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*