See other Science/Tech Articles
Title: Warning on rising Med Sea levels
Source:
BBC
URL Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7197379.stm
Published: Jan 19, 2008
Author: BBC
Post Date: 2008-01-19 00:25:26 by robin
Keywords: None
Views: 1709
Comments: 130
The level of the Mediterranean Sea is rising rapidly and could increase by up to half a metre in the next 50 years, scientists in Spain have warned. A study by the Spanish Oceanographic Institute says levels have been rising since the 1970s with the rate of increase growing in recent years. It says even a small rise could have serious consequences in coastal areas. The study noted that the findings were consistent with other investigations into the effects of climate change. The study, entitled Climate Change in the Spanish Mediterranean, said the sea had risen "between 2.5mm and 10mm (0.1 and 0.4in) per year since the 1990s". If the trend continued it would have "very serious consequences" in low-lying coastal areas even in the case of a small rise, and "catastrophic consequences" if a half-metre increase occurred, the study warned. Global climate change Scientists noted that sea temperatures had also risen significantly by 0.12 to 0.5C since the 1970s. Sea level rise is a key effect of global climate change. There are two major contributory effects: the melting of ice, and expansion of sea water as the oceans warm. Last month, a study by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said the world's sea levels could rise twice as much this century as UN climate scientists had previously predicted. The Nobel Prize-winning IPCC predicted a maximum sea level rise of 81cm (32in) this century.
(1 image) 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-45) not displayed.
.
.
.
#46. To: farmfriend (#43)
You stated that it was not a cause for concern. I'm fairly certain that NO amount of mercury in the system is a GOOD amount of mercury, thus there is absolutely ZERO good reason to place it into vaccines that will be injected into humans.
I'm not lying. Research the studies yourself. Google is your friend. Polar bear populations have been increasing. They are not endangered. I have only had one registration at LP, farmfriend. I used it for all my registrations until it was banned by FR. Who I am was well known on both LP and FR. There is at least one person on this forum who has met me in real life. There were several on LP who knew my real name and worked with me on property rights. There are a few from FR who met me and worked with me. I don't know who you think I was but I'm too well known for that one to fly.
You are misrepresenting what I said but that is not surprising. I repeat, what I said was that thimerisol in vaccines was not a contributing factor in autism.
Mixing the fringe environmental wackos into the mix would also suit their purpose. The majority of scientists believe something new is going on, and they are concerned. How much is man made and how much is a natural cycle is not clear. Just as all the consequences are unknown, so are all the causes.
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today! LOL! Now that is funny. You really don't read the science do you. The ocean is not a minor source, it is the main source. Man only contributes 3%.
"Their" purpose? Serious talk about global warming as if it were man-made is all it takes. That's well-supported in every element of our mass media, our educational institutions from grade school and beyond, and in our government. Even Bush "acknowledges" it, whatever he thinks he means. The violent environmentalists don't need any conspiracy other than the information we are constantly bombarded with seeming to prove that human CO2 is the root cause of impending disaster. These words mean things, and we should not be surprised when some people take them too seriously.
Are you or are you not aware of the fact that the oceans are the world's largest CO2 sink? Do you know what a CO2 sink is?
I wonder if they could be a black op or false flag paid for by Exxon. They only make the Global Climate Change argument look bad.
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today! BP and Shell.
Those that ignore the problem are simply part of the problem itself. Words DO have meaning, too bad there are some that refuse to attempt to understand them.
Polar bears drown, islands appear in Arctic thaw Polar bears are drowning and receding Arctic glaciers have uncovered previously unknown islands in a drastic thaw that is being blamed on global warming. Signs of huge changes are appearing around the Arctic region due to unusual warmth. Rune Bergstrom, the environmental adviser to the Governor of Svalbard, a Norwegian archipelago about 1,000 kilometres from the North Pole, says islands as large as 300 metres by 100 metres have been revealed. "We know about three new islands this year that have been uncovered because the glaciers have retreated," he said. The head of England's Scott Polar Research Institute, Julian Dowdeswell, says that during a trip this northern summer he saw polar bears that had apparently been stranded at sea by melting ice. "We saw a couple of polar bears in the sea east of Svalbard - one of them looked to be dead and the other one looked to be exhausted," he said. The bears generally live around the fringes of the ice, where they find it easiest to hunt seals. NASA projected this week that Arctic sea ice is likely to recede in 2006 to a point close to a low recorded in 2005, as part of a melting trend in recent decades. ...
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today! Do you understand the concept of oceanic CO2 exchange?
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index...title=World_Wildlife_Fund Sir Julian Huxley, and the Eugenics Society would be proud. We apparently need fewer, better, more efficient people in order to protect the fuzzy animals.
I am aware of that and I NEVER said it wasn't. I have even repeated this on other threads but apparently you don't read what I post. Being a NET sink doesn't preclude it from also being the major source. You don't seem to get that part and because you don't get that you try to twist what I say into something it's not. Let me use small example numbers so you get it this time. If the over all contribution to CO2 was 10 and the oceans contributed 8 of that but then took back 9 it would be a net sink but the largest contributor.
Better than you apparently.
Faster carbon dioxide emissions will overwhelm capacity of land and ocean to absorb carbon Oceans’ uptake of global CO2 emissions has halved in the last decade
Methane hydrates and global warming A little good news: Scientists Find Good News About Methane Bubbling Up From The Ocean Floor Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today! Don't get cute with me farmfriend, answer the question. Do you understand that the oceans are the world's largest CO2 sink, and do you understand oceanic CO2 exchange? I doubt you do, because if you did, you wouldn't be spewing what you're spewing...
Faster carbon dioxide emissions will overwhelm capacity of land and ocean to absorb carbon Computer models are not science and prove nothing. Oceans’ uptake of global CO2 emissions has halved in the last decade I doubt you do, because if you did, you wouldn't be spewing what you're spewing... I'm not getting cute with you and I'm not spewing anything. I've explained it several times already. You didn't read what I posted the first time, why should I repeat it?
You are tying to say that the oceans are putting more CO2 into the atmosphere than any other source, whereas the TRUTH of the matter is they REMOVE more CO2 from the atmosphere than any other source. So regardless of what you claim or imply you've said in the past, your assertion that the oceans are the major cause of CO2 in the atmosphere is either a huge error on your part, or a huge lie.
You conveniently left out this part... Harrabin said the saturation of the oceans would “leave all our emissions to warm the atmosphere”. Of all the CO2 emitted into the atmosphere, only half of it stays there; the rest goes into carbon sinks. There are two major natural carbon sinks: the oceans and the land “biosphere”. They are equivalent in size and absorb a quarter of all CO2 emissions each. (ANI) So regardless of what you claim or imply you've said in the past, your assertion that the oceans are the major cause of CO2 in the atmosphere is either a huge error on your part, or a huge lie. Did you even read my post #59? You seem to think being a major source and a sink are mutually exclusive. They're not. Ocean outgassing is the largest source of CO2. It is however also a NET sink. For someone who keeps talking about how words have meaning you seem to leave that one word "net" out. It's the most important one.
LOL! Believing is not science either, it's religion!
Uh huh. From the link.. The studies were supported by the National Science Foundation, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, LBNL and the Ocean and Climate Change Institute of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. Her colleagues on the paper looking at spring and summer CO2 uptake in northern climes were A. Angert, S. Biraud, C. Bonfils, C. C. Henning and W. Buermann of the Berkeley Atmospheric Sciences Center; and J. Pinzon and C. J. Tucker of NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. So farmfriend, what do YOUR experts use to determine their "findings", tea leaves, or do they simply use a magic eight ball?
You neglected to say that, and outright REFUSED to acknowledge it in previous discussions. Can you also admit that it's the world's LARGEST sink?
Do you believe in gravity? Do you believe that you know what gravity is?
No. Like traditional scientists they use observations and verifications.
So the ocean is the major sink, it is also a minor source, but obviously as you point out in post #45 here, the major sink.
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today! No I didn't. I have said it on every thread. Repeatedly. Claiming I haven't doesn't make it true. If that would make you happy, yes they are the largest sink. What does that prove? Nothing! They are still the largest source, man's contribution is only 3%.
It is not a "minor" source. It is the major source. It is a "net" sink meaning it absorbs more than it outgasses. The distinction is key.
I doubt you have any proof of that.
So how do they "verify" their observations, and what does it prove? Do they hang up pictures of their "observations" on a dart board and whichever one has the most darts, is the "verified" observation? You don't understand what science is. Science is the study of nature, and the pursuit of determining the laws that natural events follow. It is totally within the realm of science to model a system in order to understand it, contrary to your blatently false claim that "computer models are not science".
Prove it. I want a legitimate source, not a link to Exxon's website.
www.i-sis.org.uk/OceanCarbonSink.php One big question the SeaWiFS project wants to answer is whether the oceans are a carbon source that adds carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, or a carbon sink that removes it from the atmosphere, which is crucial to monitoring climate change and taking appropriate action. The oceans not only contain 97 percent of all the water on earth, they are also the biggest carbon reservoir, and hence a major player in climate and climate change (Oceans and global warming, this series).
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today! In response to the articles ascertains that man is the main source of CO2 I replied that the oceans were. They are. You challenged that claiming they don't produce CO2. I proved that wrong. Your response to this was to move the goal post. You now start talking about the difference between absorption and out gassing. The oceans are currently a net sink for CO2. I have NEVER said they weren't nor have I challenged your statements that they were. I have not lied anywhere in this exchange, nor made claims I didn't back up. And, unlike you, I didn't change the argument to try and make myself right. If you can't except that man's contributions to CO2 are only 3%, that's not my problem. So much for my not saying that or refusing to acknowledge it in previous discussions.
From Carbon dioxide sink Oceans Oceans are natural CO2 sinks, and represent the largest active carbon sink on Earth. This role as a sink for CO2 is driven by two processes, the solubility pump and the biological pump.[3] The former is primarily a function of differential CO2 solubility in seawater and the thermohaline circulation, while the latter is the sum of a series of biological processes that transport carbon (in organic and inorganic forms) from the surface euphotic zone to the ocean's interior. A small fraction of the organic carbon transported by the biological pump to the seafloor is buried in anoxic conditions under sediments and ultimately forms fossil fuels such as oil and natural gas. At the present time, approximately one third[4] of anthropogenic emissions are estimated to be entering the ocean. The solubility pump is the primary mechanism driving this, with the biological pump playing a negligible role. This stems from the limitation of the biological pump by ambient light and nutrients required by the phytoplankton that ultimately drive it. Total inorganic carbon is not believed to limit primary production in the oceans, so its increasing availability in the ocean does not directly affect production (the situation on land is different, since enhanced atmospheric levels of CO2 essentially "fertilize" land plant growth). However, ocean acidification by invading anthropogenic CO2 may affect the biological pump by negatively impacting calcifying organisms such as coccolithophores, foraminiferans and pteropods. Climate change may also affect the biological pump in the future by warming and stratifying the surface ocean, thus reducing the supply of limiting nutrients to surface waters. From Saturation of the Southern Ocean CO2 Sink Due to Recent Climate Change 1 Max Planck Institut fur Biogeochemie, Postfach 100164, D- 07701 Jena, Germany; University of East Anglia, Norwich, and the British Antarctic Survey, Cambridge, UK. 2 Max Planck Institut fur Biogeochemie, Postfach 100164, D- 07701 Jena, Germany. 3 Max Planck Institut fur Biogeochemie, Postfach 100164, D- 07701 Jena, Germany; Present address: University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK. 4 Climate Monitoring & Diagnostics Laboratory (NOAA/CMDL), Boulder, USA. 5 CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, Aspendale, Australia. 6 National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), Wellington, NZ. 7 South African Weather Service (SAWS), Stellenbosch, South Africa. 8 Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l'Environnement/Institut Pierre Simon Laplace (LSCE/IPSL), Gif, France. 9 Center for Atmospheric and Oceanic Studies, Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan. 10 LOCEAN, Institut Pierre Simon Laplace, CNRS, Univ. P. and M. Curie, Paris, France. 11 Climate Research Unit, University of East Anglia, UK. Based on observed atmospheric CO2 concentration and an inverse method, we estimate that the Southern Ocean sink of CO2 has weakened between 1981 and 2004 by 0.08 PgC/y per decade relative to the trend expected from the large increase in atmospheric CO2. This weakening is attributed to the observed increase in Southern Ocean winds resulting from human activities and projected to continue in the future. Consequences include a reduction in the efficiency of the Southern Ocean sink of CO2 in the short term (~25 years) and possibly a higher level of stabilization of atmospheric CO2 on a multicentury time scale. Well since that was the original argument, stop saying I was lying and wrong. Well, it only took 65 posts for you to admit that at least.
And BTW, there were more than one.
Global cooling is much more likely to do that. It always has historically. I am amazed at how many people will look at a very short term trend and believe it is going to continue and refuse to see that climate change is normal and up- and-down. When it comes to their belief in man made global warming, their minds are made up. Don't you dare confuse them with facts. They make false statements such as their claim that there is a scientific consensus that humans are causing the earth to overheat. And, when you ask them to name one scientist, not bribed by research grants, that makes such a claim, instead of providing a name, which they cannot, they resort to name calling. If anyone wants to know the cause of global warming, they only need to take a look at the fireball in the sky. Is our burning fossil fuel also the cause of the melting the polar caps on Mars? Did man burning fossil fuel also cause the Medieval Warm Period from 1000 to 1200 that was warmer than the current warm period? The sun has a variable output; probably one of the the causes of ice ages and certainly may have contributed to the mini ice ages and warm periods such as the Medieval Warm Period. Man made global warming is political nonsense by politicians and the media. Most of the variations of CO2 in the atmosphere is the result of climate change and not the cause of climate change. In other words CO2 is a lagging indicator of warming and cooling of the earth’s atmosphere. When the sun heats up the ocean, CO2 is released. That increases the CO2 in the atmosphere. When the sun is cooler, the ocean cools and absorbs more CO2. If man has any effect at all, it’s negligible. There is no scientific theory that supports Global Warming as presently defined in the media. In fact I know of no reputable scientists that are not paid or bribed with research grants that support man causing global warming. These are the undisputed facts: People point to Venus. However, Venus receives about twice the solar radiation as the earth and the atmosphere of Venus is 90 times heaver than the Earth’s atmosphere. This is like what a submarine experiences at 3000 ft below the surface of the Earth's ocean. And the atmosphere of Venus is 97 percent CO2 while the Earth’s atmosphere is 0.03 percent CO2. Otherwise Venus has 90x0.97/0.0003 or about 300,000 times as much CO2 in their Atmosphere as the Earth. (300,000 is my calculation. Some experts state Venus has only 250,000 times as much CO2 as the earth.) In my opinion, if man could double or triple the CO2 in our atmosphere it was have almost no effect on global warming. In referring to the referring to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC ) the AP made a number of quotes: Quote 1: The AP said: "Carbon dioxide, the gas largely blamed for global warming, has reached record-high levels in the atmosphere after growing at an accelerated pace in the past year..." Facts: Carbon dioxide is not the major greenhouse gas (water vapor is). Carbon dioxide accounts for about five percent of the greenhouse effect. Only about 0.03 percent (1 part in 3,000) of the Earth's atmosphere consists of carbon dioxide (nitrogen, oxygen, and argon constitute about 78 percent, 20 percent, and 0.93 percent of the atmosphere, respectively). The sun and the earth’s wobble, etc., not CO2, is primarily to "blame" for global warming -- and plays a very key role in global temperature variations as well. For example, the planet Mars is undergoing significant global warming, lending support to many climatologists' claims that the Earth's modest warming during the past century is due primarily to a recent upsurge in solar energy. According to a September 20 NASA news release, "for three Mars summers in a row, deposits of frozen carbon dioxide near Mars' south pole have shrunk from the previous year's size" Because a Martian year is approximately twice as long as an Earth year, the shrinking of the Martian polar ice cap has been ongoing for at least six Earth years. Quote 2: The AP said: "Carbon dioxide, mostly from burning of coal, gasoline and other fossil fuels, traps heat that otherwise would radiate into space." Fact: Most of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not come from the burning of fossil fuels. Only about 14 percent of it does. Quote 3: The AP said: "Global temperatures increased by about 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.6 degrees Celsius) during the 20th century, and international panels of scientists sponsored by world governments have concluded that most of the warming probably was due to greenhouse gases." Facts: Most of 20th Century global warming occurred in the first few decades of that century, before the widespread burning of fossil fuels (and before 82 percent of the increase in atmospheric CO2 observed in the 20th Century). The AP should become aware that the IPCC report itself (the part written by scientists) reached no consensus on climate change. What did reach a conclusion was an IPCC "summary for policymakers" prepared by political appointees. Most reporters quote only the summary, being either too lazy or too undereducated to understand the actual report. This does not explain, however, why reporters don't more frequently interview scientists who helped prepare it -- scientists such as IPCC participant Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT, who says the IPCC report is typically "presented as a consensus that involves hundreds, perhaps thousands, of scientists... and none of them was asked if they agreed with anything in the report except for the one or two pages they worked on." Lindzen also draws a sharp distinction between the scientists' document and its politicized summary: "the document itself is informative; the summary is not."
This is NOT NORMAL UP and DOWN. A BBC News story reports findings from the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) that the rate of increase of atmospheric greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere is unprecedented, at least over the past 800,000 years. Studying a deep ice core sample, the scientists have not only been able to measure the greenhouse gas concentrations in ancient atmospheres but also the average temperatures. The result, according to the BBC report, is that carbon dioxide concentration and temperature rise and fall in lockstep. The report quotes BAS scientist Dr. Eric Wolff, who saw no signs that geological or biological systems have served as CO2 sinks to mitigate the increases. Wolff told the BBC that the fastest observed increase in CO2 was about 30 parts per million (ppm) in 1000 years, in contrast to present circumstances in which "the last 30 ppm of increase has occurred in just 17 years. We really are in the situation where we don't have any analogue in our records."
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
Comments (87 - 130) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestI never said that.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#47. To: FormerLurker (#42)
LIAR. It's not the first whopper of a lie I've seen you post, and I'm sure it won't be the last...
I sometimes wonder if you might be a new and improved version of someone that used to haunt LP a year or so ago.. I'm just waiting for a ROTFLOL from you in order to be sure..
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles,
and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#48. To: FormerLurker (#46)
You stated that it was not a cause for concern. I'm fairly certain that NO amount of mercury in the system is a GOOD amount of mercury, thus there is absolutely ZERO good reason to place it into vaccines that will be injected into humans.
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles,
and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#49. To: buckeye (#44)
The Revolution will not be televised!
#50. To: FormerLurker (#45)
The oceans mostly ABSORB the WORLD'S CO2 from ALL the WORLD'S sources, of which the ocean itself is a MINOR source, as the only CO2 produced by the oceans are in isolated regions in the equatorial lattitudes.
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles,
and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#51. To: robin (#49)
Mixing the fringe environmental wackos into the mix would also suit their purpose.
#52. To: farmfriend (#50)
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#53. To: buckeye (#51)
(Edited)
The Revolution will not be televised!
#54. To: robin (#40)
chief scientist for the World Wildlife Fund.
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles,
and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#55. To: buckeye (#51)
The violent environmentalists don't need any conspiracy other than the information we are constantly bombarded with seeming to prove that human CO2 is the root cause of impending disaster.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#56. To: All (#53)
The Revolution will not be televised!
#57. To: farmfriend (#50)
You really don't read the science do you.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#58. To: farmfriend (#54)
#59. To: FormerLurker (#52)
Are you or are you not aware of the fact that the oceans are the world's largest CO2 sink? Do you know what a CO2 sink is?
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles,
and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#60. To: FormerLurker (#57)
Do you understand the concept of oceanic CO2 exchange?
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles,
and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#61. To: buckeye, farmfriend, robin, wudidiz (#58)
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#62. To: FormerLurker (#61)
(Edited)
About half of these bubbles dissolve into the ocean, but the fate of this dissolved methane remains uncertain. Researchers at the University of California, Santa Barbara have discovered that only one percent of this dissolved methane escapes into the air –– good news for the Earth's atmosphere.
The Revolution will not be televised!
#63. To: farmfriend (#60)
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#64. To: FormerLurker (#61)
BERKELEY – One in a new generation of computer climate models that include the effects of Earth's carbon cycle indicates there are limits to the planet's ability to absorb increased emissions of carbon dioxide.
Environment analyst Roger Harrabin said: “The researchers don't know if the change is due to climate change or to natural variations”.
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles,
and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#65. To: FormerLurker (#63)
Don't get cute with me farmfriend, answer the question. Do you understand that the oceans are the world's largest CO2 sink, and do you understand oceanic CO2 exchange?
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles,
and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#66. To: farmfriend (#65)
I've explained it several times already. You didn't read what I posted the first time, why should I repeat it?
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#67. To: farmfriend (#64)
Environment analyst Roger Harrabin said: “The researchers don't know if the change is due to climate change or to natural variations”.
“But they say it is a tremendous surprise and very worrying because there were grounds for believing that in time the ocean might become 'saturated' with our emissions - unable to soak up any more,” the BBC quoted him as saying.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#68. To: FormerLurker (#66)
You are tying to say that the oceans are putting more CO2 into the atmosphere than any other source, whereas the TRUTH of the matter is they REMOVE more CO2 from the atmosphere than any other source.
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles,
and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#69. To: FormerLurker (#67)
But they say it is a tremendous surprise and very worrying because there were grounds for believing
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles,
and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#70. To: farmfriend (#64)
Computer models are not science and prove nothing.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#71. To: farmfriend (#68)
It is however also a NET sink.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#72. To: farmfriend (#69)
LOL! Believing is not science either, it's religion!
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#73. To: FormerLurker (#70)
So farmfriend, what do YOUR experts use to determine their "findings", tea leaves, or do they simply use a magic eight ball?
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles,
and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#74. To: FormerLurker (#45)
The oceans mostly ABSORB the WORLD'S CO2 from ALL the WORLD'S sources, of which the ocean itself is a MINOR source, as the only CO2 produced by the oceans are in isolated regions in the equatorial lattitudes.
The Revolution will not be televised!
#75. To: FormerLurker (#71)
You neglected to say that, and outright REFUSED to acknowledge it in previous discussions.
Can you also admit that it's the world's LARGEST sink?
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles,
and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#76. To: robin (#74)
So the ocean is the major sink, it is also a minor source,
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles,
and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#77. To: farmfriend (#75)
They are still the largest source, man's contribution is only 3%.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#78. To: farmfriend (#73)
No. Like traditional scientists they use observations and verifications.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#79. To: farmfriend, robin (#76)
It is not a "minor" source. It is the major source.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#80. To: FormerLurker (#45)
The Revolution will not be televised!
#81. To: FormerLurker (#71)
You neglected to say that, and outright REFUSED to acknowledge it in previous discussions.
Well since that was the original argument, stop saying I was lying and wrong.
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles,
and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#82. To: robin (#80)
A carbon dioxide (CO2) sink is a carbon dioxide reservoir that is increasing in size, and is the opposite of a carbon dioxide "source". The main natural sinks are (1) the oceans and (2) plants and other organisms that use photosynthesis to remove carbon from the atmosphere by incorporating it into biomass and release oxygen into the atmosphere. This concept of CO2 sinks has become more widely known because the Kyoto Protocol allows the use of carbon dioxide sinks as a form of carbon offset.
Saturation of the Southern Ocean CO2 Sink Due to Recent Climate Change
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#83. To: farmfriend (#81)
#65
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#84. To: farmfriend (#81)
So much for my not saying that or refusing to acknowledge it in previous discussions.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#85. To: farmfriend, buckeye, FormerLurker, robin (#26)
Don't you care if the earth becomes uninhabitable, with all of our children and grandchildren suffering horrible deaths in the not too distant future, if global warming turns out to be true?
#86. To: DWornock (#85)
The Revolution will not be televised!
.
.
.