On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 20:10:29 -0500, Cessna 310
wrote:

Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:
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.



Sorry, C14 is present in natural sources and man-made sources. Sorry,
its physics.

http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/pu...os_eps_96.html


And anybody that uses Wiki as a source should have all of their
information questioned.

I wonder if they do they do "Suess Effect"..