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 1-5051-100101-147 last
To: AndyTheBear
As did another volcano site, that gave a figure of about 33 billion tons per year for the volcanoes.

Make sure you aren't mixing up CO2 and SO2. Volcanoes emit about 25% of human SO2 emissions annually -- a big eruption like Pinatubo can almost balance the books in that year. The Swindle was wrong about CO2 and volcanoes, without doubt.

101 posted on 04/25/2007 1:21:27 PM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat; Zon; All
Please, tell me those NY Slimes and Slime Ragazine quotes are REAL

I hope they're real too! They look like actual quotes. I'm gonna RUB it in the faces of any global warming whiners I run into!

Slime/s Climate Timeline commentary:

"Ohhh noooo, we're gonna FREEZE to death!! No wait... We're all going to BURN!! Ummmmm.... No... No... We were right the first time... We're all gonna FREEZE!!! Welllll.... On fourth thought, We ARE gonna BURN afterall!!! Nevermind..."

102 posted on 04/25/2007 1:38:06 PM PDT by RogerWilko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Omega Man II
The leftist liars can't handle facts and truth that dispute their lies and emotional rhetoric. The only way they can prevail is to suppress all dissent. The same leftists who practice this suppression of dissent are the first ones to wail when they want their opinions publicized. Hypocrites. Liars. Leftists. Oh, I'm repeating myself.
103 posted on 04/25/2007 1:57:21 PM PDT by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: capitalist229
Why would increasing temp cause increasing CO2 ?

Reduced solubility of CO2 in warming ocean water. Warm water holds less dissolved gases of all kinds. It takes a while for increased air temperature to cause increased water temperature. That is the reason for the lagging behavior.

104 posted on 04/25/2007 2:04:29 PM PDT by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: RogerWilko

LOL!

FWIW: it IS all gonna burn, just not for the currently-propounded reasons.


105 posted on 04/25/2007 2:05:02 PM PDT by HKMk23 (We are good, not because we are not tempted, but because we are tempted yet choose to be good.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: cogitator; AndyTheBear
AndyTheBear>>The late 19th century and early 20th century direct measurements tend to disagree drastically varying from 280 to 550.

cogitator>Are you getting that from Zbigniew?

Sounds like Calendar/Slocum debate.

The varied, elevated, 19th Century measurements were conducted by chemical means, different from the Mauna Loa measurements. If you take a look at the corresponding measurements of oxygen concentrations from back then, they were supposedly lower than today's and fluctuating all over the place. The implication is that perhaps we're a bit better able to measure CO2 now than we were back then.

106 posted on 04/25/2007 2:26:59 PM PDT by Gondring (I'll give up my right to die when hell freezes over my dead body!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Omega Man II

Buy it while it’s hot!


107 posted on 04/25/2007 2:30:20 PM PDT by fanfan ("We don't start fights my friends, but we finish them, and never leave until our work is done."PMSH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AndyTheBear; WildcatClan; cogitator
I think that any site that lists only 33 billion tons per year of CO2 is severely underestimating (even if it were a unit confusion between short/long/metric tonnes). A USGS estimate is 130 million tonnes per year.

Be sure you're not confusing billion with million. Volcanic activity is in hundreds of MILLIONS of tons/year. Human output is in tens of BILLIONS of tons/year. And recall...much of humanity's contribution is not from automobiles.

In any case, the total anthropogenic CO2 output is

108 posted on 04/25/2007 2:39:32 PM PDT by Gondring (I'll give up my right to die when hell freezes over my dead body!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit; justa-hairyape
Sometimes, I tend to think these people just work for the oil or coal companies.

God forbid! Where? We can't have anybody work for the oil or coal companies, and if they do we surely can't have them express any opinions in the public square. Their opinions are simply not worth as much as those of scientists 'working' for the government or some foundation...

109 posted on 04/25/2007 2:39:40 PM PDT by mwilli20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

uh...Callendar. Sorry.


110 posted on 04/25/2007 2:40:15 PM PDT by Gondring (I'll give up my right to die when hell freezes over my dead body!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

WEll, I’m not doing a great job typing today. That post wasn’t correct either. I meant “overestimating,” of course.


111 posted on 04/25/2007 2:41:33 PM PDT by Gondring (I'll give up my right to die when hell freezes over my dead body!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

Download it and make your own DVD, simple fast and saves gas.


112 posted on 04/25/2007 2:44:45 PM PDT by Tarpon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Gondring
The implication is that perhaps we're a bit better able to measure CO2 now than we were back then.

But without dependable data from back then, how can we calibrate our technique of measuring the past CO2 levels? They are certainly more smooth, so I tend to trust them for finding relative change. But what about getting the actual amplitude right. The ice core folks seem to confidently account for a lot of "known" factors, and I don't doubt they are trying their best. But science is about testing your assertions--preferably by real world verification rather then making more complex assertions with computers.

113 posted on 04/25/2007 3:08:28 PM PDT by AndyTheBear (Disastrous social experimentation is the opiate of elitist snobs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Gondring; WildcatClan; cogitator
Thanks.

I think the USGS seems authoritative enough to trust on this one. It does seem the Global Warming Swindle documentary messed up with on that point. I hope they edit that part.

Side note: I'm probably going to be a way from FR at least a few days as work on stuff I actually get paid for. Its been fun poking my nose into this debate.

114 posted on 04/25/2007 3:30:23 PM PDT by AndyTheBear (Disastrous social experimentation is the opiate of elitist snobs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: RogerWilko; Recovering_Democrat
James Inhofe and Michael Crichton have made reference to the four flip-flops in climate change. In some detail. A Google search using two phrases should find them. Use the persons name as the first phrase. Use "global cooling" as the second phrase. IIRC, Crichton has quotes from papers and magazines of those eras. Also, the first link in my post with the quotes and graphs shows a 1930's magazine cover depicting the coming ice age.

Search: 
"Michael Crichton" "global cooling"

"James Inhofe" "global cooling"

"James M Inhofe" "global cooling"

115 posted on 04/25/2007 3:40:40 PM PDT by Zon (Honesty outlives the lie, spin and deception -- It always has -- It always will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

If you look at the notation the billions refer to total carbon output.


116 posted on 04/25/2007 5:38:10 PM PDT by steveab
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Bob

Trust me alkalinity in pool chemistry is a mystery all unto itself. But I wonder if it wouldn’t have common characteristics with alkalinity in other water mediums, i.e. sea water.


117 posted on 04/25/2007 7:03:21 PM PDT by redangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Bob

Pool Chemistry 101:

Total Alkalinity (TA)

Total alkalinity is closely associated with pH but rather than a measure of hydrogen ion concentration it is a measure of the ability of a solution to neutralize hydrogen ions. Expressed in parts per million (ppm), total alkalinity is the result of alkaline materials including carbonates, bicarbonates and hydroxides - mostly bicarbonates. This acid neutralizing (buffering) capacity of water is desirable because it helps prevent wide variations in pH whenever small amounts of acid or alkali are added to the pool. Total alkalinity is a measure of water’s resistance to change in pH.

Total alkalinity should be maintained in the range of 80 to 150 ppm.

If total alkalinity is too low:
pH changes rapidly when chemicals or impurities enter the water. pH may drop rapidly, causing etching and corrosion.

If total alkalinity is too high:
pH becomes difficult to adjust. High pH often occurs causing other problems such as; cloudy water, decreased disinfectant effectiveness, scale formation and filter problems.


118 posted on 04/25/2007 7:06:35 PM PDT by redangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
a smaller call and fluorescent light bulb will mean the end of civilization as we know it.

What's hilarious is that you think a smaller call and fluorescent light bulb will do anything to affect the temperature of the planet.

119 posted on 04/25/2007 7:11:19 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
Actually, markedly incorrect -- one of numerous points on which the program was egregiously in error.

Only if you believe in Martian Fairy dust.

120 posted on 04/25/2007 7:14:42 PM PDT by justa-hairyape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: AndyTheBear
Can anybody confirm this ratio one way or the other?

I would say no

That 150x comes from this study which was done in 15 years ago in1992,

One thing stands out, they claim that land & ocean volcanoes put out equal amounts of CO2 which I would challenge,

Because since 1992 we discovered a hell of a lot more volcanic activity going on beneath the oceans, especially in the last couple of years.

For some recent examples see http://www.iceagenow.com/Ocean_Warming.htm

2 notable ones

Hydrothermal "Megaplume" Found in Indian Ocean

An enormous hydrothermal "megaplume" found in the Indian Ocean serves as a dramatic reminder that underwater volcanoes likely play an important role in shaping Earth's ocean systems, scientists report. The plume, which stretches some 43.5 miles (70 kilometers) long, appears to be active on a previously unseen scale. "In a nutshell, this thing is at least 10 times—or possibly 20 times—bigger than anything of its kind that's been seen before,"

And

The Fiery Face of the Arctic Deep

The Gakkel ridge is a gigantic volcanic mountain chain stretching beneath the Arctic Ocean. With its deep valleys 5,500 meter beneath the sea surface and its 5,000 meter high summits, Gakkel ridge is far mightier than the Alps..........one of the strongest hydrothermal activities ever seen at mid-ocean ridges were found.

And of course there's always the mid-Atlantic ridge which we learned more about since then, which I would bet puts out many times more by itself than all the land based volcanoes combined.  

With all these new discoveries of underwater volcanoes it's not hard to picture that 150x man made vs volcanic gap being closed if not greatly exceeded.

As of now, nobody can say either way, though currently until we know more I don't think it's a good idea to use it as an argument, however I wouldn't concede it to the Liberals just yet.

121 posted on 04/25/2007 8:34:30 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 24 | View Replies]

To: mwilli20

If a man’s job depends on him not beleiving something, there is a pretty good chance he won’t.

The claim that for scientists it is “all about the money” is a “grand left-wing conspiracy theory” that is as ridiculous as the GRWC. It is the tin foil recluse of those in denial and, for some reason, Rush Limbaugh.


122 posted on 04/25/2007 11:28:11 PM PDT by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit (I don't care what side of the debate you are on: Weather is not Climate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: justa-hairyape
Then sometimes you live in a fantasy world.

Oooh someone on a global warming thread calling me deluded. That is so new and exciting I can hardly imagine it. Boy, you must nevr repeat anything you hear on talk radio. You sure are an independent thinker.

123 posted on 04/25/2007 11:29:55 PM PDT by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit (I don't care what side of the debate you are on: Weather is not Climate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: steveab
If you look at the notation the billions refer to total carbon output.

Exactly..and the original data are also in metric tons.

So after converting to short tons, the 6 billion short tons of carbon per year is multiplied by 3.67 to get the total of 33 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year from anthropogenic sources...FAR above the volcanic contribution, and growing.

124 posted on 04/26/2007 12:37:10 AM PDT by Gondring (I'll give up my right to die when hell freezes over my dead body!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
Oooh someone on a global warming thread calling me deluded.

You missed the point. Reread your post. You called yourself delusional.

So what oil company do I work for ? Fantasize all you want.

125 posted on 04/26/2007 2:24:07 AM PDT by justa-hairyape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: qam1

There are way more volcanoes under the ocean than on land. I think the ratio in your post is probably good.

But the CO2 that under-sea volcanoes emit do not make it into the atmosphere except through the ocean emission numbers.

Ocean CO2 emissions 90.0 billion tonnes (Carbon)

Ocean CO2 absorption 92.0 billion tonnes

Man-made CO2 emissions 7.0 bilion tonnes

Some have noted there are differences in the numbers quoted. Usually the data is quoted in “Tonnes of Carbon”. If it is quoted in “Tonnes of CO2”, it is about 4 times higher since now you have a carbon atom and two oxygen atoms in the atomic weight. You have to be careful with what they are measuring.

Usually just the Carbon numbers are used and the Carbon cycle is measured since oceans and plants convert CO2 into different Carbon molecules when they absorb CO2 but it gets converted back into CO2 when it is emitted. So you need to look at it as a complete Carbon cycle and using just the Carbon weights is a better way of lloking at the whole system.


126 posted on 04/26/2007 6:17:20 AM PDT by JustDoItAlways
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: AndyTheBear
It does seem the Global Warming Swindle documentary messed up with on that point. I hope they edit that part.

Check my profile in point #5. There's a link to a site that lists the numerous errors in the show. Releasing the DVD might actually be a good teaching moment; professors could have their students research various errors in the show and demonstrate why there are wrong.

Side note: I'm probably going to be a way from FR at least a few days as work on stuff I actually get paid for. Its been fun poking my nose into this debate.

I'll be gone until the second week of May, too.

127 posted on 04/26/2007 7:51:23 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: justa-hairyape
Only if you believe in Martian Fairy dust.

Actually, only if you're out of touch with reality, as the producer of this show apparently is.

Pure propaganda: the "Great Global Warming Swindle"

128 posted on 04/26/2007 7:53:25 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: JustDoItAlways

129 posted on 04/26/2007 7:55:47 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

Good chart, very useful...now I’m getting back to work...honest.


130 posted on 04/26/2007 9:45:15 AM PDT by AndyTheBear (Disastrous social experimentation is the opiate of elitist snobs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: qam1; JustDoItAlways

Note also that magmatic composition influences the gas composition, and many times diffusional flux through the flanks of volcanoes is not considered. All in all, though, the contribution from volcanic activity to the atmosphere is relatively small. Many volcanoes do emit large amounts of water vapor—a potent greenhouse gas—and I wonder if that is, perhaps, how the misconception about volcanic carbon dioxide arose.


131 posted on 04/26/2007 10:00:23 AM PDT by Gondring (I'll give up my right to die when hell freezes over my dead body!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
My favourite part is that they will actually paint a picture where the only alternative to doing nothing is to do what the wacky left suggests - as if there are no logical solutions, that Americans are completely incapable of rising to the challenge and that a smaller call and fluorescent light bulb will mean the end of civilization as we know it.

And I was beginning to wonder if I were the only one who saw this.

132 posted on 04/26/2007 10:01:41 AM PDT by Gondring (I'll give up my right to die when hell freezes over my dead body!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: qam1; AndyTheBear; JustDoItAlways; cogitator
That 150x comes from this study which was done in 15 years ago in1992,

Terry Gerlach is the volcanologist cited. Here's a more recent article with commentary from him...

Compared to man-made sources, though, volcanoes' contribution to climate change is minuscule, Gerlach said.

Mount St. Helens produces between 500 and 1,000 tons a day of carbon dioxide, he estimates.

Nothstein, of the state energy office, says the Centralia coal plant puts out about 28,000 tons a day. Statewide, automobiles, industries, and residential and business heating systems emit nearly 10 times that amount.

On a global scale, the difference is even more dramatic, said Gerlach, who often gets calls from power-plant operators and oil-company executives who believe nature is just as responsible for global warming as man. His answer always disappoints them.

"I tell them the amounts don't even come close and I usually never hear from them again."

Worldwide, people and their activities pump 26 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, he said. The total from volcanoes is about 200 million tons a year — or less than 1 percent of the man-made emissions.
The point is that while Mt. St. Helens is the largest polluter in the state of Washington for sulfur dioxide, its carbon dioxide impact is miniscule.
133 posted on 04/26/2007 10:33:24 AM PDT by Gondring (I'll give up my right to die when hell freezes over my dead body!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Gondring
You know what's funny -- and you can look in my profile about this -- on geological timescales, CO2 volcanic emissions are a significant climate driver. Tectonism actually has a variable rate -- and if it speeds up or slows down, this affects uplift, erosion, sea level, shallow water carbonate deposition, and subduction of carbonate sediments into the magmatic upwelling zone (i.e., "Ring of Fire" currently). All of these factors affected atmospheric CO2 concentrations through paleoclimate history.

But now that man's involved, we're pumping it into the atmosphere a lot faster than volcanoes ever did, with the possible exception of flood basalt emplacements like the Deccan or Siberian.

134 posted on 04/26/2007 11:29:46 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
...CO2 volcanic emissions are a significant climate driver...

Wait a minute, tectonism may be having a lot more effects then raising CO2. Why do you assume it wasn't some other aspect of such events?

But if your right, shouldn't we see CO2 go up either before or at the same time as the temperature when such an event is to blame? Put another way: what is poking the bowling ball in this case?

135 posted on 04/26/2007 12:19:22 PM PDT by AndyTheBear (Disastrous social experimentation is the opiate of elitist snobs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: AndyTheBear
But if your right, shouldn't we see CO2 go up either before or at the same time as the temperature when such an event is to blame?

Given the highest possible resolution of events when tectonism drives climate change (Paleozoic and Mesozoic, millions of years), temperature and CO2 vary in sync.

136 posted on 04/26/2007 1:36:23 PM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
If a man’s job depends on him not beleiving something, there is a pretty good chance he won’t.

It is a Stalinist ploy to dismiss a priori the views of a group of people because they belong to a certain class.

Who gives a rat's behind what they believe? Their opinions should be analyzed for their scientific value and dismissed if found to be wrong. Their motives and beliefs are irrelevant.

137 posted on 04/26/2007 3:34:46 PM PDT by mwilli20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Gondring
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.

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. But factor in these recent discoveries and that 150x man vs volcano number will come down. How much? Well until more information comes in nobody can say, it may or may not exceed man's output. So while Conservatives shouldn't use it as an argument against AGW because they don't know, at the same time Liberals don't know either so they also can not say it is wrong at this time.

138 posted on 04/26/2007 7:05:59 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 133 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
Given the highest possible resolution

Pray tell what this resolution is. More then 800 years or so?

139 posted on 04/26/2007 11:30:05 PM PDT by AndyTheBear (Disastrous social experimentation is the opiate of elitist snobs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
Lets take this chart at face value and see what the obvious implications are concerning input and output of carbon to the atmosphere.

1) There 750 bt (billion tons of carbon) in the air

2) Combustion and factories are tossing 5.5 bt a year into the air, and sucking in none. For a net gain of 5.5 per year.

3) Plants et al are sucking in 61 and coughing up 60, for a net suction of 1. Presumably this excess builds up as plant matter in the short term, but presumably must be lost into the earth in the long term if such an excess continues (not shown on diagram though). So net loss of 1 bt per year.

4) Land use sucks in 1.5 and expels .5, for a net loss of 1 bt per year.

5) The oceans suck in 92 and expel 90, for a net loss of 2 bt per year.

Total change per year then is 5.5 bt - 1 - 1 - 2 = 1.5 bt

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

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.

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.

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

140 posted on 04/27/2007 12:13:26 AM PDT by AndyTheBear (Disastrous social experimentation is the opiate of elitist snobs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

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 1-5051-100101-147 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