Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Scientists Close In On Missing Carbon Sink
Science Daily ^ | June 22, 2007 | National Center for Atmospheric Research

Posted on 06/22/2007 5:00:23 AM PDT by Brilliant

Scientists Close In On Missing Carbon Sink Science Daily — Forests in the United States and other northern mid- and upper-latitude regions are playing a smaller role in offsetting global warming than previously thought, according to a study appearing in Science this week. The study, which sheds light on the so-called missing carbon sink, concludes that intact tropical forests are removing an unexpectedly high proportion of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, partially offsetting carbon entering the air through industrial emissions and deforestation.

To study the global carbon cycle, Stephens and his colleagues analyzed air samples that had been collected by aircraft across the globe for decades but never before synthesized. The team found that some 40 percent of the carbon dioxide assumed to be absorbed by northern forests is instead taken up in the tropics.

"Our study will provide researchers with a much better understanding of how trees and other plants respond to industrial emissions of carbon dioxide, which is a critical problem in global warming," Stephens says. "This will help us better predict climate change and identify possible strategies for mitigating it."

The missing carbon

For years, one of the biggest mysteries in climate science has been the question of what ultimately happens to the carbon emitted by motor vehicles, factories, deforestation, and other sources. Of the approximately 8 billion tons of carbon emitted each year, about 40 percent accumulates in the atmosphere and about 30 percent is absorbed by the oceans. Scientists believe that terrestrial ecosystems, especially trees, take up the remainder.

To find this terrestrial carbon sink, scientists have turned to computer models that combine worldwide wind patterns with measurements of carbon dioxide taken just above ground level. The models indicate that northern forests absorb about 2.4 billion tons per year. However, ground-based studies have tracked only about half that amount, leaving scientists to speculate about a "missing carbon sink" in the north.

Stephens and his collaborators set out to test how well the models captured carbon sinks, focusing in particular on estimates produced by a recent international study into global carbon exchange known as TransCom. They turned to flasks of air collected by research aircraft over various points of the globe for the past 27 years. The air samples had been analyzed by several labs around the world, which used them to investigate various aspects of the carbon cycle, but this was the first time that a team of scientists analyzed them to obtain a picture of sources and sinks of carbon on a global level.

The research team compared the air samples to estimates of airborne carbon dioxide concentrations generated by the computer models. The scientists found that most of the models significantly underestimated the airborne concentrations of carbon dioxide in northern latitudes, especially in the summer, when plants take in more carbon. The aircraft samples show that northern forests absorb only 1.5 billion tons of carbon a year, which is almost 1 billion tons less than the estimate produced by the computer models.

The scientists also found that intact tropical ecosystems are a more important carbon sink than previously thought. The models had generally indicated that tropical ecosystems were a net source of 1.8 billion tons of carbon, largely because trees and other plants release carbon into the atmosphere as a result of widespread logging, burning, and other forms of clearing land. The new research indicates, instead, that tropical ecosystems are the net source of only about 100 million tons of carbon, even though tropical deforestation is occurring rapidly.

"Our results indicate that intact tropical forests are taking up a large amount of carbon," Stephens explains. "They are helping to offset industrial carbon emissions and the atmospheric impacts of clearing land more than we realized."

Capturing vertical movements

Most of the computer models produced incorrect estimates because, in relying on ground-level measurements, they failed to accurately simulate the movement of carbon dioxide vertically in the atmosphere. The models tended to move too much carbon dioxide toward ground level in the summer, when growing trees and other plants take in the gas, and not enough carbon dioxide up in the winter. As a result, scientists believed that there was relatively less carbon in the air above mid-latitude and upper-latitude forests, presumably because trees and other plants were absorbing high amounts.

Conversely, scientists had assumed a large amount of carbon was coming out of the tropics and moving through the atmosphere to be absorbed in other regions. But the new analysis of aircraft samples shows that this is not the case.

"With this new information from aircraft samples we see that the models were overestimating the amount of uptake in the north and underestimating uptake in the tropics," says Kevin Gurney of Purdue University, a co-author of the paper and coordinator of the TransCom study. "To figure out exactly what is happening, we need improved models and more atmospheric observations."

The Science article, "Weak northern and strong tropical land carbon uptake from vertical profiles of atmospheric CO2," was written by an international team of scientists led by Britton Stephens of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).

The research team comprised scientists from Colorado State University, Purdue University, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the United States; as well as from the Laboratory of Climate Science and the Environment (France), Tohoku University, National Institute for Environmental Studies, and Nagoya University (Japan), Central Aerological Observatory and Sukachev Institute of Forest (Russia), University of Leeds (United Kingdom), Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry (Germany), and CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research (Australia).

Authors were Britton B. Stephens, Kevin R. Gurney, Pieter P. Tans, Colm Sweeney, Wouter Peters, Lori Bruhwiler, Philippe Ciais, Michel Ramonet, Philippe Bousquet, Takakiyo Nakazawa, Shuji Aoki, Toshinobu Machida, Gen Inoue, Nikolay Vinnichenko, Jon Lloyd, Armin Jordan, Martin Heimann, Olga Shibistova, Ray L. Langenfelds, L. Paul Steele, Roger J. Francey, A. Scott Denning.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: carbon; carboncycle; carbonsink; climatechange; energy; forests; globalwarming; gore
Personally, I suspect that the missing carbon sink is Michael Moore.
1 posted on 06/22/2007 5:00:27 AM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
I found it.


2 posted on 06/22/2007 5:03:50 AM PDT by ovrtaxt (THOMPSON NEEDS TO CLARIFY HIS POSITION ON THE SPP BEFORE I SUPPORT HIM.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

“To figure out exactly what is happening, we need improved models and more atmospheric observations.”

But Al Gore says we already know what is happening and we’re all doomed.


3 posted on 06/22/2007 5:17:00 AM PDT by revtown
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
Carbon dioxide is the result of the Sun's warming the Earth, not the cause of global warming.

Winston Churchill, if alive today, would have issued this quote: "Never have so many been wrong about so much..."

4 posted on 06/22/2007 5:22:43 AM PDT by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
The aircraft samples show that northern forests absorb only 1.5 billion tons of carbon a year, which is almost 1 billion tons less than the estimate produced by the computer models.

Maybe the models are wrong in their many assumptions.

5 posted on 06/22/2007 5:22:43 AM PDT by Nomorjer Kinov (If the opposite of "pro" is "con" , what is the opposite of progress?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

That’s an interesting article. But the many references to “computer models” as though they were living oracles bother me. Computer models are merely tools. If someone using a computer model finds that it gives results that differ from measured results, then the computer model is simply wrong in one or many aspects. Computer models don’t tell you anything. People who use computer models may have opinions based on those models.


6 posted on 06/22/2007 5:37:02 AM PDT by ChessExpert (MSM: Always ready to take side)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AmericaUnited

Say what? Did you mean “Global Warming is the result of the Sun warming the Earth, not the result of carbon dioxide”?


7 posted on 06/22/2007 5:38:53 AM PDT by Little Pig (Is it time for "Cowboys and Muslims" yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

Growing more forests in United States could contribute to global warming (Save Earth! Cut trees!)
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory ^ | December 5, 2005 | Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1534904/posts


8 posted on 06/22/2007 5:43:55 AM PDT by Matchett-PI (A better name for the goracle is "MALgore" - as in MALpractice, MALevolent, MALfeasance, MALodorous,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

Whooops. So are the carbon credit companies going to have to find some other way than (supposedly) planting a tree when you (or the US House of Representatives) buy an offset?


9 posted on 06/22/2007 5:45:44 AM PDT by craig_eddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

Just noting this study is quoting NET absorption.

Vegetation takes in about 62 billion tons of carbon each year and releases 60 billion tons back. Oceans have similar numbers with 92 billion going in and 90 billion being released.

Those figures can be compared to human emissions which are about 7.5 billion tons a year right now. So trees and oceans are absorbing on a net basis about 4.0 billion of the 7.5 billion tons of carbon we are releasing each year but the totals involved in the carbon cycle dwarf human figures. It is just that we are adding more to a system which was more-or-less in balance. That could change however.

If anyone has a link to the study, or access to Science magazine, I’d be interested in the actual CO2 concentration figures they measured in this study.


10 posted on 06/22/2007 5:45:57 AM PDT by JustDoItAlways
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
The missing carbon

For years, one of the biggest mysteries in climate science has been the question of what ultimately happens to the carbon emitted by motor vehicles, factories, deforestation, and other sources. Of the approximately 8 billion tons of carbon emitted each year, about 40 percent accumulates in the atmosphere and about 30 percent is absorbed by the oceans. Scientists believe that terrestrial ecosystems, especially trees, take up the remainder.

Missing Carbon?!? Small potatoes.

90% of the Universe is missing. Ponder that you 'climate science' guys (Oh, and get a real job).

11 posted on 06/22/2007 5:46:47 AM PDT by Condor51 (Rudy makes John Kerry look like a Right Wing 'Gun Nut' Extremist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
Personally, I suspect that the missing carbon sink is Michael Moore.

Actually he is just an oxygen load. Nothing moore.

12 posted on 06/22/2007 5:47:22 AM PDT by P8riot (I carry a gun because I can't carry a cop.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ChessExpert; xcamel
Computer models don’t tell you anything. People who use computer models may have opinions based on those models.

It’s even worse than that..

People who WRITE computer models HAVE opinions based on those models that they write, and get MORE money FROM those computer models when they write computer models that make results that the get those funds.

I’m being cynical of course: but re-read the baseline article to see HOW MANY assumptions proved wrong by how many hundreds of times: 1.8 BILLION assumed tons becomes merely one million tons... Vertical paths were ignored.

30% of the carbon emitted by man (in TODAY’S emissions!) is “lost” yet the enviro’s are demanding that we crash the economy to reduce emissions by 2% ?

13 posted on 06/22/2007 5:48:33 AM PDT by Robert A. Cook, PE (I can only donate monthly, but Hillary's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: JustDoItAlways

“human emissions...”

I would think that as long as the world’s population is growing (and not getting skinnier), the net human emissions are negative. Maybe that’s where the sink is.


14 posted on 06/22/2007 5:50:51 AM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: AmericaUnited
You know I was thinking the same thing. Every winter, when the Midwest is farther from the sun, is seems to get colder.

During the day when the Sun is overhead, it seems to get warmer; when the Sun is gone it gets cooler.

I think you may have come up the smoking gun; the Sun is the cause of Global Climate change.

15 posted on 06/22/2007 5:52:10 AM PDT by MattMa ("Void of ideas, driven by hate, vote the Democratic Party in 2008")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE

Bingo!! We have a winner!!


16 posted on 06/22/2007 5:55:25 AM PDT by xcamel ("It's Thompson Time!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

“Net Human emissions” =

- 1/100th of the total population dies each year, 70 million people, at 150 pounds (.07 tons), with 20% of that Carbon by weight, equals net human absorption of carbon buried each year in graves...

= Only 1 million tons. LOL.


17 posted on 06/22/2007 6:04:48 AM PDT by JustDoItAlways
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: MattMa
Every winter, when the Midwest is farther from the sun, is seems to get colder.

Actually, when it's winter in the northern hemisphere, the earth is closer to the sun than it is in the summer. It's just that because of the tilt of the earth, the sun's rays hit more directly in the northern hemisphere during the summer. Southern hemisphere seems to have more extreme temperatures -- when the earth is closer to the sun, they're getting the direct summer rays, and vice versa.

Of course, most of what I know about southern hemisphere temperatures is from reading The Thorn Birds years ago! ;-)

18 posted on 06/22/2007 6:08:46 AM PDT by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: P8riot

Methane.

He’s a methane load.


19 posted on 06/22/2007 6:13:52 AM PDT by BenLurkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: JustDoItAlways

They don’t have to die, though. As long as the aggregate weight of the carbon incorporated into human beings is increasing, that’s carbon that won’t be in the atmosphere.


20 posted on 06/22/2007 6:20:44 AM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

Maybe we should ask Slick Willy - he seems to be an expert at sinks.


21 posted on 06/22/2007 6:28:12 AM PDT by reagan_fanatic (..and the horse you rode in on!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JustDoItAlways
Those figures can be compared to human emissions which are about 7.5 billion tons a year right now. So trees and oceans are absorbing on a net basis about 4.0 billion of the 7.5 billion tons of carbon we are releasing each year but the totals involved in the carbon cycle dwarf human figures.

What you're saying, essentially, is that humans are adding an additional 3.5 billion tons yearly that is not being absorbed -- which amounts to roughly 1-2% per year. That's quite a lot, actually.

The question, of course, is whether or not the rest of nature will adapt to take advantage of the new levels of CO2 -- which I've got to think it will.

BTW, the biggest new enviro scare is that CO2 is going to cause the oceans to become more acidic, and thereby dissolve the shells of sea creatures. (Really!) Perhaps ... but probably not.

22 posted on 06/22/2007 6:34:13 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

To find this terrestrial carbon sink, scientists have turned to computer models

garbage in, garbage out


23 posted on 06/22/2007 6:40:15 AM PDT by PeterPrinciple ( Seeking the truth here folks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
He’s a methane load.

No he's a methane source.

24 posted on 06/22/2007 7:01:11 AM PDT by P8riot (I carry a gun because I can't carry a cop.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: PeterPrinciple; Brilliant

“To find this terrestrial carbon sink, scientists have turned to computer models” ~

“garbage in, garbage out” ~ PeterPrinciple

And the amount of GIGO generated will be in direct proportion to how badly a scientist wants to: [1] find “evidence” of something that will help politicians be able to justify raising taxes, [2] which will ensure even more “government funding” for his College or University’s “science projects”, [3] which will in turn ensure his ability to obtain tenure and other career “perks”, both personal and professional, down the road.

Scientists question trees’ role in global warming January 12, 2006. 6:00am
European scientists could turn climate science on its head after suggesting trees may contribiute greenhouse gases. (ABC TV)
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200601/s1545977.htm

BBC News Scientists in Germany have discovered that ordinary plants produce significant amounts of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas which helps trap the sun’s energy in the atmosphere.

...The findings, reported in the journal Nature, have been described as “startling”, and may force a rethink of the role played by forests in holding back the pace of global warming. To their amazement, the scientists found that all the textbooks written on the biochemistry of plants had apparently overlooked the fact that methane is produced by a range of plants even when there is plenty of oxygen. The amount of the gas produced increased when the air was warmer, and when there was more sunlight. The paper estimates that this unexplained phenomenon could account for 10-30% of the world’s methane emissions. The possible implications are set out in Nature by David Lowe of New Zealand’s National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, who writes: “We now have the spectre that new forests might increase greenhouse warming through methane emissions rather than decrease it by sequestering carbon dioxide.” ...If this turned out to be true, it would have major implications for the rules of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, which allows countries and companies to offset emissions from the burning of fossil fuels like coal and oil by funding the planting of new forests or the restoration of deforested areas ..” Continue: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4604332.stm


25 posted on 06/22/2007 7:04:33 AM PDT by Matchett-PI (A better name for the goracle is "MALgore" - as in MALpractice, MALevolent, MALfeasance, MALodorous,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
The models had generally indicated that tropical ecosystems were a net source of 1.8 billion tons of carbon, largely because trees and other plants release carbon into the atmosphere as a result of widespread logging, burning, and other forms of clearing land. The new research indicates, instead, that tropical ecosystems are the net source of only about 100 million tons of carbon, even though tropical deforestation is occurring rapidly. "Our results indicate that intact tropical forests are taking up a large amount of carbon," Stephens explains. "They are helping to offset industrial carbon emissions and the atmospheric impacts of clearing land more than we realized."

...or that tropical deforestation is not occuring as rapidly as thought. There seems to be a sizable amount of evidence that deforestation and forest reclamation are about balanced.

26 posted on 06/22/2007 7:18:57 AM PDT by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maryz
You may be right on the distance part of my post.

I still say that the Sun did it.

27 posted on 06/22/2007 7:21:05 AM PDT by MattMa ("Void of ideas, driven by hate, vote the Democratic Party in 2008")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: MattMa

LOL! I’ve no quarrel with that! ;-)


28 posted on 06/22/2007 7:24:18 AM PDT by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

I saw a roadside sign that said, “Cast iron sinks.”
My wife remarked, “Everybody knows that!”


29 posted on 06/22/2007 7:34:46 AM PDT by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: P8riot; BenLurkin

“He’s a methane load.” ~ BL

“No he’s a methane source.” ~ P8

Here’s proof:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover031307.htm
Maurice Strong, Al Gore
Creators of carbon credit scheme cashing in on it
By Judi McLeod Tuesday, March 13, 2007

There’s an elephant in warming’s living room that few in the mainstream media want to talk about: the creators of the carbon credit scheme are the ones cashing in on it.

The two cherub like choirboys singing loudest in the Holier Than Thou Global Warming Cathedral are Maurice Strong and Al Gore.

This duo has done more than anyone else to advance the alarmism of man-made global warming.

With little media monitoring, both Strong and Gore are cashing in on the lucrative cottage industry known as man-made global warming.

Strong is on the board of directors of the Chicago Climate Exchange, Wikipedia-described as “the world’s first and North America’s only legally binding greenhouse gas emission registry reduction system for emission sources and offset projects in North America and Brazil.”

Gore buys his carbon off-sets from himself—the Generation Investment Management LLP, “an independent, private, owner-managed partnership established in 2004 with offices in London and Washington, D.C.” of which he is both chairman and founding partner.

To hear the saving-the-earth singsong of this dynamic duo, even the feather light petals of cherry blossoms in Washington leave a bigger carbon footprint.

It’s a strange global warming partnership that Strong and Gore have, but it’s one that’s working.

Strong is the silent partner, a man whose name often draws a blank in the Washington cocktail circuit. Even though a former Secretary General of the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (the much hyped Rio Earth Summit) and Under-Secretary General of the United Nations in the days of a beleaguered Kofi Annan, the Canadian born Strong is little known in the Unites States. That’s because he spends most of his time in China where he works to make the communist country the world’s next superpower. The nondescript Strong, nonetheless is big cheese in the world of climate change, and is one of the main architects of the coming-your-way-soon Kyoto Protocol.

Gore is the glitzy, media approved front man in the partnership, the flashing neon lights on the global stage warning the masses of the end of Earth, as we know it, and Hollywood’s poster boy for greening the silver screen.

The skeptics of man-made global warming believe that Gore and Strong have made climate change “the new religion”. Climate change is not the first religion both parties have tried to make stick. Along with former Soviet Union leader Mikhail Gorbachev, Strong, currently president of the Earth Council, has been boasting of replacing the Ten Commandments with the Earth Charter, a golden rule guide for how the masses should treat the environment.

Gore, who has given sermons at the United Nations sponsored Cathedral of St. John the Divine Church in New York City, is a promoter of the religion known as Gaia.

The two environmental gurus also share a belief in radical Malthusian population reduction. According to them, too many people, particularly in the U.S. are polluting the planet, emitting excessive Freon through their refrigerators and jacking up the air conditioning.

But the conduct of Al Gore and Maurice Strong in the capitalist world is one for the books. It’s a side of them that may have remained unknown had it not been for the investigative talent of the Executive Intelligence Review (EIR).

The tawdry tale of the top two global warming gurus in the business world goes all the way back to Earth Day, April 17, 1995 when the future author of An Inconvenient Truth traveled to Fall River, Massachusetts, to deliver a green sermon at the headquarters of Molten Metal Technology Inc. (MMTI). MMTI was a firm that proclaimed to have invented a process for recycling metals from waste.Gore praised the Molten Metal firm as a pioneer in the kind of innovative technology that can save the environment, and make money for investors at the same time.

“Gore left a few facts out of his speech that day. First, the firm was run by Strong and a group of Gore intimates, including Peter Knight, the firm’s registered lobbyist, and Gore’s former top Senate aide,” wrote EIR.

“Second, the company had received more than $25 million in U.S. Department of energy (DOE) research and development grants, but had failed to prove that the technology worked on a commercial scale. The company would go on to receive another $8 million in federal taxpayers’ cash, at that point, its only source of revenue.

“With Al Gore’s Earth Day as a Wall Street calling card, Molten Metal’s stock value soared to $35 a share, a range it maintained through October 1996. But along the way, DOE scientists had balked at further funding. When, in March 1996, corporate officers concluded that the federal cash cow was about to run dry, they took action: Between that date and October 1996, seven corporate officers—including Maurice Strong—sold off $15.3 million in personal shares in the company, at top market value. On Oct. 20, 1996—a Sunday—the company issued a press release, announcing for the first time, that DOE funding would be vastly scaled back, and reported the bad news on a conference call with stockbrokers.

“On Monday, the stock plunged by 49%, soon landing at $5 a share.By early 1997, furious stockholders had filed a class action suit against the company and its directors. Ironically, one of the class action lawyers had tangled with Maurice Strong in another insider trading case, involving a Swiss company called AZL Resources, chaired by Strong, who was also a lead shareholder. The AZL case closely mirrored Molten Metal, and in the end, Strong and the other AZL partners agreed to pay $5 million to dodge a jury verdict, when eyewitness evidence surfaced of Strong’s role in scamming the value of the company stock up into the stratosphere, before selling it off.

In 1997, Strong went on to accept from Tongsun Park, the Korean man found guilty of illegally acting as an Iraqi agent, $1 million from Saddam Hussein, which was invested in Cordex Petroleum Inc., a company he owned with his son, Fred.

In that year, Gore, still U.S. vice president, was making news for “taking the initiative in creating the Internet.”

The leaders of the man-made global warming movement, you might say, get around.

Meanwhile Jumbo’s still in global warming’s living room, but the duo with the tiniest carbon footprints on earth continue to just tiptoe past him.


30 posted on 06/22/2007 8:17:04 AM PDT by Matchett-PI (A better name for the goracle is "MALgore" - as in MALpractice, MALevolent, MALfeasance, MALodorous,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Nomorjer Kinov

“Maybe the models are wrong in their many assumptions.”

Naw. Couldn’t be. Those models were created by liberal scientists who are infallible. Science has no room for “what if” posits these days, you know. We’ve evolved past that.


31 posted on 06/22/2007 8:20:19 AM PDT by Lee'sGhost (Crom! Non-Sequitur = Pee Wee Herman.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI

LOL!


32 posted on 06/22/2007 8:44:20 AM PDT by P8riot (I carry a gun because I can't carry a cop.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger; texianyankee; JayB; ElkGroveDan; markman46; palmer; Bahbah; Paradox; FOG724; ...
DOOMAGE!

Global Warming PING!

You have been pinged because of your interest in environmentalism, alarmist wackos, mainstream media doomsday hype, and other issues pertaining to global warming.

Freep-mail DaveLoneRanger to get on or off: Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to all note-worthy threads on global warming.

The Public Won't Pay for Global Warming Legislation

Canadian Professor: Prepare for Global Cooling

House to cut Capitol energy consumption

Global Warming on FreeRepublic

Latest from Global Warming News Site

Latest from Greenie Watch

Latest from Junk Science

Latest from Terra Daily

33 posted on 06/22/2007 2:54:26 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Will I be suspended again for this remark?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

I would think a carbon sink would be too brittle and/or porous, plus all those nasty black marks on the dishes. Are you sure they didn’t say “kitchenâ” sink?


34 posted on 06/22/2007 3:00:39 PM PDT by Still Thinking (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
Solution to GW. CUT DOWN massive amount of tropical forest. Harvest the wood, or simply bury it. Allow tropical forest regrowth to suck up carbon at an even higher rate (younger growing trees absorb more C02)..

But, but but, the greenies wouldn't want us to cut down the poor defenseless trees, because, of course, its not REALLY about solving this problem pro-actively, its about dumping capitalism and progress.

35 posted on 06/22/2007 4:13:35 PM PDT by Paradox (Foreign Policy suggestions from Jimmy Carter are like Beauty Tips from Rosie O'Donnell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks; texianyankee; JayB; ElkGroveDan; markman46; palmer; Bahbah; Paradox; ...
A few more links:

Climate change is not controllable

Read the sunspots
("[W]e should prepare now for dangerous global cooling")

Global warming: truth or propaganda?

36 posted on 06/22/2007 4:18:48 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks; texianyankee; JayB; ElkGroveDan; markman46; palmer; Bahbah; Paradox; ...
A few more links:

Climate change is not controllable

Read the sunspots
("[W]e should prepare now for dangerous global cooling")

Global warming: truth or propaganda?

In Case We Can't Give Up the Cars -- Try 16 Trillion Mirrors
(Giant Mirror Update!)
37 posted on 06/22/2007 4:21:05 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

thanks, bfl


38 posted on 06/22/2007 10:01:25 PM PDT by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: r9etb; JustDoItAlways
Sea Change: Carbon dioxide imperils marine ecosystems

The process has been predicted since the 1980s; these papers are from 2004. Testimony below is from a month ago.

HEARING ON EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE AND OCEAN ACIDIFICATION ON LIVING MARINE RESOURCES

The slightly humorous aspect of this: I don't think Gore even mentioned it in AIT.

39 posted on 06/25/2007 9:47:57 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson