THE END for the climate k00ks!!!

[OregonStream]

Actually, we are breathing the CO2 out of our bodies. Should we stop breathing?...

See, this is part of the problem. Half the people arguing about this issue don't even understand the basic underlying science of the carbon cycle. If we think back to our school biology, the CO2 in human breath is carbon NEUTRAL. It's produced from the oxidation of carbohydrate, which is ultimately derived from plants, which absorb atmospheric CO2 in the production of that carbohydrate. So no net change. Fossil CO2 is generated, in quantities that surpass natural uptake, from hydrocarbons that have been sequestered over geologic timescales. And nobody I know supports a return to the horse & buggy days (another straw man). What they do support is maximizing efficiency and transitioning away from fossil carbon fuels.

Guess what. Those similarly are just recycled. The time scale is just longer.

"Just"? That's the problem. Carbon sequestered over millions of years released in less than two centuries. How long would it otherwise take to "recycle" back into the atmosphere from deep geologic deposits?

It is not surpassing natural uptake. It is natural uptake. It is just earth produced carbon that has been here all along. It is time to let our children know that they are supposed to be here and they are supposed to advance civilization and that includes technology.

Enough of the fear mongering for greed already.

Cadmium, uranium, and mercury are all Earth elements. Does that mean we want significantly higher concentrations in water and air? And burning fossil fuels and emitting CO2 at high rates is certainly not "uptake" from the atmospheric perspective. The uptake that is occurring is currently able to prevent about half of those emissions from accumulating in the atmosphere. The rest is therefore "surpassing natural uptake". The greed is in risking future prosperity for the sake of preserving large fossil-fueled profits based partly on externalized costs, when there are ways to transition that needn't preclude advancement.

 

[Oddball]

Cadmium, uranium, and mercury are all Earth elements. Does that mean we want significantly higher concentrations in water and air? And burning fossil fuels and emitting CO2 at high rates is certainly not "uptake" from the atmospheric perspective. The uptake that is occurring is currently able to prevent about half of those emissions from accumulating in the atmosphere. The rest is therefore "surpassing natural uptake". The greed is in risking future prosperity for the sake of preserving large fossil-fueled profits based partly on externalized costs, when there are ways to transition that needn't preclude advancement.

That might be true if it were conclusively proven that higher CO2 concentrations cause temperature spikes, rather than lag them.....But it's not because just the opposite is that which has been proven.

 

[OregonStream]

Cadmium, uranium, and mercury are all Earth elements. Does that mean we want significantly higher concentrations in water and air? And burning fossil fuels and emitting CO2 at high rates is certainly not "uptake" from the atmospheric perspective. The uptake that is occurring is currently able to prevent about half of those emissions from accumulating in the atmosphere. The rest is therefore "surpassing natural uptake". The greed is in risking future prosperity for the sake of preserving large fossil-fueled profits based partly on externalized costs, when there are ways to transition that needn't preclude advancement.

That might be true if it were conclusively proven that higher CO2 concentrations cause temperature spikes, rather than lag them.....But it's not because just the opposite is that which has been proven.

The case for the radiative power of CO2 has been established for a very long time (see here and here for example). One area of uncertainty has been climate sensitivity to it, but that has been significantly narrowed down over the decades. And CO2 concentration recoveries are a feedback to subtle Milankovitch warming at the end of glacial periods. That does not in any way suggest CO2 can't be a climate forcing factor.

 

[Oddball]

Yeah...It was proven in a vacuum, not in the context of a dynamic ecosystem.

What has also remained a mystery is any research specific to how a change in concentration form .035% to .04% will (don't gimmie any of your could or may crap) affect affect that aforementioned dynamic ecosystem, with the dire consequences claimed by the AGW scaremongers.

 

[Old Rocks]

Cadmium, uranium, and mercury are all Earth elements. Does that mean we want significantly higher concentrations in water and air? And burning fossil fuels and emitting CO2 at high rates is certainly not "uptake" from the atmospheric perspective. The uptake that is occurring is currently able to prevent about half of those emissions from accumulating in the atmosphere. The rest is therefore "surpassing natural uptake". The greed is in risking future prosperity for the sake of preserving large fossil-fueled profits based partly on externalized costs, when there are ways to transition that needn't preclude advancement.

That might be true if it were conclusively proven that higher CO2 concentrations cause temperature spikes, rather than lag them.....But it's not because just the opposite is that which has been proven.

Which is an absolute lie. Of course you know so much more that the American Institute of Physics;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

And

A23A

 

[Oddball]

CO2, Temperatures, and Ice Ages « Watts Up With That?

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2,Temperaturesandiceages-f.pdf

Globlal Warming & Carbon Dioxide

CO2-Temp

Mind you, I don't expect the truth to be accepted by cargo cultist clowns like you.

The info is posted for the edification of others with open minds.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Cadmium, uranium, and mercury are all Earth elements. Does that mean we want significantly higher concentrations in water and air? And burning fossil fuels and emitting CO2 at high rates is certainly not "uptake" from the atmospheric perspective. The uptake that is occurring is currently able to prevent about half of those emissions from accumulating in the atmosphere. The rest is therefore "surpassing natural uptake". The greed is in risking future prosperity for the sake of preserving large fossil-fueled profits based partly on externalized costs, when there are ways to transition that needn't preclude advancement.

That might be true if it were conclusively proven that higher CO2 concentrations cause temperature spikes, rather than lag them.....But it's not because just the opposite is that which has been proven.

The case for the radiative power of CO2 has been established for a very long time (see here and here for example). One area of uncertainty has been climate sensitivity to it, but that has been significantly narrowed down over the decades. And CO2 concentration recoveries are a feedback to subtle Milankovitch warming at the end of glacial periods. That does not in any way suggest CO2 can't be a climate forcing factor.

Yes, comparing ice cores to volcanoes!!!



Seriously??

 

[OregonStream]

That might be true if it were conclusively proven that higher CO2 concentrations cause temperature spikes, rather than lag them.....But it's not because just the opposite is that which has been proven.

The case for the radiative power of CO2 has been established for a very long time (see here and here for example). One area of uncertainty has been climate sensitivity to it, but that has been significantly narrowed down over the decades. And CO2 concentration recoveries are a feedback to subtle Milankovitch warming at the end of glacial periods. That does not in any way suggest CO2 can't be a climate forcing factor.

Yes, comparing ice cores to volcanoes!!!



Seriously??

It's not surprising that you read it that way, seriously. Those are frequent "readings" taken upwind of venting, and filtered for any possible contamination events. Readings that compare well with multiple other recording stations.

 

[OregonStream]

Yeah...It was proven in a vacuum, not in the context of a dynamic ecosystem...

Apparently, Dude, you didn't read the links. And in any complex scientific field there are areas of uncertainty, often expressed as a range, including medicine (in which low concentrations often have profound effect). That doesn't mean we ignore evidence. That is, evidence from vetted scientific sources, not a former architect lacking substantiation for his claims, a dedicated contrarian meteorologist (not climatologist) known for mangling facts (like misrepresenting Latif et al.), and someone posting hand-drawn scientifically-questionable plots on "dialup4less.com".

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_0-gX7aUKk&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Within 5 years the cooling with be so severe that the Gubbamint will insist you leave your SUV's running all night.

Q: What does a CO2 reading at a volcano and the Vostok Ice Core have in common?

A: Nutin!

LOL

 

[Oddball]

Yeah...It was proven in a vacuum, not in the context of a dynamic ecosystem...

Apparently, Dude, you didn't read the links. And in any complex scientific field there are areas of uncertainty, often expressed as a range, including medicine (in which low concentrations often have profound effect). That doesn't mean we ignore evidence. That is, evidence from vetted scientific sources, not a former architect lacking substantiation for his claims, a dedicated contrarian meteorologist (not climatologist) known for mangling facts (like misrepresenting Latif et al.), and someone posting hand-drawn scientifically-questionable plots on "dialup4less.com".

Thanks for not answering the very salient point with any substance. By now, it's not unexpected.

BTW...A scientifically proven phenomenon leaves no room for uncertainty. For instance, I can prove that cumulus clouds are formed by warm moist air rising into cooler air every time, on demand, and can explain away every possible other explanation.

Until that point, all you have is a hypothesis or, at best, a theory.



Meteorologist = A guy who can't tell you with any reasonable certainty what the weather is going to be like 5 days from now.
Climatologist = A guy who can't tell you at all what the weather is going to be like in 50 years, but swears up and down that the title "climatologist" means that he can.