Forums | MacLife

resedit wrote:

jerwin wrote:

Polar ocean 'soaking up less CO2'

Of course they are soaking up less - it's getting warmer.

So you've changed your tune?

resedit wrote:

jerwin wrote:

Polar ocean 'soaking up less CO2'

Of course they are soaking up less - it's getting warmer.

Also....warmer waters are more absorbent too...molecules move more freely in either direction.

EDIT: In other words, if our air was sufficiently dense with CO2, opening your lovely warm 7-UP would cause MORE CO2 to enter it.

Last edited by Metacell (2009-07-07 10:23 pm)

resedit wrote:

Chickenhawk wrote:

resedit wrote:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageM … ge270b.gif

That chart is bogus.
From wikipedia:
preindustrial CO2: 280 ppm
delta CO2 since 1750: 107 ppm
total CO2: 387 ppm

That works out that current CO2 levels are 28% man-made.

I'm surprised - as a scientist, you should know better than to assume that natural CO2 levels are static.
They never have been in history before man. Therefore, your method of calculation is seriously flawed.

Natural CO2 will be higher during warmer periods. Thus the actual level of man made CO2 must be less than 28% - and probably significantly so, because it was a warming period that started the man into the industrial age, so your pre-industrial figure is from when the planet was cooler and thus the oceans were releasing less CO2.

delta and you say static ?

Troll.

bratboy wrote:

resedit wrote:

bratboy wrote:

Even I can tell that this isn't relevant.  It's always puzzled me why those who reject the consensus go on and on about prior temperatures, as if that fact isn't terribly basic knowledge of those who study climate.

Why isn't it relevant?

The fact that the earth might have been warmer at some point has no bearing upon whether global warming is legitimate.

It does indicate it isn't the ecological doom and gloom that is being fear mongered.
However, issues like the mass extinction of amphibians that may be well under way do have devastating implications. But those who claim to be so worried about the planet that they want to carbon tax corporations up the wazoo don't seem to give a rats ass - hence the very clear picture that all this global warming hysteria is really just a political game.

resedit wrote:

It does indicate it isn't the ecological doom and gloom that is being fear mongered.
However, issues like the mass extinction of amphibians that may be well under way do have devastating implications. But those who claim to be so worried about the planet that they want to carbon tax corporations up the wazoo don't seem to give a rats ass - hence the very clear picture that all this global warming hysteria is really just a political game.

You (and other GW deniers around here) have a difficulty separating science from policy.  I don't know what the best course of action would be (though I'd imagine reducing emissions is a good start). 

There are lots of important issues out there that don't get nearly enough money or attention--the plight of your amphibians isn't unique.  That fact alone does not demonstrate that more high profile issues are bullsmurf.

Chickenhawk wrote:

resedit wrote:

Are you aware that we have had significant cooling at the same time that we have had significant CO2 output?
Post WWII saw an industrial boom as the world rebuilt, yet the earth cooled for decades.

How do you reconcile that?

large levels of particulate matter aerosolized in the upper atmosphere from actions in WWII.

Didn't I say the same thing?

ShnickyShnack wrote:

I've been facepalming so much in this thread I think I've got a permanent bruise on my forehead.

Just for my informaiton, does you forehead also slope backwards now?

sturner wrote:

Chickenhawk wrote:

resedit wrote:

Are you aware that we have had significant cooling at the same time that we have had significant CO2 output?
Post WWII saw an industrial boom as the world rebuilt, yet the earth cooled for decades.

How do you reconcile that?

large levels of particulate matter aerosolized in the upper atmosphere from actions in WWII.

Didn't I say the same thing?

Yes, but resedit obviously did not read your post.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

I think it's worth noting the very important difference between scientific findings and media hype. They are most assuredly not the same thing. The media hype can be dismissed. And personally I think it's that hype that's got the doubters so upset anyway.

Yes. Most importantly, scientific literature and proceedings are not fickle like the media are. As a group, scientists are rather slow at adopting new ideas, which is a strength of science. You slowly and carefully approach a topic, instead of brashly saying something is so. That way, when a majority of scientists agree on something, it stands a damn good chance of being true.

resedit wrote:

bratboy wrote:

resedit wrote:

Why isn't it relevant?

The fact that the earth might have been warmer at some point has no bearing upon whether global warming is legitimate.

It does indicate it isn't the ecological doom and gloom that is being fear mongered.
However, issues like the mass extinction of amphibians that may be well under way do have devastating implications. But those who claim to be so worried about the planet that they want to carbon tax corporations up the wazoo don't seem to give a rats ass - hence the very clear picture that all this global warming hysteria is really just a political game.

I'd just like to point out that just because a politician is seeking to capitalize off something doesn't mean its not a real issue.

sturner wrote:

Hush, spike. You are only casting light upon a dark subject. No one appreciates clarity in an arguement.

Right, no light- we want heat!

(...waitaminnit...)  Anyway,

G-8 agrees to cap on global temperatures
But developing nations refuse to commit to greenhouse gas targets

L'AQUILA, Italy (AP) - The Group of Eight industrialized nations joined with developing countries in agreeing Wednesday that average global temperatures shouldn't increase by more than 2 degrees Celsius in a significant new acknowledgement in the fight against global warming.

The United States and other G-8 leaders also said they supported a goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent or more by 2050. But they made no nearer-term reduction targets and 17 developing nations participating in the G-8 summit refused to commit to any targets at all, disappointing environmentalists.

Climate-change experts nevertheless said the acknowlegment on the 2-degree temperature cap from both the G-8 and a 17-member group of developing nations was an important step since it now implies that countries actually have to do something to prevent temperatures from increasing.

Well, what the hey- didn't Bush already commit us to stop increasing our greenhouse gas output by 2020?

Let the conniptions begin.