The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by melatonin

I don't think it was that long back that he was telling us that the greenhouse effect is a consequence of absorption of ultraviolet radiation.

Nice try mel... I guess that little oversight is still framed and hung on your wall?

You must be soooo proud of it.

TheRedneck

lol, one of many.

Just a few posts back...

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by melatonin

Please, mel, save your insults for someone who cares. You showed your true colors some time back when you couldn't grasp the concept of carbon sequestration... or when I called you on the availability of funding for something that has already been invented years ago.

The butthurticity doesn't suit you, RD. You are/were better than that.

I'll leave you and MC to it. He can waste his time trying to school you - been there, done that, and got the t-shirt and framed wall-posters.

[edit on 23-4-2010 by melatonin]

Redneck and Electric: You're dumb as # or on a payroll.

ATS loses another real scientist.

Bye bye.

reply to post by TheRedneck


Ok game on!

But I'd like to keep these posts as short as possible so let's focus on one thing at a time.

So to start - CO2 vs. photosynthesis

Nobody is saying plants aren't an important sink for CO2 - they are.


But we can argue for days over the more complicated effects of elevated CO2 levels on plant life in conjunction with other factors, excess heat, pine beetles, blah blah blah...

Or we can both save ourselves the time and just acknowledge this is all completely moot anyway.

Fact is you can pump this thread full of rainbows & sunshine about how great CO2 is for my mom's poinsettias - but what does any of that have to do with a quantitative discussion on carbon dioxide's impact as a GHG in the IR spectrum?

The only relevant argument you can make is whether or not plants remove enough CO2 to the level we don't even need to worry about it as a GHG. But as I've already tried to show by pointing out the obvious - clearly they don't.

So what else is there to say? I'm not entirely sure what you meant by this:

Sure, if you discount the life cycle of the planet, you wind up with a serious issue.

You mean the life cycle as in the terrestrial biosphere, or life cycle as in time - aka life span of the planet?

If you meant the biosphere: like I said, nobody's "discounting" it - but it's simply not enough. Living (and dying) creatures release about 100 GtC/yr - which plants indeed suck right back up.

But this is because nature is pretty much founded on the principle of being in balance with itself.

Being in balance with our coal plants, loggers, cement mixers, etc is a whole different ball game. Even though man-made emissions are much less than 100 Gt, nature evidently can't keep up - and that Keeling graph is all the proof I need.

So this has nothing to do with me trying to limit things to fit my side - it's just as I said: this whole argument is a red herring and I don't want to waste time or play games. If you want to explain to me how it's not - then I'm all ears - but otherwise I say we take the whole plant argument and "nip it in the bud"

Originally posted by seenitall
ATS loses another real scientist.

Bye bye.

Hope you don't mean that. Us pro-science "fanatics" could really use all the help we can get in the Fragile-(understanding-of-the)-Earth forum.

Originally posted by melatonin
been there, done that, and got the t-shirt and framed wall-posters.

"I debated TheRedneck and all I got was this lousy T-Shirt"?

reply to post by mc_squared

And so it begins...

I don't see a need to investigate every conceivable scenario concerning carbon dioxide and its impact with and effect on the life process. As you correctly point out, we could spend years going back and forth over minor issues like your link on the Japanese Beetle. Sure, it's important - even possibly vital - for that region, but it is globally insignificant.

Instead, I want to focus on the overall carbon sink phenomenon, which is pretty much covered in one of your links, The lowdown on carbon sinks. The major sink is, of course, photosynthesis. The main chemical equation is:

2n(CO2) + 2n(H2O) --photons--> 2(CH2O)n + 2n(O2)
or simplified
carbon dioxide + water, in the presence of sunlight, becomes carbohydrates and oxygen

Source for above

This is the regulatory means by which the planetary biosphere naturally controls the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Any chemical reaction relies on certain factors for its operation, and these factors determine the rate of reactions: of course, the amount of reactants; the temperature of the reactants; availability of energy input/output; and the concentration of the products.

Since carbon dioxide is one of the reactants, increases will of course shift the equation to the right, causing it to accelerate. Temperature, as long as it is not high enough to produce unwanted alternate reactions, will also increase the reaction speed. That leaves us with two possible unknowns for the reaction: sunshine and water availability.

I do not consider the amount of sunshine to be a limiting factor on the surface of the planet; your own evidence points out the fact that there seems to be an excess of incoming energy. Water is a more regional concern, but thus far I do not believe we have been experiencing more droughts globally than normal.

Just as in the phenomenon of carbon forcing (which I am sure we will cover sooner or later ), the photosynthetic process has its own forcing mechanism. Life grows and reproduces, creating more life and thus more potential photosynthetic activity. This growth can be clearly demonstrated by commercial greenhouse procedures.

The fourth variable that needs to be taken into account at the design stage is the atmosphere or air in the growroom and it is here the grower is often faced with a dilemma. On the one hand there is a strong requirement for a continuous supply of fresh air. Growing plants need a constant supply of carbon dioxide to maintain growth. CO2 is present in normal fresh air at the rate of around 330 parts per million (ppm). If you try to grow plants in a closed and sealed room you will quickly run into problems. As the plants grow they will rapidly use up the available CO2 which can drop to less than a third of normal levels within one hour.
(emphasis mine)

Source: www.hydroponics-grow-lights.com...

This would indicate that the carbon sinking effect of planetary flora is quite rapid and robust. We can calculate an approximation of this rate of consumption based on assumed conditions: consider a greenhouse with a height of 7 feet (2.134m). Each square meter of greenery would then be using 2.134 m³ of atmosphere, which at the reported CO2 concentration of 330 ppmv would be equal to 704 cm³ of actual CO2. Since it is reported that this can drop to one-third levels within an hour, that would mean that greenhouse plants are quite capable of converting 470 cm³ of CO2 per hour, even with levels ranging between 110 ppmv (one-third of the referenced level) and 330 ppmv.

470 cm³ of CO2 is equal to 928 mg of carbon dioxide... doesn't sound like much. Of course, that's per hour, under lower-than-present CO2 levels, and a low mass of plant life as well. I know of no greenhouses that contain anywhere near the amount of mass density that one would see in the typical forested area.

But there are more considerations: each hour, a little under a gram of carbon dioxide per square meter is being absorbed from the air in the example above. About 27.3% of that is actual carbon, and the carbon does not disappear... it becomes a part of the plant that absorbed it. Corn, to use an example, is approximately 43% carbon overall, so if that is assumed to be typical (and I know of no reason why it shouldn't be for our purposes here), that means that the plant has added about 590 mg of mass as well... plant mass that increases the amount of carbon dioxide it can take in.

The point is that plants are not only a substantial sink for carbon dioxide, but that their growth rates correspond to and thus compensate for increased carbon dioxide levels. How much this floral compensation can account for is open to debate, of course, and that is what we are here to find out. My purpose thus far has been to prove that it is both significant and adaptive.

I leave you with one additional link as further evidence of this fact:

Over the years there have been numerous laboratory experiments which conclude that increases levels of CO2 result in increased plant growth no matter how that plant growth is quantified.

...

Photosynthesis consists of chemical reactions. Chemical reactions procede at a higher rate at higher temperatures. The rule of thumb is that there is a doubling of the reaction rate for every 10°F rise in temperature. Plants grow faster at a higher temperature providing they have adequate levels of CO2, water, sunlight and plant nutrients. The C4 plants have a great response rate for a higher temperature than does the C3 plants.

A higher temperature without adequate level of the necessary ingredients for growth might produce no response or even damage. Sylvan Wittwer, quoted above, states that under most circumstances the availability of CO2 is the factor which limits growth. Thus with a higher level of CO2 in the air plants can grow faster with a higher temperature.

Source: www.sjsu.edu...

(I ask forgiveness for the gaudiness of the site... the information, however, would appear to be accurate.)

On a final note, I will address this graph, which you have now presented twice. It is of the "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, Measured at Mauna Loa, Hawaii".

Mauna Loa... is the largest volcano on Earth in terms of volume and area covered and one of five volcanoes that form the Island of Hawaii in the U.S. state of Hawaiʻi in the Pacific Ocean. It is an active shield volcano, with a volume estimated at approximately 18,000 cubic miles (75,000 km3), although its peak is about 120 feet (37 m) lower than that of its neighbor, Mauna Kea.

Source: en.wikipedia.org...

The most abundant gas typically released into the atmosphere from volcanic systems is water vapor (H20), followed by carbon dioxide (C02) and sulfur dioxide (S02). Volcanoes also release smaller amounts of others gases, including hydrogen sulfide (H2S), hydrogen (H2), carbon monoxide (CO), hydrogen chloride (HCL), hydrogen fluoride (HF), and helium (He).

Source: volcanoes.usgs.gov...

It could more easily be a measurement of the volcanic CO2 emission as it could be an indicator of atmospheric CO2 levels globally. What scientist tries to measure global CO2 levels via a sensor placed near a natural CO2 source?

Oh... the IPCC...

TheRedneck

Edit: to fix BBCode

[edit on 4/24/2010 by TheRedneck]

reply to post by pieman


Because the fact remains. They simply do not know.

reply to post by TheRedneck


Ok, so skipping the stoichiometry and cutting right to the chase:

To summarize - basically what you're saying above is the biosphere is a sufficient enough sink for CO2, and the observations at Mauna Loa that contradict this simply don't count because they're taken next to a volcano.

(So in other words you're claiming that CO2 is in fact not accumulating in the atmosphere).


Well...

First of all there are waaaay more places we get our data from than just Mauna Loa.

For example there is NASA's Atmospheric Infrared Sounder - and last time I checked a satellite is nowhere near a volcano.

But even back here on Terra firma, NOOA has an entire Global Network of monitoring stations that all confirm the same results. In fact they even have a specific page where you can compare global trends to those measured in Hawaii, and they are virtually identical:

(Click on the 'Global' tab at the top of the document to switch between the two)



...


But hey, if that doesn't satisfy you enough - let's assume all this data really is just "IPCC bull".

Instead - since we're both such big fans of pure science - let's you and I forget all the propaganda for a minute and just apply our own independent critical thinking to this issue:

Now, we're interested in the Keeling Curve because it is the oldest direct measurement available. It was begun in 1958 when AGW was little more than a crackpot fringe science and Al Gore was 10.

If the observations at Mauna Loa really are merely the result of a volcano, then explain to me two things:

1. Why hasn't anyone gotten a volcanologist on the phone to determine why Mauna Loa is steadily releasing more and more CO2 over the last 50 years...

AND

2. What are those weird zig-zag shaped patterns on the graph? How is it that something as spontaneous as a volcano is apparently also releasing CO2 in a distinct seasonal cycle?


Fact is Redneck those zig-zags actually support your claim about the biosphere. Because they represent the seasonal variation in photosynthesis between the Northern and Southern hemispheres. The North has much more land-mass and thus much more plant life. We can therefore see how much more CO2 is absorbed during Northern summer through the corresponding local minima in that Keeling graph.

The problem is those sinusoidal little zig-zags are completely dwarfed by that much larger upward linear trend.

Thus, like I said from the start - the terrestrial sink is a legitimate factor but it is absolutely no match for our growing emissions.

So again, we can trade all sorts of cute little tid-bits about how good or bad CO2 is for our *flora - but all this is going to do is support my point about how much #### deniers like to throw at the wall and hope it sticks.

Because in the end this has virtually nothing to do with the debate other than showing what creative distractions people come up with to try and derail it.

Oh... those deniers...



edit - to replace fauna with flora

[edit on 24-4-2010 by mc_squared]

Originally posted by mc_squared

The problem is those sinusoidal little zig-zags are completely dwarfed by that much larger upward linear trend.

Thus, like I said from the start - the terrestrial sink is a legitimate factor but it is absolutely no match for our growing emissions.

So again, we can trade all sorts of cute little tid-bits about how good or bad CO2 is for our fauna - but all this is going to do is support my point about how much #### deniers like to throw at the wall and hope it sticks.

How about the FLORA? I know that when its warmer out there is more plant life and tree growth. I know this first hand because in FLorida the grow period is all year, with 2 seperate 'planting seasons'. Those 2 planting seasons are actually for hot weather plants like squashes and tomatoes. But grow season is all year, permitted there is precipitation or irrigation of course. About half the stuff you'd ever grow, is currently in my huge garden seeding out from planting last fall leading into December. There are scores of vegewtable plants that grow in milder weather, but in places like Michigan there are too many bitter cold days to take advantage like here in the south. Anyways...

Yes or no: Warmer temps lead to more vegetative growth?

[edit on 24-4-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Ok I've got a few questions regarding my understanding of this topic.

I'll sum it up for you all and I'd really like to be corrected if I'm wrong or something.

So to every one that can answer here I go.

Climate change is real.
Man made climate change is a hoax.

The climate model the IPCC uses, does not include water vapor in it's results.

the acidification of the oceans I never learned was caused by Co2.
Human kind will empty the oceans before Co2 will kill it off ( if true ) anyway.

The climate is subject to the intensity of the sun, the Earths orbit and cosmic radiation.

Co2 emissions will not be reduced by those who produce them the most.

Co2 will result in more plant life.
There are much more potent greenhouse gasses released in the atmosphere then was predicted like methane and methane hydrate.

The oceans are our heating system and are responsible for global temperatures.

The oceans didn't get warmer but have been getting colder the last decade.

Climate gate has been admitted to be true by those accused of the scam.

There is a ice cor evidence which tells us that Co2 levels are linked to temprature and not temprature to C02.

Clouds ( water vapor ) Work like an insulator. When it's hot and sunny they reflect and when it's cold and cloudy they contain the heat.

At this point in time I'm convinced it's an economical hoax to enslave people to the system.

Originally posted by mc_squared
But even back here on Terra firma, NOOA has an entire Global Network of monitoring stations that all confirm the same results. In fact they even have a specific page where you can compare global trends to those measured in Hawaii, and they are virtually identical:

(Click on the 'Global' tab at the top of the document to switch between the two)

Here's a pressie for you.



Pearson's between the Mauna Loa data and Global network data (both average and seasonally adjusted trends) since 1980.



[edit on 24-4-2010 by melatonin]

reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss


Despite pointing out I got my latin confused - the rest of your response is completely missing the point.

I've said this like 7 times now - it doesn't matter how much better CO2 makes your garden grow. Show me those extra plants are actually removing GHG accumulation from the atmosphere and then we can talk.

reply to post by Sinter Klaas


That's more than "a few" questions lol, and I can right off the bat see a lot of straight up myths in there.

Don't have time to address them at the moment (about to step out for the night) but all I can say for now is don't believe everything that you read - and maybe pay close attention to this ensuing exchange between me and TheRedneck - perhaps after you can decide for yourself.

reply to post by mc_squared


Well good night and believe me I don't believe everything I read.

That's why I ask

Sweat dreams.

ps.
You are also more then welcome to u2u me.

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
Man made climate change is a hoax.

And you base that on?....Well, lets see...

The climate model the IPCC uses, does not include water vapor in it's results.

They use more than one model and they do contain the influence of water vapour.

7.2.1.2 Representation of water vapour in models

General circulation models do not impose a fixed relative humidity. Assumptions built into the models directly govern the relative humidity only in the sparse set of grid boxes that are actively convecting, where the choice of convection scheme determines the humidity. In the case of moist convective adjustment, the relative humidity after convection is explicitly set to a predetermined profile, whereas the mass flux schemes compute a humidity profile based on microphysical assumptions of varying complexity. The relative humidity elsewhere is determined by explicitly resolved dynamical processes, and in fact undergoes marked spatial (e.g., Figure 7.1b,c) and temporal fluctuations. Nonetheless, all models studied to date produce a positive water vapour feedback consistent with the supposition that water vapour increases in such a way as to keep the relative humidity approximately unchanged at all levels (Held and Soden, 2000). The strength of the water vapour feedback is consistent amongst models, despite considerable differences in the treatment of convection and microphysics (Cess et al., 1990).

linky

That is almost 10 years old. The information you have is well-behind the times.

the acidification of the oceans I never learned was caused by Co2.

Not of any consequence what you learned, especially considering how far behind the times you already appear to be. It is well-known to form an acid on dissolution.

The climate is subject to the intensity of the sun, the Earths orbit and cosmic radiation.

Of course.

Co2 emissions will not be reduced by those who produce them the most.

Quite possibly. And the more we allow ourselves to be distracted by anti-science deniers the more likely that will be the case.

Co2 will result in more plant life.

Overall, probably the case. But not all plant-life appears to respond so well.

There are much more potent greenhouse gasses released in the atmosphere then was predicted like methane and methane hydrate.

True but a mere red-herring. Like arguing that methamphetamine is a stronger stimulant than amphetamine so don't worry about leathering the dexedrine.

The oceans are our heating system and are responsible for global temperatures.

Nope, they are a massive storage/buffer which mediate the flow of energy. Otherwise you might as well argue that the teapot is boiled by the water.

The oceans didn't get warmer but have been getting colder the last decade.

Not true. Pretty stable, much like surface temps. In fact HadSST2 is slightly upwards between 1999-2009.

Climate gate has been admitted to be true by those accused of the scam.

Not true. But what do you even mean here? That someone hacked a UEA server and stole a bunch of emails, cherrypicked a bunch, released them at a time to create the maximum effect, leading to much sturm and drang, misrepresentation, dishonest quote-mining, and noise but which overall was little but denier's noise?

Yeah, that was true.

But I note the 'scam' smear. So I guess you didn't mean that and have just bought into the noise.

There is a ice cor evidence which tells us that Co2 levels are linked to temprature and not temprature to C02.

Just like water vapour is a GHG and results in temperature rise, it also responds to temperature by increasing in concentration. CO2 does the same. It is both a forcing and a feedback. Increase temps, increase Co2. Increase CO2, increase temps.

This is just an oft-cited denier's canard. Indeed, your questions are full of them so far. CO2 is a GHG due to its physical nature, to argue against it like you just have goes against very basic physics which has been known for over 100 years.

Clouds ( water vapor ) Work like an insulator. When it's hot and sunny they reflect and when it's cold and cloudy they contain the heat.

Clouds are not water vapour, they are formed from condensing water vapour. And what you say is wrong. And what are you trying to say here? It appears to come down to when it's cloudy, clouds retain heat in the atmosphere, but it's sunny and there's no clouds they don't...

It's not as if a cloud suddenly decides to start reflecting heat in warm weather. Maybe you're talking about the different forms of clouds - whether they are high or low altitude....

At this point in time I'm convinced it's an economical hoax to enslave people to the system.

But like the majority who think that, you're pretty poorly informed. Believe what you want, of course. The science has been over 100 years in the making, based on pretty simple physics. You can try to wish it away, but reality don't give a hoot about conspiracy-laden thinking.

However, you are supposedly just asking 'questions' which appear to be based on tedious denier's canards. But you have some answers.

Ciao.

[edit on 24-4-2010 by melatonin]

If CO2 levels have been at and above 1500ppm in Earths recent geologic history, without runaway global warming or catastrophe, why is there any reason to think that even a doubling from our current 350ppm would be any reason for concern? I mean I'm no scientist or anything but I am being asked to foot the bill for what appears to me to be the most dubious of junk science in the form of the Carbon tax...

Originally posted by mc_squared
I've said this like 7 times now - it doesn't matter how much better CO2 makes your garden grow.

I wasn't talking about CO2...

Show me those extra plants are actually removing GHG accumulation from the atmosphere and then we can talk.

You said it yourself, that CO2 goes up sharply during cold seasons. I'm implying that there would be more plant growth if temps really took off as you people claim, which could be an largely undiscussed negative forcing.

I'm well aware that the types who like to call people deniers tend to flat out avoid details that might counterbalance the arguments.

If you can find some detailed graphs showing temps, co2 etc for North American for the past 2 years we might be able to find something...

reply to post by mc_squared

To summarize - basically what you're saying above is the biosphere is a sufficient enough sink for CO2, and the observations at Mauna Loa that contradict this simply don't count because they're taken next to a volcano.

Close.

I am saying that the biosphere is an appreciable counteraction to any carbon dioxide accumulation that presents itself. I am also saying that the Mauna Loa observations are suspect because they are in close proximity to a known active volcanic vent.

Things are not always black and white. There are many shades of grey.

(So in other words you're claiming that CO2 is in fact not accumulating in the atmosphere).

No. I am saying that although we have experienced some minor accumulation (generally agreed to be from 280 ppmv to 380 ppmv since 1850), that

1. There is no evidence to support that future accumulations will be linear, or even significant as the biosphere adjusts to the new levels, and
   
2. There is no direct evidence that warming on a global scale will continue to happen.

That is where the argument typically degrades: when one side decides that the issue is black or white and begins to try and deny everything that the other side proposes. In actuality, I would love to understand completely what is happening to the climate, because we have indeed experienced some minor warming in the last century. Where I typically part ways with the Global Warming agenda is when this is seen as catastrophic, not when observations are given that may be a surprise to me.

First of all there are waaaay more places we get our data from than just Mauna Loa.

Yes, there are.

Unfortunately, all of them (as far as I can tell) rely on spectroscopy to determine the CO2 levels. Considering that the absorption/emission spectra overlap those of other atmospheric components (notably water vapor), there is even concern about this method.

That is not to say I discount spectroscopy; don't go high-contrast on me. It means that there are areas of the data that do not make sense, and it raises questions in my mind about the accuracy of the measurements. For instance, look at this page on the carbon dioxide levels in Europe. The first thing I noticed is that Europe seems to have little CO2 concentration, even though it is quite populated and has its fair share of industry. Regardless of the emission controls, hydrocarbons cannot be combusted in air without the creation of carbon dioxide. And according to global consumption statistics, Europe used about 14,000,000 bbl.day of oil compared to the United States at just over 20,000,000 bbl/day. Less, yes, but not a whole lot less. So why is there little to no CO2 across Europe. but seemingly tons of the stuff across the US?

Also, on the same page, take a look at Africa... it would seem that the Sahara desert, quite probably the least populated and least energy-consuming area on the globe (with the possible exception of Antarctica), has a higher CO2 level than Europe. How is this possible?

Any time I create a circuit, I test it first before relying on data from it. I am presently assembling just such a device, a conglomeration of various measurement devices for a project. That device will be thoroughly tested before I use the data from it, and retested should that data be surprising. To do anything less would be foolhardy and completely unscientific.

As such, when measuring something such as CO2 concentration levels which are assumed to be from consumption of fossil fuels, would it not be wise to suspect inaccuracies when the data received shows large CO2 levels in areas where there is little to no energy consumption and low levels where there is a high amount of energy consumption?

Again, I do not say these studies are useless or completely wrong; I am saying that they are giving results which do not correlate with assumed conditions, the same conditions that they are used to demonize. Something is wrong with that...

let's assume all this data really is just "IPCC bull".

I need to address this subject, even though it is more political than scientific.

Yes, I tend to suspect anything that is proposed or reported by the IPCC. They have had too many incidents of inaccuracies in their data being discovered and then either slow to respond or arrogant in that response. In addition, Jim Hansen is much too political in his statements for me to take seriously as a scientist. One cannot be politician and scientist at the same time; it is a severe conflict of interest.

Again, that does not make every word that proceeds out of the mouth of the IPCC or Hansen false; it makes it suspect. There is a difference.

Why hasn't anyone gotten a volcanologist on the phone to determine why Mauna Loa is steadily releasing more and more CO2 over the last 50 years

Possibly because even a vulcanologist isn't able to determine the makeup of the mantle beneath a volcanic vent until it is released. There is no set recipe for what a volcano spews forth; it is the result of the composition of the crust at that particular point. It does not take a vulcanologist to realize this.

Also, following one of your own links lead me to A Brief History of CO2 Measurements, where I found the following:

Revelle was able to get funding to finally settle the dispute during the eighteen-month International Geophysical Year, 1957-1959. He hired Charles David Keeling, a new postdoctoral scientist, and sent him to the top of the extinct volcano Mauna Loa in Hawaii. They chose this remote, tropical location because it was upwind of any local industrial activity that might influence the measurement. Keeling made his measurements four times a day, every day, for the IGY's eighteen-month span.

We now know that Mauna Loa is far from extinct, although apparently it was mostly dormant when the sensor was located. Thus, is it any stretch of the imagination to believe it has steadily been increasing it's output?

What are those weird zig-zag shaped patterns on the graph? How is it that something as spontaneous as a volcano is apparently also releasing CO2 in a distinct seasonal cycle?

It would be silly to presume that since Mauna Loa is producing additional carbon dioxide that this would somehow stop seasonal variations. Of course these seasonal variations would be expected to exist in the sensor readings, as a signal superimposed on the main signal being generated by the volcanic venting. That is exactly what we see.

What is surprising is that this increase seems to be the one most often used and most apparent, yet it is in an area that was specifically chosen due to its distance from industry. I would expect any CO2 level increase shown to be less than sensors located closer to industrial areas, if those areas are the source of the CO2.

Thus, like I said from the start - the terrestrial sink is a legitimate factor but it is absolutely no match for our growing emissions.

I will admit that it may be inadequate... but I want proof of that. At least we can agree that it is not irrelevant.

So again, we can trade all sorts of cute little tid-bits about how good or bad CO2 is for our fauna

Actually, I haven't touched on that subject, only on the fact that photosynthetic effects do create a carbon sink and that effect is amplified by their tendency to grow and reproduce in response to it. While I am sure your mother's petunias are beautiful, they really do have little place in this discussion, save their contribution to the CO2 levels.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by Neo_Serf
If CO2 levels have been at and above 1500ppm in Earths recent geologic history, without runaway global warming or catastrophe, why is there any reason to think that even a doubling from our current 350ppm would be any reason for concern? I mean I'm no scientist or anything but I am being asked to foot the bill for what appears to me to be the most dubious of junk science in the form of the Carbon tax...

Have you asked the dinosaurs or trilobites?

Because we are talking about a rapid shift in climate. 1500ppm would result in about 7-8'C warming. The last time the earth saw a large injection of carbon into the atmosphere (the PETM), it was associated with about 6'C of warming which lasted tens of thousands of years. We could do the same in a fraction of the time if we try hard enough.

I would tend to think that relative climate stability is preferable to rapid and massive climate shifts. Maybe that's just me.

reply to post by melatonin


Read the water vapour thing right HERE
I did not reall remembered it correct. So My question was also a little of.

I'd like to hear your opinion on this site

I'll have to add I do not deny climate change.
I do not even deny it is effected by man.

What I strongly believe is that the counter meassures to lower emissions will not help.

I know they will make people pay where companies do the damage. I know the climate change has successfully stopped us focusing on pollution and other things.

Every possibility I'm presented with ends up in favour of corporate industries. Leaving the middle class with a check to pay.

Even if everything of the man made global warming is true.
The actions presented will not be in our best interests.

On small unrelated example. All Gore the voice of climate change. I responsible for a bigger carbon footprint then that of some nations. ( a little exaggerated of course.)

Of course people are responsible for their actions.
Corporate industries is responsible for how they provide or handle the demand.



[edit on 4/24/2010 by Sinter Klaas]