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