The global carbon cycle is not balanced.
From:
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Carbon_cycle
Carbon cycle
Lead Author: Michael Pidwirny (other articles)
Article Topics: Biogeochemistry, Atmospheric science and Climate
change
This article has been reviewed and approved by the following Topic
Editor: Jay Gulledge (other articles)
Last Updated: February 24, 2007
[...]
The "missing" carbon
Despite the scientific certainty that the global carbon cycle is
governed by the law of conservation, scientists are not able to
"balance" the storages and flows. That is, summing the best estimates
for the flows of carbon to and from the atmosphere indicates that
there is less carbon in the atmosphere than expected. During the
1990′s, the atmosphere was missing about 3 petagrams (3.3 billion
tons) of carbon per year. This missing carbon is associated with an
unknown carbon sink.
[...] ///
The atmosphere is missing about 3.3 billion tons of carbon per year.
The global carbon cycle is not balanced. Balance is very important. Al
Gore wrote a book, "Earth in Balance". The prime directive of good
accounting practice is to ‘balance the books’. Whether anthropogenic
global greenhouse warming theory is scientifically valid or not, it is
important the return the carbon cycle to balance. Hence it is
imperative to permit (or to encourage) the growth of the carbon
(fossil fuel) economy by 3.3 billion tons of carbon per year. Efforts
to limit the growth of the carbon economy will not help to balance the
carbon cycle and will do more harm than good.
KOOK! KOOK! A CHEW!
KEEP YOUR TIN FOIL HATS ON.
On Mar 24, 11:26 pm, d…@hotmail.com wrote:
> The global carbon cycle is not balanced.
[ . . . ]
> The atmosphere is missing about 3.3 billion tons of carbon per year.
> The global carbon cycle is not balanced. Balance is very important. Al
> Gore wrote a book, "Earth in Balance". The prime directive of good
> accounting practice is to ‘balance the books’. Whether anthropogenic
> global greenhouse warming theory is scientifically valid or not, it is
> important the return the carbon cycle to balance. Hence it is
> imperative to permit (or to encourage) the growth of the carbon
> (fossil fuel) economy by 3.3 billion tons of carbon per year. Efforts
> to limit the growth of the carbon economy will not help to balance the
> carbon cycle and will do more harm than good.
This guy is at least one burrito short
of a combination plate. So eat
burritos everyone that may keep him
balanced. (Though, I doubt it.)
On 25 Mar, 07:34, "Roger Coppock" <rcopp…@adnc.com> wrote:
> KOOK! KOOK! A CHEW!
> KEEP YOUR TIN FOIL HATS ON.
> This guy is at least one burrito short
> of a combination plate. So eat
> burritos everyone that may keep him
> balanced. (Though, I doubt it.)
Complete fruit bat. I think we’re dealing with the Hollow Earth
theory here.
What next?
..
<d….@hotmail.com> wrote
> The atmosphere is missing about 3.3 billion tons of carbon per year.
> The global carbon cycle is not balanced.
In the mid 90′s it was clear that about 3 Gigatonnes of CO2 of the 7
Gigatonnes that was being emitted wasn’t accumulating in the atmosphere.
Subsequent research has shown that increased growth of plant matter as well
as a higher than expected absorption rate by the ocean was the result.
As a practical matter the carbon cycle is now balanced.
> On Mar 24, 11:26 pm, d…@hotmail.com wrote:
> > [ . . . ]
> > Hence it is
> > imperative to permit (or to encourage) the growth of the carbon
> > (fossil fuel) economy by 3.3 billion tons of carbon per year. Efforts
> > to limit the growth of the carbon economy will not help to balance the
> > carbon cycle and will do more harm than good.
On Mar 24, 11:34 pm, "Roger Coppock" <rcopp…@adnc.com> wrote:
> eat burritos everyone
Good point. Everyone should enjoy themselves, get in their cars, drive
down to Taco Bell and eat burritos. People, you work hard for your
cash, so be happy consumers and help the economy.
Now for more science. The ultraviolet irradiance of the Sun is known
to vary widely through factors of 2 to 10 during a solar cycle.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation
With that much variance one would expect to observe induced variance
on the earth and on the other bodies of the solar system. In fact,
this is what is observed historically on earth and astronomically
throughout the solar system. It is unnecessary to invoke anthropogenic
global greenhouse warming theory to explain anything.
Anthropogenic global greenhouse warming theory is nothing but a poorly
run numbers racket. A critique has been written about global average
(mean) temperature. Using different physically realistic averaging
schemes the same data can imply warming OR cooling. Likewise, a
critique has been written about the useless arithmetic used in
mathematical models by environmentalists. These models incorporate
arbitrary and untestable assumptions and many ‘fudge factors’.
Environmental models have no predictive value. Useless arithmetic was
the root of the failure of Michael Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ graph, a
failed attempt at principle components analysis of tree ring data. The
failure to balance the global carbon cycle is another major arithmetic
failure of the whole enterprise. If I was a Chinese delegate to a
climate control conference, I would be sure to seize upon that
opportunity to increase China’s carbon economy by 3.3 billion tons of
carbon per year.
The IPCC in its latest report, said that there is a 10% chance that
global warming is NOT caused by humans. The 10% value was apparently
obtained by an opinion poll of ‘true believers’. The true value may be
as high as 100%. Furthermore, the IPCC admitted that the interior of
Antarctica is cooling. ‘GLOBAL warming’ is a misnomer even according
to the IPCC.
Consider the raw data, atmospheric CO2 concentrations as measured at
Mauna Loa, Hawaii, the famous Keeling curve. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png
Pay particular attention to the small box inset that shows a
sinusoidal curve. Al Gore explained the annual oscillation in CO2
concentration as evidence of the biosphere breathing. It is incorrect
to say that CO2 is always increasing. From May until October the CO2
level decreases, a lot. The annual variation due to the breathing of
the biosphere dwarfs the small annual increment. That small annual
increment has been alleged to be anthropogenic but the carbon cycle
cannot be balanced. Forensic accounting principles don’t work here so
it would be hard to get a jury conviction against mankind’s use of
fossil fuels. Furthermore the total increment in atmospheric CO2 since
the beginning of the industrial age is small, only 36%. The annual
oscillations in the Keeling curve vividly demonstrate that CO2 is good
for the biosphere.
Consider more raw data regarding the claimed disappearing sea ice in
the Arctic. Take a look at the Cryosphere Today at:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/CT/animate.arctic.0.html
{Be patient if you have a slow internet connection.}
The animation depicted in Cryosphere Today is derived from satellite
remote sensing. The animation shows the Arctic sea ice conditions
varying over the last 30 days. Note the following: the Arctic Ocean is
100% full up with sea ice, Baffin Bay is 100% full up with sea ice,
Greenland is virtually surrounded by sea ice, the Canadian Arctic
archipelago is 100% full up with sea ice, Hudsons Bay is 100% full up
with sea ice, the Labrador coast is locked in miles of sea ice, there
is much ice in the Gulf of St. Lawrence (soon the seal hunt will
begin, on the ice), sea ice is spilling out through the Bering
Straight into the Bering Sea, sea ice partly fills the Sea of Okhost
by Kamchuka, Russia and Sahkalin Island is completely surrounded by
sea ice. Within the last month Lake Erie has been 100% frozen over.
I feel a chill just thinking about all that sea ice. So be happy
people, eat burritos, drive your car and contribute to the economy.
Environmental claims of impending disaster are self serving
exaggerations.
The atmosphere is missing about 3.3 billion tons of carbon per year.
The global carbon cycle is not balanced. That means there is a ‘window
of opportunity’ to increase carbon consumption. If carbon consumption
is allowed to incease by 3.3 billion tons of carbon per year, this
carbon sink of unknown origin may increase to 6.6 billion tons of
carbon per year. The implication is that the earth has an unexpected
and increasing capacity to adsorb CO2. This is good news for consumers
and should not be written off by the global warming cult. The issue is
worth trillions of dollars.
…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
d….@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Mar 24, 11:26 pm, d…@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> [ . . . ]
>>> Hence it is
>>> imperative to permit (or to encourage) the growth of the carbon
>>> (fossil fuel) economy by 3.3 billion tons of carbon per year. Efforts
>>> to limit the growth of the carbon economy will not help to balance the
>>> carbon cycle and will do more harm than good.
> On Mar 24, 11:34 pm, "Roger Coppock" <rcopp…@adnc.com> wrote:
>> eat burritos everyone
> Good point. Everyone should enjoy themselves, get in their cars, drive
> down to Taco Bell and eat burritos. People, you work hard for your
> cash, so be happy consumers and help the economy.
Consume, Submit, Obey. Let me guess.
–
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html
> From:http://www.eoearth.org/article/Carbon_cycle
> The "missing" carbon
Hm, accelerated plant growth is removing carbon at an accelerated
rate. Very interesting. I can tell you that here where I am…
"vacationing", the plants this spring seem to have gone into bloom
quicker than usual. Doesn’t this apparent fact totally refute any AGW
possibility?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy/topics
"kT" <cos…@lifeform.org> wrote
> Consume, Submit, Obey. Let me guess.
Where is roudy Ronnie Piper when you need him?
<hurt_beyond_rep…@yahoo.com> wrote
> Hm, accelerated plant growth is removing carbon at an accelerated
> rate. Very interesting. I can tell you that here where I am…
> "vacationing", the plants this spring seem to have gone into bloom
> quicker than usual. Doesn’t this apparent fact totally refute any AGW
> possibility?
Wouldn’t it support it? Higher temps, earlier growth?
I guess brushing your teeth is rocket science to some….
On Mar 27, 1:35 am, "Vendicar Decarian" <BushIsATrai…@hotmail.com>
wrote:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> <hurt_beyond_rep…@yahoo.com> wrote
> > Hm, accelerated plant growth is removing carbon at an accelerated
> > rate. Very interesting. I can tell you that here where I am…
> > "vacationing", the plants this spring seem to have gone into bloom
> > quicker than usual. Doesn’t this apparent fact totally refute any AGW
> > possibility?
> Wouldn’t it support it? Higher temps, earlier growth?
> I guess brushing your teeth is rocket science to some….