Man-made global warming.... biggest myth of this century

China allow a second child in rural areas because the overcrowding occurs in the city...

Haha, nail on the head..

I was thinking yesterday this whole debate seemed as though Joe had not long since read a feature article in a paper (or documentary) as his argument was going in fallible copy and paste circles, but then with wiki_rocks as his opposition it's fair game

I've a history of questioning the carbon issue on this site (even when askig about eco-cars).... I also hadn't watched the documentary... however after googling carbon cycles on google about 900 times for this debate I stumbled across it and was suitably impressed.

andy watch the great cabon swindle on google.... the directors credentials are dubious but it says what I've been saying in a more elegant manner.

doesn't the above email just say that the film was biased? in the same way that the media is biased against those opposed.

He wanted to appear in an unbiased documentary which explored both sides of the debate.... at least thats what i got from reading the letter.

wiki_rocks

Joe:

You're still peddling this rubbish about the ocean being responsible for the carbon emissions, but have yet to provide any sort of credible evidence against the NASA diagram that shows that it is absorbing carbon, and that man made carbon is the unbalanced source leading to the rise in carbon levels.

If you want to try and be 'I've beaten the scientists' cool and challenge carbon climate change theory, then may I suggest you abandon that aspect of it as it is demonstrably incorrect.

Instead, focus on the 10% or so uncertainty that remains statistically as to whether carbon is causally linked with climate - that's the angle I'd take and it's a much better one, though you could never call it a good, obviously.

wiki_rocks, lets presume your theory is correct (and a nasa diagram aimed at school kids isn't really the most credible source)... what happens when the next volcano errupts emitting twice as much carebon into the atmosphere as man.... what happens to this carbon where does it go?

don't worry too much, i'm sure Brown will find a way to tax that too, and then we can all sleep safe again.

I agree volcanic eruptions are a sizeable source of carbon in the atmosphere and have been for tens of thousands of years. There has been an fairly steady equilibrium which had lead to fairly steady temperatures, though both obviously have fluctuations.

Emissions there might be offset by plant growth elsewhere - the point is that both of these have remained pretty much constant over the past few millenia, and a fairly stable climate resulted.

It wouldn't matter if volcanoes were emitting 20000 times what man was provided it was adequately balanced.

The point is that the huge carbon stores in fossil fuels are now getting released, whilst no balancing factor is increasing - thus we end up with more carbon in the atmosphere as a a result of human activity.

The is so widely accepted that I'm surprised you're arguing it, give it up and concentrate on the statistical uncertainty.

where does the balance come form andy... you're stating that the system is perfectly balanced now.... at a time of little volcanic activity.

but you state that the carbon emissions of man (which are a fraction of volcanic activity) are going to bring about devastating effects.... If the balance is so finely tuned that such minute emissions could spell the end of the world as we know it... what happens when we enter an era of volcanic activity which dwarfs the emissions made by man.

If nature balances itself as you claim, I'd like you to suggest how and why it wouldn't balance man made emissions

This is basic carbon cycle, the predominant absorbance is from photosynthetic life (ie plants).

atmospheric carbon = carbon released - carbon absorbed.

Past 10000 years, carbon release fairly constant, absorption fairly constant, atmospheric levels fairly constant. The absolute numbers don't matter.

Last 200 years, increasing carbon release from fossil fuel burning, no more carbon absorbed, atmospheric carbon up.

Give it up Joe, I don't think even General Motors would support you on this.

of course they matter andy if man adds another 1.5% to the total carbon emissions and a volcano adds 15% to the total carbon emissions, common sense tells us that because we're in an era where there is little volcanic activity... whatever natural source that absorded such large quantities of carbon from volcanic activity... would be able to absord the minutes quantities of carbon created by man.

The volcano isn't contributing anything to carbon rise though which is the relevant point, because it's been roughly constant at this level for thousands of years. You would have to demonstrate that volcanoes are emitting significantly more carbon since the industrial revolution than they did before if you want to suggest they're contributing to carbon rise. Wheras fossil fuel burning demosntrably is significantly higher than prior to the industrial revolution.

Andy's new favourite word: demonstrably?

????

andy you're getting confused again

if a volcano emits 15% of the planets carbon dioxide once every 1000 years - there is a mechanism within the planet which can absorb these large levels of carbon.

As we have been in a period of low volcanic activity for a long time, its safe to assume that the element that usually absorbs this carbon is not running to its full capacity.

As man made CO2 levels are so low, it would be safe to assume that this sleeping carbon sink would be able to manage such tiny carbon levels.

If it weren't able to the next time we saw any heavy volcanic activity ben nevis would become an island and london would be on the sea bed.

You don't understand - just because you don't see lava doesn't mean it isn't emitting carbon. Indeed, carbon release from volcanoes is remarkably constant at around 130 - 230 million tons a year, compared with 24 billion tones from human activity.

NEXT.

Gerlach, T.M., 1992, Present-day CO2 emissions from volcanoes: Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, Vol. 72, No. 23, June 4, 1991, pp. 249, and 254-255.

there must be a fuck of a lot of carbon locked up in human bodies. half the people who ever lived are alive today.
6000000000 x 150 lbs average is 900000000000 lbs of human beings. lets hope the new resistant bubonic plague doesn't wipe a load of us out