On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 23:50:47 +0000, Larry wrote:

Of course and in fact, this anything you wish to make a government funded
career out of is barely detectable by the finest laboratory equipment at
this concentration level, you forgot to mention, in your grant
application.

Okay I've had enough. I had you in the idiot bin for 30 days because of
all the "jew banker" **** you were spewing a while back. This ad hominem
crap is intellectually dishonest. Perhaps you, Karen, Dave and Wilbur can
start your own newsgroup...alt.religion.republican?
alt.cognitive.dissonance? alt.blissful.ignorance?

just some suggestions

in the meantime, I'll be resetting the filter to "never expire"

*plonk*

KLC Lewis wrote:
"Keith Hughes" wrote in message
...

KLC Lewis wrote:

No, you're focusing on the wrong issue. Take a look at the article again.
The whole point is the carbon *flux*. Without *our* input, the flux, on
average, is balanced (i.e. natural emitters = natural sinks). Thus the
*Increase* is due to man. The magnitude of the normal flux is irrelevant
since without us it's balanced. There are normal oscillations in
atmospheric carbon due to the many competing processes in
operation(emitters & sinks), but with addition of anthropogenic processes
those oscillations are now centered about an increasing trend line. It's
the rise in the mean carbon concentration about which those processes
oscillate that is the issue.

Keith Hughes

I understand what the article was about, as I'm the one who referenced it.

Well, the latter is clear, the former seems quite doubtful.

I'm not stating that Man has no effect on CO2 levels, as clearly we do. But
the fact remains that the CO2 that WE generate is a mere fraction of the
overall CO2 put into the atmosphere, and the paper in question documents
that fact.

What the article points out is that *ONLY* man is affecting the mean
atmospheric CO2 levels. How much *other* CO2 is put in the air is
totally irrelevant, since there are other mechanisms at work that
sequester/recycle *all* of it (according to your article). You can't
just look at all the other CO2 sources and say "See, our contribution is
negligible", that totally ignores the fact that all those other sources
have offsetting sinks.

So, ALL the CO2 put into the atmosphere, that is NOT removed by natural
processes, is due to Man. Clearly your article does not support the
position you seem to think it does.

Keith Hughes

"mr.b" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 23:50:47 +0000, Larry wrote:

Of course and in fact, this anything you wish to make a government funded
career out of is barely detectable by the finest laboratory equipment at
this concentration level, you forgot to mention, in your grant
application.

Okay I've had enough. I had you in the idiot bin for 30 days because of
all the "jew banker" **** you were spewing a while back. This ad hominem
crap is intellectually dishonest. Perhaps you, Karen, Dave and Wilbur can
start your own newsgroup...alt.religion.republican?
alt.cognitive.dissonance? alt.blissful.ignorance?

just some suggestions

in the meantime, I'll be resetting the filter to "never expire"

*plonk*


So fess up, Bubbie -- you were just a research assistant on that paper,
weren't you? You surely didn't have anything to do with writing it, based
upon your contributions to this thread.

"Keith Hughes" wrote in message
...


What the article points out is that *ONLY* man is affecting the mean
atmospheric CO2 levels. How much *other* CO2 is put in the air is totally
irrelevant, since there are other mechanisms at work that
sequester/recycle *all* of it (according to your article). You can't just
look at all the other CO2 sources and say "See, our contribution is
negligible", that totally ignores the fact that all those other sources
have offsetting sinks.

So, ALL the CO2 put into the atmosphere, that is NOT removed by natural
processes, is due to Man. Clearly your article does not support the
position you seem to think it does.

Keith Hughes

And that is a conclusion that is open to healthy debate. CO2 levels
fluctuate -- even those which are man-made. Our own contributions are also
absorbed back into the carbon cycle. Perhaps it takes a bit longer -- and
perhaps not. This statement from the paper I cited is in direct conflict
with the claims made by Al Gore et al:

"The terrestrial biosphere was probably roughly in balance during
the late 1970s and the 1980s. Over this period, CO2 release
from tropical land-use changes and the average CO2 uptake by
the terrestrial biosphere seem to have almost cancelled, in spite
of year-to-year variations. From 1991 to 1993, the terrestrial
biosphere probably was a net CO2 sink, in 1994 the CO2 rise was
back to its usual pace."

Dave wrote:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 18:00:19 +0100, Goofball_star_dot_etal
said:

Does the term Lysenkoism ring a bell?
Wikipedia is your friend.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism
Yes. But some of us didn't have to look it up.
Very true..

Some of us lack the vision to see the the potential of a self-tuning,
evolving system or in your case to see beyond your nose.

I trust that some at least will recognize the irony in the ad hominem attack
in the context above.

It did not escape notice.

Larry wrote:
Cessna 310 wrote in news:K2EOh.3425$Jm7.2307
@newsfe03.lga:

I don't have a link for the video, but
if someone can provide one, it would make for an interesting discussion.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU

It came from BBC, not ITN...sorry.

Larry

Yeah. I had the link to the BBC video a few weeks ago, but when they
archived the video, the link went dead.

KLC Lewis wrote:
"Keith Hughes" wrote in message
...

What the article points out is that *ONLY* man is affecting the mean
atmospheric CO2 levels. How much *other* CO2 is put in the air is totally
irrelevant, since there are other mechanisms at work that
sequester/recycle *all* of it (according to your article). You can't just
look at all the other CO2 sources and say "See, our contribution is
negligible", that totally ignores the fact that all those other sources
have offsetting sinks.

So, ALL the CO2 put into the atmosphere, that is NOT removed by natural
processes, is due to Man. Clearly your article does not support the
position you seem to think it does.

Keith Hughes

And that is a conclusion that is open to healthy debate. CO2 levels
fluctuate -- even those which are man-made. Our own contributions are also
absorbed back into the carbon cycle. Perhaps it takes a bit longer -- and
perhaps not. This statement from the paper I cited is in direct conflict
with the claims made by Al Gore et al:

"The terrestrial biosphere was probably roughly in balance during
the late 1970s and the 1980s. Over this period, CO2 release
from tropical land-use changes and the average CO2 uptake by
the terrestrial biosphere seem to have almost cancelled, in spite
of year-to-year variations. From 1991 to 1993, the terrestrial
biosphere probably was a net CO2 sink, in 1994 the CO2 rise was
back to its usual pace."



That was his rationalization of the global cooling experiences for the
40 years after World War 2.

A quick glance at the graphs of historical global warming cycles show
that we're just in another one. The timing and rate are predictable and
on schedule.

At best, its a toss-up as to whether CO2 causes or is a product of
global warming. But historical evidence corrected for outgasing would
indicate that we need at least another magnitude or two of CO2 level to
really impact global warming.

Jeff wrote:
* Larry wrote, On 3/29/2007 8:08 PM:
Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote in
:

The bottom line is that current models enable us to attribute the
causes of past climate change and predict the main features of the
future climate with a high degree of confidence. We now need to
provide more regional detail and more complete analysis of extreme
events.


OK, so what DID cause the Little Ice Age in the middle of the smoke
stacks during the height of the coal-fired industrial revolution??

As always, you're confused about the facts. The minimum for the "Little
Ice Age" was about 1700, while the beginning of the Industrial
Revolution was about 1760 or later. While the Industrial Revolution was
a profound change in England in the first years, it took 100 years for
it to spread around the world.

How does that explain why the earth has been warming for 15,000 years?

And why does the earth warm and cool like clockwork as evidenced by
records extending back millions of years?

And why is it man's fault that we're warming now at the same rate we did
during the last warming cycle when it could NOT have been man's fault?

And how/why can this natural trend be stopped or reversed if its not
man-make?

On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 08:22:17 -0500, linux57 wrote:

How does that explain ...snip
And how/why can this natural trend be stopped or reversed if its not
man-make?

Do you droids not read? The CO2 graphs are fairly simple to comprehend.
The fact is that we _are_ responsible. This is the clear concensus of
the overwhelming majority of trained observers from around the world.
What possible motivation could there be for someone not to grasp this
simple fact? Fear? Stupidity? Financial? All of the above?

mr.b wrote:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 08:22:17 -0500, linux57 wrote:

How does that explain ...snip
And how/why can this natural trend be stopped or reversed if its not
man-make?

Do you droids not read? The CO2 graphs are fairly simple to comprehend.
The fact is that we _are_ responsible. This is the clear concensus of
the overwhelming majority of trained observers from around the world.
What possible motivation could there be for someone not to grasp this
simple fact? Fear? Stupidity? Financial? All of the above?

Watch the film that has been posted here. There is no clear consensus of
trained observers from around the world. The CO2 level in the atmosphere
follows the temperature of the earth, not vice versa.

Did you know that most of the experts touting global warming have jobs
that depend on the theory of global warming being true?

Stephen