- Thread starter
- #41
Ladies and Gentlemen: I have been labeled as a "loon", by Moses. Why? Because I understand gas exchange and pH balance.
Moses has questionable allegience.
I'm a hypochodriac, because I understand hyper and hypocarbia. He's angry at me because he "believe$" these politicians who say that carbon dioxide is "harmless". Not in your bu$ine$$ interest, Moses?
Since Michele Bachmann is one of the imbeciles (regarding science) who started this myth, (CO2 is harmless) I would like to see her volunteer to place a plastic bag over her head, and see how long she can endure hypoxia before she passes out, or suffocates. And afterward, I would like to hear her give the same speech proclaiming that CO2 is harmless. Oh, and her laughable estimation of the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere. A quoted percentage that is incompatible with human life. That was the moment that I stopped taking her seriously.
Just like Moses, who didn't do his homework. He doesn't understand pH acidosis/alkalosis very well, or he wouldn't attack me by telling me that I'm crazy.
Loons like you have an inflated view of man's ability to change the climate, the more we squeeze business here in the U.S. the more manufacturing will be sent over to countries that have less stringent regulations thus defeating the purpose. Yes you're a loon and most people who read these posts can see it
The seasonal cycle clearly shows a terrestrial biomass (vegetation) source, as we expect from the seasonal cycle in Northern Hemispheric vegetation growth. The interannual variability looks more like it is driven by the oceans. The trends, however, are weaker than we would expect from either of these sources or from fossil fuels (which have a C13 signature similar to vegetation).
Secondly, the year-to-year increase in atmospheric CO2 does not look very much like the yearly rate of manmade CO2 emissions. The following figure, a version of which appears in the IPCCs 2007 report, clearly shows that nature has a huge influence over the amount of CO2 that accumulates in the atmosphere every year
If temperature is indeed forcing CO2 changes, either directly or indirectly, then there should be a maximum correlation at zero months lag for the change of CO2 with time versus temperature (dCO2/dt = a + b*T would be the basic rate equation). And as can be seen in the above graph, the peak correlation between these two variables does indeed occur close to zero months.
And this raises an intriguing question:
If natural temperature changes can drive natural CO2 changes (directly or indirectly) on a year-to-year basis, is it possible that some portion of the long term upward trend (that is always attributed to fossil fuel burning) is ALSO due to a natural source?
After all, we already know that the rate of human emissions is very small in magnitude compared to the average rate of CO2 exchange between the atmosphere and the surface (land + ocean): somewhere in the 5% to 10% range. But it has always been assumed that these huge natural yearly exchanges between the surface and atmosphere have been in a long term balance. In that view, the natural balance has only been disrupted in the last 100 years or so as humans started consuming fossil fuel, thus causing the observed long-term increase.
Increasing Atmospheric CO2: Manmade