World's vegetation is cleaning more carbon from skies

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

[FreeTheHostages]

any overlap between your reality and mine is purely coincidental

I am a conservative but I am from the planet Earth, where good solid science shows dramatic, ahistorical increases in CO2 coincident with the advancement of industrialization.

Plainly things work differently on your planet, where it's a political issue -- not a scientific one -- whether there's global warming.

On my planet, scientists answer the science questions. The political issue is: what to do about it?

Hope the weather's nice on your planet.

[FreeTheHostages]

um, actually, no one can tell you anything about CO2 sinks in sea water

we know that the ocean waves act as "scrubbers" -- and that in fact wave height is an important factor in predictive models for global warming. but no one has a high degree of confidence in any of those predictive models and no one, but no one, that I know of with any scientific legitimacy claims to know the capacity of the ocean as a CO2 "sink"

[balrog666]

I'm not for Gore's treaty -- I'm not for China and India continuing their emissions while we just stop industrializing here in the West. I'm not for any of the liberal solutions to the problem.

You're half right. Under Kyoto, India and China can pollute all they want, we, on the hand, would have to reduce emissions by 20% and then prevent any increase from there. That would bust our economy, accelerate the transfer of jobs to China and India, and mandate an overwhelming, and cripplingly expensive, switch to nuclear power. All for politics.

[tortoise]

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.

Without addressing the primary point, your analysis of the Vostok ice cores is dubious. At best, the most you can legitimately infer from the Vostok data is that humans are modulating the natural levels 5-10%, but the noise floor is sufficiently high that even this modulation is probably overstated. Compared to the known modulator functions and processes surrounding global temperature, the largest modulation that could reasonably be inferred to be human CO2 barely pokes its head above the noise floor.

Global warming, perhaps. But MUCH more is being attributed to humans than is remotely supported by the data. The scientific concensus actually seems to be that anything we can do would be more like bailing buckets on the Titanic; we need to work with the reality rather than pretending like we are actually in control of the system or that we carry any significant weight in the outcome.

[mtbopfuyn]

Yeah, well there's still the problem with all those farting cows blowing holes in the ozone?

[FreeTheHostages]

I agree with your last two sentences. I think predictive models come with high degrees of uncertainty. Kyoto's bad. Yup.

So the question for me as a conservative is: (1) is there anything we should do? and (2) if so, do I want to advocate for market-based solutions or government-based solutions?

I think both of those questions are political, not scientific questions ultimately. Because science can't tell us we have to act NOW -- it can't predict the consequences of any of this.

I'm just saying that conservatives shouldn't argue contrary to the science. They should sponsor conservative solutions to the "problem." I think it's perfectly legitimate to say that since the consequences of the "problem" aren't known with any scientific certainty, why call it one and do anything now? I think it's illegitimate to say there isn't manmade global warming. One's a political issue, the other a science issue.

[balrog666]

I am from the planet Earth, where good solid science shows dramatic, ahistorical increases in CO2 coincident with the advancement of industrialization.

You stated manmade causes in your earlier posts, now you say coincident with industrialization. So which is it? Is the cause and effect established or not? Is the differential rise to manmade causes utterly clear to all scientist?

And here, let me make it simple for you: How much has the temperature gone up due to manmade causes and over what period of time?

[FreeTheHostages]

Vostok data is that humans are modulating the natural levels 5-10%

On the planet where I come from, Earth, 380 ppm is well more than 5-10% above 180 to 280 ppm. On my planet, our current CO2 levels are the highest in over a half-million years, and follow-on ice core work indicates probably 1.5 million years, with some certainty. A time period that covers more than one ice age.

On your planet, apparently the measurements are different and there's just a 5-10 percent modulation and so there's no problem. You're just dealing with different facts, which lead you to different conclusions. I certainly hope, however, you're not discussing the planet Earth. Because in such a case, you're misrepresenting the facts to reach a conclusion that you think is conservative. Um, scientific conclusions aren't conservative or liberal: they're just facts. What *if anything* we should do about is the political issue. At least, on my planet, that's how I think we should approach the issue.

[gatex]

"... no one, but no one, that I know of with any scientific legitimacy claims to know the capacity of the ocean as a CO2 "sink"..."

You just blew your credibility out of the water.

Measuring solubility of gases in liquids at different temperatures is a standard chemical engineering technique --- with libraries full of published data.

[FreeTheHostages]

I agree. Kyoto's a horrible idea. I don't know where you get the "half right" -- I agree with everything in your post.

Science question: is there manmade global warming?

Political question: what if anything should we do about it, especially given scientific uncertainty about the consequences?

I'm just patrolling the line there -- lest conservatives misuse the facts. I hate to see that happen. We should be on the side of the truth. Let's leave it to the RATs to lie.

[FreeTheHostages]

You just blew your credibility out of the water.

Um, no. It is not a simple equation that anyone can look up in the library to determine how much of a CO2 sink there is in the ocean. To say that it's that scientifically simple is wrong. People don't know. Even the people who create these predictive models concede they don't have a clue -- there are huge uncertainties there.

If you are interested in learning more, you might begin with the wave-height science. This is kinda interesting. They're actually using satellites, observing the Earth, to even get raw data on the wave action to appreciate that whole/scrubbing effect of the surface of the ocean. It's not just the ocean as a CO2 sink -- it's the effect of the plane of interaction between the ocean the atmosphere.

Of course, you can post than I'm obviously wrong and it's a simple equation and it's well-known at any public library. In fact you have. But you'd be wrong. :)

[RightWhale]

global warming from manmade causes is a *fact*

There are facts, and then there are true facts. Global Warming is factitious.

[balrog666]

On the planet where I come from, Earth, 380 ppm is well more than 5-10% above 180 to 280 ppm. On my planet, our current CO2 levels are the highest in over a half-million years, and follow-on ice core work indicates probably 1.5 million years, with some certainty. A time period that covers more than one ice age.

No, you must come from Fantasyland, where the level of atmospheric CO2 is exactly correlated with surface temperature levels. Yeah, it must be Fantasyland, since that doesn't happen anywhere else in the known universe.

[gatex]

"Science question: is there manmade global warming? "

Earlier, you said "significant," and did not answer the request to define significant --- now you say only "is there manmade warming."

[wcbtinman]

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

These are some of the same "scientists" who also reached a concsus about 20 years ago, that the earth was headed for another ice age, also caused by the interference of mankind.

The govt funding ran out on that theory, so they just reversed the area of research, and conned the taxpayers into funding more vague, non-conclusive, factless research. They are no closer to being right now, than they were then.

[gatex]

"...But you'd be wrong. :)"

I am a chemical engineer and you just posted gobbelty gook.

[balrog666]

We should be on the side of the truth. Let's leave it to the RATs to lie.

Ah, but you keep hopping ahead to try to discuss a political solution to an undemonstrated problem. You think that's not the typical snake-oil salesman's trick?

[balrog666]

Hey guys, the fun's over here.

[Junior]

Peter N. Spotts

Sounds like a particularly busy fellow, or one with a major problem "on his hands."

[FreeTheHostages]

The fact that they don't know the ocean's capacity as a CO2 sink is quite verifiable -- and its often remarked upon the *scientific* literature on this subject. I'm sorry if you view it as incomprehensible and view the question as a simple math equation.