Global warming: New study challenges ...

Global warming: New study challenges carbon benchmark

There are 10 comments on the PhysOrg Weblog story from Sep 28, 2011, titled Global warming: New study challenges carbon benchmark. In it, PhysOrg Weblog reports that:

Picture of the rainforest on the Costa Rican Pacific coast in 2005. The ability of forests, plants and soil to suck carbon dioxide from the air has been under-estimated, according to a study on Wednesday that challenges a benchmark for calculating the greenhouse-gas problem.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at PhysOrg Weblog.

LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#1 Sep 29, 2011
Meaningless really. All you need to do is measure the CO2 increaes each year. Debating whether one source or sink is slightly higher or lower doesn't count for anything.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#2 Sep 29, 2011
I wouldn't call it meaningless. This is instructive about science progress.

Here's another reference:

Measuring Global Photosynthesis Rate: Earth's Plant Life 'Recycles' Carbon Dioxide Faster Than Previously Estimated

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/...

However, I find the Topix title rather misleading. Is that what you meant?
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#3 Sep 30, 2011
SpaceBlues wrote:
I wouldn't call it meaningless. This is instructive about science progress.
However, I find the Topix title rather misleading. Is that what you meant?
I agreee that science progresses by refining the details, but yes, the subject line claims too much significance to one paper on one element in the CO2 balance when we KNOW the total sum and it is the total sum of GHG buildup that is important to the issue of AGW.

And it is really silly that every time someone comes out with a 'new number' it is supposed to 'overturn' science (AGW) that isn't even closely related to the study (of one specific sink of CO2).
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#4 Nov 13, 2011
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
I agreee that science progresses by refining the details, but yes, the subject line claims too much significance to one paper on one element in the CO2 balance when we KNOW the total sum and it is the total sum of GHG buildup that is important to the issue of AGW.
And it is really silly that every time someone comes out with a 'new number' it is supposed to 'overturn' science (AGW) that isn't even closely related to the study (of one specific sink of CO2).
True. I agree.

Furthermore, don't you think the Republican debates should include this suggested topic and more in the human arena:

Do you consider climate change a national security issue? If not, as president, what will you say to the president of the Maldives when he tells you that emissions of greenhouse gases by China and the United States threaten the very existence of his country because of rising sea levels?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-156...
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#5 Nov 14, 2011
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>True. I agree.
Furthermore, don't you think the Republican debates should include this suggested topic and more in the human arena:
Do you consider climate change a national security issue? If not, as president, what will you say to the president of the Maldives when he tells you that emissions of greenhouse gases by China and the United States threaten the very existence of his country because of rising sea levels?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-156...
I think the Maldives is small enough for them to muscle aside. The real social problems will take a while and when millions are dispaced, THEN you will find them putting up a fence around the country. Probably electified..

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#6 Nov 15, 2011
NobodyYouEverWantToKnow, alias:
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
I think the Maldives is small enough for them to muscle aside.
You're right, the Maldives doesn't count.
NoFactNoHope wrote:
The real social problems will take a while and when millions are dispaced
You really should try to keep up, Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty,'millions' are aready displaced.
NoFactNoHope wrote:
THEN you will find them putting up a fence around the country. Probably electified..
"Electified," is that an elected fence?
budd

Maha Sarakham, Thailand

#7 Nov 15, 2011
Earthling-1 wrote:
NobodyYouEverWantToKnow, alias:
<quoted text>You're right, the Maldives doesn't count.<quoted text>You really should try to keep up, Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty,'millions' are aready displaced.<quoted text>"Electified, " is that an elected fence?
Another love letter from old Fartling to Less. How sweet.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#8 Nov 15, 2011
LessFactMoreHype, alias:
NobodyYouEverWantToKnow wrote:
That CO2 cannot be a 'pollutant'? Wrong. Anything CAN and IS a pollutant in a specific context. In this case, as a greenhouse gas causing 'thermal pollution' of the planet.
-
The point is really that the whole claim of 'CO2 is vital to life' and 'CO2 is plant food' promoted by Earthling is not so much that it is technically wrong, but that it is IRRELEVANT to the issue of CO2 as a 'thermal pollutant'. Agreed?
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...
budd

San Francisco, CA

#9 Nov 15, 2011
Earthling-1 wrote:
LessFactMoreHype, alias:
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...
Desperation is not attractive old Fartling. You should pick a new love interest. Less doesn't like you that way. More stalking won't change that.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#10 Nov 15, 2011
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
Given your increasing incoherence, wandering mind, and lack of intelligent rebuttal, you should see if you can find a nursing home with an opening.
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
Nor do I care. Now crawl back under your rock.
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
.Note that it is PRONOUNCED as 'spelt' but only an ignorant boor thinks it is SPELLED as spelt.
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
Of course, you aren't paranoid. You [undoubtably] do have enemies.
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
No. You apparently don't despite many many posts on the subject. I therefore consider senility as a likely hypothesis. An not just because of your age. In my opinion, nobody can be that dense without a serious medical problem.
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
Mr Dirtling is of course, the most ignorant person here. He is therefore the most dangerous.
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
Say Mr. Dirtling. Do you spell your middle name Dufus or Doofus?
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
Get a brain transplant. THINK about what the cliam 'vital to life' means. Even OXYGEN is not 'vital to life' as there are ANAEROBIC bacterial that are KILLED by oxygen.
Got a clue yet?
They're all out there somewhere.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Oceanography Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Inter-decadal Pacific Oscillation Explains Glob... Apr '15 SpaceBlues 1
News Japanese reactor radiation detected off B.C. coast Apr '15 RDL 2
News Shrinking of Ice Shelves Raises Sea Level Concerns Apr '15 Earthling-1 10
News Pakistan earthquake island belching poisonous gas (Sep '13) Mar '15 MOMIN ANSARI 17
News Head of Episcopal Church: Denying Climate Chang... Mar '15 Cordwainer Trout 2
News Women in Oceanography: Lots of Students, Not So... Mar '15 SpaceBlues 1
News Sea level rise: It's worse than we thought (Jul '09) Feb '15 Earthling-1 3,326
More from around the web