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.

"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!"

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!!

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"..

* 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.

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.


"

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.

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

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

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.