Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 11/26/2009 4:05:23 AM PST by steelyourfaith
The world's oceans, which normally gobble up carbon dioxide, are getting stuffed to the gills, according to the most thorough study to date of human-made carbon in the seas.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.nationalgeographic.com ...
I guess I missed the explanation for how CULDEO is able distinguish "human-made carbon" (small point: humans don't make carbon, though they can release it) from other carbon.
Perhaps this explains the earth's eleven year cooling cycle?
Hmmmm, where the funding for this research originates. A government grant, perhaps? Just wondering.
Liar, liar, pants on fire, your nose is longer than a telephone wire.
National Geographic again. This is why I let my subscription lapse. Every single story had some sort of Climate Change propaganda in it.
So how are we doing this, farting in lakes and swimming pools?
I don’t believe anything they say any more on the subject of climate and weather.
When weather.com says it’s raining, you bet your sweet a$$ I look out the window and check for myself.
They are a pack of cheats, frauds and liars, all of them.
I just love making bubbles with farts.
“Every single story had some sort of Climate Change propaganda in it.”
The leftards have slimed their way into every crook and nanny of our world.
So, how do we get them out?
Of course they get their statistics from the same place the Gooberment gets theirs: they make them up.
Good, that will leave more plant food for our crops.
I’d also like to know how they can determine the carbon source is human.
I can hear it now... Save the oceans! Now they’re the victims. Taxes will solve everything, and Pelosi will personally clean the oceans for us.
Its too bad, Nat Geo used to be one of the great magazines for scientific reading.
Well well the Little boy who cried Wolf, (Algore)for a profit. Now ANY data will be looked at with a skeptisisum that may not be warrented. Maybe they need to triple check and then recheck to make sure that no one has a “personnal”$$$$$$$$$$agenda laced into their findings????????????
Old Joke:
Guy in hotel bathtub orders a sandwich from room sevice.
Bell boy arrives with sandwich and a few minutes later comes back with a bottle of beer.
Guys says, "I didn't order a beer."
Bell boy tells him yes you did, as I was leaving you said, "Hey bud bring me a bottle of Budweiser"
Same goes for Scientific American
Clearly, the green revolution in agriculture has already benefitted from CO2 fertilization, and benefits in the future will be even greater. Animal life is increasing proportionally, as shown by studies of 51 terrestrial (120) and 22 aquatic ecosystems (121). Moreover, as shown by a study of 94 terrestrial ecosystems on all continents except Antarctica (122), species richness – biodiversity – is more positively correlated with productivity – the total quantity of plant life per acre – than with anything else.
Atmospheric CO2 is required for life by both plants and animals. It is the sole source of carbon in all of the protein, carbohydrate, fat, and other organic molecules of which living things are constructed.
Plants extract carbon from atmospheric CO2 and are thereby fertilized. Animals obtain their carbon from plants. Without atmospheric CO2, none of the life we see on Earth would exist.
Water, oxygen, and carbon dioxide are the three most important substances that make life possible.
They are surely not environmental pollutants.
Post 17 quoted from here http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
There is such a thing? If so, I expect it's related to the eleven year sunspot cycle.
tga
the power point presentation (2007)
can be found at the above URL
thanks for posting listenhillary
very nice find
National Geographic left wing environmental wackos
I used to love getting my National Geographic as a kid. Wrapped in the brown paper, it was like opening the world up. Now its just a co-opted liberal rag, too bad I’ll never subscribe for my kid. I can find a magazine that does pure science or studies the world without the politics.
And "How Rich Kids Spend their Vacation".
Huh? I thought the oceans were the primary emitter of CO2.
....Which is why real scientists (and Nat Geo)had better stand up for truth
If they don’t, they’re dead.
They can’t afford not to. I’ll bet even they realize the implications pdq.
The CRU is holding.
At first glance, this is just rubbish.
Temp and salinity measurements since 1765? I’m sure the reliability of the early samples is pure crap, with no scientific controls and limited in scope. Of course, what fudge factors, smoothing, or outright made up data is included?
They admit their model doesn’t even take into account the CO2 trapped in marine organisms, especially shell fish...that by itself makes this “study” nothing more than bird cage liner.
Your point about their devination of the “man-made” carbon being rejected instead of “regular carbon” is spot on. Of course they can’t make a difference, and man made (by their own admission) is only 14% of total CO2 releases.
Thats why Climategate is so sweet....now we have proof the pro AGW researchers will make up anything as long as it supports AGW. THe first questions should be “Where is the actual data and the code to the model”? The second should be “How much of our money did you spend on this worthless crap”?
IMHO, AGW is and always has been a fraud, and cheesy studies like this are not going to cut it any more. Especially now that trillions of dollars are at stake.
I expect the AGW sceptics to rip this study to shreds.
Natgeo is stupid for being the first to publish something like this after Climategate, but I too canceled my subscription 10 years ago after 25 straight years as a subscriber, so I couldn’t care less.
Stupid me. I never knew the Ocean had a stomach :)
....is that like the Pizza delivery guy who gets sick of eating Pizza because he eats it all the time ???
This type of article is why I also stopped reading National Geographic a few years ago. What the article doesn’t say is if you count the amount of carbon in the atmosphere as 1 and the amount of carbon dioxide in the ocean as 50 and the amount of carbon in the limestone rocks (CaCO3) as 250, when the ocean get too much carbon dioxide dissolved it precipitates it out into the sediments at the bottom of the oceans to become limestone. Note that the ratios of 1:50:250 are not precise. However, the odds that the amount of CO2 that we produce will “overwhelm” the oceans is small since the oceans precipitate it out when they become saturated with it. This is one reason there is so much limestone rock found on the Earth’s surface.
How can any thinking individual believe these “warmers” given their apparent penchant for ignoring/faking/distorting climate data? Fools! Not only are they undermining their own arguments, they are undermining trust in the scientific method. No shame...no integrity. Fools!
Good information, horrible presentation. I doubt that I would do any better.
There isn’t a person alive who could tell us the average temperature of the world for YESTERDAY within 5 degrees. It would all depend on how you handle the statistics and adjust for changes in locations, station density, urban warming effects, etc.
Yet they claim to be able to know the temperature within 0.1 deg for the year 634AD, or 11,238 BC?
Codswallop!
The unvarnished truth! The trouble has always been in their baselines.
There is no such thing as a normal sea level. You can't measure against something that varies infinitely, all you can do is make a guess.
The temp baselines have always been a joke...based on tree rings, widely varied and innacurate measurements, and various other anecdotal evidence influenced by microclimes as much as anything.
CO2 levels? ITS NOT EVEN A POLLUTANT!! It is a basic building block of life. CO2 levels while dinosaurs roamed the earth were as high as 7000PPM.. CO2 is only .038% of the atmosphere, and only 14% of that is man made (supposedly).
The basic assumption that CO2 is a threat was always preosterous. The only thing that all the data shows is that when it is warmer CO2 goes up.
Beyond all that, for humans to believe that they could impact, much less change, the world's climate is beyond ignorant. Only God controls this earth on that scale. THe complexity of the global climate mechanism is beyond human/computers ability to understand, and the sheer mass of the earth defies belief. Just the atmosphere weighs 5 QUINTILLION (18 zeros) kilograms.
AGW is absolute codswallow!
Scientific American too. Now they're both such worthless junk I don't even pick one up from the newstands to see what's in it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.