World's vegetation is cleaning more carbon from skies

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

[FreeTheHostages]

What about the drastic temperature swings scientists claim from historical periods - like the ice ages with in-between heat spells? This was long before they claim that man caused global climate problems.

Ah, finally, an intelligent response. I'll respond to this. The Vostok ice core shows 180-280 ppm CO2 cycles for the ice ages -- 2 large and they think 2 small in the last 450,000 years. Current CO2 levels are 360-380 ppm, far in excess of these. But yes, CO2 (and methane!) are part of the natural process for re-heating the earth out of ice age cycles. That natural history doesn't account for these large CO2 numbers, were show that the natural sinks -- plants and oceans -- aren't handling it all now.

The Vostok ice core science -- the ice core itself and yes the scientific consensus that it's a good ice core sample and the CO2 numbers found at different years in the core are legitimate -- is pretty key in the scientific literature. (So, forgive me for breaking with the tradition in this threads and saying specific things backed up by actual science, but the ice core/ice age point you make is a good one. It's just that Vostok -- and other, subsequent ice cores -- show that's not the natural process that's leading to *these* levels of CO2. The ice samples show something else: People here are talking CO2, but you have to talk methane too.) As a purely analytical matter, the question of whether manmade activity is responsible for dramatic and historically anamolous CO2 results is a scientific question, not a political one. The queston of what to do with the answer is the political question.

[FreeTheHostages]

I agree with everything in your post.

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!!

[DannyTN]

"Um, hello. The entire scientific community has reached consensus on this point."

Consensus doesn't mean they are right.

For example, The entire medical community reached a consensus in the 60's that fat was bad. For over 30 years we have follwed the medical communities advice and now have epidemic levels of obesity, heart disease, cancer and diabetes. However one man, Dr. Atkins has been teaching people how to lose weight by doing the opposite of the medical community's recommendations. Eat fat and cut carbs. And the number of people who have tried it and say it works are now in the millions. And the medical community is finally starting to study his methods and acknowledge that Atkins gets results. If the medical community can be that wrong, can't the scientific community?

There are too many variables in the ecosystem to successfully model with any certainty. You need a record of successful predictions to have any confidence in the model. The scientific community is way too premature in issuing warnings off their models without sufficient confirmations. The scientific community is also incented to issue warnings to get additional funding for more studies. Therefore all warnings should be viewed with a high degree of scepticism.

[presidio9]

Ping

[=Intervention=]

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

That, sir, is a LIE. Your sources, please!

[SpaceBar]

I invite readers to attempt to glean any hard factual evidence cited in the article that makes a definite causal connection between their observations and conclusions. The article boasts in several places about what "some scientists believe" which are buzz words for the pseudo-scientific left wing fringe of the scientific community. Fact is, most rigorously trained qualified scientists familiar with the subject generally agree that man's fingerprint on the biosphere is nary a trifle when compared to other natural processes. Not to mention other complications such as chaos theory, noise and sampling theory, long term trends, unknown variables or relationships, the list goes on. The moral is that to an unsuspecting and unchallenging public at large, you can sell them the Brooklyn Bridge quite easily.

[brewcrew]

Ah, finally, an intelligent response. I'll respond to this.

Isn't it special that someone has FINALLY elevated themselves to your supreme level?

We're rather fond of ourselves, now, aren't we?

I know - I won't expect a response.

[Principled]

The entire scientific community has reached consensus on this point.

I disagree. You can go right now and search google and find experts with opposing opinions.

[presidio9]

Quick, there is a volcano erupting somewhere in the world. Better take action!

[Principled]

http://www.globalwarming.org/

[Principled]

http://www.co2science.org/

[Principled]

http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/WarmingContents.html

[Principled]

That was just a "hurry up and find a few links" search. Spend some time and you'll easily see that the consensus you assert is only consensus to those who desire it to be so.

[=Intervention=]

"That natural history doesn't account for these large CO2 numbers, were show that the natural sinks -- plants and oceans -- aren't handling it all now."

Therein is the fatal flaw in your argument. You assume that past is prologue, and any deviation from the past cycle means that man is causing these elevated numbers. Yet to assume that means that you've accounted for all other variables, eliminated each one, and can point out man as the sole and only cause of this. Can you? I sincerely doubt it.

[Principled]

http://www.cei.org/gencon/019,03512.cfm

[FreeTheHostages]

That was just a "hurry up and find a few links" search

Nope. Trust me, you don't want to get in a credentials battle with me on this one sir. ;)

[=Intervention=]

Phantom threats. No evidence and thus, no merit.

[FreeTheHostages]

We're rather fond of ourselves, now, aren't we?

Maybe, maybe not. But trust me, one wouldn't have to be viewed as arrogant to exault one's intellectual achievements over a thread which has, as its general tenor, "What manmade global warming?" Pshaw. I only enter the fray briefly for the conservative cause, so that in the annals of global warming history, they can't paint us all as idiots.

[sauropod]

I have read elsewhere that anthropomorphic causes for increased carbon emissions comprises about 3% of the entire amount of the total increase that "causes" global warming.

Also, a great place to check out is www.sepp.org. It is Fred Singer's site. Well worth the trip.