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

Skip to comments.

Move to block emissions 'swindle' DVD [Global Warming]
Guardian ^

Posted on 04/25/2007 12:41:58 AM PDT by Omega Man II

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-147 last
To: AndyTheBear
Pray tell what this resolution is. More then 800 years or so?

Definitely more than that, but I can't tell you accurately (that would take more research effort than I can spare at this time). But... when you're looking at Paleozoic events, there are no sediment cores that go back that far. (Oldest sediments on the seafloor are about 200 million years old, which is lower Jurassic, i.e. Mesozoic). In the Paleozoic, paleoclimatologists look at geological formations. If they could resolve events at 50,000 year resolution (which is meaningful for periods lasting 65 million years), I'd be impressed.

141 posted on 04/27/2007 7:21:27 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: AndyTheBear
But, without man's interference we would get a net loss of 3 (-2 for ocean, -1 for plants etc).

Yes! You can sit in the front of the class. Without mankind's contribution, the land and oceans would probably be a net sink. I.e., even though the anthropogenic flux is small compared to the natural in/out fluxes, it's the reason for increasing atmospheric CO2. (Like I haven't said that 500 times on FR, in various ways.)

So if we could somehow remove man's interference from the system, we would have atmospheric carbon declining at twice the rate that it is currently increasing.

A big maybe. The stability of CO2 concentrations in the Holocene (ice cores) indicates that the natural system during this period was close to equilibrium (and this is somewhat of a question for climate scientists, why this period has been a very stable, even abnormally stable, interglacial for an extended time).

Looks like a dynamic system with the large exchanges in the oceans and plants being more important then our contribution. The system seems to already want to lower the CO2, and will likely be even more insistent as CO2 continues to increase in the short term.

There are not any strong indications that the natural systems will react with significant "vigor" to counteract the rapidly increasing atmospheric concentration.

I am finding the information you provide very helpful in reinforcing my view that the global warming skeptics are right.

Now, remembering that I'll be unavailable for about 10 days after today, I will ask: right in what way? (I.e., they are wrong if they say it's not happening; they are wrong if they say mankind's contribution is small; they are wrong if they say that increasing atmospheric CO2 is not the major factor driving current climate change.)

I presume and even hope that you think that they might be "right" that global warming will be a concern, but not a major problem, for the 21st century. All that I can do in that case is direct you to the IPCC reports, and ask that you try to assess them with your bias filter set on "low". Try to determine, for you, if what the IPCC is projecting is valid. Formulate your own counterarguments, see if they are valid. Ask experts, if you can (I'm not one, but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn last night). You can think -- do your best thinking.

142 posted on 04/27/2007 7:34:18 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
A big maybe. The stability of CO2 concentrations in the Holocene (ice cores) indicates that the natural system during this period was close to equilibrium
...

There are not any strong indications that the natural systems will react with significant "vigor" to counteract the rapidly increasing atmospheric concentration.

But the Holocene ice cores and the chart exchanged together imply that indeed it does. Certainly those exchanges were not sucking down 3.0 bt/year a few decades ago, before we signifigantly increased our carbon output. If it were, then atmospheric CO2 would have been in free fall.

So if the chart is right, the carbon suction of the natural system must have just been switched on high.

143 posted on 04/27/2007 10:07:14 AM PDT by AndyTheBear (Disastrous social experimentation is the opiate of elitist snobs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: qam1
I don't know where he got 26 billion tons of carbon dioxide, that's the highest I've ever heard, so it sounds like he's just pulling numbers out of his arse.

Huh? What numbers have you heard?!

144 posted on 04/28/2007 4:27:51 AM PDT by Gondring (I'll give up my right to die when hell freezes over my dead body!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: qam1
But I'm not arguing land based volcanoes produce more CO2 than humans, all I said was that there's a hell of a lot of volcanic activity going on under the sea that as of now nobody can say how much CO2 they are releasing.

Again, the activity under the sea is NOT equivalent to on land...recall that any carbon dioxide must pass through (and react with) the ocean. Therefore, this is already included in the ocean-flux number. If you were to include it on its own, then please reduce the ocean-flux correspondingly or you're double-counting.

145 posted on 04/28/2007 8:12:41 AM PDT by Gondring (I'll give up my right to die when hell freezes over my dead body!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Gondring
Again, the activity under the sea is NOT equivalent to on land...recall that any carbon dioxide must pass through (and react with) the ocean. Therefore, this is already included in the ocean-flux number. If you were to include it on its own, then please reduce the ocean-flux correspondingly or you're double-counting.

I don't know what you are asking, I'm not double counting anything, I am not even single counting as I've stated that as of now nobody knows how much CO2 is being released from oceanic volcanoes.

The question is "Do Volcanoes release more CO2 than man?"

I'm making the case that as of right now nobody can say either way because nobody can say with any certainty how much CO2 is being released by oceanic volcanoes.

Yes, the oceanic volcanic release of CO2 is part of the ocean-flux number but it's also part of the total volcanic release, they are two separate measurements

146 posted on 04/28/2007 5:54:53 PM PDT by qam1 (There's been a huge party. All plates and the bottles are empty, all that's left is the bill to pay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
So what was the authors purpose in putting a '+' in front of and behind the word 'part' within the article you linked ?

If you can offer no logical explanation, I must assume you are perfectly fine with just being right '+part+' of the time.

147 posted on 05/02/2007 3:03:57 PM PDT by justa-hairyape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-147 last

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