Case closed:

[vincent]

They get a lucrative career out of it. Make stuff up for the government and corporations and you get a ride down easy street for the rest of your life. Tell the truth, and you lose your job, and are blacklisted from any Earth sciences positions anywhere the climate change myth is supported.

so science is a conspiracy... I guess that computer you're using is part of it!

[Worthington]

Unless there has been some huge, abnormal volcano/non-human activity in the past 200 years that has dramatically increased its CO2 output, I think it is safe to say it's not nature or, otherwise, it would have happened earlier.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think its ONLY humans, but it would be illogical from what I know about climate change/global warming to say that humans are not having some material impact.

The oceans produce more CO2 than volcanoes and man combined, many times over. That is the main reason for the higher CO2 levels. Start doing some research. Stop blindly following government.

[DukeEsquire]

They get a lucrative career out of it. Make stuff up for the government and corporations and you get a ride down easy street for the rest of your life. Tell the truth, and you lose your job, and are blacklisted from any Earth sciences positions anywhere the climate change myth is supported.

Certainly there must be more money in DENY climate change than SUPPORTING climate change, no?

IE: If you DENY climate change you make tons of money finding new oil fields, making faster cars...etc.

[Worthington]

So i guess all the vehicles, and power plants around the planet are blowing out soapy bubbles while whistling

"hi ho hi ho its off to work we go"

No, they just aren't a significant source of CO2, which is not a pollutant in the first place. Plants breathe it.

Almost all of the CO2 on the planet comes from the oceans, which is far more vast and teeming with life than the landmasses.

[vincent]

The oceans produce more CO2 than volcanoes and man combined, many times over. That is the main reason for the higher CO2 levels. Start doing some research. Stop blindly following government.

So you're saying that Ocean water producing Co2 is a chemical reaction? With said reaction there must be a chemical equation..please post it. Also provide the scientific peer reviewed journal that substantiates said claim

[DukeEsquire]

The oceans produce more CO2 than volcanoes and man combined, many times over. That is the main reason for the higher CO2 levels. Start doing some research. Stop blindly following government.

Stop being so aggressive. I am genuinely trying to learn more about the subject.

How does the ocean produce CO2? The ocean is just water and water does not change from H2O to CO2. Your statement makes no sense.

Have the oceans increased their production of CO2 over the time that temperature has increase? Again, I don't doubt there are other ways CO2 get into the atmosphere. I just don't see any information that shows the non-human reasons have increased their CO2 production in the past 200 years while humans clearly have increased CO2 production.

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

It appears you were only given HALF the answer.

The CO2 that nature emits (from the ocean and vegetation) is balanced by natural absorptions (again by the ocean and vegetation). Therefore human emissions upset the natural balance, rising CO2 to levels not seen in at least 800,000 years. In fact, human emit 26 gigatonnes of CO2 per year while CO2 in the atmosphere is rising by only 15 gigatonnes per year - much of human CO2 emissions is being absorbed by natural sinks.

Yes Oceans produce CO2--or more accurately, the animals that live in the ocean produce CO2. But the ocean also ABSORBS almost the same amount it produces. So, the net CO2 produced by ocean creatures is nearly zero.

[vincent]

No, they just aren't a significant source of CO2, which is not a pollutant in the first place.

Substantiate this

Plants breathe it.

Plants don't breathe...

[spudtrooper]

:unsure: You do realize its just a word? Also warming would change climates.

Yeah, what some people fail to realize is that "warming" is what creates weather - every kind of weather. Climate change just includes every ramificaiton of temperature differences on our climate better than simply how hot it gets..

[Worthington]

Certainly there must be more money in DENY climate change than SUPPORTING climate change, no?

IE: If you DENY climate change you make tons of money finding new oil fields, making faster cars...etc.

No, because the major energy companies have shifted towards green energy solutions as their newest investments. They stand to make BILLIONS from the climate change nonsense, and the leftists think corporations would lose money from it. :laugh:

Plants don't breathe...

Holy crap. You're in a thread about earth science at you don't know that plants respire? Go back to 2nd grade, kid. :blink:

This is the kind of leftist ignorance that is so common these days. :pinch:

[vincent]

Holy crap. You're in a thread about earth science at you don't know that plants respire? Go back to 2nd grade, kid. :blink:

This is the kind of leftist ignorance that is so common these days. :pinch:

Carbon dioxide + Water + Sunlight = Sugar + Oxygen

or

6 CO2 + 6 H20 + Energy => C6H1206 + 6 02

Plants can't live on Carbon dioxide alone, debates within a scientific discussion require one to specify details of their claim(s), you go back to 2nd grade son. Also i love how you dodge my request to substantiate your claim on plants and vehicles not being a significant source of C02 to explain climate change.

[Worthington]

Yes Oceans produce CO2--or more accurately, the animals that live in the ocean produce CO2. But the ocean also ABSORBS almost the same amount it produces. So, the net CO2 produced by ocean creatures is nearly zero.

Animals, and the suspended carbon dioxide in ocean water itself. You are forgetting that oceans actually retain carbon dioxide and there is a thing called the carbon cycle, which is not exclusive to living organisms.

[Mordkanin]

This is ridiculous.

I see a lot of people posting here, on both the accepting and denying of climate change sides, who are woefully unqualified to make any such determination either way. The science is not simple here, folks. Leave it to the people who actually know what they're doing.

[Worthington]

Carbon dioxide + Water + Sunlight = Sugar + Oxygen

or

6 CO2 + 6 H20 + Energy => C6H1206 + 6 02

Plants can't live on Carbon dioxide alone, debates within a scientific discussion require one to specify details of their claim(s), you go back to 2nd grade son. Also i love how you dodge my request to substantiate your claim on plants and vehicles not being a significant source of C02 to explain climate change.

Never said plants can live on carbon dioxide alone. You're the guy that said plants don't breathe at all, which even a 5 year old could have answered correctly.

Behold, like garlic to a vampire! The Carbon cycle! Yes, most of it comes from oceans, not plants and humans and their machines.

[mzta cody]

yep

[spudtrooper]

This is the kind of leftist ignorance that is so common these days. :pinch:

*sigh*..

I'm sorry, but scientific evidence has no relevence to political leanings. If someone was wrong or lacking knowledge, its not because their leftist or rightist. Your posts are just as blatently ignorant and politically biased as well.

Pot, meet kettle

[DukeEsquire]

Animals, and the suspended carbon dioxide in ocean water itself. You are forgetting that oceans actually retain carbon dioxide and there is a thing called the carbon cycle, which is not exclusive to living organisms.

Again, has CO2 output from the ocean substantially increased in the past 200 years?

You are forgetting that the CO2 output of the ocean is roughly equal to the CO2 consumption, so the net CO2 "produced" from the ocean is null.

[spudtrooper]

yep

http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2011/0713_clean_economy.aspx

green economy is so large its almost impossible to quantify in single metrics.. organic food is "green" to some people yet if you wish to focus on carbon neutral factories those exist too.

[Worthington]

I like this one.

[+Frank B. Subscriber²]

Again, has CO2 output from the ocean substantially increased in the past 200 years?

You are forgetting that the CO2 output of the ocean is roughly equal to the CO2 consumption, so the net CO2 "produced" from the ocean is null.

Arguing with Worthington is like arguing with a brick wall. You might as well give up and move on.

The only reason why he isn't on my ignore list yet is that his troll posts are a source of amusement in a twisted kind of way.

[HSoft]

Unless there has been some huge, abnormal volcano/non-human activity in the past 200 years that has dramatically increased its CO2 output, I think it is safe to say it's not nature or, otherwise, it would have happened earlier.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think its ONLY humans, but it would be illogical from what I know about climate change/global warming to say that humans are not having some material impact.

The thing is, it has happened earlier. That's why a lot of scientists are saying that it's a naturally occurring cycle. Are humans contributing to this? Yes they are, but not to the extent that the alarmist global warming people are saying we are. The best analogy I heard about this was if you have a football stadium that has 10,000 seats in it representing the atmosphere and people would wear white and red shirts, red representing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere directly produced by humans. There would be 9,996 seats filled with people wearing white shirts and only 4 wearing red.

[spudtrooper]

Again, has CO2 output from the ocean substantially increased in the past 200 years?

You are forgetting that the CO2 output of the ocean is roughly equal to the CO2 consumption, so the net CO2 "produced" from the ocean is null.

The oceans ability to sequestor CO2 has been diminishing for 200 years. There were a few articles in nature that spoke directly to this, i'll have to see if i can find it.

Oddly enough it wasn't that long ago we didn't think CFCs were diminishing the ozone layer.. we stop producing and release so many cfc's and the ozen starts to recover. Who woulda thunk it?

[Worthington]

Again, has CO2 output from the ocean substantially increased in the past 200 years?

You are forgetting that the CO2 output of the ocean is roughly equal to the CO2 consumption, so the net CO2 "produced" from the ocean is null.

Not really, no. The Earth is actually cooling if you look at NASA's figures.

The oceans ability to sequestor CO2 has been diminishing for 200 years. There were a few articles in nature that spoke directly to this, i'll have to see if i can find it.

Oddly enough it wasn't that long ago we didn't think CFCs were diminishing the ozone layer.. we stop producing and release so many cfc's and the ozen starts to recover. Who woulda thunk it?

The Earth replenishes itself. That's what's governments don't want you to know, so they can go after you in the form of "carbon taxes" they propose instead of actually going after the corporations that actually kill animals, forests, and people with life threatening waste products like mercury, cadmium, etc

[spudtrooper]

The thing is, it has happened earlier. That's why a lot of scientists are saying that it's a naturally occurring cycle. Are humans contributing to this? Yes they are, but not to the extent that the alarmist global warming people are saying we are. The best analogy I heard about this was if you have a football stadium that has 10,000 seats in it representing the atmosphere and people would wear white and red shirts, red representing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere directly produced by humans. There would be 9,996 seats filled with people wearing white shirts and only 4 wearing red.

CO2 is just a portion of the climate change.

Deforrestation, destruction of natural ecological systems so on and so forth also play a critical role. They're also part of the CO2 greenhouse gas chain which help cause macro changes that eventually swing out to global changes.

[redfish]

There is no specific evidence that [Mann] falsified or fabricated any data and no evidence that his actions amounted to research misconduct.[/indent]

Of course there wasn't. The claim was never that he falsified any data, its that climate models are subjective -- many people disagree on how they should be built --- and the e-mail exchanges show that they weren't very interested in looking at the issue in a dispassionate, objective manner. They saw everyone who disagreed with them as "opponents" rather than just acting like professionals.

I remember there were arguments during the Iraq war that Tony Blair's administration was guilty of "sexing up" the argument for WMD in Iraq, after have already deciding that they were in beforehand. Well, thats what conservatives are accusing them of doing re: climate change in this case. "Sexing up" an argument that isn't supported but was decided before hand. Nobody I know of is claiming falsification or anything that could be objectively labeled "misconduct". Just playing politics with science.

[spudtrooper]

Not really, no. The Earth is actually cooling if you look at NASA's figures.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GISSTemperature/giss_temperature2.php

The Earth replenishes itself. That's what's governments don't want you to know, so they can go after you in the form of "carbon taxes" they propose instead of actually going after the corporations that actually kill animals, forests, and people with life threatening waste products like mercury, cadmium, etc

Earth is an ecosystem, humans have damaged that no doubt.

Government does go after polluters.. there has been lots of legislation on mercury and new laws put in place to reduce /end mercury contamination. The power industry has been fighting that tooth and nail.. you know, that "clean coal" oxymoron