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: 1319
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 (1-69) not displayed.
.
.
.
#70. To: farmfriend (#64)
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! Sigh, been there done that, but you rejected them last time. CO2 MEASUREMENTS All the data from Mauna Loa is simply CO2 measurements from that one spot, and doesn't represent the planetary levels. [1] Carbon Dioxide Concentrations at Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii, 1958-1999, CDIAC NDP-001: http://ceos.neonet.nl/metadata/dif/CDIAC_NDP1.xml BTW, did you notice what Ferdinand wrote at the end of his summary? Here it is in case you missed it.. This proves beyond doubt that human emissions are the main cause of the increase of CO2, at least over the past near 50 years. But there is even more proof of that...
BTW, I'm not finding that graphic on the page you linked. Do you have a link to the webpage that actually includes the graphic you posted?
I was too busy showing you the oceans outgassed. It wasn't until I posted an article that also mentioned the net sink did you capitulate on that and started in on the net part. You keep calling me a liar but it is you who have lied. I've proved it.
That graphic isn't from that page. Right click is your friend.
This graphic is at the link I posted earlier: The carbon cycle supports life on earth and keeps its climate stable. Carbon is the fourth most abundant element on earth, and makes up 50 percent of the dry weight of living organisms [4]. The global carbon cycle involves the flow of carbon between the major carbon reservoirs: the atmosphere, the oceans, the vegetation and soils of terrestrial ecosystems, and fossil fuels deposits (Fig. 1). As can be seen, huge amounts of carbon are stored in the oceans (especially the deep oceans), in the fossil fuels reserves, and the soils, compared with what’s in the atmosphere. There is no returning arrow to the fossil fuels to balance the outflow, at least not over timescales shorter than millions of years, which means that the carbon released into the atmosphere cannot be reabsorbed. In addition, change in land use also releases the carbon stored in old forests over thousands of years into the atmosphere. Figure 1. The Carbon Cycle
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today! So what are you hiding? Post a link to the page containing the graphic that you are using as "proof".
Thanks robin.
I am well aware of Ferdinand's work as there has been an ongoing exchange between him and Richard S. Courtney that is driving me nuts. Yes, Ferdinand is one of the scientists I talk to. What Ferdinand says is that the amount of increase is less than the amount of human emissions. Therefor the increase can be attributed to man. I have never claimed otherwise, nor have I ever said there wasn't an increase in CO2. Even in my post #59 I say as much. He opens with this: To be sure about my scepticism: I like to see and examine the arguments of both sides of the fence, and I make up my own mind, based on these arguments. I am pretty sure that current climate models underestimate the role of the sun in climate variability and overestimate the role of greenhouse gases and aerosols. But I am as sure that the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution is mainly from the use of fossil fuels. Why "responsible"? I think that it is prudent to reduce the use of fossil fuels, not for the amount of CO2, but for other pollutants. And as it is a finite resource, to reduce the dependency of not-so-stable countries. And it is prudent to spend a lot of money into research of fossil fuel alternatives. That will have a much higher return on investment than ten Kyoto's on middle long term. Kyoto in my opinion is a waste of money wich will cost much without any benefit. Why "skeptic"? As I have some experience with models, be it in chemical processes, not climate, I know how difficult it is to even make a model of a simple process where most, if not all, physico-chemical parameters and equations are exactly known. To make a climate model, where a lot of parameters and reactions are not even known to any accuracy, for me seems a little bit overblown. And to speak of any predictive power of such models, which are hardly validated, is as scientific as looking into a crystal ball... I have read a lot about climate, long before the "global warming" scare started. Especially about the link between solar variability and climate on earth. I have heard about the dangers of "global cooling" of the seventies. And I was upset by the acceptance, without much debate, of the "hockey stick" by MBH (Mann, Bradley, Hughes) in 1998, which made the MWP and the LIA some trivial episodes in the world's history, completely overriding the accepted science of that moment. This was a trigger for me to look deeper into this debate... But I try to keep the debate on scientific grounds... Even Robin's graph shows the oceans as producing more CO2 than man. I don't understand your reluctance to see that.
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today! Because I won't right click for you I'm hiding something? Talk about making assumptions.
And you point? This doesn't make what I said wrong. Your graph supports what I said. The oceans are the largest source of CO2. They are a net sink. Man's contributions are larger than the increase so the increase can be attributed to man rather than natural sources. I have never disputed that or claimed otherwise. I do however dispute the contention that CO2 increases are causing warming.
I've been up since 10pm yesterday. I'm going to have to bow out for now and get some sleep. Nite!
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today! So after all of these posts, what was your point in trying to divert attention away from that fact?
People shouldn't have to jump through hoops to find your source. Post a link to the page as a courtesy to the readers here.
Ho Hum. I think I'll change my screen moniker to freezingmyassoffinToledo.
Republicans (Democrats for that matter) ....... HAD ENOUGH?
There is still some resistance to the theory that the increase in CO2 results from the burning of fossil fuel, and that the increase in CO2 is responsible for global warming. There is little pressure on the US power plants to reduce CO2 emissions; so here it's still "Burning of fossil fuel is good for the environment" and "the world is flat." However, European power plants faced with reducing their CO2 emissions significantly by 2008 and even more between 2008 and 2012 as required by the Kyoto Protocol, have embarked upon a unique way to reduce the CO2 emitted into the atmosphere (9). The technique known as carbon capture and storage (CCS) involves siphoning off and burying the CO2 underground. While the CO2 is not "gone," it is contained. For now they have to report it as "released CO2," but The Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs is working out plans to give industries credit for carbon capturing and storing in the second phase, from 2008-12, of the European carbon trading scheme. It will be interesting to see the effect of keeping the CO2 from being emitted into the atmosphere. Of course, the next step would be to find a way to treat the stored CO2 or find a use for it.
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today! I NEVER diverted attention away from that. It was never a topic of discussion. Move that goal post one more time! One more time, oceans are the largest source of CO2. That point has never changed. Nothing you have said on this thread or previous threads changes that fact. Man's contribution is 3%. CO2 is not the cause of recent temperature increases, sun activity is.
You do know that the US has reduced carbon emissions more than the EU don't you? I'll have to find the link later. I'm too tired and going to bed.
I'm looking at the net effect, where fossil fuels cause a much higher net increase in CO2 levels, since the oceans have effectively zero or less net increase, where most literature indicates they ABSORB more than they EMIT, at least for now.
Sun activity could well be PART of the reason, but to dismiss CO2 levels is assinine. CO2 levels contribute to the climate and oceanic cycles, and cannot be overlooked. I'll see if I can find some more detailed info on all that sometime..
The level of the Mediterranean Sea has risen by 2.5 millimeters per year this past decade. It could also drop by up to 18 inches or more in the next 50 years, an old man in Nevada recently has said. An earthquake could also occur on the floor of the Mediterranean Sea opening a cavity greater than the size of the Grand Ganyon which would cause such a sea level drop. Yes, I am pulling your chain because I don't recall ever reading anywhere that this earth is a stable planet upon which no changes shall ever happen. Earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, tornados, rogue waves all occur with little warning. The forecasted rise in the Mediterranean Sea is not something that I consider to be frightening in the least. A fifteen foot snowfall would cause more deaths than a slow water level rise.
Comments (111 - 130) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestComputer 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!
#87. To: FormerLurker (#79)
Prove it. I want a legitimate source, not a link to Exxon's website.
Ferdinand gets his CO2 numbers from the Mono Loa site. His reference list is at the bottom of the page.
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles,
and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#88. To: farmfriend (#87)
CO2 MEASUREMENTS Ferdinand gets his CO2 numbers from the Mono Loa site. His reference list is at the bottom of the page.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#89. To: farmfriend (#87)
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#90. To: FormerLurker (#83)
Well, it only took 65 posts for you to admit that at least.
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles,
and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#91. To: FormerLurker (#89)
BTW, I'm not finding that graphic on the page you linked. Do you have a link to the webpage that actually includes the graphic you posted?
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles,
and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#92. To: FormerLurker (#88)
The Carbon Cycle
The Revolution will not be televised!
#93. To: farmfriend (#91)
That graphic isn't from that page.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#94. To: robin (#92)
This graphic is at the link I posted earlier:
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#95. To: FormerLurker (#88)
BTW, did you notice what Ferdinand wrote at the end of his summary?
This proves beyond doubt that human emissions are the main cause of the increase of CO2, at least over the past near 50 years. But there is even more proof of that...
In climate sceptics circles, there is rather much confusion about historical/present CO2 measurements. This is in part based on the fact that rather accurate direct measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere show much higher values in certain periods of time (especially around 1942), than the around 280 ppmv which is measured in Antarctic ice cores. 280 ppmv is assumed to be the pre-industrial amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by the scientific community. This is quite important, as if there were (much) higher levels of CO2 in the recent past, that may indicate that current CO2 levels are not from the use of fossil fuels, but a natural fluctuation and hence its influence on temperature is subject to (huge) natural fluctuations too and the current warmer climate is not caused by the use of fossil fuels.
He has this on his opening page: As a responsible climate skeptic, I have given a lot of comments in different discussion groups like sci.environment and UK weatherworld, and on the blogs of RealClimate and Climateaudit.
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles,
and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#96. To: robin, FormerLurker (#92)
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles,
and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#97. To: All (#92)
There is no returning arrow to the fossil fuels to balance the outflow, at least not over timescales shorter than millions of years, which means that the carbon released into the atmosphere cannot be reabsorbed. In addition, change in land use also releases the carbon stored in old forests over thousands of years into the atmosphere.
The Revolution will not be televised!
#98. To: FormerLurker (#93)
So what are you hiding? Post a link to the page containing the graphic that you are using as "proof".
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles,
and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#99. To: robin (#97)
There is no returning arrow to the fossil fuels to balance the outflow, at least not over timescales shorter than millions of years,
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles,
and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#100. To: All (#99)
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles,
and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#101. To: All (#97)
which means that the carbon released into the atmosphere cannot be reabsorbed.
The Revolution will not be televised!
#102. To: farmfriend (#99)
Man's contributions are larger than the increase so the increase can be attributed to man rather than natural sources. I have never disputed that or claimed otherwise.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#103. To: farmfriend (#98)
Because I won't right click for you I'm hiding something? Talk about making assumptions.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#104. To: robin (#0)
#105. To: All (#101)
The Revolution will not be televised!
#106. To: FormerLurker (#102)
So after all of these posts, what was your point in trying to divert attention away from that fact?
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles,
and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#107. To: robin (#105)
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles,
and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#108. To: farmfriend (#96)
Even Robin's graph shows the oceans as producing more CO2 than man. I don't understand your reluctance to see that.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#109. To: farmfriend (#106)
CO2 is not the cause of recent temperature increases, sun activity is.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#110. To: robin (#0)
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.
.
.
.