"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
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.



It's cute that you had to look up "Anthropogenic" on Wiki. Perhaps you might
like to reference the tables in the previously-linked article which, while
they do not implicitely STATE that man-made CO2 "pales in comparison to that
which is generated by natural processes," nevertheless clearly demonstrate
it.

Here's another little link for you to pick-apart:

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/99/7/4167

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 16:40:17 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
.. .
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.



It's cute that you had to look up "Anthropogenic" on Wiki. Perhaps you might
like to reference the tables in the previously-linked article which, while
they do not implicitely STATE that man-made CO2 "pales in comparison to that
which is generated by natural processes," nevertheless clearly demonstrate
it.

The recent increase is largely anthropogenic this cannot be so if it
"pales in comparison to that which is generated by natural processes."


"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." -
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporat...ths/index.html

Your 'paper' is a mess. It is not immediately clear what are sources
and sinks.

"Caveat: This is not my field. Corrections and amendments,
especially
by professionals, are welcomed. Students should not use this article
as a reference for school projects. They should instead use it as a
pointer to some of the published literature."



Here's another little link for you to pick-apart:

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/99/7/4167


500 million years!

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 16:40:17 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:56:52 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
m...
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.



It's cute that you had to look up "Anthropogenic" on Wiki. Perhaps you
might
like to reference the tables in the previously-linked article which, while
they do not implicitely STATE that man-made CO2 "pales in comparison to
that
which is generated by natural processes," nevertheless clearly demonstrate
it.

The recent increase is largely anthropogenic this cannot be so if it
"pales in comparison to that which is generated by natural processes."

Even given modern increases, our contribution remains a fraction of that
produced naturally.



"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." -
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporat...ths/index.html

Your 'paper' is a mess. It is not immediately clear what are sources
and sinks.

All sources are footnoted. And it's not "my" paper.


"Caveat: This is not my field. Corrections and amendments,
especially
by professionals, are welcomed. Students should not use this article
as a reference for school projects. They should instead use it as a
pointer to some of the published literature."

And? It's clearly not your field either, but you feel qualified to discount
the source which I provided for you, even though the writer more or less
supports your side of the GW issue. lol



Here's another little link for you to pick-apart:

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/99/7/4167


500 million years!


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

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


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 16:40:17 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:56:52 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
om...
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.



It's cute that you had to look up "Anthropogenic" on Wiki. Perhaps you
might
like to reference the tables in the previously-linked article which, while
they do not implicitely STATE that man-made CO2 "pales in comparison to
that
which is generated by natural processes," nevertheless clearly demonstrate
it.

The recent increase is largely anthropogenic this cannot be so if it
"pales in comparison to that which is generated by natural processes."

Even given modern increases, our contribution remains a fraction of that
produced naturally.



"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." -
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporat...ths/index.html

Your 'paper' is a mess. It is not immediately clear what are sources
and sinks.

All sources are footnoted. And it's not "my" paper.


"Caveat: This is not my field. Corrections and amendments,
especially
by professionals, are welcomed. Students should not use this article
as a reference for school projects. They should instead use it as a
pointer to some of the published literature."

And? It's clearly not your field either,

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

but you feel qualified to discount
the source which I provided for you, even though the writer more or less
supports your side of the GW issue. lol



Here's another little link for you to pick-apart:

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/99/7/4167


500 million years!


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

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

"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.

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'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.

"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.

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.

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.