Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 17:09:07 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:

Yup. It's called "The Big Picture."

Not for burning coal or for mankind it isn't.



Naturally, if you wish to promote the idea that mankind is responsible for
GW, you will want to dismiss anything which occurred before we arrived on
the scene. Particularly when it shows that even with projected 'worst case
scenarios,' our CO2 levels won't even register on the chart.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 17:20:59 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 17:09:07 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:

Yup. It's called "The Big Picture."

Not for burning coal or for mankind it isn't.



Naturally, if you wish to promote the idea that mankind is responsible for
GW,

I am interested in truth(tm)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../304248a0.html
Go find the rest of the papers with my name on them (Wareing)

you will want to dismiss anything which occurred before we arrived on
the scene. Particularly when it shows that even with projected 'worst
case
scenarios,' our CO2 levels won't even register on the chart.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

I'm impressed. However, actual knowledge disqualifies you from any
newsgroup discussion.

* Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote, On 3/28/2007 7:34 PM:
I am interested in truth(tm)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../304248a0.html
Go find the rest of the papers with my name on them (Wareing)

you will want to dismiss anything which occurred before we arrived on
the scene. Particularly when it shows that even with projected 'worst
case
scenarios,' our CO2 levels won't even register on the chart.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 17:20:59 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 17:09:07 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:

Yup. It's called "The Big Picture."

Not for burning coal or for mankind it isn't.



Naturally, if you wish to promote the idea that mankind is responsible for
GW,

I am interested in truth(tm)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../304248a0.html
Go find the rest of the papers with my name on them (Wareing)

you will want to dismiss anything which occurred before we arrived on
the scene. Particularly when it shows that even with projected 'worst
case
scenarios,' our CO2 levels won't even register on the chart.



I see. My sympathy for the Altzheimer's.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

Two meter troll wrote:

respectfully the Some are a majority; that it is happening. the few
who are not convinced are by and large not doing sciance in the
field. we are a huge part of the cause looking at the data nothing
else has the co2 and methane outputs of human industry and
transportation. We have a debt we best start paying it now because we
are going to be paying intrest for a long while. so yes starting today
is better than letting the debt get bigger.

How much long-term Data do you need we have almost 500 years of
observed data that can be varified and another thousand in unvarified
observation. and then we have Ice core data back 60.000 years. how
much longer do you want to wait? I have kids and soon will have grand
kids I figure taking care of this now means my grand kids have a
chance.



No problem! There is data going back millions of years. That data
indicates that we are in a typical global warming cycle that is not much
different than the last seven cycles. In fact, its not as rapid as
three of the cycles.

In relation to the CO2 levels in the ice cores, there is a measurement
problem. The CO2 levels taken from the cores are raw levels and do not
allow for any outgasing of CO2 for the thousands of years the ice
existed. Outgasing will reduce the amounts in the ice and will
partially mask the actual amount of atmospheric CO2 at the time of the
ice was formed. (If you leave an open can of sparkling water, the CO2
will eventually escape leaving a can of flat water.)

So if we can't prove that CO2 levels are at a historic high now (which
they aren't anyway) and the temperature rise in consistent with previous
trends, where does that leave global warming?

Global warming is big business. Its not about developing alternative
energy sources. People are making a lot of money doing research and
others are being publicly funded to develop countermeasures to "stop
global warming". So the battle cry is to shout down anyone who
threatens that money source. if that money were spent on developing
alternative energy sources to coal/oil/natgas, we'd all be a lot better off.


The BBC has a special on a few weeks ago where a number of scientists
were interviewed. Though not necessarily addressing the above points,
they presented quite a bit of information that contradicts some of the
theories about global warming. I don't have a link for the video, but
if someone can provide one, it would make for an interesting discussion.


Anyone my age or older certainly can remember the scare of 40 years ago
or so when it was predicted that all the CO2 man was putting into the
atmosphere would thrust the earth into an ice age by 2010. Maybe the
electron spin on carbon atoms reversed itself. Bad electrons!! ;)

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

Two meter troll wrote:
On Mar 27, 3:33 pm, Dave wrote:
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 13:33:07 -0600, "KLC Lewis" said:

"Two meter troll" wrote in message
oups.com...
you might take a look at the amount of R&D money going to alturnative
energy. the tiny amount is not going to amount to jack in time to keep
the bottom 50% of the scale alive. so folks are gonna start burning
anything to keep warm. plastic, tires, rubber, peat, lowgrade coal,
and anything else you could imagine. think what Boston could look like
on a bad winter.
And 50 years ago, how much was being spent on the development of hydrogen
fuel cells? We know immensely more now than we did then -- I have every
reason to expect that we will know exponentially more 50 years from now than
we did then.
Sounds like Troll's patron saint is Malthus.

Dunno who Malthus is.
What I do know is I sailed a ship in open water to the north pole. All
the proof I needed was right there; my arctic is melting.
I dont give a blind **** about most of the world but the 4 places in
the world i care about are being screwed up, the South Pacific,
Arctic, Antarctic and Pacific Northwest.

The rest of the world happens to fall in between. frankly i couldnt
care less if most of the cities sank along with the populations. but
because they happen to be attached to the places i value i will try to
save them as well.


The data available indicates that this would happen even if man were not
on earth. Its happened many times before man was on earth, it'll keep
happening long after we've gone.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

Dave wrote:
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 15:07:09 -0600, "KLC Lewis" said:

on imperfect data, promoting impossible goals
with unforeseeable consequences, or would it be better to continue
developing alternative energy sources while continuing to study GW for
several more years and act upon better, more long-term data? I suggest that
the latter is wiser than the former.

One has to follow the money here. Can more grant money be shaken loose for
academia by arguing there's an imminent crises, or by arguing there's the
possibility of a distant crisis?

Exactly. And the press gets more attention by reporting crisis than
they do from reporting nice weather.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

KLC Lewis wrote:
"Two meter troll" wrote in message
oups.com...
in my career, i have seen a change in the waters i would be sailing at
different times of the year.
breakup in Dead Horse is now the middle of june and not mid july.
Africa is spitting tropical storms into the carib a little more often
than ten years ago. it affects how i plan a trip and how i navigate.
Even ships have limits and in some storms.
The tuna are getting closer and closer to shore here in oregon every
year and, early. the tuna fleet is already on its way up from the
south seas and its only march.

Folks do point out darwinianin selection but seem to forget that the
only reason GW is of concern is humans. the flora and fauna will live
on.


You are aware that hurricanes tend to run in ten-year cycles, and that we
are currently in the last few of years of a "high" period? And that,
technically speaking, humans are also "fauna"?



Actually, I think the hurricane cycles are seventeen years. We're just
now coming out of a period of relative calm.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

Cessna 310 wrote:


The BBC has a special on a few weeks ago where a number of scientists
were interviewed. Though not necessarily addressing the above points,
they presented quite a bit of information that contradicts some of the
theories about global warming. I don't have a link for the video, but
if someone can provide one, it would make for an interesting discussion.

This one?

http://www.channel4.com/science/micr...arguments.html

Stephen

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

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.

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

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

KLC Lewis wrote:


500 million years!


Yup. It's called "The Big Picture."



But the "big picture" must not work right because man wasn't around to
misinterpret it.

(TFPIC)

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:


No climate modelling is not my field. Atmospheric measurements are.



Then expose your identity so we can verify your expertise and contact
you directly for confirmation of your identity.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:


No climate modelling is not my field. Atmospheric measurements are.


Oh, that explains it. So you may be in jeopardy of losing research
funding if if global warming is revealed to be a natural occurrence.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:

I am interested in truth(tm)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../304248a0.html
Go find the rest of the papers with my name on them (Wareing)


Oh, so you're making a LOT of money on global warming. Then you have a
real economic reason to keep those research dollars coming.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

Stephen Trapani wrote:
Cessna 310 wrote:


The BBC has a special on a few weeks ago where a number of scientists
were interviewed. Though not necessarily addressing the above points,
they presented quite a bit of information that contradicts some of the
theories about global warming. I don't have a link for the video, but
if someone can provide one, it would make for an interesting discussion.

This one?

http://www.channel4.com/science/micr...arguments.html


Stephen

Can't find the actual video, but I think the link you provided is related.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

Well...many (Wilbur et. al. come to mind) are more accurately classed as
"flora" :-)

Keith Hughes

KLC Lewis wrote:

"Two meter troll" wrote in message
oups.com...

in my career, i have seen a change in the waters i would be sailing at
different times of the year.
breakup in Dead Horse is now the middle of june and not mid july.
Africa is spitting tropical storms into the carib a little more often
than ten years ago. it affects how i plan a trip and how i navigate.
Even ships have limits and in some storms.
The tuna are getting closer and closer to shore here in oregon every
year and, early. the tuna fleet is already on its way up from the
south seas and its only march.

Folks do point out darwinianin selection but seem to forget that the
only reason GW is of concern is humans. the flora and fauna will live
on.



You are aware that hurricanes tend to run in ten-year cycles, and that we
are currently in the last few of years of a "high" period? And that,
technically speaking, humans are also "fauna"?

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...

Actually, I think the hurricane cycles are seventeen years. We're just
now coming out of a period of relative calm.



Yeah, I was wrong about the length of the cycle -- it's longer than my
memory told me. But apparently the one we're in now began in 1995, with
several more years to go.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

Karen,

You need to read your references more carefully. The referenced text
states, among other things that:

"Overall, a natural disturbance causing the recent CO2 rise is
extremely unlikely."

And; "From 1991 to 1993, the terrestrial
biosphere probably was a net CO2 sink, in 1994 the CO2 rise was
back to its usual pace. [Battle] [Bender] [C.Keeling] [R.Keeling]
[Schimel 95, figure 2.2]"

The whole is a treatise discussing burning fossil fuels as the prime
culprit in the increased atmospheric CO2 levels. The data discussed
demonstrates shortterm variations due to various macroclimatic events,
but overall a decided increase in atmospheric CO2 levels. Hardly
supportive of your position.

Keith Hughes

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

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

"Keith Hughes" wrote in message
...
Karen,

You need to read your references more carefully. The referenced text
states, among other things that:

"Overall, a natural disturbance causing the recent CO2 rise is
extremely unlikely."

And; "From 1991 to 1993, the terrestrial
biosphere probably was a net CO2 sink, in 1994 the CO2 rise was
back to its usual pace. [Battle] [Bender] [C.Keeling] [R.Keeling]
[Schimel 95, figure 2.2]"

The whole is a treatise discussing burning fossil fuels as the prime
culprit in the increased atmospheric CO2 levels. The data discussed
demonstrates shortterm variations due to various macroclimatic events, but
overall a decided increase in atmospheric CO2 levels. Hardly supportive of
your position.

Keith Hughes

KLC Lewis wrote:

Wrong focus. Yes, the entire paper supports that the recent CO2 rise is due
to human activity -- and that I do not dispute. It is clear that we are
generating CO2 which would not otherwise be put into the atmosphere.
Nevertheless, the amount that we are generating does not approach that which
is generated by natural processes.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 20:17:28 -0500, Cessna 310 wrote:

Oh, that explains it. So you may be in jeopardy of losing research
funding if if global warming is revealed to be a natural occurrence.

and there's one more for the bozo-bin

*plonk*

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

KLC Lewis wrote:

Wrong focus. Yes, the entire paper supports that the recent CO2 rise is due
to human activity -- and that I do not dispute. It is clear that we are
generating CO2 which would not otherwise be put into the atmosphere.
Nevertheless, the amount that we are generating does not approach that which
is generated by natural processes.


And PETA (not the "People Eating Tasty Animals" gang) just jumped Al
Gore for eating meat. They claim that all the beef and pork farms
create the largest single contribution to atmospheric carbon. They say
he needs to focus on moving the world to a vegan diet to save the planet
form global warming.

So I guess we can find some real humor in this discussion.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...
KLC Lewis wrote:

Wrong focus. Yes, the entire paper supports that the recent CO2 rise is
due to human activity -- and that I do not dispute. It is clear that we
are generating CO2 which would not otherwise be put into the atmosphere.
Nevertheless, the amount that we are generating does not approach that
which is generated by natural processes.
And PETA (not the "People Eating Tasty Animals" gang) just jumped Al Gore
for eating meat. They claim that all the beef and pork farms create the
largest single contribution to atmospheric carbon. They say he needs to
focus on moving the world to a vegan diet to save the planet form global
warming.

So I guess we can find some real humor in this discussion.

They're kinda right, actually. But it's not the cows and pigs themselves,
per se: it's the bar-b-ques. lol

"Don't have a cow, the swine is fine!"

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

KLC Lewis wrote:
"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...
KLC Lewis wrote:
Wrong focus. Yes, the entire paper supports that the recent CO2 rise is
due to human activity -- and that I do not dispute. It is clear that we
are generating CO2 which would not otherwise be put into the atmosphere.
Nevertheless, the amount that we are generating does not approach that
which is generated by natural processes.
And PETA (not the "People Eating Tasty Animals" gang) just jumped Al Gore
for eating meat. They claim that all the beef and pork farms create the
largest single contribution to atmospheric carbon. They say he needs to
focus on moving the world to a vegan diet to save the planet form global
warming.

So I guess we can find some real humor in this discussion.

They're kinda right, actually. But it's not the cows and pigs themselves,
per se: it's the bar-b-ques. lol

"Don't have a cow, the swine is fine!"


LOL!!

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

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"..

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

* Dave wrote, On 3/28/2007 10:12 PM:
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 19:52:19 -0400, Jeff said:

I'm impressed.

You're too easily impressed.
Since I worked in academia for many years, and have continued to take
classes all my life, a good CV is only mildly impressive. However,
what is truly impressive is that someone who actually knows something
about any controversial topic is willing to share on this forum.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

On 28 Mar 2007 19:45:01 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 23:31:29 +0100, Goofball_star_dot_etal
said:

Wrong answer. He wasn't asserting it as a fact. He was asking that it be
assumed for the sake of argument. "No" in that context says simply "My
mind's made up and no amount of logic, argument or fact will change it. I'm
not willing to discuss the matter."

No, "no" means we need not guess or "assumed for the sake of argument"
because the measurements have already been made.

Q.E.D.

Postulating various scenarios which are myths is igrorance or
obfuscation.

Let me post the link again:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporat...ths/index.html

"Prof. John Mitchell OBE FRS, Chief Scientist at the Met Office
explores some of the common myths about climate change.

The Met Office recognises that climate change is a complex subject.
There are genuine areas of uncertainty and scientific controversy.
There are also a number of misunderstandings and myths which are
recycled, often by non-climate scientists, and portrayed as scientific
fact.

Recent coverage has questioned the influence of humans on the climate.
While the arguments used might have been regarded as genuine areas of
sceptical enquiry 20 years ago, further observed warming and advances
in climate science render these out of touch.



Myth 1 - Ice core records show that changes in temperature drive
changes in carbon dioxide, and it is not carbon dioxide that is
driving the current warming
Levels of atmospheric CO2 are higher than at any time in the last
430,000 years

Click on the image for a larger view
Only the first part of this statement is true. Over the several
hundred thousand years covered by the ice core record, the temperature
changes were primarily driven by changes in the Earth’s orbit around
the sun. Over this period, changes in temperature did drive changes in
carbon dioxide (CO2). Concentrations of CO2 are now much higher and
increasing much faster than at any time in at least the last 600,000
years. This should be a warning that what is happening now is very
different to what happened in the past.

In fact, over the last 100 years CO2 concentrations have increased by
30% due mainly to human-induced emissions from fossil fuels. Because
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the increased concentrations have contributed
to the recent warming and probably most of the warming over the last
50 years.

The bottom line is that temperature and CO2 concentrations are linked.
In recent ice ages, natural changes in the climate (due to orbit
changes for example) led to cooling of the climate system. This caused
a fall in CO2 concentrations which weakened the greenhouse effect and
amplified the cooling. Now the link between temperature and CO2 is
working in the opposite direction. Human-induced increases in CO2 is
enhancing the greenhouse effect and amplifying the recent warming.



Myth 2 - Solar activity is the main driver of climate change
Temperature change, 1850-2000

Click on the image for a larger view

There are many factors which may contribute to climate change. For
example, over the last million years most of the long-term changes in
climate were probably due to small but well understood changes in the
Earth’s orbit around the Sun. Over much of the last 1,000 years most
of the variability can probably be explained by cooling due to major
volcanic eruptions and changes in solar heating.

However, the situation in the 20th century is more complicated. There
is some evidence that increases in solar heating may have led to some
warming early in the 20th century, but direct satellite measurements
show no appreciable change in solar heating over the last three
decades. Three major volcanic eruptions in 1963, 1982 and 1991 have
led to short periods of cooling. Throughout the century CO2 increased
steadily and has been shown to be responsible for most of the warming
in the second half of the century.

The final piece of the jigsaw is that as well as producing CO2,
burning fossil fuels also produces small particles called aerosols
which cool the climate by reflecting sunlight back into space. These
have increased steadily in concentration over the 20th century, which
has probably offset some of the warming we have seen. Only when all of
these factors are included do we get a satisfactory explanation of the
magnitude and patterns of climate change over the last century.

The bottom line is that changes in solar activity do affect global
temperatures. However, what research also shows is that increased
greenhouse gas concentrations have a much greater effect than changes
in the Sun’s energy over the last 50 years.



Myth 3 - There is less warming in the upper atmosphere than at the
surface which disproves human-induced warming
We expect greater warming in the upper atmosphere than at the surface
in the tropics, but the reverse is true at high latitudes. This
expectation holds whether the cause of warming is due to greenhouse
gases or changes in the Sun’s output. Until recently, measurements of
the temperature changes in the tropics in recent decades did not
appear to show greater warming aloft than at the surface. It has now
been shown that allowing for uncertainties in the observations, the
theoretical and modelling results can be reconciled with the
observations.

The bottom line is that observations are now consistent with increased
warming through the troposphere.



Myth 4 - The intensity of cosmic rays changes climate
Solar activity, 1850-2000

Click on the image for a larger view
A recent experiment has apparently shown that gamma radiation can form
ions (electrically charged particles) in the atmosphere. Under certain
circumstances, these can subsequently form ultra-fine particles (or
aerosols), which could conceivably act as cloud condensation nuclei
(CCN) and therefore form clouds. However, the mechanism by which
cosmic rays might affect climate is as yet purely speculative and
unquantified. While it has long been known that radiation could form
ions and, in theory, ultimately lead to cloud formation, the
importance of this process compared to all the other major sources of
particles and CCN has not been proven. Indeed, there is no evidence
that the flux of cosmic rays has increased over the last 30 years.

The bottom line is, even if cosmic rays have a detectable effect on
climate (and this remains unproven), measured solar activity over the
last few decades has not significantly changed and cannot explain the
continued warming trend. In contrast, increases in CO2 are well
measured and its warming effect is well quantified. It offers the most
plausible explanation of most of the recent warming and future
increases.



Myth 5 - Climate models are too complex and uncertain to provide
useful projections of climate change
There have been major advances in the development and use of models
over the last 20 years. The models are based mainly on the laws of
physics. There are also empirical techniques which use, for example,
studies of detailed processes involved in cloud formation. The most
advanced computer models also include detailed coupling of the
circulations of atmosphere and oceans, along with detailed
descriptions of the feedbacks between all components of the climate
system including the cryosphere and biosphere. Climate models have
been used to reproduce the main features of the current climate, the
temperature changes over the last hundred years and the main features
of the Holocene (6,000 years ago) and Last Glacial Maximum (21,000)
years ago.

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.


"

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

Dave wrote:
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 22:08:11 -0400, "mr.b" said:

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 20:17:28 -0500, Cessna 310 wrote:

Oh, that explains it. So you may be in jeopardy of losing research
funding if if global warming is revealed to be a natural occurrence.
and there's one more for the bozo-bin

I guess Mr. b. doesn't want to tell us whether he has a financial interest
in GW.

Doesn't really matter. A lot of people have tied global warming to a
political ideology. Its too bad that science has now been so
politicized that facts supporting one view or another are shouted down
due to politics instead of their appropriate scientific worthiness.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

On 29 Mar 2007 11:15:01 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 10:56:07 -0500, Cessna 310 said:

Doesn't really matter. A lot of people have tied global warming to a
political ideology. Its too bad that science has now been so
politicized that facts supporting one view or another are shouted down
due to politics instead of their appropriate scientific worthiness.

Does the term Lysenkoism ring a bell?

Wikipedia is your friend.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

KLC Lewis wrote:


Wrong focus. Yes, the entire paper supports that the recent CO2 rise is due
to human activity -- and that I do not dispute. It is clear that we are
generating CO2 which would not otherwise be put into the atmosphere.
Nevertheless, the amount that we are generating does not approach that which
is generated by natural processes.

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

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

On 29 Mar 2007 11:53:02 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 17:42:50 +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.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 09:49:55 -0700, Keith Hughes
wrote:


KLC Lewis wrote:


Wrong focus. Yes, the entire paper supports that the recent CO2 rise is due
to human activity -- and that I do not dispute. It is clear that we are
generating CO2 which would not otherwise be put into the atmosphere.
Nevertheless, the amount that we are generating does not approach that which
is generated by natural processes.

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.

Thank God for grey matter.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 09:49:55 -0700, Keith Hughes wrote:

No, you're focusing on the wrong issue. snip

I've got to give you credit. You have much more patience than I.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 18:34:26 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 17:20:59 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 17:09:07 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:

Yup. It's called "The Big Picture."

Not for burning coal or for mankind it isn't.



Naturally, if you wish to promote the idea that mankind is responsible for
GW,

I am interested in truth(tm)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../304248a0.html
Go find the rest of the papers with my name on them (Wareing)

you will want to dismiss anything which occurred before we arrived on
the scene. Particularly when it shows that even with projected 'worst
case
scenarios,' our CO2 levels won't even register on the chart.



I see. My sympathy for the Altzheimer's.


Did I forget your birthday?

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

* Dave wrote, On 3/29/2007 12:15 PM:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 10:56:07 -0500, Cessna 310 said:

Doesn't really matter. A lot of people have tied global warming to a
political ideology. Its too bad that science has now been so
politicized that facts supporting one view or another are shouted down
due to politics instead of their appropriate scientific worthiness.

Does the term Lysenkoism ring a bell?

An interesting analogy you pick. The government had a political
agenda, so they adopt a wacko pseudo-science point of view and used
that to deny the good science adopted in the rest of the world. In
the end it set back Soviet agriculture 50 years.

So how much do you think we were set back by Bush's denial of Global
Warming?

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

* Dave wrote, On 3/29/2007 2:09 PM:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 13:46:41 -0400, Jeff said:

Does the term Lysenkoism ring a bell?
An interesting analogy you pick. The government had a political
agenda, so they adopt a wacko pseudo-science point of view and used
that to deny the good science adopted in the rest of the world. In
the end it set back Soviet agriculture 50 years.

So how much do you think we were set back by Bush's denial of Global
Warming?

Umm....I think you missed the point, Jeff.

I usually do miss your point. I even went back over every
contribution you made to this thread, but it all appeared to be
content free. Did you have a point this time?

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

On 29 Mar 2007 13:11:01 -0500, 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.

One got a little confused. Now what about this old Lysenko fella?
Was he a good scientist or a bad, ignorant peasant like Bush?

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 10:56:07 -0500, Cessna 310
wrote:

Dave wrote:
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 22:08:11 -0400, "mr.b" said:

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 20:17:28 -0500, Cessna 310 wrote:

Oh, that explains it. So you may be in jeopardy of losing research
funding if if global warming is revealed to be a natural occurrence.
and there's one more for the bozo-bin

I guess Mr. b. doesn't want to tell us whether he has a financial interest
in GW.

Doesn't really matter. A lot of people have tied global warming to a
political ideology. Its too bad that science has now been so
politicized that facts supporting one view or another are shouted down
due to politics instead of their appropriate scientific worthiness.

I think this almost unique to the situation in the USA. In the UK the
parties compete to tax us into green heaven.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

On 29 Mar 2007 13:52:01 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 19:38:55 +0100, Goofball_star_dot_etal
said:

On 29 Mar 2007 13:11:01 -0500, 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.

One got a little confused. Now what about this old Lysenko fella?
Was he a good scientist or a bad, ignorant peasant like Bush?

Hey, you're really losing it now.

To answer your question, sounds to me like you and Lysenko have a lot in
common.

Lack of self-awareness noted.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

"Keith Hughes" wrote in message
...

KLC Lewis wrote:


Wrong focus. Yes, the entire paper supports that the recent CO2 rise is
due to human activity -- and that I do not dispute. It is clear that we
are generating CO2 which would not otherwise be put into the atmosphere.
Nevertheless, the amount that we are generating does not approach that
which is generated by natural processes.

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.
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.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 15:23:32 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Keith Hughes" wrote in message
...

KLC Lewis wrote:


Wrong focus. Yes, the entire paper supports that the recent CO2 rise is
due to human activity -- and that I do not dispute. It is clear that we
are generating CO2 which would not otherwise be put into the atmosphere.
Nevertheless, the amount that we are generating does not approach that
which is generated by natural processes.

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.
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.


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

Atmosphere -- terrestrial vegetation 120 Photosynthesis
Terrestrial vegetation -- atmosphere 60 Respiration
Terrestrial vegetation -- soils & detritus 60
Soils & detritus -- atmosphere 60 Respiration

Atmosphere -- surface ocean 90
Surface ocean -- atmosphere 90

Surface ocean -- deep ocean 90 Inorganic carbon
Surface ocean -- deep ocean 10 Organic carbon
Deep ocean -- surface ocean 100 Mostly inorganic


If the C going into the atmosphere is +ve and (irrelevant)
Deep ocean -- surface ocean +ve

Atmosphere -- terrestrial vegetation = -120
Terrestrial vegetation -- atmosphere = +60
Terrestrial vegetation -- soils & detritus -- atmosphere = +60

Total =0

Atmosphere -- surface ocean = -90
Surface ocean -- atmosphere = +90

Total = 0

Surface ocean -- deep ocean = - 90 Inorganic carbon
Surface ocean -- deep ocean = - 10 Organic carbon

Deep ocean -- surface ocean = + 100 Mostly inorganic

Total = 0

Your "overall CO2 (WE don't) put into the atmosphere" = 0