Watching cartoons worsened your ability to stick to real life. And it takes about 13 years after the birth before a human can intake food in portions normally eaten by grown-ups. Another truism that does not violote the obvious fact that when any organism is in decline / enters catabolic phase (explained to you earlier), the organism's ability to grow (and intake food effectively) decrases. How many times do I need to explain this to you before it stays in your head and does not escape?
What about the DOE study, as all the other studies that I've posted, do you find objectionable? Ummm... so after the "human birth" we have a field of "babies" and a field of "adults" the "babies" will absorb more food than the "adults" because the "adults" are in decline? Uhhh... no. And even if this were true, which it clearly isn't, the CO2 level continues to increase so presumably we have to do something about it -- whether or not your babies and cabbages and tomato plants absorb less or more or the same or whatever.
You are a moron. You either purposefuly misinterpret my words or you simply don't get that organisms that are in decline absorb less food. As far as plant go, let me quote wikipedia once again for you: ''A growing forest will absorb many tons of CO2 each year, but a mature forest will produce as much CO2 from respiration and decomposition of dead specimens (e.g. fallen branches) as is used in biosynthesis in growing plants.'' What wikipedia says is in line with basic biology knownledge you should have learned in elementary school, it is in line with common sense; finally it is what I have been trying to teach you. Now, will you accept this knowledge or will you continue to write non-sense?
Sorry to jump in here. How do we know for certain that the rise in CO2 is causing temperatures to rise? What if its the other way around. Risiing temps causing a rise in CO2? Everything I've read on paleoclimatology is based on models. How do they know the model is correct?
Because of the nature of the CO2 molecule, which happens to be just at the right size that matches the resonant frequency of infra-red radiation. A CO2 molecule actually absorbs IR two ways, and then reemits it in a random direction. It's just the nature of the CO2 molecule, and it can easily be verified by laser absorption spectroscopy. Thus any increase in CO2 will result in greater heat capture.
Less food than what? If trees, not less "food" in total amounts than a seedling, because seedlings are smaller. But don't trust me on this, you can actually read the amount of CO2 sequestered per hectare straight from the DOE study. It compares full grown trees to reforested areas and to crops. In the case of crops, as you can see, it shows that they're 5% of less of total carbon sequestration than full grown forests. Well I already posted a Nature "letter" authored by a number of eminent scientists that disagrees with you, and you said that they had been criticized, but you never mentioned who criticized this. I'd be very interested in reading any peer criticism of their work. I've now also posted this DOE study which compares young replanted areas (<15 yrs) to mature areas, and which also shows that replanted areas are sequestering much less carbon. I checked where Wikipedia got their information and they didn't get it from a respected source in the field, but a single document from The World Bank.
This is all sort of cute... but you have to admit it is very speculative. By the way I used to surf a lot and I am an environmentalist to some degree. But I just googled - the first link was a pretty civil discussion about the the resolution of ice cores and saying the recent papers show that Co2 rise lags antartic warming by 800 years plus or minus 200 years. If that is true.... By the way that does not mean I do not think our oceans are being destroyed.
If you're discussing the fact that CO2 molecules are very efficient at absorbing heat, and absorb it in at least two different ways, then there is no speculation involved whatsoever. If you go back in this thread you can see the graph of energy absorption yourself. You're referring to the end of ice ages every 100,000 years or so. And yes, that's true -- at those points in time something else presumably initiated global warming. Once initiated, CO2 increases amplify the effect. But that doesn't help us, as we're not seeing a CO2 lag, it's rising now and by a lot.
Regardless of whether Co2 emissions are responsible for global warming, Co2 emissions are being absorbed by our oceans making them more acidic. This is slowely killing off all marine life. That is reason enough to limit our production of Co2. Runningbear
We should probably limit any type of pollution. But, still, I have yet to see anymore than just a correlation with Co2 and warming. That doesn't necessarily equal causation. I would think that if causation had been proved, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Also, man made Co2 accounts for just over 3% of atmospheric Co2. How do we know any increase is entirley, or mostly manmade? I found the following intersting link. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/increasing-atmospheric-co2-manmade…or-natural/ In fact, it turns out that these large year-to-year fluctuations in the rate of atmospheric accumulation are tied to temperature changes, which are in turn due mostly to El Nino, La Nina, and volcanic eruptions. And as shown in the next figure, the CO2 changes tend to follow the temperature changes, by an average of 9 months. This is opposite to the direction of causation presumed to be occurring with manmade global warming, where increasing CO2 is followed by warming.