World's vegetation is cleaning more carbon from skies

The Christian Science Monitor ^ | June 06, 2003 | Peter N. Spotts

[FreeTheHostages]

The former. Any more broadly, as a syndrome, the process by which increased CO2 and methane is *predicted* to cause certain predicted weather changes: drier droughts, more severe rain, increased vegetation, more severe weather events generally, increased ozone hole (yes, I know it's been getting smaller recently), possibly in the long term disturbance of the North Atlantic basin, etc.

[Ditto]

"the process by which increased CO2 and methane is *predicted* to cause certain predicted weather changes: drier droughts, more severe rain, increased vegetation, more severe weather events generally, increased ozone hole (yes, I know it's been getting smaller recently), possibly in the long term disturbance of the North Atlantic basin, etc.",

You could also "predict" that higher CO2 will cure male pattern baldness and cause women's busts to grow larger. You can predict most anything but you have to measure the change to make it supportable, and higher CO2 levels have not resulted in measured temperature increases or more severe weather events.

Even the line in this article about last year having more tornados than "ever in history" is not supportable. Until very recently, we have not had the technology to detect most of the tornados that occurred. No one knows how many tornados struck in 1702, 1802, 1902 or even as recently as 1992 before Doppler radar covered the entire country. All we had last year was the most tornados detected in a single year and that only can only be honestly measured against the handful of years when we had the ability to detect virtually every tornado.

[balrog666]

Well stated.

[Orbiting_Rosie's_Head]

I'm very upfront about registering that point of view but *not* getting in debate about it. Declare whatever adverse presumption you care to. Fact is, I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with unarmed people.

Argumentum ad Hominem

[FreeTheHostages]

Yeah, but at least a mildly humorous one. I didn't just say "idiot" and other stuff like people did to me in the thread. That's boring -- the straight out name calling. Moreover, I didn't just do it to let off steam -- I did to keep the angry, knee-jerk people who can't do science at bay, so I could talk to the few sensible people who showed up.

As far as I'm concerned, a lot of people's reaction to the GW thing is completely lacking in wit or intelligence -- it's utterly knee-jerk. They get their science from Singer and that's that. Doesn't make for an interesting dialogue.

[gatex]

I did a Google search. The Vostok data show global warming began about 18,000 years ago, and global cooling has been occurring for several thousand years. Also, the CO2 and temperature were near current levels abour 130,000 and 240,000 years ago.

Graphs showing this are at the link below which has this quote ---

Quote ---"Based on the analysis of entrapped air from ice cores extracted from permanent glaciers from various regions around the globe, it has been demonstrated that global warming began 18,000 years ago, accompanied by a steady rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide. What caused this phenomena is a matter of ongoing debate. Clearly, though, global warming and rising CO2 levels in Earth's atmosphere started long before the industrial revolution."

link to graphs of Vostok CO2 and Temperature

At the link for Vostok graphs, links are available for the Vostok data going back about 240,000 years. The CO2 and Temperature appear to cycle and reach a peak around every 100,000 years.

[gatex]

The Vostok data show the CO2 can lag the temperature by about 1000 years.

Quote from the expert ---"...According to Barnola et al. (1991) and Petit et al. (1999) these measurements indicate that, at the beginning of the deglaciations, the CO2 increase either was in phase or lagged by less than ~1000 years with respect to the Antarctic temperature, whereas it clearly lagged behind the temperature at the onset of the glaciations...."

link to quote

[gatex]

Link to Vostok temperature graph--

link to Vostok Temperature for over 400,000 years

[gatex]

"BP" on Vostok graphs means "Before present."

[Ditto]

The Vostok data show the CO2 can lag the temperature by about 1000 years.

Was it those nasty 1st century Romans who caused the global warming of the late middle ages? Were they emitting too much methane at their orgies? Did the Elizabethans not burn enough wood to counteract the little ice age of the 19th century? ;~))

Even with an industrial society world-wide, man-made greenhouse gases are inconsequential. Natural sources absolutly dwarf anything that man could hope to produce. Nature will do what it wants on a global scale and we are virtually powerless to control it one way or another. One minor burp of the sun, which burps very regularly when measured against the eons, can either fry us or freeze us within minutes. We have no control over the global environment. We can act on local problems but globally, we are powerless. It's arrogance to think that nature cares one way or another what we do or if we even exist. We are virtually a nothing on a global scale. Nature adjusts in ways we have little or no comprehension of.

[gatex]

Per the expert ---" Because air bubbles do not close at the surface of the ice sheet but only near the firn-ice transition (that is, at ~90 m below the surface at Vostok), the air extracted from the ice is younger than the surrounding ice (Barnola et al. 1991). Using semiempirical models of densification applied to past Vostok climate conditions, Barnola et al. (1991) reported that the age difference between air and ice may be ~6000 years during the coldest periods instead of ~4000 years, as previously assumed".

link to quote

This suggests that the current higher levels of CO2 may not necessarily be higher -- it is possible the CO2 concentration in the entrapped bubble is not exactly the same as the atmospheric CO2. (CO2 absorbed in water is at a lower concentration than the CO2 in the air in contact with the water --- the concentration difference is the driving force -- not the same as the ice, but for example).

What is needed is correlation between CO2 in the air and CO2 in the ice --- I did not see such a correlation.

[gatex]

"Was it those nasty 1st century Romans who caused the global warming of the late middle ages?"

Must be --- and the Vostok data seem to show that every 100,000 years there has been manmade warming ---

[Ditto]

Must be --- and the Vostok data seem to show that every 100,000 years there has been manmade warming ---

LOL. It was those damn Neanderthals.

[wgeorge2001]

"global warming from man-made causes is a *fact* -- a matter of general scientific agreement -- and we shouldn't be debating whether it exists with the Rats"


The rats and other chicken little outfits have been bilking American taxpayers for billions of dollars to clean the air and the oceans and the rivers; all for the children(not to mention the large amounts of mis-appropriated monies they love to steal "for love".
The black hearted devils know how to steal with a smile and a million words.

[FreeTheHostages]

"The CO2 and Temperature appear to cycle and reach a peak around every 100,000 years."

yes, in cycles -- showing the Earth DOES have large-scale climatic cycles quite possibly -- of even longer time scale then the decadal ocean basin cycles

but the last 100 years is anamolous -- showing a 100 percent increase in CO2 over the peaks in the previous half-million year's data

the fact that atmosphere CO2 lags ice core CO2 is just another reason we don't have to sign Kyoto: there may well be lots of lead time on this one

[gatex]

"...but the last 100 years is anamolous -- showing a 100 percent increase in CO2 over the peaks in the previous half-million year's ...."

How do you get 100 percent increase ?

Using your own data in post 21 gives a 36 percent increase [ 380/280 = 36 % increase].

Using the peak of 300 ppmv in 323 Kyr BP gives 27 percent increase [380/300 = 27 % increase.]

[FreeTheHostages]

ranges from 36 percent to 100 percent, as CO2 fluctuated between 180 to 280 for the last half million years. went outside the range 180-280 only in the last 100 years.

[gatex]

The 100 percent increase is based on a 9-10 F cooler global temperature in the past.

Comparisons should be based on the same temperature = 27-37 percent.

[P.O.E.]

Notice how they stopped calling it the "greenhouse effect" and started calling it "global warming", to make it sound big and scary instead of benevolent.