Global Warming Cont...

[Brian96]

The effects of AGW are more evident there. The permafrost line has moved about 300 miles north.

Right, and frost and ice lines have never before moved in the history of the planet. It is so clear, now!

[DogtorEvil]

http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/...LindzenWSJ.pdf

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/.../reg15n2g.html

[DogtorEvil]

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597

[Brian96]

No, the numbers he's using are pretty close to the same ones you are using. 7/150 ~ 4.67%, the NOAA number of combined FF and deforestation is 4.5%. It's not like the rain and photosynthetic processes, etc., are SELECTIVE in which CO2 they take out of the atmosphere. So really, only 4.x% of the 3gt net increase in CO2 in the atmosphere can be attributed to anthropogenic production.

What evidence suggests that:
1) The carbon cycle is in "long-term" balance, meaning that it roughly equals out every year or even on a timescale judged in human lifetimes? The evidence presented suggests that it is balanced over a period of ~ 100k years.

If you were going to do an instantaneous balance on the CO2 in the atmosphere, how much would you find at any point in time?

Why do you suggest that there is an upper limit to the sinking ability of the atmosphere, and why does it not increase as a function of CO2 atmospheric concentration, temperature, etc?

One quarter of atmospheric CO2 cycles in and out of the biota and ocean CO2 sinks every year. However, those 2 are very much larger than the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Releasing just 2% of the CO2 in the ocean would double our atmospheric CO2 level. The top level of the ocean and earth exchange CO2 in terms of decades whereas the deep ocean and soils exchange CO2 in terms of millennia. Consequently, human activities have become a significant disturbance to atmospheric CO2 levels. When compared to geological timescales, the level of atmospheric CO2 is remarkably constant.

Why doesn't the increases in atmospheric CO2 don't go immediately into the ocean sink. Since CO2 dissolves in water, it has something to do with some chemical law which limits how much can be dissolved in the atmosphere at one time.

Probably the numbers are close. But there is more to it than just looking at the numbers.

Are all college sports fan sites this geeky?

[randerizer]

Are all college sports fan sites this geeky?

Well, football season is over, the majority of recruiting is over, and the NFL combines are still a few days away... Football is really the only sport that can keep my attention, so I need something else to talk about for a few days...

But I guess we come in all shapes and sizes.

[DogtorEvil]

hmmm....

[DogtorEvil]

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-atd021207.php

[arkansasbob]

Are all college sports fan sites this geeky?

interesting that you quote someone in that post that apparently cares nothing about college sports...

[ARKDAWG02]

It's a globally warmed 15 degrees in NW Arkansas this morning. Yesterday evening we had lake effect snows off table rock lake. I'm ready for some warm weather, this global warming is freezing me.

[saltydawg]

I'm pretty sure that the "consensus" on this board have established that it is just a natural part of the carbon cycle.

Well, the "consensus" of this board is wrong then if it represents that the carbon cycle suddenly went whacko on us. Besides, randerizer, there is scientific evidence to show that the burning of fossil fuels is what is causing the the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels. As you probably know, carbon has 3 isotopes, C12, C13, and C14. By studying the ratio of the different isotopes of carbon in the atmosphere, in the oceans, in gas trapped in the ice cores and in tree rings, it is possible to find out where the additinal CO2 in the atmosphere has come from and ALSO what amount has been transferred to the ocean.

[saltydawg]

You are the one who keeps using implications and innuendo about the paychecks of scientists being relevant to their credibility. I'd say anybody whose paycheck is issued by the Federal government is certainly susceptible to political pressure.

Uh, like GWB or Cheney is putting pressure on the scientists at NOAA to come out with conclusions that show that AGW is happening.

[Guisslapp]

Well, the "consensus" of this board is wrong then if it represents that the carbon cycle suddenly went whacko on us. Besides, randerizer, there is scientific evidence to show that the burning of fossil fuels is what is causing the the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels. As you probably know, carbon has 3 isotopes, C12, C13, and C14. By studying the ratio of the different isotopes of carbon in the atmosphere, in the oceans, in gas trapped in the ice cores and in tree rings, it is possible to find out where the additinal CO2 in the atmosphere has come from and ALSO what amount has been transferred to the ocean.

This sounds like something they would say on realclimate.org

[saltydawg]

Right, and frost and ice lines have never before moved in the history of the planet. It is so clear, now!

Brian, of course the permafrost line as moved in the past but it has done so because of a natural process designed by God to regulate the climate of the planet by slight changes in the Earth's orbit, axis tilt and precession. What is happening now is not part of God's design but rather an UNNATURAL and MAN-MADE climate change. If SATAN is working here on Earth, don't you think he is rubbing his hands in glee because he has thrown a monkey's wrench into God's climate system?

[saltydawg]

This sounds like something they would say on realclimate.org

No matter who says it, it's true and that is what is eating at you. If you had any real evidence to contradict it, present it.:icon_wink:

[saltydawg]

Are all college sports fan sites this geeky?

The operative word in that sentence is "college".