mean it absorbs the "catastrophic amount of radiation" the AGW camp claim CO2 absorbs and which is not based on empirical data.

When these people contradict themselves and make irrational comments you know exactly what is going on...

originally posted by: mbkennel


Except for basic facts of physics.

...
It's based on physics, not mechanism-free statistical correlations based on an inappropriate measurement period.
...

What else is there to say?... Except what comes below...

originally posted by: mbkennel

...
Sillly person, the fact that CO2 increases temperature does not rely on any paleoclimate sources---it comes from electromagnetism and chemistry. CO2 emitted at time T causes temperature increases throughout [T,T+1000] or so.

wow...

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Sorry. Your posts can be confusing. I must have mis-read what you wrote.

With science, the best answer is a simple one. A lot can be lost in those overly wordy postings.

BTW, there is something we as a species can do to cull the CO2 that is accumulating in our atmosphere.

Again could you, on your own words specify why exactly "we must cull CO2"?... Please post evidence, and facts, not the false claims made by Mann, Hansen, Jones, et al who have been caught lying through their teeth regarding the topic of AGW and Climate Change.