CO2 and Deforestation: Back of the envelope calculation.

[bjacoby]

Back of the envelope cutting TREES and CO2
===
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/deforest/deforest.html
40 million acres per year. Trees destroyed each YEAR!

CO2 stored per acre per year: 3.67 metric tons CO2 .

Calculation of CO2 in atmosphere.

http://micpohling.wordpress.com/2007/03/30/math-how-much-co2-by-weight-in-the-atmosphere/

1750-1960 Produced 1190 million tons CO2 per year into atmosphere.

From 1960 to 2007 produced 12,127 million tons per year.

For drill we will assume that trees are on average 50 years old and all
CO2 stored in trees ends up being freed by burning, decay etc.

40 x 3.67 x 50 = 7140 million tons of CO2 EACH YEAR produced by Forest
destruction!

Note that this is 60% of the CO2 increase that is being claimed as ONLY
due to fossil fuels.

And there is one more thing: The trees cut down are no longer sucking up
CO2 so their YEARLY UPTAKE must be ADDED to the total which is another
150 million tons per year.

The point of this exercise is not to produce an exact theory of CO2 and
deforestation but simply to do a quick calculation to show that
deforestation is likely a MAJOR cause if not THE major cause of the
alarming, dramatic and accelerating CO2 levels in the atmosphere that is
being attributed to fossil fuel use.

I’d say we are damn lucky CO2 does NOT cause “global warming”!

[David Friedman]

In article <VC%Ir.47331$v14....@newsfe06.iad>,

bjacoby <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote:

> And there is one more thing: The trees cut down are no longer sucking up
> CO2 so their YEARLY UPTAKE must be ADDED to the total which is another
> 150 million tons per year.

That part of your analysis is wrong. A forest in equilibrium isn't
"sucking up CO2," since the total mass of carbon locked up isn't
changing.

--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
_Salamander_: http://tinyurl.com/6957y7e
_How to Milk an Almond,..._ http://tinyurl.com/63xg8gx

[bjacoby]

On 7/4/2012 3:21 PM, David Friedman wrote:
> In article<VC%Ir.47331$v14....@newsfe06.iad>,
> bjacoby<bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>
>> And there is one more thing: The trees cut down are no longer sucking up
>> CO2 so their YEARLY UPTAKE must be ADDED to the total which is another
>> 150 million tons per year.
>
> That part of your analysis is wrong. A forest in equilibrium isn't
> "sucking up CO2," since the total mass of carbon locked up isn't
> changing.

Not true. A tree sucks in CO2 and turns it into wood. While you are
right about the fine point that trees grow slower as they age, they
never stop growing until they die. A careful study (which this was not)
would take the sprouting and dying of trees into account, but still
living trees keep growing. That's where all those "tree rings" come
from! That's where those tons of CO2 "locked up" go. If you cut down
the trees and burn them (like commonly done in Brazil to raise cows)
then not only are those trees no longer sucking in CO2 to make wood, but
the CO2 already locked into the wood is released back into the air!
Obviously this is a CO2 problem when large amounts of forests are
cleared. Or at least that was the point the calculation addressed.

[David Friedman]

In article <Hp1Jr.22370$iI7....@newsfe03.iad>,

A forest in equilibrium--an old growth forest--isn't growing. Individual
trees are growing, but that is balanced by old trees dying, rotting, and
releasing their carbon into the air. Leaves are falling, and they have
carbon in them, but leaves that fell in the past are rotting.

My comment was only about the "sucking up CO2" part of your argument.
Burning an old growth forest does release CO2 into the air, but that's a
one time increase, not a change in rate of growth.

If you disagree, explain where the carbon being sucked out of the ground
is going if the forest is in equilibrium--i.e. not changing.

Note, by the way, that tree farming, unpopular as it is with
environmentalists, does suck carbon out of the air, since trees are
being grown, harvested, and turned into houses rather than being allowed
to rot. As long as the total amount of wood being tied up in housing and
such is growing, the effect is to continually reduce the amount of CO2
in the atmosphere.

[Fredric L. Rice]

bjacoby <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote:

>Back of the envelope cutting TREES and CO2

Back of the stupid spewing idiot nonsense of which he knows nothing.

---
Email address: k.chel...@yahoo.com http://www.skeptictank.org/
Obama: 4 more years of Christian terrorism and corporate treason

[Desertphile]

On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 14:07:28 -0400, bjacoby <bja...@iwaynet.net>
wrote:

> I’d say we are damn lucky CO2 does NOT cause “global warming”!

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html

Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing
longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997

John E. Harries, Helen E. Brindley, Pretty J. Sagoo & Richard J.
Bantges

Space and Atmospheric Physics Group, Blackett Laboratory, Imperial
College, London SW7 2BW, UK

Correspondence to: John E. Harries. Correspondence and requests
for materials should be addressed to J.E.H. (e-mail: Email:
j.ha...@ic.ac.uk).

The evolution of the Earth's climate has been extensively studied
(1, 2), and a strong link between increases in surface
temperatures and greenhouse gases has been established (3, 4). But
this relationship is complicated by several feedback processes---
most importantly the hydrological cycle--- that are not well
understood (5, 6, 7). Changes in the Earth's greenhouse effect can
be detected from variations in the spectrum of outgoing longwave
radiation (8, 9, 10), which is a measure of how the Earth cools to
space and carries the imprint of the gases that are responsible
for the greenhouse effect (11, 12, 13). Here we analyse the
difference between the spectra of the outgoing longwave radiation
of the Earth as measured by orbiting spacecraft in 1970 and 1997.
We find differences in the spectra that point to long-term changes
in atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12. Our
results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant
increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with
concerns over radiative forcing of climate.

Global, Regional, and National Fossil-Fuel CO2 Emissions
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/overview_2006.html

Stable isotope ratio mass spectrometry in global climate change
research
http://www.bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf

Global oceanic and land biotic carbon sinks
http://bluemoon.ucsd.edu/publications/manning/ManningandKeeling2006.pdf

Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate
http://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm

How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm

Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf

NOAA: Past Decade Warmest on Record According to Scientists in 48
Countries; Earth has been growing warmer for more than fifty years
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100728_stateoftheclimate.html

Scientific Evidence - Increasing Temperatures & Greenhouse Gases
http://www.whrc.org/resources/primer_fundamentals.html

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

"Attribution of the present-day total greenhouse effect"
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Schmidt_etal_1.pdf

"Infrared radiation and planetary temperature"
http://ptonline.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_64/iss_1/33_1.shtml
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf

"Te - the surface temperature of the earth if there were no
atmosphere, is known as the effective emission temperature. It is
determined solely by the insolation and the planetary albedo. On
Earth, Te is much colder than the observed global-mean surface
temperature of 15C or 288 K. The difference must be due to the
atmosphere. The warming effect of the atmosphere, known as the
greenhouse effect, is best understood as follows. The atmosphere
is opaque in the infrared, which means that the mean emission
level is lifted off the ground. The mean temperature at the
emission level (i.e. the mean brightness temperature) must be Te
in order for emission to match absorbed insolation. But the
atmosphere has a positive lapse rate, and so the temperature at
the ground must be greater than Te." Wow!

Taken from the excellent free lecture notes on Physical
Meteorology, Page 132.
http://mathsci.ucd.ie/met/msc/PhysMet/PhysMetLectNotes.pdf

The History of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide on Earth
http://www.planetforlife.com/co2history/index.html

"Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect:"
http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.4324

Infrared Radiation and Planetary Temperature
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf

Attribution of the present-day total greenhouse effect
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Schmidt_etal_1.pdf

Scientific Evidence - Increasing Temperatures & Greenhouse Gases
http://www.whrc.org/resources/primer_fundamentals.html

Actual Calculations: The Physical Chemistry of Climate Change
(Fritz Franzen)
http://edu-observatory.org/Franzen/index.html

The radiative forcings give a decent picture of why the earth is
globally warming. As you can see there are many contributors to
the radiative forcing, with human generated CO2 leading the way.

http://edu-observatory.org/olli/IPCC_SPM.2.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/Radiative-forcings.svg/1000px-Radiative-forcings.svg.png



--
REALITY NEEDS ALLIES!
"RESPECT ARE - COUNTRY SPEAK ENGLISH" --- sign at a "tea party" rally

[Brad Guth]

On Jul 4, 11:07 am, bjacoby <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> Back of the envelope cutting TREES and CO2

> ===http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/defo...

> 40 million acres per year. Trees destroyed each YEAR!
>
> CO2 stored per acre per year: 3.67 metric tons CO2 .
>
> Calculation of CO2 in atmosphere.
>

> http://micpohling.wordpress.com/2007/03/30/math-how-much-co2-by-weigh...

>
> 1750-1960  Produced  1190 million tons CO2 per year into atmosphere.
>
>  From 1960 to 2007 produced 12,127 million tons per year.
>
> For drill we will assume that trees are on average 50 years old and all
> CO2 stored in trees ends up being freed by burning, decay etc.
>
> 40 x 3.67 x 50 =  7140 million tons of CO2 EACH YEAR produced by Forest
> destruction!
>
> Note that this is 60% of the CO2 increase that is being claimed as ONLY
> due to fossil fuels.
>
> And there is one more thing: The trees cut down are no longer sucking up
> CO2 so their YEARLY UPTAKE must be ADDED to the total which is another
> 150 million tons per year.
>
> The point of this exercise is not to produce an exact theory of CO2 and
> deforestation but simply to do a quick calculation to show that
> deforestation is likely a MAJOR cause if not THE major cause of the
> alarming, dramatic and accelerating CO2 levels in the atmosphere that is
> being attributed to fossil fuel use.
>
> I’d say we are damn lucky CO2 does NOT cause “global warming”!

Which fossil fuels (aka hydrocarbons) do not consume atmosphere?

Which hydrocarbons w/atmosphere are not negative energy?

Assuming Earth was chemically and thermal-dynamically balanced before
modern humans ever came along, and if we modern humans contribute 70
TW/hr, where's the problem in figuring out this GW/AGW thing?

http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/”Guth Venus”

[Marvin the Martian]

On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 12:21:33 -0700, David Friedman wrote:

> In article <VC%Ir.47331$v14....@newsfe06.iad>,
> bjacoby <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>
>> And there is one more thing: The trees cut down are no longer sucking
>> up CO2 so their YEARLY UPTAKE must be ADDED to the total which is
>> another 150 million tons per year.
>
> That part of your analysis is wrong. A forest in equilibrium isn't
> "sucking up CO2," since the total mass of carbon locked up isn't
> changing.

You've not spent much time in old growth and new forest, I take it.

The old forests are huge. It is generally dark in the old forests.

New forests look like overgrown Christmas tree farms.

Go visit the redwood groves sometime, and see the thousand year old trees
and come back and say more silly things about how forests don't gather
carbon dioxide.

[bjacoby]

On 7/4/2012 5:59 PM, Fredric L. Rice wrote:
> bjacoby<bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>
>> Back of the envelope cutting TREES and CO2
>
> Back of the stupid spewing idiot nonsense of which he knows nothing.

Rice-a-roni. NOT a scientist or any science knowledge. An ignorant
writer whose only skill is to use words to prevaricate. If you want
some credibility then lets see YOUR calculation! Ooooo! NUMBERS! Writers
don't do numbers. They only do lies!

So your bottom line is I know nothing, but you are too ignorant to prove
it and in your opinion cutting down and burning forests is a GOOD thing.
Glad we know where you stand on all this.

Don't you realize you are embarrassing yourself and all "progressives"
in a world-wide public forum?

[Brad Guth]

On Jul 4, 7:59 pm, bjacoby <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> On 7/4/2012 5:59 PM, Fredric L. Rice wrote:
>

> > bjacoby<bjac...@iwaynet.net>  wrote:

ZNR FUD-masters like Fredric are only doing their public-funded jobs,
of topic/author stalking and keeping all independent investigative
types like yourself from getting any mainstream media or K12
attention.

[Martin Brown]

On 04/07/2012 20:21, David Friedman wrote:
> In article <VC%Ir.47331$v14....@newsfe06.iad>,
> bjacoby <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>
>> And there is one more thing: The trees cut down are no longer sucking up
>> CO2 so their YEARLY UPTAKE must be ADDED to the total which is another
>> 150 million tons per year.
>
> That part of your analysis is wrong. A forest in equilibrium isn't
> "sucking up CO2," since the total mass of carbon locked up isn't
> changing.

In a natural forest where the trees grow and then fall over and rot away
again you would be right (apart from situations where the dead wood gets
into an anaerobic environment and gets buried first). Peat bogs are also
pretty good at laying down carbon long term. That was what happened when
the coal measures were laid down.

But in a commercially maintained forest with replanting the wood gets
removed and used for a few decades at least and centuries at best. Many
trees are long lived and can grow for a few hundred years if left alone.
The stuff that is removed and burned as fuel is neutral.

But the key point here is that cutting down trees would not alter the
isotopic ratio of atmospheric CO2 in the *direction* that is being
observed so the hypothesis advanced here is total bunkum and can be
dismissed on that evidence alone.

Plants preferentially concentrate the faster moving light isotope of CO2
containing C12 so when fossil fuels are burned the measured value of
deltaC13 shifts accordingly. It would shift in exactly the opposite
direction if the atmospheric changes were due to lack of trees.

http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/graphics_gallery/isotopic_data/global_stations_isotopic_trends.html

Equally old carbon that has been in the ground for a very long time
(many half lives) has depleted level of the radioactive isotope C14.
Again the experimental record also shows that this is the case.
(although measurements of C14 data around the time of atmospheric
nuclear weapons testing are a bit of a mess when we were directly
injecting C14 into the atmosphere locally by neutron capture reactions).

It is left as an exercise to the reader to work out how much oil and
coal is produced and burned annually.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Jo Stein]

On 04.07.2012 20:07, bjacoby wrote:
...

> The point of this exercise is not to produce an exact theory of CO2
> and deforestation but simply to do a quick calculation to show that
> deforestation is likely a MAJOR cause if not THE major cause of the
> alarming, dramatic and accelerating CO2 levels in the atmosphere that
> is being attributed to fossil fuel use.
>
> I’d say we are damn lucky CO2 does NOT cause “global warming”!

The Economist have found very good evidence for global warming.
Do you see anything wrong in their data?
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/05/daily-chart-1
> THE record of atmospheric carbon-dioxide levels started by the late
> Dave Keeling of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography is one of the
> most crucial of the data sets dealing with global warming. When the
> measurements started in 1959 the annual average level was 315 parts
> per million, and it has gone up every year since. To begin with it
> went up by roughly one part per million per year. Now it is more like
> two parts per million per year. The figure for 2011 is 391.6. More
> carbon dioxide in the atmosphere means a stronger greenhouse effect,
> and various measurements speak to this. Global surface temperature
> records show a warming over the same period, though because of
> fluctuations in the climate, air pollution, volcanic eruptions and
> other confounding factors the rise is nothing like as smooth. A
> steadier rise can be seen in the heat content of the oceans, measured
> in terms of the energy stored, rather than the temperature.
--
jo
".. I think it's important to realize that when two opposite
points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth
does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between them.
It is possible for one side to be simply wrong." Richard Dawkins

[Marvin the Martian]

Breathtaking, isn't it? The Eco-Nazis, with some justification, complain
about cutting down old growth forests, and now that it is on the side of
being a cause of the CO2, suddenly these guys SUPPORT it as having no
impact at all.

Whatever fits the argument of the day. Tomorrow, cutting down the Amazon
will go back to being an evil right wing plot.

[Dawlish]

On Jul 4, 7:07 pm, bjacoby <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> Back of the envelope cutting TREES and CO2

> ===http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/defo...

> 40 million acres per year. Trees destroyed each YEAR!
>
> CO2 stored per acre per year: 3.67 metric tons CO2 .
>
> Calculation of CO2 in atmosphere.
>

> http://micpohling.wordpress.com/2007/03/30/math-how-much-co2-by-weigh...

>
> 1750-1960  Produced  1190 million tons CO2 per year into atmosphere.
>
>  From 1960 to 2007 produced 12,127 million tons per year.
>
> For drill we will assume that trees are on average 50 years old and all
> CO2 stored in trees ends up being freed by burning, decay etc.
>
> 40 x 3.67 x 50 =  7140 million tons of CO2 EACH YEAR produced by Forest
> destruction!
>
> Note that this is 60% of the CO2 increase that is being claimed as ONLY
> due to fossil fuels.
>
> And there is one more thing: The trees cut down are no longer sucking up
> CO2 so their YEARLY UPTAKE must be ADDED to the total which is another
> 150 million tons per year.
>
> The point of this exercise is not to produce an exact theory of CO2 and
> deforestation but simply to do a quick calculation to show that
> deforestation is likely a MAJOR cause if not THE major cause of the
> alarming, dramatic and accelerating CO2 levels in the atmosphere that is
> being attributed to fossil fuel use.
>
> I’d say we are damn lucky CO2 does NOT cause “global warming”!

Every now and then, some nutbar comes on here and says this.

Read this, will you? CO2 most certainly does cause warming. You are
simply ignorant of the fact and the physics - like others of your ilk:

http://www.jcsda.noaa.gov/documents/meetings/2009summercoll/Barnet2_InfraRadTran.pdf

Now come back on and tell us that CO2 does not cause global warming.
You won't, because you can't justify your idiot assertion. You'll
probably have a go at me instead for showing you up as a nutbar again.
*>))

[David Staup]

"Martin Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tpcJr.29372$7y4....@newsfe23.iad...

Note in the following that global average temps and atmospheric CO2 are but
loosly coupled and that BOTH are at nearly the lowest levels over the last
600 million years. That both are rebounding, for whatever reason, is of
great comfort to me.

Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time :

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

[Desertphile]

Not even a "thank you" from the alarmist.


--

[Desertphile]

It isn't a problem of figuring out the effects: it's a problem of
rejecting the facts and evidence.

> http://groups.google.com/groups/search
> http://translate.google.com/#
> Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/”Guth Venus”

[Desertphile]

On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 18:32:42 -0500, Marvin the Martian
<mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 12:21:33 -0700, David Friedman wrote:
>
> > In article <VC%Ir.47331$v14....@newsfe06.iad>,
> > bjacoby <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> >
> >> And there is one more thing: The trees cut down are no longer sucking
> >> up CO2 so their YEARLY UPTAKE must be ADDED to the total which is
> >> another 150 million tons per year.
> >
> > That part of your analysis is wrong. A forest in equilibrium isn't
> > "sucking up CO2," since the total mass of carbon locked up isn't
> > changing.

> You've not spent much time in old growth and new forest, I take it.
> The old forests are huge. It is generally dark in the old forests.
> New forests look like overgrown Christmas tree farms.

What he wrote is accurate. The net effect of CO2 update and
release for old growth forests is zero over time.

[Desertphile]

On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 12:40:43 +0200, Jo Stein <jst...@broadpark.no>
wrote:

> On 04.07.2012 20:07, bjacoby wrote:

> ...

> > I’d say we are damn lucky CO2 does NOT cause “global warming”!

> The Economist have found very good evidence for global warming.

.... along with every Earth Sciences science organization on the
planet.

> Do you see anything wrong in their data?

He will not answer because his answer is "No."

> http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/05/daily-chart-1

[Tunderbar]

On Jul 4, 1:07 pm, bjacoby <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> Back of the envelope cutting TREES and CO2

> ===http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/defo...

> 40 million acres per year. Trees destroyed each YEAR!
>
> CO2 stored per acre per year: 3.67 metric tons CO2 .
>
> Calculation of CO2 in atmosphere.
>

> http://micpohling.wordpress.com/2007/03/30/math-how-much-co2-by-weigh...

>
> 1750-1960  Produced  1190 million tons CO2 per year into atmosphere.
>
>  From 1960 to 2007 produced 12,127 million tons per year.
>
> For drill we will assume that trees are on average 50 years old and all
> CO2 stored in trees ends up being freed by burning, decay etc.
>
> 40 x 3.67 x 50 =  7140 million tons of CO2 EACH YEAR produced by Forest
> destruction!
>
> Note that this is 60% of the CO2 increase that is being claimed as ONLY
> due to fossil fuels.
>
> And there is one more thing: The trees cut down are no longer sucking up
> CO2 so their YEARLY UPTAKE must be ADDED to the total which is another
> 150 million tons per year.
>
> The point of this exercise is not to produce an exact theory of CO2 and
> deforestation but simply to do a quick calculation to show that
> deforestation is likely a MAJOR cause if not THE major cause of the
> alarming, dramatic and accelerating CO2 levels in the atmosphere that is
> being attributed to fossil fuel use.
>
> I’d say we are damn lucky CO2 does NOT cause “global warming”!

Mature trees don't "suck up" much CO2. Young growing plants do. When
you deforest an area, it starts growing new vegetation, ergo more CO2
is "sucked up" as a result. Feel free to add that to your
calculations.

And in the end, with all the big numbers you are throwing around, the
atmosphere and the hydrosphere are many orders of magnitude bigger
than your numbers. CO2 is still trace amounts of the atmosphere.

[Desertphile]

On Thu, 5 Jul 2012 05:43:12 -0700 (PDT), Dawlish
<pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Jul 4, 7:07 pm, bjacoby <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:

> > I’d say we are damn lucky CO2 does NOT cause global warming!

In the same sense that we're damn lucking there's no such things
as death and taxes.

> Every now and then, some nutbar comes on here and says this.
>
> Read this, will you? CO2 most certainly does cause warming. You are
> simply ignorant of the fact and the physics - like others of your ilk:
>
> http://www.jcsda.noaa.gov/documents/meetings/2009summercoll/Barnet2_InfraRadTran.pdf
>
> Now come back on and tell us that CO2 does not cause global warming.
> You won't, because you can't justify your idiot assertion. You'll
> probably have a go at me instead for showing you up as a nutbar again.
> *>))

The cultist will ignore the facts, the evidence, and the laws of
physics. He has a political ideology to further....

[David Friedman]

In article <tpcJr.29372$7y4....@newsfe23.iad>,

Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> But the key point here is that cutting down trees would not alter the
> isotopic ratio of atmospheric CO2 in the *direction* that is being
> observed so the hypothesis advanced here is total bunkum and can be
> dismissed on that evidence alone.

I think the hypothesis being advanced was that the cutting down of
forests was a major cause of increases in atmospheric CO2--am I
mistaken? If so, your point above doesn't seem to follow from your
argument. If we have one cause that is increasing the ratio of C12 to
C13 and another that is having the opposite effect, one would have to
put numbers to the changes in both directions to figure out what the net
change would be--which you have not done.

Am I missing something in your argument?

[erschro...@gmail.com]

On Jul 5, 2:56 pm, David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
wrote:
> In article <tpcJr.29372$7y4.7...@newsfe23.iad>,

>  Martin Brown <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > But the key point here is that cutting down trees would not alter the
> > isotopic ratio of atmospheric CO2 in the *direction* that is being
> > observed so the hypothesis advanced here is total bunkum and can be
> > dismissed on that evidence alone.
>
> I think the hypothesis being advanced was that the cutting down of
> forests was a major cause of increases in atmospheric CO2--am I
> mistaken? If so, your point above doesn't seem to follow from your
> argument. If we have one cause that is increasing the ratio of C12 to
> C13 and another that is having the opposite effect, one would have to
> put numbers to the changes in both directions to figure out what the net
> change would be--which you have not done.

The ratios are changing in such a way to show almost all of the added
120 ppm of CO2 is due to "old" carbon.

>
> Am I missing something in your argument?
>

> --http://www.daviddfriedman.com/http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/

[bjacoby]

You are a waste of perfectly good skin, Dawlish. It's all been explained
to you a thousand times and yet you are still pretending to be willfully
ignorant.

CO2 AT MOST produces only 20% of supposed warming:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010JD014287.shtml

And in spite of the fact your supposed "causality" between CO2 and
"radiative forcing" has fallen apart such that there isn't even a
correlation, let alone a casualty, still you keep pretending to to be
ignorant of science in hopes of training the gullible to be as ignorant
of science as you pretend to be.

Somehow all you whackjobs seem to think that nobody is smart enough to
figure out what you are all up to.

Who knows? Maybe with enough "postive feedbacks" that theory could be
right as well?

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

viz the relative darkness of the forest floor,
forests are more efficient photosynthesizers, overall,
because "they make their own weather" or microclimate. on the other
hand,
grasses have a more efficient kind of chlorophyll; C-4 versus C-3?

> The ratios are changing in such a way to show almost all of the added
> 120 ppm of CO2 is due to "old" carbon.

> > Am I missing something in your argument?

thus:
I did not attempt to find the respective dates of capturing
of those "before & after" images on the homepage, but
a big part of the difference is clearly a matter
of perspective, especially in the foreground.
http://www.glacierworks.org/

thus:
it seems as if we are in a different phase of weather,
perhaps for several decades, whether or not "global" warming is a)
an oxymoron, b)
a nonsequiter, or just c)
a simple misnomer, per Ahrrenius' 1896 glass "house" effect.

> again,"Thicker multiyear ice used to make up around a quarter of the
> Arctic sea ice cover. Now it constitutes only 2 percent."

thus:
as to why, ice has so little tensional strength,
my guess is, because it has so many phases which,
although not all appreciable at local temperature & pressure,
may transitionally be present, viz "currents
in the seismically-known-to-be-solid mantle."

[Brad Guth]

I must continually reject those unwilling to interpret the best
available science. It's called mainstream obfuscation, and those
opposed to any GW/AGW that's human caused are always good at
obfuscating their butts off.

The all-inclusive affects of humans isn't insignificant.

[Brad Guth]

On Jul 5, 8:10 am, Desertphile <Desertph...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Jul 2012 05:43:12 -0700 (PDT), Dawlish
>
> <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 4, 7:07 pm, bjacoby <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> > > I’d say we are damn lucky CO2 does NOT cause global warming!
>
> In the same sense that we're damn lucking there's no such things
> as death and taxes.
>
> > Every now and then, some nutbar comes on here and says this.
>
> > Read this, will you? CO2 most certainly does cause warming. You are
> > simply ignorant of the fact and the physics - like others of your ilk:
>

> >http://www.jcsda.noaa.gov/documents/meetings/2009summercoll/Barnet2_I...

>
> > Now come back on and tell us that CO2 does not cause global warming.
> > You won't, because you can't justify your idiot assertion. You'll
> > probably have a go at me instead for showing you up as a nutbar again.
> > *>))
>
> The cultist will ignore the facts, the evidence, and the laws of
> physics. He has a political ideology to further....
>
> --
> "RESPECT ARE - COUNTRY SPEAK ENGLISH" --- sign at a "tea party" rally

Yes indeed, social, political and even faith-based agendas of their
closed mindset ideology always manage to trump the best available
science.

[Marvin the Martian]

So, Tunderbar would have people believe that the way for humans to shrink
their carbon footprint is to cut down old growth forests so that new
growth trees can suck up carbon.

Really?

You can't make this shit up.

[Marvin the Martian]

On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 18:29:59 -0400, bjacoby wrote:

> On 7/5/2012 8:43 AM, Dawlish wrote:
>> On Jul 4, 7:07 pm, bjacoby<bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>
>>> I’d say we are damn lucky CO2 does NOT cause “global warming”!
>>
>> Every now and then, some nutbar comes on here and says this.
>>
>> Read this, will you? CO2 most certainly does cause warming. You are
>> simply ignorant of the fact and the physics - like others of your ilk:
>>
>> http://www.jcsda.noaa.gov/documents/meetings/2009summercoll/
Barnet2_InfraRadTran.pdf
>>
>> Now come back on and tell us that CO2 does not cause global warming.
>> You won't, because you can't justify your idiot assertion. You'll
>> probably have a go at me instead for showing you up as a nutbar again.
>> *>))
>
>
> You are a waste of perfectly good skin, Dawlish. It's all been explained
> to you a thousand times and yet you are still pretending to be willfully
> ignorant.

Take him at face value. He is not *pretending* to be willfully ignorant.

[Marvin the Martian]

Wait... aren't you the guy who wants to dig tunnels on the moon and don't
believe in special relativity?

[last...@primus.ca]

On Wednesday, July 4, 2012 2:07:28 PM UTC-4, bjacoby wrote:
> Back of the envelope cutting TREES and CO2
> ===

> http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/deforest/deforest.html

> 40 million acres per year. Trees destroyed each YEAR!

ø Utter Nonsense!!!

>
> CO2 stored per acre per year: 3.67 metric tons CO2 .

ø More silly nonsense!!!

> Calculation of CO2 in atmosphere.
>

> http://micpohling.wordpress.com/2007/03/30/math-how-much-co2-by-weight-in-the-atmosphere/

>
> 1750-1960 Produced 1190 million tons CO2 per year into atmosphere.

ø There is no way to calculate that number.
Measurement of atmospheric CO2 first
in 1820.

> From 1960 to 2007 produced 12,127
million tons per year.

ø Another crock of shit.

>
> For drill we will assume that trees are on average 50 years old and all
> CO2 stored in trees ends up being freed by burning, decay etc.

There is no co2 "stored" in trees
>
ø More utter stupidity from Jacoby.

Carbon dioxide is used by plants during
photosynthesis to make sugars, which may either be
consumed in respiration or used as the raw material
to produce other organic compounds needed for
plant growth and development.
Photosynthesis is a process that converts carbon dioxide into organic compounds, especially sugars, using the energy from sunlight. Photosynthesis occurs in plants, algae, and many species of Bacteria. Photosynthetic organisms are called photoautotrophs, since it allows them to create their own food.
Carbon dioxide is generated as a by-product of the
combustion of fossil fuels or the burning of vegetable
matter, among other chemical processes. Carbon
dioxide is emitted from volcanos and other geothermal processes such as hot springs and geysers and by the dissolution of carbonates in crustal rocks.
As of March 2009, carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere is at a concentration of 387 ppm by volume.[1] Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide fluctuate slightly with the change of the seasons, driven primarily by seasonal plant growth in the Northern Hemisphere. Concentrations of carbon dioxide fall during the northern spring and summer as plants consume the gas, and rise during the northern autumn and winter as plants go dormant, die and decay.
Carbon dioxide has no liquid state at pressures below 5.1 atmospheres. At 1 atmosphere (near mean sea level pressure), the gas deposits directly to a solid at temperatures below -78 °C and the solid sublimes directly to a gas above -78 °C. In its solid state, carbon dioxide is commonly called dry ice.

[Bret Cahill]

> CO2 AT MOST produces only 20% of supposed warming:
>
> http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010JD014287.shtml

Where does it say only 20% of the _increase_ in temperature comes from
CO2?

. . .

> Somehow all you whackjobs seem to think that nobody is smart enough to
> figure out what you are all up to.

It's a safe bet you never passed and college level math or science
courses.

It's an even safer bet even the fossil fuel industry doesn't want you
on their side.

Maybe Heartland thinks you are a useful idiot.


Bret Cahill

[bjacoby]

On 7/6/2012 12:08 AM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>> CO2 AT MOST produces only 20% of supposed warming:
>>
>> http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010JD014287.shtml
>
> Where does it say only 20% of the _increase_ in temperature comes from
> CO2?

Oh cute. It only causes 20% of TOTAL warming, but now you are going to
say that somehow the "increase" comes from somewhere other than the
total sources? Is there no limit to the amount of drugs you can imbibe?

>> Somehow all you whackjobs seem to think that nobody is smart enough to
>> figure out what you are all up to.
>
> It's a safe bet you never passed and college level math or science
> courses.

Presumably you are a Democrat and as research shows are far less
educated than your conservative counterparts. So I'd guess it's a pretty
safe bet that you dropped out of school in the 8th grade to try to be a
rap star after viewing the movie "8 Mile" with Eminem .

> It's an even safer bet even the fossil fuel industry doesn't want you
> on their side.

It's a pretty safe bet that the tax whores pushing the AGW tax are NEVER
going to make you a millionaire like Dr. Hansen. You are allowed to go
out and bring back burgers for the meeting, however.

> Maybe Heartland thinks you are a useful idiot.

Lessee. "useful idiot"? Wasn't that a Leftard "progressive" term used by
Lenin speaking of his "workers"? We need you to post that reference
again showing that those who know the least always think they know the
most.

[Jo Stein]

On 05.07.2012 17:03, Desertphile wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 12:40:43 +0200, Jo Stein <jst...@broadpark.no>
> wrote:
>
>> On 04.07.2012 20:07, bjacoby wrote:
>
>> ...
>
>>> I’d say we are damn lucky CO2 does NOT cause “global warming”!
>
>> The Economist have found very good evidence for global warming.
>
> .... along with every Earth Sciences science organization on the
> planet.
>
>> Do you see anything wrong in their data?
>
> He will not answer because his answer is "No."
>
>> http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/05/daily-chart-1
>

There may also be the problem that because of missing education he
do not understand how warming an heat content are related.

Still it should be possible to see from that figure that something
extreme is happening to your globe today. Anyhow, bjacoby has
made up his mind and will not see.
--
jo
"Action on global warming can be driven by heroic leadership
or by events. It'll probably be by events."--Richard Smalley

[Martin Brown]

On 05/07/2012 19:56, David Friedman wrote:
> In article <tpcJr.29372$7y4....@newsfe23.iad>,
> Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> But the key point here is that cutting down trees would not alter the
>> isotopic ratio of atmospheric CO2 in the *direction* that is being
>> observed so the hypothesis advanced here is total bunkum and can be
>> dismissed on that evidence alone.
>
> I think the hypothesis being advanced was that the cutting down of
> forests was a major cause of increases in atmospheric CO2--am I
> mistaken? If so, your point above doesn't seem to follow from your
> argument. If we have one cause that is increasing the ratio of C12 to
> C13 and another that is having the opposite effect, one would have to
> put numbers to the changes in both directions to figure out what the net
> change would be--which you have not done.
>
> Am I missing something in your argument?

The amount of the change in the stable isotope ratios observed and the
direction of deltaC13 is unambiguous - the *increase* in atmospheric CO2
is from burning old fossil fuels. Observations trump hand waving.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Marvin the Martian]

You're ignoring all the other sources of sequestered carbon, like
carbonate rocks from both the manufacture of portland cement and from
dissolving carbonate rocks in the ocean.

If it was all due to fossil fuels, you'd have to believe that fossil fuel
sourced CO2 was magical and will take a long time to enter the ocean,
when in reality many gigatons per year enter the ocean.

[Marvin the Martian]

On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 21:08:08 -0700, Bret Cahill wrote:

>> CO2 AT MOST produces only 20% of supposed warming:
>>
>> http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010JD014287.shtml
>
> Where does it say only 20% of the _increase_ in temperature comes from
> CO2?

Right there in the abstract:

"With a straightforward scheme for allocating overlaps, we find that
water vapor is the dominant contributor (∼50% of the effect), followed by
clouds (∼25%) and then CO2 with ∼20%."

Or are you playing a childish semantic game?

[Dawlish]

On Jul 6, 12:45 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 10:24:47 +0100, Martin Brown wrote:
> > On 05/07/2012 19:56, David Friedman wrote:

> >> In article <tpcJr.29372$7y4.7...@newsfe23.iad>,

> >>   Martin Brown <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>> But the key point here is that cutting down trees would not alter the
> >>> isotopic ratio of atmospheric CO2 in the *direction* that is being
> >>> observed so the hypothesis advanced here is total bunkum and can be
> >>> dismissed on that evidence alone.
>
> >> I think the hypothesis being advanced was that the cutting down of
> >> forests was a major cause of increases in atmospheric CO2--am I
> >> mistaken? If so, your point above doesn't seem to follow from your
> >> argument. If we have one cause that is increasing the ratio of C12 to
> >> C13 and another that is having the opposite effect, one would have to
> >> put numbers to the changes in both directions to figure out what the
> >> net change would be--which you have not done.
>
> >> Am I missing something in your argument?
>
> > The amount of the change in the stable isotope ratios observed and the
> > direction of deltaC13 is unambiguous - the *increase* in atmospheric CO2
> > is from burning old fossil fuels. Observations trump hand waving.
>
> You're ignoring all the other sources of sequestered carbon, like
> carbonate rocks from both the manufacture of portland cement and from
> dissolving carbonate rocks in the ocean.
>
> If it was all due to fossil fuels, you'd have to believe that fossil fuel
> sourced CO2 was magical and will take a long time to enter the ocean,

> when in reality many gigatons per year enter the ocean.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Nobody, ever, in any published paper, has said that "it is all due to
fossil fuels". It's just yet another denier crock. You are just an
alien who doesn't don't think that CO2 is the main cause of the
current warming. You are in a tiny minority for believing that; you
don't like it and you'll say anything to justify your crazy beliefs.
Won't you?

[Sam Wormley]

On 7/6/12 6:47 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> "With a straightforward scheme for allocating overlaps, we find that
> water vapor is the dominant contributor (∼50% of the effect), followed by
> clouds (∼25%) and then CO2 with ∼20%."

Increased CO2 makes more water vapor, a greenhouse gas which amplifies
warming

When skeptics use this argument, they are trying to imply that an
increase in CO2 isn't a major problem. If CO2 isn't as powerful as water
vapor, which there's already a lot of, adding a little more CO2 couldn't
be that bad, right? What this argument misses is the fact that water
vapor creates what scientists call a 'positive feedback loop' in the
atmosphere — making any temperature changes larger than they would be
otherwise.

How does this work? The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere exists
in direct relation to the temperature. If you increase the temperature,
more water evaporates and becomes vapor, and vice versa. So when
something else causes a temperature increase (such as extra CO2 from
fossil fuels), more water evaporates. Then, since water vapor is a
greenhouse gas, this additional water vapor causes the temperature to go
up even further—a positive feedback.

How much does water vapor amplify CO2 warming? Studies show that water
vapor feedback roughly doubles the amount of warming caused by CO2. So
if there is a 1°C change caused by CO2, the water vapor will cause the
temperature to go up another 1°C. When other feedback loops are
included, the total warming from a potential 1°C change caused by CO2
is, in reality, as much as 3°C.

The other factor to consider is that water is evaporated from the land
and sea and falls as rain or snow all the time. Thus the amount held in
the atmosphere as water vapour varies greatly in just hours and days as
result of the prevailing weather in any location. So even though water
vapour is the greatest greenhouse gas, it is relatively short-lived. On
the other hand, CO2 is removed from the air by natural geological-scale
processes and these take a long time to work. Consequently CO2 stays in
our atmosphere for years and even centuries. A small additional amount
has a much more long-term effect.

So skeptics are right in saying that water vapor is the dominant
greenhouse gas. What they don't mention is that the water vapor feedback
loop actually makes temperature changes caused by CO2 even bigger.

See: http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm

[Androcles]

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:LqWdnaXdUYDyd2vS...@mchsi.com...

======================================================
Wormlet, why don't you go outside and look up? If you see a fluffy
white thing obscuring the sun so that you are in the cool shade,
that's WATER which is reflecting solar energy back into space, you
clueless ranting IDIOT.
See: A psychiatrist.

[Desertphile]

You are 100% correct. Congratulations: was it painful?

> And in the end, with all the big numbers you are throwing around, the
> atmosphere and the hydrosphere are many orders of magnitude bigger
> than your numbers. CO2 is still trace amounts of the atmosphere.

.... and it still raised and is raising Earth's global average
temperature anomalously.

[Tunderbar]

If it did raise the temps, it was in trace amounts. And the global
average temps have been rising since the last glaciation period,
15,000 years ago before SUVs. It isn't anomalous, it is what climate
does.

[Dawlish]

On Jul 6, 3:55 pm, Tunderbar <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote:

>It isn't anomalous, it is what climate
does

Why does every scientific institution, every national science academy,
every government that attended Cancun and almost every single
scientist disagree with that statement, tundy?

Without conjuring up the great global conspiracy, you will have no
answer to that question, will you?

[Sam Wormley]

On 7/6/12 9:55 AM, Tunderbar wrote:
> If it did raise the temps, it was in trace amounts. And the global
> average temps have been rising since the last glaciation period,
> 15,000 years ago before SUVs. It isn't anomalous, it is what climate
> does.

An enhanced greenhouse effect from CO2 has been confirmed by multiple
lines of empirical evidence. Satellite measurements of infrared spectra
over the past 40 years observe less energy escaping to space at the
wavelengths associated with CO2. Surface measurements find more downward
infrared radiation warming the planet's surface. This provides a direct,
empirical causal link between CO2 and global warming.

The greenhouse gas qualities of carbon dioxide have been known for over
a century. In 1861, John Tyndal published laboratory results identifying
carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas that absorbed heat rays (longwave
radiation). Since then, the absorptive qualities of carbon dioxide have
been more precisely quantified by decades of laboratory measurements
(Herzberg 1953, Burch 1962, Burch 1970, etc).

The greenhouse effect occurs because greenhouse gases let sunlight
(shortwave radiation) pass through the atmosphere. The earth absorbs
sunlight, warms then reradiates heat (infrared or longwave radiation).
The outgoing longwave radiation is absorbed by greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere. This heats the atmosphere which in turn re-radiates longwave
radiation in all directions. Some of it makes its way back to the
surface of the earth. So with more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, we
expect to see less longwave radiation escaping to space at the
wavelengths that carbon dioxide absorb. We also expect to see more
infrared radiation returning back to Earth at these same wavelengths.



Satellite measurements of outgoing longwave radiation
In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite that measured infrared spectra
between 400 cm-1 to 1600 cm-1. In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency
launched the IMG satellite which recorded similar observations. Both
sets of data were compared to discern any changes in outgoing radiation
over the 26 year period (Harries 2001). The resultant change in outgoing
radiation was as follows:


Figure 1: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases.
'Brightness temperature' indicates equivalent blackbody temperature
(Harries 2001).

What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands
that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4)
absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation is consistent with
theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found "direct experimental
evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect".

This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using more recent
satellite data. The 1970 and 1997 spectra were compared with additional
satellite data from the NASA AIRS satellite launched in 2003 (Griggs
2004). This analysis was extended to 2006 using data from the AURA
satellite launched in 2004 (Chen 2007). Both papers found the observed
differences in CO2 bands matching the expected changes from rising
carbon dioxide levels. Thus we have empirical evidence that increased
CO2 is causing an enhanced greenhouse effect.

Surface measurements of downward longwave radiation
A compilation of surface measurements of downward longwave radiation
from 1973 to 2008 find an increasing trend of more longwave radiation
returning to earth, attributed to increases in air temperature, humidity
and atmospheric carbon dioxide (Wang 2009). More regional studies such
as an examination of downward longwave radiation over the central Alps
find that downward longwave radiation is increasing due to an enhanced
greenhouse effect (Philipona 2004).

Taking this a step further, an analysis of high resolution spectral data
allows scientists to quantitatively attribute the increase in downward
radiation to each of several greenhouse gases (Evans 2006). The results
lead the authors to conclude that "this experimental data should
effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence
exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the
atmosphere and global warming."


Figure 2: Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface.
Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out, showing the
contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans 2006).

Conservation of Energy
Huber and Knutti (2011) published a paper in Nature Geoscience,
Anthropogenic and natural warming inferred from changes in Earth’s
energy balance. They take an approach in this study which utilizes the
principle of conservation of energy for the global energy budget using
the measurements discussed above, and summarize their methodology:

"We use a massive ensemble of the Bern2.5D climate model of intermediate
complexity, driven by bottom-up estimates of historic radiative forcing
F, and constrained by a set of observations of the surface warming T
since 1850 and heat uptake Q since the 1950s....Between 1850 and 2010,
the climate system accumulated a total net forcing energy of 140 x 1022
J with a 5-95% uncertainty range of 95-197 x 1022 J, corresponding to an
average net radiative forcing of roughly 0.54 (0.36-0.76)Wm-2."

Essentially, Huber and Knutti take the estimated global heat content
increase since 1850, calculate how much of the increase is due to
various estimated radiative forcings, and partition the increase between
increasing ocean heat content and outgoing longwave radiation. The
authors note that more than 85% of the global heat uptake (Q) has gone
into the oceans, including increasing the heat content of the deeper
oceans, although their model only accounts for the upper 700 meters.

Figure 3 is a similar graphic to that presented in Meehl et al. (2004),
comparing the average global surface warming simulated by the model
using natural forcings only (blue), anthropogenic forcings only (red),
and the combination of the two (gray).



Figure 3: Time series of anthropogenic and natural forcings
contributions to total simulated and observed global temperature change.
The coloured shadings denote the 5-95% uncertainty range.

In Figure 4, Huber and Knutti break down the anthropogenic and natural
forcings into their individual components to quantify the amount of
warming caused by each since the 1850s (Figure 4b), 1950s (4c), and
projected from 2000 to 2050 using the IPCC SRES A2 emissions scenario as
business-as-usual (4d).



Figure 4: Contributions of individual forcing agents to the total
decadal temperature change for three time periods. Error bars denote the
5–95% uncertainty range. The grey shading shows the estimated 5–95%
range for internal variability based on the CMIP3 climate models.
Observations are shown as dashed lines.

As expected, Huber and Knutti find that greenhouse gases contributed to
substantial warming since 1850, and aerosols had a significant cooling
effect:

"Greenhouse gases contributed 1.31°C (0.85-1.76°C) to the increase, that
is 159% (106-212%) of the total warming. The cooling effect of the
direct and indirect aerosol forcing is about -0.85°C (-1.48 to -0.30°C).
The warming induced by tropospheric ozone and solar variability are of
similar size (roughly 0.2°C). The contributions of stratospheric water
vapour and ozone, volcanic eruptions, and organic and black carbon are
small."

Since 1950, the authors find that greenhouse gases contributed 166%
(120-215%) of the observed surface warming (0.85°C of 0.51°C estimated
surface warming). The percentage is greater than 100% because aerosols
offset approximately 44% (0.45°C) of that warming.

"It is thus extremely likely (>95% probability) that the greenhouse gas
induced warming since the mid-twentieth century was larger than the
observed rise in global average temperatures, and extremely likely that
anthropogenic forcings were by far the dominant cause of warming. The
natural forcing contribution since 1950 is near zero."

Conclusion
There are multiple lines of empirical evidence that increasing carbon
dioxide causes an enhanced greenhouse effect. Laboratory tests show
carbon dioxide absorbs longwave radiation. Satellite measurements
confirm less longwave radiation is escaping to space at carbon dioxide
absorptive wavelengths. Surface measurements find more longwave
radiation returning back to Earth at these same wavelengths. The result
of this energy imbalance is the accumulation of heat over the last 40 years.

See:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm

[Tunderbar]

On Jul 6, 10:03 am, Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 6, 3:55 pm, Tunderbar <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  >It isn't anomalous, it is what climate
>  does
>
> Why does every scientific institution, every national science academy,
> every government that attended Cancun and almost every single
> scientist disagree with that statement, tundy?

I've answered this many many times. It's called a "funding stream".
And a massive multi-billion dollar funding stream. To dumb it down for
you a wee it more, here ya go:

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

>
> Without conjuring up the great global conspiracy, you will have no
> answer to that question, will you?

Money makes the world go 'round. Everyone "conspires" to get rich.

[Tunderbar]

Oddly enough, I am correct in my statements

[Paul Schlyter]

On Fri, 6 Jul 2012 08:08:06 -0700 (PDT), Tunderbar
<tdco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 6, 10:03 am, Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 6, 3:55 pm, Tunderbar <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >  >It isn't anomalous, it is what climate
> >  does
> >
> > Why does every scientific institution, every national science
academy,
> > every government that attended Cancun and almost every single
> > scientist disagree with that statement, tundy?

> I've answered this many many times. It's called a "funding stream".
> And a massive multi-billion dollar funding stream. To dumb it down
for
> you a wee it more, here ya go:

Should we also start believing the Earth is flat? After all, all
established scientists denise the Earth is flat, and any scientist
claiming the Earth is flat would soon lose his funding. Therefore the
Earth must be flat and there's a huge conspiracy financed by this
funding steam which denies the obvious fact that the Earth is flat.

This follows from your logic and your reference to the funding steam.

> > Without conjuring up the great global conspiracy, you will have no
> > answer to that question, will you?

> Money makes the world go 'round. Everyone "conspires" to get rich.

You've just revealed what drives you. You'd be willing to claim
anything, including a flat Earth, if only someone paid you enough.
Right?

[oriel36]

You are such strange people - the Earth turns at a rate of 15 degrees/
1037.5 miles an hour at the equator and a full 24901 mile
circumference in 24 hours,the effects being that the temperature will
rise and fall within a 24 hour period in response to the daily cycle
of the Earth.

As anyone can see,the issue is nowhere near climate but how an entire
group of people can easily dismiss the correspondence between one 24
hour day and one rotation remaining in step.

Is there nobody embarrassed into complete dismay or action by the
fact that modelers can't come to grips with a round and rotating Earth
with all the values attached ?.

[Bill Snyder]

Get psychiatric help.


--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]

[oriel36]

I assure you and everyone else here beyond a shadow of a doubt and to
a 100% observational and technical certainty - the Earth's equator
turns at a rate of 15 degrees per hour corresponding to 1037.5 miles
and turns its full 360 degree/24901 mile circumference in 24
hours.This fact leads to the primary temperature fluctuation and the
most immediate experience of all as the temperature rises and falls in
response to a round and rotating planet with each rotation never
falling out of step with one 24 hour day.

The modelers believe otherwise,they believe there are 4 more rotations
in 1461 days than the Earth actually has making this the single
greatest mistake ever to appear in any discipline at any time in human
history.You wouldn't know it from the sheer nonsense surrounding
climate but when the problem is the inability to affirm that yes,the
Earth turns once in a 24 hour day and remains that way,our society has
far,far bigger problems that it imagines in its worst nightmares.

I conclude that people have the ability to type words but there is not
the slight sign of intelligent reasoning behind those words,that is
not an insult but an unfortunate fact.

[bjacoby]

On 7/6/2012 4:35 AM, Jo Stein wrote:

>>> http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/05/daily-chart-1
>>
> There may also be the problem that because of missing education he
> do not understand how warming an heat content are related.

Let's see if I got this: The land temperature is not going up. CO2
levels continue to rise. Therefore the conclusion is that there is
warming but without any rise in temperature. Totally reasonable. So
where is that heat going if not into climate? Oh wait. I've got it. It's
going into the ocean! But the ocean temperature isn't going up either:

http://www.mrk-inc.com/users/bspam/AGWIndianOcean.htm

(of course "virtual sea temperature" continues to "dramatically" rise)

So what could be the "answer"? Well it's OBVIOUS! TWO THINGS: The first
is that heat and temperature are two different things so obviously
"warming" is going into Ocean heat but without raising ocean
temperatures! Simple. Which leads to the OTHER "explanation" which is
that Jacoby has no education which is obvious because he is so dumb as
to not blindly accept everything you say (like the above hair-brained
theory).

There. Now lets get started with that Carbon footprint tax!

> Still it should be possible to see from that figure that something
> extreme is happening to your globe today. Anyhow, bjacoby has
> made up his mind and will not see.

Jo I'll have a "credential war" with you any day and win. IF you even
have a college education (most "writers" don't or never finished) I'm
sure it consisted of baking a lot of heavy-bottomed, lopsided ceramic
vessels you termed "art". As for now, I'll just ask you one question by
which you can prove your "intellectual superiority". How many Nobel
prize winners have you studied physics under? I'm guessing that the
likelihood of you taking notes in a physics class is about equal to the
likelihood of you having had the opportunity to reach down and scoop up
moon rocks.

You have proven over and over that you have no scientific education or
understanding, but you think that by accusing others of your own
condition you will some how gain that knowledge? You are a very sad
little liar.

[Bill Snyder]

On Fri, 6 Jul 2012 11:11:33 -0700 (PDT), oriel36
<kellehe...@gmail.com> wrote:

>[blah blah, babble, babble]

>I conclude that people have the ability to type words but there is not
>the slight sign of intelligent reasoning behind those words,that is
>not an insult but an unfortunate fact.

Like I said, see a shrink.

[bjacoby]

On 7/6/2012 10:54 AM, Tunderbar wrote:

>> So, Tunderbar would have people believe that the way for humans to shrink
>> their carbon footprint is to cut down old growth forests so that new
>> growth trees can suck up carbon.
>>
>> Really?
>>
>> You can't make this shit up.
>
> Oddly enough, I am correct in my statements

Not quite, Tunderbar. It depends upon what you DO with the old growth
forests you cut down. If you burn them to make room for cows to walk
around then you are NOT correct. But if you somehow preserve the wood
(and the CO2 locked in it) by building guitars, fine furniture or even
houses, then oddly you are correct (new trees suck more CO2 than old ones)

[oriel36]

On Jul 6, 8:14 pm, Bill Snyder <bsny...@airmail.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jul 2012 11:11:33 -0700 (PDT), oriel36
>

> <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >[blah blah, babble, babble]
> >I conclude that people have the ability to type words but there is not
> >the slight sign of intelligent reasoning behind those words,that is
> >not an insult but an unfortunate fact.
>
> Like I said, see a shrink.
>
> --
> Bill Snyder  [This space unintentionally left blank]

The era that couldn't tell why the temperatures rise and fall daily
within a 24 hour period in response to one rotation of the Earth are
in such trouble.The sheer strain to maintain the fact front and center
year in and year out while the unrepentant modelers refuse to accept
the facts of a round and rotating Earth,not as some sort of analogy
for something else but utterly refuse to accept the equatorial Earth
turns at a rate of 15 degrees/1037.5 miles per hour and ultimately
1461 rotations in 1461 days.

An era that has lost its way in astronomy and terrestrial sciences can
do no more than crumble into a mean spirited,narrow minded condition.

[Bill Snyder]

The fact that nobody but you gives a shit about your lunatic
obsession does not prove that it's the rest of the human race that
has it wrong. See a shrink.

[Desertphile]

On Thu, 5 Jul 2012 21:08:08 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > CO2 AT MOST produces only 20% of supposed warming:

More than 85%, actually.

> > http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010JD014287.shtml
>
> Where does it say only 20% of the _increase_ in temperature comes from
> CO2?

It does not.

> . . .
>
> > Somehow all you whackjobs seem to think that nobody is smart enough to
> > figure out what you are all up to.
>
> It's a safe bet you never passed and college level math or science
> courses.
>
> It's an even safer bet even the fossil fuel industry doesn't want you
> on their side.
>
> Maybe Heartland thinks you are a useful idiot.

[Desertphile]

Yes. 0.79c above the 1950-1990 average.

> And the global
> average temps have been rising since the last glaciation period,

Idiot.

> 15,000 years ago before SUVs. It isn't anomalous, it is what climate
> does.

[Marvin the Martian]

Indeed.

When I first joined APS and IEEE, they required someone "nominate" you.
The form required that someone who was already a member vouch you
actually were worthy of belonging to the society.

Hell, even the National Geographic Society required someone nominate you.

Not any more. Any one willing to pay the money can join. It is all about
money now. Integrity is obsolete.

[Sam Wormley]

On 7/6/12 8:00 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> When I first joined APS and IEEE, they required someone "nominate" you.
> The form required that someone who was already a member vouch you
> actually were worthy of belonging to the society.

So why do you reject the APS's Tutorial on the Basic Physics of
Climate Change?

> http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/hafemeister.cfm

[Marvin the Martian]

Assume a cylindrical tree...

The amount of wood added per year to a tree can be approximated by

delta r *t* 2* Pi* l(t)

Where:
r = radius of tree.
delta r = change in radius for one year, one tree ring.
l(t) = height of the tree as a function of time

delta r seems to ONLY depend upon growth conditions, and for most trees,
appears to be fairly constant.

So, assuming l(t) = k_1*t and that delta r is a constant (so the change
in radius each year is delta r * t you get:

V(t) = (delta r)*2*Pi*t^3/3

So...
Older live trees add more carbon that new trees.

The limiting factor is the lifespan of the trees. Old growth forest can
be considered in equilibrium. However, a catastrophic event like a lahar,
can sequester the entire forest and turn it into a coal field.

No, you don't want to cut down the trees.

[David Friedman]

In article <m9yJr.65801$GJ4....@newsfe16.iad>,

Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> On 05/07/2012 19:56, David Friedman wrote:

> > In article <tpcJr.29372$7y4....@newsfe23.iad>,

> > Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> But the key point here is that cutting down trees would not alter the
> >> isotopic ratio of atmospheric CO2 in the *direction* that is being
> >> observed so the hypothesis advanced here is total bunkum and can be
> >> dismissed on that evidence alone.
> >
> > I think the hypothesis being advanced was that the cutting down of
> > forests was a major cause of increases in atmospheric CO2--am I
> > mistaken? If so, your point above doesn't seem to follow from your
> > argument. If we have one cause that is increasing the ratio of C12 to
> > C13 and another that is having the opposite effect, one would have to
> > put numbers to the changes in both directions to figure out what the net
> > change would be--which you have not done.
> >
> > Am I missing something in your argument?
>
> The amount of the change in the stable isotope ratios observed and the
> direction of deltaC13 is unambiguous - the *increase* in atmospheric CO2
> is from burning old fossil fuels. Observations trump hand waving.

That may well be true, but it's an assertion, not something that follows
from the argument I was responding to.

--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
_Salamander_: http://tinyurl.com/6957y7e
_How to Milk an Almond,..._ http://tinyurl.com/63xg8gx

[Brad Guth]

On Jul 5, 6:06 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 15:54:33 -0700, Brad Guth wrote:
> > On Jul 5, 7:56 am, Desertphile <Desertph...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 15:42:16 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth
>
> >> <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> > Which fossil fuels (aka hydrocarbons) do not consume atmosphere?
>
> >> > Which hydrocarbons w/atmosphere are not negative energy?
>
> >> > Assuming Earth was chemically and thermal-dynamically balanced before
> >> > modern humans ever came along, and if we modern humans contribute 70
> >> > TW/hr, where's the problem in figuring out this GW/AGW thing?
>
> >> It isn't a problem of figuring out the effects: it's a problem of
> >> rejecting the facts and evidence.
>
> >> >  http://groups.google.com/groups/search
> >> >  http://translate.google.com/#
> >> >  Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/”Guth Venus”

>
> >> --
> >> "RESPECT ARE - COUNTRY SPEAK ENGLISH" --- sign at a "tea party" rally
>

> > I must continually reject those unwilling to interpret the best
> > available science.  It's called mainstream obfuscation, and those
> > opposed to any GW/AGW that's human caused are always good at obfuscating
> > their butts off.
>
> > The all-inclusive affects of humans isn't insignificant.
>
> >  http://groups.google.com/groups/searchhttp://translate.google.com/#
> >  Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/”Guth Venus”
>
> Wait... aren't you the guy who wants to dig tunnels on the moon and don't
> believe in special relativity?

What do you have against TBMs excavating into our moon?

Relativity is a theory that can be replaced by other laws of physics.

Photons are also nonzero mass, at least half of their 2D time, and
dark/transparent matter does seen to exist or rather coexist.

Something weird is still going on with Venus.

“Guth Venus” 1:1, plus 10x resample/enlargement of the area in
question:
https://picasaweb.google.com/102736204560337818634/BradGuth#slideshow/5629579402364691314

Other thumbnail images, including mgn_c115s095_1.gif (225 m/pixel)
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/thumbnail_pages/venus_thumbnails.html
Lava channels, Lo Shen Valles, Venus from Magellan Cycle 1
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/html/object_page/mgn_c115s095_1.html
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/mgn_c115s095_1.gif

http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/”Guth Venus”

[bjacoby]

On 7/6/2012 2:02 PM, Bill Snyder wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jul 2012 10:59:08 -0700 (PDT), oriel36
> <kellehe...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Get psychiatric help.

As usual, Snider enters the debate with a clear understanding of all the
scientific issues involved and brilliantly adds his intellectual insight
to the question.

[Martin Brown]

On 07/07/2012 04:32, David Friedman wrote:
> In article <m9yJr.65801$GJ4....@newsfe16.iad>,
> Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 05/07/2012 19:56, David Friedman wrote:
>>> In article <tpcJr.29372$7y4....@newsfe23.iad>,
>>> Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> But the key point here is that cutting down trees would not alter the
>>>> isotopic ratio of atmospheric CO2 in the *direction* that is being
>>>> observed so the hypothesis advanced here is total bunkum and can be
>>>> dismissed on that evidence alone.
>>>
>>> I think the hypothesis being advanced was that the cutting down of
>>> forests was a major cause of increases in atmospheric CO2--am I
>>> mistaken? If so, your point above doesn't seem to follow from your
>>> argument. If we have one cause that is increasing the ratio of C12 to
>>> C13 and another that is having the opposite effect, one would have to
>>> put numbers to the changes in both directions to figure out what the net
>>> change would be--which you have not done.
>>>
>>> Am I missing something in your argument?
>>
>> The amount of the change in the stable isotope ratios observed and the
>> direction of deltaC13 is unambiguous - the *increase* in atmospheric CO2
>> is from burning old fossil fuels. Observations trump hand waving.
>
> That may well be true, but it's an assertion, not something that follows
> from the argument I was responding to.

No. It is not an assertion at all. We *know* how much fossil fuel carbon
we burn and we know what its isotopic composition is as well. The oil
companies use stable isotope ratio measurements as a diagnostic when
exploring and prospecting for new oil fields.

The observed increase in atmospheric CO2 is consistent with *burning*
that fuel in terms of both concentration increase and the isotopic
signature. Fossil fuel burning dominates the increased contribution to
atmospheric CO2 by a very long way.

If the problem was lack of trees fixing CO2 and preferentially grabbing
the light isotope of carbon (which they do) then the deltaC13 would be
moving in the opposite direction.

You can also see the annual photosynthesis pattern in the global CO2
concentration signal amplitude. If trees were disappearing at a rate
sufficient to explain the rise then the amplitude of annual variation
would also be decreasing. This is not observed. See for example:

http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/images/graphics_gallery/original/co2_sta_records.pdf

If anything it looks to me like the high latitude photosynthesis
amplitude has increased since 1950.

I am beginning to think that you do not understand science.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Bill Snyder]

On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 02:50:25 -0400, bjacoby <bja...@iwaynet.net>
wrote:

It would be nice to think of that as an indication that you're
finally beginning to get in touch with reality, but more likely
you imagine that you're being sarcastic.

[Marvin the Martian]

It is a looney idea.

> Relativity is a theory that can be replaced by other laws of physics.

No.

> Photons are also nonzero mass,

PLONK!

That's the problem with upgrades. You loose the old killfile with new
software versions.

[Marvin the Martian]

The first part makes the stupid assumption that all the rise in CO2 MUST
be from humans and that only the extra CO2 produced by humans goes into
the ocean. They ignore that there are natural sources out there produce
MUCH more, and they ignore ocean chemistry and the equilibrium between
ocean and atmosphere wrt CO2.

The second part notices that the earth is warmer due to the greenhouse
effect... then they compare earth to Venus and Viola!! They stupidly and
without basis conclude that ALL the warming is due to CO2 on Earth AND
Venus... Meanwhile, Mars, which has more CO2 than Earth, is a frozen
rock, which clearly debunks that idiot claim. No need for me to even
address the illogic of that stupid drivel.

Yadda-yadda... the claim hot air doesn't rise, which is stupid, then they
do a black and white fallacy; it cannot be solar variation directly so it
MUST be CO2.

Yeah, it is stupid as hell, it proves the APS's "tutorial" is idiot
propaganda, and that you're a senile old fool for believing that tripe
without question.

[Sam Wormley]

On 7/7/12 8:44 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> The first part makes the stupid assumption that all the rise in CO2 MUST
> be from humans and that only the extra CO2 produced by humans goes into
> the ocean. They ignore that there are natural sources out there produce
> MUCH more, and they ignore ocean chemistry and the equilibrium between
> ocean and atmosphere wrt CO2.

You gotta admit, Marvin, that the increase in CO2 correlates with
the industrial revolution. Let's look a bit more closely are some
of the arguments.

> Anthropogenic and natural warming inferred from changes in Earth's energy balance

> http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1327.html
>
> Study of True Global Warming Signal Finds Remarkably Steady Rate of Manmade Warming since 1979
> http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/12/13/388527/deniers-study-true-global-warming-signal-rate-of-manmade-warming/
> http://berkeleyearth.org/faq
>
> The Scientific Case for Modern Anthropogenic Global Warming
> http://monthlyreview.org/2008/07/01/the-scientific-case-for-modern-anthropogenic-global-warming
>
> Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm
>

Before the industrial revolution, the CO2 content in the air remained
quite steady for thousands of years. Natural CO2 is not static, however.
It is generated by natural processes, and absorbed by others.

As you can see in Figure 1, natural land and ocean carbon remains
roughly in balance and have done so for a long time � and we know this
because we can measure historic levels of CO2 in the atmosphere both
directly (in ice cores) and indirectly (through proxies).

Figure 1: Global carbon cycle. Numbers represent flux of carbon dioxide
in gigatons (Source: Figure 7.3, IPCC AR4).

But consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the
natural carbon cycle � by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of
29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through
the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot
absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is
absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence,
atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years
(Tripati 2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to
20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years).

Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle.
Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the
pre-industrial era, creating an artificial forcing of global
temperatures which is warming the planet. While fossil-fuel derived CO2
is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is
cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the
additional CO2.

The level of atmospheric CO2 is building up, the additional CO2 is being
produced by burning fossil fuels, and that build up is accelerating.

See:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

[Marvin the Martian]

You ignore other sources of depleted carbon and come to the idiot's
conclusion that fossil fuel CO2 produced at a rate of 5 Gtc/year, has to
stay in the atmosphere for 30 years while natural CO2 exchanges with the
oceans and biosphere at a rate of hundreds of GtC/year.

Your conclusion conflicts with reality and is wrong.

<snip>

>
> If anything it looks to me like the high latitude photosynthesis
> amplitude has increased since 1950.
>
> I am beginning to think that you do not understand science.

And you follow up with an ad hom, and an ironic one at that. You failed
to properly define the closed system under study.

[Sam Wormley]

On 7/7/12 9:21 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> You ignore other sources of depleted carbon and come to the idiot's
> conclusion that fossil fuel CO2 produced at a rate of 5 Gtc/year, has to
> stay in the atmosphere for 30 years while natural CO2 exchanges with the
> oceans and biosphere at a rate of hundreds of GtC/year.

When CO2 emissions are compared directly to CO2 levels, there is a
strong correlation in the long term trends. This is independently
confirmed by carbon isotopes which find the falling ratio of C13/C12
correlates well with fossil fuel emissions.
To directly compare CO2 emissions to atmospheric CO2 levels, both sets
of data can be converted to gigatonnes of CO2. The CO2 emissions data is
typically expressed in gigatonnes carbon (GtC). One gigatonne is equal
to one billion tonnes. This means they've only included the carbon
element of the carbon dioxide molecule. The atomic mass of carbon is 12,
while the atomic mass of CO2 is 44. Therefore, to convert from
gigatonnes carbon to gigatonnes of carbon dioxide, you simply multiply
44 over 12. In other words, 1 gigatonne of carbon equals 3.67 gigatonnes
of carbon dioxide.

Atmospheric CO2 levels are expressed in parts per million by volume
(ppm). To convert from ppm to gigatonne of carbon, the conversion tables
of the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center advise that 1 part per
million of atmospheric CO2 is equivalent to 2.13 Gigatonnes Carbon.
Using our 44 over 12 rule, this means 1ppm = 7.81 Gigatonnes of Carbon
Dioxide. Thus the two time series can both be plotted together expressed
as gigatonnes of carbon dioxide:


Figure 1: CO2 levels (Green Line - Law Dome, East Antarctica and Blue
line - Mauna Loa, Hawaii) and Cumulative CO2 emissions in gigatonnes of
CO2 (Red Line - CDIAC).

So putting it all together, Figure 1 is a plot of the total amount of
CO2 in the atmosphere (top) versus the total amount of CO2 humans have
emitted into the atmosphere (bottom). Several features jump out.
Firstly, the similar shape of the curves (dare I say hockey stick
shaped). We have correlation but do we have causality?

It isn't too much of a stretch to imagine the amount of CO2 we put into
the atmosphere might have a causality link with the amount of CO2 that
remains in the atmosphere. Nevertheless, further confirmation comes by
analysing the types of CO2 found in the air. The carbon atom has several
different isotopes (eg - different number of neutrons). Carbon 12 has 6
neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio
than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes fossil fuels,
the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occuring (Ghosh
2003) and the trend correlates with the trend in global emissions.


Figure 3: Annual global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning and
cement manufacture in GtC yr–1 (black), annual averages of the 13C/12C
ratio measured in atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa from 1981 to 2002 (red).
(IPCC AR4)

See:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-emissions-correlation-with-CO2-concentration.htm

[Brad Guth]

So, you think items of 2D shouldn't exist?

You think energy never become mass?

[Brad Guth]

On Jul 5, 5:19 am, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 22:59:57 -0400, bjacoby wrote:

> > On 7/4/2012 5:59 PM, Fredric L. Rice wrote:
> >> bjacoby<bjac...@iwaynet.net>  wrote:
>
> >>> Back of the envelope cutting TREES and CO2
>

> >> Back of the stupid spewing idiot nonsense of which he knows nothing.
>
> > Rice-a-roni. NOT a scientist or any science knowledge. An ignorant
> > writer whose only skill is to use words to prevaricate.  If you want
> > some credibility then lets see YOUR calculation! Ooooo! NUMBERS! Writers
> > don't do numbers. They only do lies!
>
> > So your bottom line is I know nothing, but you are too ignorant to prove
> > it and in your opinion cutting down and burning forests is a GOOD thing.
> > Glad we know where you stand on all this.
>
> > Don't you realize you are embarrassing yourself and all "progressives"
> > in a world-wide public forum?
>
> Breathtaking, isn't it? The Eco-Nazis, with some justification, complain
> about cutting down old growth forests, and now that it is on the side of
> being a cause of the CO2, suddenly these guys SUPPORT it as having no
> impact at all.
>
> Whatever fits the argument of the day. Tomorrow, cutting down the Amazon
> will go back to being an evil right wing plot.

That's right, these Usenet/newsgroup FUD-masters keep going back and
forth to suit that mainstream soup of the day. Their primary goal is
always to keep independent outsiders from ever getting picked up by
mainstream media.

[hanson]

... ahahaha... AHAHAHAHA.. PRICELES!... ahahaha...
>
Mike Varney "Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:
<snip crap>

>
Varney wrote:
That's the problem with upgrades.
You loose the old killfile with new
software versions.
>

hanson wrote:
ahahahaaha... There they argue from the depths of
their souls and tormenting their own minds about
existential threats and critical issue to humankind....
>
.. and rolling & trolling along comes Marvin-Varney
who worries about the condition of his killfile....
>
ROTFLMAO & thanks for the laughs... ahahahanson


--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ne...@netfront.net ---

[bjacoby]

On 7/7/2012 9:56 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 7/7/12 8:44 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>> The first part makes the stupid assumption that all the rise in CO2 MUST
>> be from humans and that only the extra CO2 produced by humans goes into
>> the ocean. They ignore that there are natural sources out there produce
>> MUCH more, and they ignore ocean chemistry and the equilibrium between
>> ocean and atmosphere wrt CO2.
>
> You gotta admit, Marvin, that the increase in CO2 correlates with
> the industrial revolution. Let's look a bit more closely are some
> of the arguments.

Actually, "Sam", you gotta admit that the increase in CO2 correlates
quite well with deforestation rather than being completely the result of
fossil fuels. (The original subject of this thread!) So WHY are you so
hot to argue that CO2 is ONLY due to fossil fuel burning and not to
deforestation? Is there something POLITICAL that makes one "science"
important and the other to be ignored?

Correlation does not equal causality!


<Snip usual bunch of professional "science" AGW propaganda>

[bjacoby]

Bill, I'm simply flabbergasted that you are so out of touch with reality
that you actually thing that saying "Get psychiatric help." is
"brilliant intellectual insight" to science? And that I finally realized
what a genius you are? Oh my God you are a sad little man!

[Marvin the Martian]

Wormley is nuts. He just cuts and pastes, almost randomly, from his
stupid political website. Almost all his post is their idiot drivel of a
quote with just a few smug-assed quips of his own.

I've complete contempt for Wormley. He contributes nothing and his
understanding is very, very limited.

[Sam Wormley]

On 7/7/12 10:53 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> Wormley is nuts. He just cuts and pastes, almost randomly, from his
> stupid political website.

It is interesting, Marvin, that almost every claim you make
is listed as a climate myth at
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Now I would think that you would be asking yourself why that is!


About Skeptical Science

The goal of Skeptical Science is to explain what *peer reviewed science*
has to say about global warming. When you peruse the many arguments of
global warming skeptics, a pattern emerges. Skeptic arguments tend to
focus on narrow pieces of the puzzle while neglecting the broader
picture. For example, focus on Climategate emails neglects the full
weight of scientific evidence for man-made global warming. Concentrating
on a few growing glaciers ignores the world wide trend of accelerating
glacier shrinkage. Claims of global cooling fail to realize the planet
as a whole is still accumulating heat. This website presents the broader
picture by explaining the peer reviewed scientific literature.

Often, the reason for disbelieving in man-made global warming seem to be
political rather than scientific. Eg - "it's all a liberal plot to
spread socialism and destroy capitalism". As one person put it, "the
cheerleaders for doing something about global warming seem to be largely
the cheerleaders for many causes of which I disapprove". However, what
is causing global warming is a purely scientific question. Skeptical
Science *removes the politics from the debate* by concentrating solely
on the science.

[Bill Snyder]

On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 11:50:52 -0400, bjacoby <bja...@iwaynet.net>

There is no science in this poor retard's delusions, shit-bot, any
more than there is in your lies.

[bjacoby]

On 7/7/2012 12:03 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 7/7/12 10:53 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>> Wormley is nuts. He just cuts and pastes, almost randomly, from his
>> stupid political website.
>
> It is interesting, Marvin, that almost every claim you make
> is listed as a climate myth at
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
>
> Now I would think that you would be asking yourself why that is!

Sam, that would be because "skepticalscience" is professional warmist
propaganda outfit, with a physicist (but not climate scientist) hired to
carefully "spin" all science to bolster the "warmist" CO2 theory. The
site obviously has HUGE AGW funding. Just look at all the languages it's
translated into! Look at the technical expertise put into "spinning" the
scientific data! You think this is some blogger in a basement? Hardly!
It's major hardball heavy funded last ditch effort to mislead a gullible
WORLD into a one world government feudal state.

Buyer beware!

[Marvin the Martian]

I don't know about that.

Every page of that stupid website has some big lie or stupid deception
that discredits the veracity of the entire website.
They also often gibber... fill up the page with stuff that isn't in
dispute and then conclude, without basis, that man made CO2 is causing
global warming.

This website is a slap in the face of rational thought. It is an insult
to all honest scientist.

[Marvin the Martian]

On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 12:46:11 -0400, bjacoby wrote:

I also get tired of debunking the website and wormley doesn't even
address the issues I raise.. Then he goes ahead and pastes the same
goddamned webpage again.

Wormley isn't here to discuss, he's here to propagandize.

[Paul Schlyter]

On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 11:40:46 -0400, bjacoby <bja...@iwaynet.net>
wrote:

> Actually, "Sam", you gotta admit that the increase in CO2
correlates
> quite well with deforestation rather than being completely the
result of
> fossil fuels. (The original subject of this thread!) So WHY are you
so
> hot to argue that CO2 is ONLY due to fossil fuel burning and not to
> deforestation?

Don't lie, he isn't claiming that. Of course deforestrations also
helps to raise the CO2 levels. Planting new trees on a large enough
scale is therefore one way to bring down the CO2 levels.
Deforestration can be reversed by planting new woods, it only takes a
century or so. Burning fossil fuel is much harder to reverse and
takes much longer, tens or hundreds of millions of years.

> Correlation does not equal causality!

True, but causality implies correlation.

[Sam Wormley]

IEEE? APS? What happened to your brain, Marvin? Seriously, how did you
become a science denier?

[Sam Wormley]

You have yet to debunk anything, Marvin. Why is it that almost every

claim you make is listed as a climate myth at
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Why Marvin?

[Marvin the Martian]

Okay, where do you get the "tens or hundreds of millions of years"?

>
>> Correlation does not equal causality!
>
> True, but causality implies correlation.

So, either you're gibbering or your big on affirming the consequent.

[Will Janoschka]

On Fri, 6 Jul 2012 17:59:08, oriel36 <kellehe...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Jul 6, 5:36ÿpm, Paul Schlyter <pau...@stjarnhimlen.se> wrote:
> > On Fri, 6 Jul 2012 08:08:06 -0700 (PDT), Tunderbar
> >
> >
> >
> > <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jul 6, 10:03ÿam, Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jul 6, 3:55ÿpm, Tunderbar <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > ÿ>It isn't anomalous, it is what climate
> > > > ÿdoes
> >
> > > > Why does every scientific institution, every national science
> > academy,
> > > > every government that attended Cancun and almost every single
> > > > scientist disagree with that statement, tundy?
> > > I've answered this many many times. It's called a "funding stream".
> > > And a massive multi-billion dollar funding stream. To dumb it down
> > for
> > > you a wee it more, here ya go:
> >
> > Should we also start believing the Earth is flat? After all, all
> > established scientists denise the Earth is flat, and any scientist
> > claiming the Earth is flat would soon lose his funding. Therefore the
> > Earth must be flat and there's a huge conspiracy financed by this
> > funding steam which denies the obvious fact that the Earth is flat.
> >
> > This follows from your logic and your reference to the funding steam.
> >
> > > > Without conjuring up the great global conspiracy, you will have no
> > > > answer to that question, will you?
> > > Money makes the world go 'round. Everyone "conspires" to get rich.
> >
> > You've just revealed what drives you. You'd be willing to claim
> > anything, including a flat Earth, if only someone paid you enough.
> > Right?
>
> You are such strange people - the Earth turns at a rate of 15 degrees/
> 1037.5 miles an hour at the equator and a full 24901 mile
> circumference in 24 hours,the effects being that the temperature will
> rise and fall within a 24 hour period in response to the daily cycle
> of the Earth.
>
> As anyone can see,the issue is nowhere near climate but how an entire
> group of people can easily dismiss the correspondence between one 24
> hour day and one rotation remaining in step.
>
> Is there nobody embarrassed into complete dismay or action by the
> fact that modelers can't come to grips with a round and rotating Earth
> with all the values attached ?.
>

You have a good point! I am both embarrassed and dismayed
by the CO2-ClimateClowns claiming to be Scientists rather than
Alchemists. Can you suggest any "action" other than shaking head
or weeping, both that I find discomforting? May I help by providing
rifles and/or ammunition? -will-

[Will Janoschka]

Ben, Cause is still 'prolly earthlings. Hard to prove, but even
harder to disproved. Concentrate on the stupid dependence
on "Creative Statistics, Volume II", that they use. They truly
have no argument, but this stuff is still a worry! -will-

[Will Janoschka]

On Fri, 6 Jul 2012 18:11:33, oriel36 <kellehe...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Jul 6, 8:02ĸpm, Bill Snyder <bsny...@airmail.net> wrote:
> > On Fri, 6 Jul 2012 10:59:08 -0700 (PDT), oriel36
> >
> >

> > <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > >On Jul 6, 5:36ĸpm, Paul Schlyter <pau...@stjarnhimlen.se> wrote:
> > >> On Fri, 6 Jul 2012 08:08:06 -0700 (PDT), Tunderbar
> >
> > >> <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > >> > On Jul 6, 10:03ĸam, Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > > On Jul 6, 3:55ĸpm, Tunderbar <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> > > ĸ>It isn't anomalous, it is what climate
> > >> > > ĸdoes

> > >Is there nobody embarrassed ĸinto complete dismay or action by the

> > >fact that modelers can't come to grips with a round and rotating Earth

> > >with all the values attached ĸ?.
> >
> > Get psychiatric help.
> >
> > --
> > Bill Snyder ĸ[This space unintentionally left blank]
>
> I assure you and everyone else here beyond a shadow of a doubt and to
> a 100% observational and technical certainty - the Earth's equator
> turns at a rate of 15 degrees per hour corresponding to 1037.5 miles
> and turns its full 360 degree/24901 mile circumference in 24
> hours.This fact leads to the primary temperature fluctuation and the
> most immediate experience of all as the temperature rises and falls in
> response to a round and rotating planet with each rotation never
> falling out of step with one 24 hour day.
>
> The modelers believe otherwise,they believe there are 4 more rotations
> in 1461 days than the Earth actually has making this the single
> greatest mistake ever to appear in any discipline at any time in human
> history.You wouldn't know it from the sheer nonsense surrounding
> climate but when the problem is the inability to affirm that yes,the
> Earth turns once in a 24 hour day and remains that way,our society has
> far,far bigger problems that it imagines in its worst nightmares.
>
> I conclude that people have the ability to type words but there is not
> the slight sign of intelligent reasoning behind those words,that is
> not an insult but an unfortunate fact.
>

Earthlings biggest problem is that it has society,
unlike all the other critters on the planet.
Only earthlings have nightmares.
Try to get your local wolf into a friendly
game of poker. -will-

[bjacoby]

On 7/7/2012 12:30 PM, Bill Snyder wrote:

> There is no science in this poor retard's delusions, shit-bot, any
> more than there is in your lies.

Snider, since you have no education and know no science, your only
comments are to call people "insane" or liars. Obviously, that make you
the certified liar here given that you have NO proof that any of your
victims have lied about anything. And you certainly couldn't
scientifically prove it if we handed you a full dossier on the issue.


Can't you do better with your life than spend it as a name-caller for a
bunch of criminals?

[bjacoby]

Well, yes and no. My assessment is that clearly Wormley, the ass-hat,
was not up to the AGW propaganda job. When confronted with actual
scientific peer-reviewed proof all he could do was jabber and repost
links to proof that CO2 was a "greenhouse gas". He was being cornered
and looking bad. Clearly it was time to call in the varsity team off the
bench. And they did. As I pointed out before, look at the EFFORT going
into that "skepticalscience" website. Look at all the languages it's
being translated into. Now think about YOU doing a blog like that with
that kind of production. It's going to take some money and staff!

And now the thrust is to take on actual science papers, calling them
"myths" and generate "plausible" stories as to how they are "wrong". In
short the whole purpose of this big effort is to directly counter the
things you and I and a few others have been doing here that backed poor
Wormley into an incompetent corner. I call it a "professional" site and
it is. They know how to "spin" scientific data to make it make a certain
viewpoint just as I do. There are LOTS of tricks to that. I find it
funny that the usual AGW crowd here has no knowledge of these tricks and
simply uses the massaged charts etc given to them without understanding
the "tricks" used to make them. Again, it's time for the "A" team to
take up the battle.

So yes, mostly they go just for "plausible" explanations, but the idea
is not to fool the few who understand how to fake science, but haven't
yet been recruited by them, but to fool all the rest even some
scientists who are not well versed in political things beyond "space war"*

*Space war is the always on-going political battle for better rooms and
more space and equipment in large institutions.

The basic premise being used now by Skepticalsciene is: We start with
peer-reviewed scientific papers that seem to "debunk" our warming
theories, but then using scientific "explanations" we show how the
papers do no such thing and our original assertions are still correct!

> This website is a slap in the face of rational thought. It is an insult
> to all honest scientist.

Well, yes it is, but I assure you it's still capable of fooling a LOT
more people than Wormley ever was able to. So much money. So many
debating tricks. So few to debunk them.

The bottom line is that Wormley's prior pitiful efforts are now being
propped up by the "skepticalScience" team. It's obvious he's loving the
help as shown by all his links to them.

[bjacoby]

On 7/7/2012 1:00 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:

> I also get tired of debunking the website and wormley doesn't even
> address the issues I raise.. Then he goes ahead and pastes the same
> goddamned webpage again.
>
> Wormley isn't here to discuss, he's here to propagandize.

Um, yes. Like, this is some kind of news?

[bjacoby]

Because, Sam, your political agenda of fooling a gullible public demands
that ANY and ALL actual scientific data that debunks your fraudulent
theories MUST be discredited. And since, sorry to say, "Sam" that you
haven't the intelligence to use scientific arguments to do that, you
either have to resort to age-old debating fallacies like name-calling or
"proof by assertion" or post links to those with a better understanding
of how to fake science.

It's really that simple, "Sam".

PS. I trust the "skepticalscience" foundation is making nice donations
to your one man "Wormley" foundation?

[bjacoby]

So now YOU are arguing it. Why is burning fossil fuels harder to
reverse. I just shown that CO2 from deforestation is AT LEAST as big as
CO2 from fossil fuels and is double acting in that you not only release
all the stored CO2 but stop taking in and storing what you were
sequestering before!

Clearly even a HUGE energy tax is NOT going to produce much reduction in
fossil fuel use. It's FAR too essential to our civilization.
Reforestation, on the other hand not only creates HUGE dents in the CO2
issue but also builds large amounts of future raw materials for future
use. And then add to that, the fact that one could totally terminate ALL
deforestation tomorrow with only minor impacts on modern civilization as
substitute materials are found. Any REAL green would be having an orgasm
over this!

But total termination of fossil fuel use would a disaster of immense
scope for humans. No transportation. No winter heat. No electricity.
Nothing left but totally and completely inadequate greenie pipe dreams
of using wind to pump water for your horse! Maybe you can keep warm next
winter by cuddling up to him while he munches the "renewable carbon"
stored in hay! (or will that be taxed too at so many dollars per horse
fart or belch?)

So again I ask just WHY are all you warmists so determined to end
civilization through termination of fossil fuels rather than actually
doing something to restore the environment we ALL live in. What's YOUR
plan? Get rich off the carbon tax and take the money and fly to Mars?
Dream on! Are you THAT gullible?

[Will Janoschka]

Ben, the money to be made is from moving electrical power generation
from coal to "natural" gas. The gas folk know that there will be no
"reduction" in fossil fuel use, they just want all of the action.
More or
less CO2 is not an issue, but a foil. Strong public opinion to
restrict
the use of coal is the only goal.

Reducing acceptance of science and understanding through the
use of the CO2 foil, does indeed further that goal.
This effort is well thought out and very well funded. -beware-

[Paul Schlyter]

On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 03:17:09 -0400, bjacoby <bja...@iwaynet.net>
wrote:

By resorting to personal attacks and namecalling you've clearly
demonstrated that you're out of arguments.....

[Bill Snyder]

On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 02:44:27 -0400, bjacoby <bja...@iwaynet.net>
wrote:

>On 7/7/2012 12:30 PM, Bill Snyder wrote:
>
>> There is no science in this poor retard's delusions, shit-bot, any
>> more than there is in your lies.
>
>Snider, since you have no education and know no science, your only
>comments are to call people "insane" or liars. Obviously, that make you
>the certified liar here given that you have NO proof that any of your
>victims have lied about anything. And you certainly couldn't
>scientifically prove it if we handed you a full dossier on the issue.

Actually, there's plenty of proof you and your buddies lie,
shit-bot. About the magic soda pop. About the temperatures in
Antarctica. About solar cycles, and temperature trends, and ocean
chemistry, and cosmic rays, and Arctic ice, and -- well, pretty
much anything and everything else you talk about,

>Can't you do better with your life than spend it as a name-caller for a
>bunch of criminals?

Oh, I wouldn't call you criminals. Criminals may be not be the
intellectual cream of the crop, but they're at least smart enough
to figure out how to commit a crime; whereas you and Marvie and
the rest couldn't figure out where your own asses are with both
hands, a searchlight, and a pack of bloodhounds.

[Paul Schlyter]

That's the age of the oil deposits we now exploit.

[Paul Schlyter]

On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 03:32:19 -0400, bjacoby <bja...@iwaynet.net>
wrote:

> On 7/7/2012 2:22 PM, Paul Schlyter wrote:
> > On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 11:40:46 -0400, bjacoby <bja...@iwaynet.net>
wrote:
> >> So WHY are you so
> >> hot to argue that CO2 is ONLY due to fossil fuel burning and not
to
> >> deforestation?
> >
> > Don't lie, he isn't claiming that. Of course deforestrations also
helps
> > to raise the CO2 levels. Planting new trees on a large enough
scale is
> > therefore one way to bring down the CO2 levels. Deforestration
can be
> > reversed by planting new woods, it only takes a century or so.
Burning
> > fossil fuel is much harder to reverse and takes much longer, tens
or
> > hundreds of millions of years.

> So now YOU are arguing it. Why is burning fossil fuels harder to
reverse.

Was that a statement or a question? I see no question mark at the end.

Let's suppose it was a question: reversing burning fossil fuels
requires creating new oil deposits from living organisms, which take
many millions of years.

> I just shown that CO2 from deforestation is AT LEAST as big as
> CO2 from fossil fuels and is double acting in that you not only
release
> all the stored CO2 but stop taking in and storing what you were
> sequestering before!

Burning wood and compensating this by letting new wood grow up causes
no net CO2 emission.

Burning wood and not growing new wood is as bad as birning fossil
fuels, but not twice as bad. By claiming it's twice as bad you show
you don't understand the mechanism behind it.

> Clearly even a HUGE energy tax is NOT going to produce much
reduction in
> fossil fuel use. It's FAR too essential to our civilization.

It's a weakness of our civilization if it depends so much on
something which ultimately can destroy it. The fossil fuels will run
out anyway in the not too distant future -- then what?

> Reforestation, on the other hand not only creates HUGE dents in the
CO2
> issue but also builds large amounts of future raw materials for
future
> use. And then add to that, the fact that one could totally
terminate ALL
> deforestation tomorrow with only minor impacts on modern
civilization as
> substitute materials are found. Any REAL green would be having an
orgasm
> over this!

> But total termination of fossil fuel use would a disaster of
immense
> scope for humans. No transportation. No winter heat. No
electricity.

We'll have to stop use fossil fuel anyway when it runs out. Earlier
generations managed to do that so I don't see bwhy we should be
unable to adapt. Are we less smart than earlier generations?

[Marvin the Martian]

So, your position is that they have no argument, but are probably right
and you have even LESS reason to say they are probably right than their
junk science.

Really?

[Marvin the Martian]

Well, yes, that is the goal. Wormly is following Alinsky rule #5 and all
that: try and infuriate your opponent with lies and bullshit. The when
the opposition calls you on your acting stupid, the ignorant third party
who can't access the arguments directly (that would be you, btw) will
conclude that Wormley is right and the rational people are wrong.