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

Let's get your misunderstandings clear. The precise bit you don't accept is that 'increasing CO2 leads to rising temperatures', so my chart showing man-made co2 being associated with a very significant forcing effect is irrelevant, as you think the calculation that leads to that forcing effect is wrong?

where did I say increasing co2 leads to rising temprature?!?!?

I'm trying to find out which bit you dont accept, and that seems to be the bit?

You can see that man made co2 has a temperature forcing effect from the graph, and a very signficant one.

The only way you could conclude that co2 doesn't cause temperature rise therefore is if

a) you didn't accept man made co2 measurements
b) you didn't accept the calculation that leads to a forcing effect from co2 measurement
c) you thought that the whole graph is a pack of lies

no you can't?

man made CO2 has steadily risen for the last 100 years.... but the temprature has witnessed great fluctations some in complete contrast with the rising CO2 levels.

I think where you got confused was my inclussion of the sea, I stated that as the sea temperature rises CO2 is released, in quantities much greater than man could ever achieve; if CO2 did act as a warming catalyst cutting back on cars would have no impact as the damage would of already been done when the sea's started warming and releasing CO2 in a never ending cycle of heat & release.

The whole issue is a nonsense and I'm suprised you buy into it.

Can you please quote your sources that the ocean is releasing CO2 at the present time as temperature increases? I'm not convinced at all. In fact, every source I've looked at so far says that the ocean is absorbing more CO2 than ever before, leading to problems for life as it acidifies the ocean.

But its irrekevant as they've excluded the effect of oceanic CO2 from their analysis here and demonstrated that man made CO2 on its own has a significant forcing effect upon temperature.

The ocean is always releasing CO2 andy.....

its the biggest contributor of CO2 (accounting for about 70%) I really shouldn't have to provide this information... but if you insist I will?

As I stated earlier the changes we witness in the ocean could of occurred centuries ago... but if CO2 did act as a warming catalyst then this would only heat the oceans further.

????

excluding it from their report doesn't exclude it from the atmosphere, if CO2 is a warming catalyst and the sea's chuck out 70% of the CO2 in the atmosphere then we're fucked as the warmer it gets the more CO2 is released.... and we know that the earth has a history of warming and cooling.

if CO2 is the cause then reducing our CO2 levels will mean fuck all as the sea will continue to churn out more CO2 untill it reaches a point that triggers a change (which has nothing to do with man).

I seriously think you should step back and think about what youre saying.

It's funny how the science world, political world, and world in general is divided about the causes of global warming, yet a few non-scientists (or at least not very high level scientists) on here argue like they know exactly what is going on.

the world could learn a thing or two from the news forum... in years to come this place will be revered by future accademic generations.

The environment is no different, we don't have the luxury of something to switch to.. unless Andy can wikipedia a solution up for us..

Plunder a resource past its natural capacity to provide, then turn round and invest in it's future? Isn't that an some kind of oxymoron? I thought you were a socialist Joe, these are very righty capitalist views you're giving here..

Is it your opinion that even though we have the techniques and technology to mitigate the effects of the path of (virtually) unrestricted development we are allowing the chinese and indians to take is economically, socially and environmentally sound?

Or do you think it's ok because it's only fair they should be allowed to prosper and industrialise as the West has, in full view of the potential consequences that this presents and has presented already in the developed world?

In light of this, I prefer to have a hypocritical legacy that has or is presently learning from its mistakes and a 'do as I say, not as I do' attitude than a allow a 'monkey see - monkey do' path to non-occidental development.

you completely missed what I said scruf, I simply said allow the undeveloped world to develop then regulate.

it doesn't work the other way around.

I insist.

The ocean doesn't simply 'release' CO2, it absorbs it too in cyclical fashion. Thats why it's not particularly signficant - it is in net carbon balance. If you want to convince me that the oceans are contributing CO2, you need to show an imbalance between this, of which I can find absolutely no evidence at all. Increasing acidity of the ocean suggests strongly that it is absorbing MORE than ever before.

Not between atmospheric CO2 and the ocean, but between atmospheric CO2 RISE and the ocean, and I can't see anything to suggest this.

Man made CO2, on the other hand, is not balanced by absorption. More cars does not lead to more CO2 absorption, and thus accounts for rising CO2.

Here are a couple of links about the capacity of the ocean to absorb co2.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_7_164/ai_107699598
http://calstaging.bemidjistate.edu/students/sfroyd/repurposing/effects.html
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/08/02_carbon.shtml
http://kauaian.net/blog/?p=377

In the long run it is cheaper to do it the other way round, rather than having to do stuff like retro-fit FGD on coal power stations.

The odd bits I have stated I knew before - I work in the energy industry.

ocean absorbs about 30% of the earths CO2 but contributes to 70%.... so obviously your cyclical argument falls over... if the earths temprature rises do more plants suddenly appear to cope with the extra CO2?

Its not a question of long run, its a question of the available capital at the present time...

If a nation can't afford the modern technology and are reliant on the wests hand me downs they simply wont develop.

Eh? How could it possibly sustain that? Where's all it's carbon coming from to produce CO2 constantly like that? Come on Joe. If it had been producing 70% but only absorbing 30% then it wouldn't have any carbon left by now.

Your failure to provide a suitable source is making your claims less and less credible.

my statistics come from google, but my arguments are common sense

I was actually generous in my figure:

http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/1102198.html, they credit the ocean for 25%... most are around a third to one quarter...

basic science.... science boy