"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:56:52 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:47:01 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:
Unfortunately, all the CO2 generated by humans pales in comparison to
that
which is generated by the natural processes of this planet.

No.


Yes.

http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html

It does not say that "all the CO2 (in the atmosphere) generated by
humans pales in comparison to that which is generated by the natural
processes of this planet." Far from it.

"Anthropogenic CO2
is a biogeochemical perturbation of truly geologic proportions"
[Sundquist] and has caused a steep rise of atmospheric CO2."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropogenic


The 'man made' part can be distiguished from 'natural sources' by
carbon isotope ratios.

"Indeed, atmospheric 14C, measured on tree rings,
dropped by 2 to 2.5 % from about 1850 to 1954, when nuclear bomb
tests started to inject 14C into the atmosphere [Butcher, p
256-257]
[Schimel 95, p 82]. This 14C decline cannot be explained by a CO2
source in the terrestrial vegetation or soils" etc.



It's cute that you had to look up "Anthropogenic" on Wiki. Perhaps you might
like to reference the tables in the previously-linked article which, while
they do not implicitely STATE that man-made CO2 "pales in comparison to that
which is generated by natural processes," nevertheless clearly demonstrate
it.

Here's another little link for you to pick-apart:

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/99/7/4167