Nobody is saying that the sun doesn't cause warming. You're trying to argue that because CO2 was not the initiator for warming, long ago, it cannot be the initiator now.
Natural sinks still at work.. Does this mean the readings we see from the top of the volcano do not represent what is really going on? http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/340710/title/Natural_sinks_still_sopping_up_carbon BOULDER, Colo. â Earthâs ecosystems keep soaking up more carbon as greenhouse gases accumulate in the atmosphere, new measurements find. The research contradicts several recent studies suggesting that âcarbon sinksâ have reached or passed their capacity. By looking at global measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide, the new work calculates instead that total sinks have increased roughly in line with rising emissions. âThe sinks have been more than able to keep up with emissions,â said Pieter Tans, an atmospheric scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrationâs Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colo. Tans presented the findings May 15 at an annual conference on global monitoring hosted by the lab. Careful measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide taken in the rarefied air atop Mauna Loa, Hawaii, and elsewhere have established that levels of the gas are rising steadily, from 316 parts per million in 1959 to 392 parts per million today. The question is how Earthâs great ecosystems respond to that increase. Forests can suck down carbon dioxide through photosynthesis, whereas oceans take it up proportionally as levels rise in the air. Previous work has relied on carbon inventories that gather data from multiple sources to try to estimate how much is being put into the atmosphere and how much is being taken out every year. For the new study, Tans and his colleagues went back to basics, choosing 42 marine sites where carbon dioxide levels have been measured for decades. The researchers then analyzed how much carbon dioxide was in the atmosphere above each of these sites over time. âLess carbon dioxide has remained in the atmosphere, relative to the amount of fossil fuel emissions, today compared to 50 years ago,â Tans said. Even including the effects of land use change, which may alter carbon sinks, produced no measurable trend, he added. Exactly where the sinks are isnât clear. One possibility is that forests are regrowing in parts of the world more than scientists had thought, sucking up carbon in the process. Or the oceans may be taking up significantly more carbon than researchers had estimated. Ralph Keeling, an atmospheric scientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego, agrees that both land and the oceans arenât yet done absorbing all the carbon they can. âThe land is responding in a big wayâ to increasing fossil fuel emissions, he says. Both Keeling and Tans warn that society shouldnât get complacent just because carbon is still being absorbed. Rising levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases are triggering other planet-wide changes, such as alterations to the oceansâ chemistry. âThe situation is bad enough,â Keeling says, âeven with the sinks hanging in there.â and here was a comment... I believe this is old news. Oceans and forests are only intermediate carbon sinks. limestone beds comprised of calcium and magnesium carbonate are the ultimate sinks. These are formed by both biogenic (crustaceans & corals) and thermogenic (tectonic) processes. Modestly higher CO2 concentrations are necessary to trigger these processes., which then return atmospheric levels to equilibrium. The level of the equilibrium depends on the relative levels of CO2 and other gases, but should always be about the present level. Higher ambient temperatures bring CO2 out of solution from intermediate sources, like oceans and forests. Thus, higher CO2 is a result of higher temperatures, not a cause. CO2 levels and temperatures have been much higher during several periods in the past, including during the earliest days of planet earth. Most fossil fuels that ever existed burned up through natural processes, and the rest will too, unless we use them for our benefit. To expend the better part of the accumulated savings of mankind on a fruitless and unnecessary crusade against global warming, a non-problem, is foolish.
I sink the denier argument has sunk. The chemistry is very straight-forward: ocean acidification is linearly related to the amount of CO2 we produce. CO2 dissolves in the ocean, reacts with seawater and decreases the pH. Since the industrial revolution, the oceans have become 30 percent more acidic (from 8.2 pH to 8.1 pH). "Under a "business as usual scenario, predictions for the end of the century are that we will lower the surface ocean pH by 0.4 pH units, which means that the surface oceans will become 150 percent more acidic -- and this is a 'hell of a lot' ", said Jelle Bijma, chair of the EuroCLIMATE programme Scientific Committee and a biogeochemist at the Alfred-Wegener-Institute Bremerhaven. Scientists have acted swiftly on this issue. The response has included the Monaco Declaration, in which 155 scientists from 26 countries declared in January 2009 that: Ocean acidification is accelerating and severe damages are imminent; Ocean acidification will have broad socioeconomic impacts, affecting marine food webs, causing substantial changes in commercial fish stocks and threatening food security for millions of people; Ocean acidification is rapid, but recovery is slow; Ocean acidification can be controlled only by limiting future atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Oh I almost forgot. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Umm, no, CO2 levels are rising nearly the same everywhere. Try to get a clue . I'm starting to believe you wouldn't recognize a scientific truth if it bit you. Oh BTW, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and levels have gone up some 35% recently due to the burning of FF.
Wow, you really ARE a moron. Why Mauna Loa? Early attempts to measure CO2 in the USA and Scandinavia found that the readings varied a lot due to the influence of growing plants and the exhaust from motors. Mauna Loa is ideal because it is so remote from big population centres. Also, on tropical islands at night, the prevailing winds blow from the land out to sea, which effect brings clean, well-mixed Central Pacific air from high in the atmosphere to the observatory. This removes any interference coming from the vegetation lower down on the island. But how about gas from the volcano? It is true that volcanoes blow out CO2 from time to time and that this can interfere with the readings. Most of the time, though, the prevailing winds blow the volcanic gasses away from the observatory. But when the winds do sometimes blow from active vents towards the observatory, the influence from the volcano is obvious on the normally consistent records and any dubious readings can be easily spotted and edited out (Ryan, 1995). mportantly, Mauna Loa is not the only atmospheric measuring station in the world. As the graph from NOAA shows, other stations show the same year-after-year increasing trend. The seasonal saw-tooth varies from place to place, of course, but the background trend remains steadily upwards. The Keeling Curve is one of the best-defined results in climatology and there really are no valid scientific reasons for doubting it. http://www.skepticalscience.com/Measuring-CO2-levels-from-the-volcano-at-Mauna-Loa.html Oh BTW, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and levels have gone up some 35% recently due to the burning of FF
I think you should cut back on the name calling Forrest. From your link... "It is true that volcanoes blow out CO2 from time to time and that this can interfere with the readings. Most of the time, though, the prevailing winds blow the volcanic gasses away from the observatory. But when the winds do sometimes blow from active vents towards the observatory, the influence from the volcano is obvious on the normally consistent records and any dubious readings can be easily spotted and edited out (Ryan, 1995)." you really don't get the idea of removing variables and then studying the data. So now I have to rely on the fact the keepers of the CO2 record are adjusting for CO2 properly. (I already knew that from years ago.) But, here is the point... In terms of levels would we expect the CO2 level in ice which "leaks" over time... to be lower than the CO2 concentrations at the top of the Volcano. Are these measurements really telling us anything other than trends? Links to other CO2 measurements would be more useful. For instance we must be taking measurements near where we drilled the ice cores... right?
I just reread this... do you realize it may call be saying CO2 is not trending up. ... http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/340710/title/Natural_sinks_still_sopping_up_carbon Previous work has relied on carbon inventories that gather data from multiple sources to try to estimate how much is being put into the atmosphere and how much is being taken out every year. For the new study, Tans and his colleagues went back to basics, choosing 42 marine sites where carbon dioxide levels have been measured for decades. The researchers then analyzed how much carbon dioxide was in the atmosphere above each of these sites over time. âLess carbon dioxide has remained in the atmosphere, relative to the amount of fossil fuel emissions, today compared to 50 years ago,â Tans said. Even including the effects of land use change, which may alter carbon sinks, produced no measurable trend, he added. --- reread this.. no measurable trend in CO2 from 42 marine sites... NO CO2 trend... we need to see the data... There may be no increase in CO2 at these sites period.