Science out the window when it comes to political issues like "gun control" and Global Warming!

On Aug 9, 5:54 pm, wrote:
"columbiaaccidentinvestigation"
wrote in ooglegroups.com...

On Aug 9, 10:45 am, wrote:
The global warming premise has no basis in physical reality. It's
really nothing but an excuse for people that imagine they have a
grudge against our oil-based economy to make self-righteous
pontifications.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I just a desire to make our nation stronger and better through cleaner
more efficient means of energy production,

I don't doubt that you whackos have good intentions.

that's it pure and simple.

Do not lie,

The AGW premise is a lie through and through.

I did not say we need to stop utilizing fossil fuels, I

have repeatedly stated reductions in emissions would help avert
adverse economic conditions in the future. Cleaner burning coal may
be necessary for many years in regions of this country where renewable
energy sources may not be as practical, but supporting renewable does
not mean somebody is anti oil.

I support renewable. I just don't use it as an excuse for pseudoscience.

What you are saying is just another

fabrication of your imagination, as a smart national energy plan will
incorporate the reductions of green house and aerosol emission, while
at the same time investing in new technologies to make more
environmentally friendly alternative energy sources, and more
efficient renewable.

If this were true we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Current energy producers have many years to

change over their methods to cleaner sources, and therefore it is
illogical to conclude that if you are for reduced emissions of green
house gases that somehow you are anti-oil based companies, as even
those same oil based companies recognize the need to take action
(carbon capture).

Carbon capture is absurd. CO2 has no effect on atmospheric temps. It's
100% hoax. 0% science.

Maybe once again, your assertions fall way short of

making any logical sense and you should try reading a little more
before you try and reply. So once again maybe protecting the status
quo is your motivation, and your above post has just exposed your
personal bias that has tainted your own ability to understand the
science that explains the answers to your questions and accusations.

The science is very clear. CO2 is harmless. AGW is a cult phenomena.



Temperature graphed with respect to time from data of vostok ice core,
please not top left corner of graph were previous spikes dropped down,
and the most recent historical spike is staying elevated.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/vo.../tempplot5.gif



You are not capable of explaining what happens to a molecule when it
absorbs our suns energy or the energy radiated back from the earth, so
try again! You are not capable of explaining how you came to the
conclusions that that energy disappears, or is destroyed, so try
again? Don't take it personal but you know you are not able to explain
how it is possible that co2 interacts with plants only and nothing
else, so try again?

Bill Ward wrote:

That's assuming CO2 has a significant heating effect. Negative feedback
from the water cycle may swamp it out.

What negative feedback from the water cycle?

At the extremes, water is clearly positive feedback. Freeze the planet,
and it would be covered by reflective ice, and there would be little water
vapor to provide the majority of the greenhouse effect. Boil the planet,
and it would be shrouded by high cold clouds would radiate little heat to
space, and would admit almost enough to keep the surface hot. If the Sun
was roughly 3% to 5% hotter, such a "moist greenhouse" would be stable.

Start with the cold case. If the planet was frozen, how could it ever melt
again?


--
Phil Hays

On Aug 8, 7:11 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Einar wrote:

::Whata Fool wrote:

: On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 16:27:07 -0700, Einar wrote:
:
: Have you any significant familiarity with modelling of whatif
: projections presuming different future CO2 concentrations? They might
: range from two times the current up to say five times the current, I´m
: wondering about probable worst case scenarios.
: Cheers, Einar
:
: Now you are really getting stupid, how do you suppose that the
: atmospheric concentration of CO2 could get to 5 times current?
:
:That will depend on how much CO2 will come to be emitted by all
:sources, incluting human sources. At the present growing trend of
:human emitted CO2, we may be seeing like 3 times the current levels at
:say 2100.
:

It also depends on how much is taken up by sinks, which is going to
change as the concentration (tries to) rise. Right now, the
uncertainties in that number is larger than the output of humanity.

:
:However, this is an unertain science. Consider my suggested 5 times as
:an extreme vorst case scenario, if we get really unlucky and perhaps
:growing heat begins to increase CO2 being emitted by the oceans as
:well.
:

Or the increased CO2 might increase plant and animal sinks and drive
other chemical equilibria in the direction of consuming more CO2 and
it levels back off and starts to drop on its own.

The models really don't make it clear, given the uncertainties.

--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw



Heavy burning of fossil fuels have emitted enough byproduct into the
atmosphere that the earths eco-systems are responding, some ways we
know and some ways we don't know. But placing confidence that a given
unknown positive response from the earth's ecosystems will occur is
not prudent. Many claim that the climate models are not accurate
enough to cause action in our society to reduce emissions, but then
cite potential positive unknown feedbacks, disregarding the
possibility that there unknown unknowns. Now because of the
uncertainty in our climate models, it is not logical that reductions
of emissions should not be done. Learning how the earth has responded
in unpredictable ways, and changing our behavior to reduce that
unpredictability does not mean we should rely once again on an
infinite ability of earth to have feedback in a positive way for
extended periods of time. We should not take for granted that current
co2 sinks, will continue to absorb at the current rate and infinitely,
or if they increase there rate of co2 conversion are there other
negative ramifications (increasing iron in the oceans yields more co2
conversion from phytoplankton, by at what expense of what other eco-
systems and what other ramifications?). Smartly managing our actions
as to limit the earth's eco-systems negative feedbacks can occur as
quickly as reductions of emissions occurs, as some aerosols have short
lifetimes. But for the long term, preventive action against negative
feedback from earth's ecosystems would dictate that because co2 long
is so long lived, we should not take for granted the current rate of
return from co2 sinks across the globe, and reduce emissions of green
house gases as well.

On Aug 9, 11:51 pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
wrote:
On Aug 8, 7:11 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:





Einar wrote:

::Whata Fool wrote:

: On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 16:27:07 -0700, Einar wrote:
:
: Have you any significant familiarity with modelling of whatif
: projections presuming different future CO2 concentrations? They might
: range from two times the current up to say five times the current, I´m
: wondering about probable worst case scenarios.
: Cheers, Einar
:
: Now you are really getting stupid, how do you suppose that the
: atmospheric concentration of CO2 could get to 5 times current?
:
:That will depend on how much CO2 will come to be emitted by all
:sources, incluting human sources. At the present growing trend of
:human emitted CO2, we may be seeing like 3 times the current levels at
:say 2100.
:

It also depends on how much is taken up by sinks, which is going to
change as the concentration (tries to) rise. Right now, the
uncertainties in that number is larger than the output of humanity.

:
:However, this is an unertain science. Consider my suggested 5 times as
:an extreme vorst case scenario, if we get really unlucky and perhaps
:growing heat begins to increase CO2 being emitted by the oceans as
:well.
:

Or the increased CO2 might increase plant and animal sinks and drive
other chemical equilibria in the direction of consuming more CO2 and
it levels back off and starts to drop on its own.

The models really don't make it clear, given the uncertainties.

--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

Heavy burning of fossil fuels have emitted enough byproduct into the
atmosphere that the earths eco-systems are responding, some ways we
know and some ways we don't know. But placing confidence that a given
unknown positive response from the earth's ecosystems will occur is
not prudent.

You're full of ****.


Many claim that the climate models are not accurate
enough to cause action in our society to reduce emissions, but then
cite potential positive unknown feedbacks, disregarding the
possibility that there unknown unknowns.

If your unknowns ever become known let us know. In the meantime don't
get your panties in a wad.

Now because of the
uncertainty in our climate models, it is not logical that reductions
of emissions should not be done. Learning how the earth has responded
in unpredictable ways, and changing our behavior to reduce that
unpredictability does not mean we should rely once again on an
infinite ability of earth to have feedback in a positive way for
extended periods of time. We should not take for granted that current
co2 sinks, will continue to absorb at the current rate and infinitely,
or if they increase there rate of co2 conversion are there other
negative ramifications (increasing iron in the oceans yields more co2
conversion from phytoplankton, by at what expense of what other eco-
systems and what other ramifications?). Smartly managing our actions
as to limit the earth's eco-systems negative feedbacks can occur as
quickly as reductions of emissions occurs, as some aerosols have short
lifetimes. But for the long term, preventive action against negative
feedback from earth's ecosystems would dictate that because co2 long
is so long lived, we should not take for granted the current rate of
return from co2 sinks across the globe, and reduce emissions of green
house gases as well.

I think this demonstrates that you envirowhackos live in a state of
perpetual self-righteousness in which you see it as your moral
obligation to save the planet from the blue meanies. Get a life.

Laughingly, please articulate your point in civil language, or are you
so frustrated you cannot post a logical thought.
If you are a scientist please explain what happens to a molecule when
it absorbs our suns energy or the energy radiated back from the
earth? If you are an expert please explain how you have concluded
energy disappears, or is destroyed? You see you have exposed nothing,
you are a fraud , and your posts read like a joke, what you think you
have done is based on your ignorant view of the physical universe.
If you are a scientist as you claim or an expert, please explain how
it is possible that co2 interacts with plants only and not the other
matter in our atmosphere?
if you dont answer, you fully admit you are a joke and a fraud,
nothing personal.

oh yeah your stupid snipping does not invalidate any of my points!

Heavy burning of fossil fuels have emitted enough byproduct into the
atmosphere that the earths eco-systems are responding, some ways we
know and some ways we don't know. But placing confidence that a given
unknown positive response from the earth's ecosystems will occur is
not prudent. Many claim that the climate models are not accurate
enough to cause action in our society to reduce emissions, but then
cite potential positive unknown feedbacks, disregarding the
possibility that there unknown unknowns. Now because of the
uncertainty in our climate models, it is not logical that reductions
of emissions should not be done. Learning how the earth has responded
in unpredictable ways, and changing our behavior to reduce that
unpredictability does not mean we should rely once again on an
infinite ability of earth to have feedback in a positive way for
extended periods of time. We should not take for granted that current
co2 sinks, will continue to absorb at the current rate and infinitely,
or if they increase there rate of co2 conversion are there other
negative ramifications (increasing iron in the oceans yields more co2
conversion from phytoplankton, by at what expense of what other eco-
systems and what other ramifications?). Smartly managing our actions
as to limit the earth's eco-systems negative feedbacks can occur as
quickly as reductions of emissions occurs, as some aerosols have short
lifetimes. But for the long term, preventive action against negative
feedback from earth's ecosystems would dictate that because co2 is so
long lived, we should not take for granted the current rate of return
from co2 sinks across the globe, and reduce emissions of green house
gases as well.

On Aug 10, 8:25 am, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
wrote:
Laughingly, please articulate your point in civil language, or are you
so frustrated you cannot post a logical thought.
If you are a scientist please explain what happens to a molecule when
it absorbs our suns energy or the energy radiated back from the
earth? If you are an expert please explain how you have concluded
energy disappears, or is destroyed? You see you have exposed nothing,
you are a fraud , and your posts read like a joke, what you think you
have done is based on your ignorant view of the physical universe.
If you are a scientist as you claim or an expert, please explain how
it is possible that co2 interacts with plants only and not the other
matter in our atmosphere?
if you dont answer, you fully admit you are a joke and a fraud,
nothing personal.

oh yeah your stupid snipping does not invalidate any of my points!

As you are displaying here, propagandist are always very careful to
never have points. They only have vague notions which they wrap in
their self-righteous indignation for the bad people who they pretend
to be saving us from.

Heavy burning of fossil fuels have emitted enough byproduct into the
atmosphere that the earths eco-systems are responding, some ways we
know and some ways we don't know.

So you're here to help us with the reponses that are unknown. Tell me
something. If they are "unknown" then how do you know they exist at
all. Do you methods involve a crystal ball? Tea leaves?

But placing confidence that a given
unknown positive response from the earth's ecosystems will occur is
not prudent. Many claim that the climate models are not accurate
enough to cause action in our society to reduce emissions, but then
cite potential positive unknown feedbacks, disregarding the
possibility that there unknown unknowns.

My excuse for disregarding the unknown umknowns is that I didn't know
about them.

Now because of the
uncertainty in our climate models, it is not logical that reductions
of emissions should not be done.

Uh . . . er. Uh . . .

Learning how the earth has responded
in unpredictable ways, and changing our behavior to reduce that
unpredictability does not mean we should rely once again on an
infinite ability of earth to have feedback in a positive way for
extended periods of time. We should not take for granted that current
co2 sinks, will continue to absorb at the current rate and infinitely,
or if they increase there rate of co2 conversion are there other
negative ramifications (increasing iron in the oceans yields more co2
conversion from phytoplankton, by at what expense of what other eco-
systems and what other ramifications?). Smartly managing our actions
as to limit the earth's eco-systems negative feedbacks can occur as
quickly as reductions of emissions occurs, as some aerosols have short
lifetimes. But for the long term, preventive action against negative
feedback from earth's ecosystems would dictate that because co2 is so
long lived, we should not take for granted the current rate of return
from co2 sinks across the globe, and reduce emissions of green house
gases as well.

IOW, since you have warm and fuzzy feeling that CO2 is bad we should
all just go along with anything you say.

On Aug 10, 9:15 am, wrote:
On Aug 10, 8:25 am, columbiaaccidentinvestigation





wrote:
Laughingly, please articulate your point in civil language, or are you
so frustrated you cannot post a logical thought.
If you are a scientist please explain what happens to a molecule when
it absorbs our suns energy or the energy radiated back from the
earth? If you are an expert please explain how you have concluded
energy disappears, or is destroyed? You see you have exposed nothing,
you are a fraud , and your posts read like a joke, what you think you
have done is based on your ignorant view of the physical universe.
If you are a scientist as you claim or an expert, please explain how
it is possible that co2 interacts with plants only and not the other
matter in our atmosphere?
if you dont answer, you fully admit you are a joke and a fraud,
nothing personal.

oh yeah your stupid snipping does not invalidate any of my points!

As you are displaying here, propagandist are always very careful to
never have points. They only have vague notions which they wrap in
their self-righteous indignation for the bad people who they pretend
to be saving us from.

Heavy burning of fossil fuels have emitted enough byproduct into the
atmosphere that the earths eco-systems are responding, some ways we
know and some ways we don't know.

So you're here to help us with the reponses that are unknown. Tell me
something. If they are "unknown" then how do you know they exist at
all. Do you methods involve a crystal ball? Tea leaves?

But placing confidence that a given
unknown positive response from the earth's ecosystems will occur is
not prudent. Many claim that the climate models are not accurate
enough to cause action in our society to reduce emissions, but then
cite potential positive unknown feedbacks, disregarding the
possibility that there unknown unknowns.

My excuse for disregarding the unknown umknowns is that I didn't know
about them.

Now because of the
uncertainty in our climate models, it is not logical that reductions
of emissions should not be done.

Uh . . . er. Uh . . .





Learning how the earth has responded
in unpredictable ways, and changing our behavior to reduce that
unpredictability does not mean we should rely once again on an
infinite ability of earth to have feedback in a positive way for
extended periods of time. We should not take for granted that current
co2 sinks, will continue to absorb at the current rate and infinitely,
or if they increase there rate of co2 conversion are there other
negative ramifications (increasing iron in the oceans yields more co2
conversion from phytoplankton, by at what expense of what other eco-
systems and what other ramifications?). Smartly managing our actions
as to limit the earth's eco-systems negative feedbacks can occur as
quickly as reductions of emissions occurs, as some aerosols have short
lifetimes. But for the long term, preventive action against negative
feedback from earth's ecosystems would dictate that because co2 is so
long lived, we should not take for granted the current rate of return
from co2 sinks across the globe, and reduce emissions of green house
gases as well.

IOW, since you have warm and fuzzy feeling that CO2 is bad we should
all just go along with anything you say.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Just incase you didn't bother to read, these are the sources; you have
the free will to pursue information for yourself, if you care to. Any
statement that you post that these source are not up to your standards
must be met be equal quality information.


The epa's website on climate change
Basic Information
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basicinfo.html
Science
For over the past 200 years, the burning of fossil fuels, such as coal
and oil, and deforestation have caused the concentrations of heat-
trapping "greenhouse gases" to increase significantly in our
atmosphere. These gases prevent heat from escaping to space, somewhat
like the glass panels of a greenhouse"

http://www.us-cap.org/USCAPCallForAction.pdf
"We Know Enough to
Act on Climate Change
In June 2005, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences joined with the
scientific academies of ten other countries in stating that "the
scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear
to justify nations taking prompt actions." Each year we delay action
to control emissions increases the risk of unavoidable consequences
that could necessitate even steeper reductions in the future, at
potentially greater economic cost and social disruption.
Action sooner rather than later preserves valuable response options,
narrows the uncertainties associated with changes to the climate, and
should lower the costs of mitigation and adaptation. For these
reasons, we, the members of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership
(USCAP) have joined together to recommend the prompt enactment of
national legislation in the United States to slow, stop and reverse
the growth of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions over the shortest period
of time reasonably achievable."

http://www.climatescience.gov/Librar...-final-all.pdf
Scenarios of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Atmospheric Concentrations
Scenarios of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Atmospheric Concentrations
The U.S. Climate Change Science Program
U.S. Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product
2.1b April 2007

http://www.science.doe.gov/ober/CPDA...2_1B_4_23F.pdf
Global-Change Scenarios Their Development and Use U.S. Climate Change
Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product 2.1b April 2007
http://www.science.doe.gov/ober/CPDA...2_1B_4_23F.pdf
Global-Change Scenarios Their Development and Use U.S. Climate Change
Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product 2.1b April 2007
"Page 24
Section 2 - Scenarios in Global-Change Analysis and Decision Support

Since the mid-1990s, climate modelers have increasingly sought to
produce realistic pictures of how the climate may actually change,
requiring a new approach to emissions scenarios. Scenarios must now
present well-founded judgments or guesses of actual future emissions
trends and their consequences for atmospheric concentrations. The
required emissions scenarios have been constructed either by
extrapolating recent emissions trends, or, particularly for energy-
related CO2, representing emissions in terms of underlying drivers
such as population, economic growth, and technological change and
projecting these drivers using some combination of modeling and trend
extrapolation. Driven by such scenarios, climate models for the first
time can claim to be reasonable estimates of how the climate might
actually change. In addition, comparisons using multiple models and
emissions scenarios have allowed partitioning of uncertainty in future
climate change into roughly equal shares attributed to uncertainty in
climate science and models, and in emissions trends.36 These
comparisons have also allowed estimation of the climate-change
benefits from specified emissions reductions. As this shift occurred,
advances in climate models - e.g., improved representations of
atmospheric aerosols, tropospheric ozone, and atmosphere-surface
interactions - produced mismatches between emissions scenarios and the
input needs of climate models. For example, climate models now require
emissions of several types of aerosols and reactive gases (principally
the ozone precursors, hydrocarbons, CO and NOx), explicit estimates of
black carbon and organic carbon, and some disaggregation of different
types of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions. Moreover, because
these emissions act locally and regionally rather than globally, they
must be specified at the spatial scale of a model grid-cell, about 150
sq. km. Models of atmospheric chemistry and transport then use these
emissions to generate the concentrations and radiative forcings used
by the climate model"





Here is a little more information about the man made influences on
global climate change from the carbon dioxide information analysis
center.

http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/home.html
"Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center
The Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) is the primary
climate-change data and information analysis center of the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE). CDIAC is located at DOE's Oak Ridge
National Laboratory (ORNL) and includes the World Data Center for
Atmospheric Trace Gases.
CDIAC's data holdings include records of the concentrations of carbon
dioxide and other radiatively active gases in the atmosphere; the role
of the terrestrial biosphere and the oceans in the biogeochemical
cycles of greenhouse gases; emissions of carbon dioxide to the
atmosphere; long-term climate trends; the effects of elevated carbon
dioxide on vegetation; and the vulnerability of coastal areas to
rising sea level"

Temperature trends from the center
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/contents.htm

Temperature graphed with respect to time from data of vostok ice core,
please not top left corner of graph were previous spikes dropped down,
and the most recent historical spike is staying elevated.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/vo.../tempplot5.gif


Ice core data


http://serc.carleton.edu/files/quant...o2moe2edit.pdf
DATA
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/contents.htm
this page lists three ice core datasets and numerous air sampling
data sets
that cover varying time frames
Ice core data sets:


http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/siple.htm short data set from
1744 to
1953 that shows relatively simple exponential increase in CO2

http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/lawdome.html -- data set from
three
ice cores that can be combined into a single record (which looks
exponential after 1750) or plotted separately. The periods of record
a
1006 - 1959, 1840 - 1969, 1832-1978,

http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/ftp/trends...ok.icecore.co2 -- long
complex record with data from 2342 to 414085 years before present (BP)
that show cyclic variation in CO2 concentrations. This is interesting
if you
want them to look at variation in CO2 over a geologic time frame, but
it
does not illustrate the increase in CO2 in recent centuries.


http://terra.nasa.gov/FactSheets/EnergyBalance/
"As the number of aerosols increases, the water in the cloud gets
spread over many more particles, each of which is correspondingly
smaller. Smaller particles fall more slowly in the atmosphere, and
decrease the amount of rainfall. In this way, changing aerosols in the
atmosphere can change the frequency of cloud occurrence, cloud
thickness, and rainfall amounts. Even the tiny aerosols (typically
less than 50 millionths of an inch or 1 micron across) can affect the
clouds, which in turn can change the radiation balance of the planet.
Thus, aerosols can have both a direct effect on the energy balance, as
well as an indirect effect (through clouds). It is thought that the
indirect effect of aerosols can be even larger than their direct
effect, but at present it is not known whether such an effect is a net
cooling or warming of the planet."


The Ceres experiments
http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/ceres/

http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/ceres/brochure/intro.html
Analyses of the CERES data, which build upon the foundation laid by
previous missions such as the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment
(ERBE), will lead to a better understanding of the role of clouds and
the energy cycle in global climate change.


Information on Earth radiation budget from the Atmospheric Science
Data center.
http://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/EDDOCS/radiation_facts.html


http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads..._ObsImpact.pdf
Observed Impacts of global climate change in the U.S. Prepared for the
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
by
Camille Parmesan
UN IVERSITY OF TEXAS-AUSTIN
He c t or Gal braith
GAL BRAI TH ENVI RON M E N TAL
SCIENCES AND UNIVERSITY OF
COLORADO - BOULDER
Novemb er 2004
Executive Summary
One of the major, most well-documented, and robust findings in ecology
over the past century has been the crucial role of climate in
determining the geographical distribution of species and ecological
communities. Climate variability and change can affect plants and
animals in a number of ways, including their distributions, population
sizes, and even physical stru c t u re, metabolism, and behavior.
These ecological responses to changes in climate have important
implications, given the historical and continuing increases in
atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases associated with human
activities. Future
human-induced changes in the global climate will directly affect
regional conditions, such as geographic patterns of temperature and
precipitation.

On Aug 10, 9:34 am, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
wrote:
On Aug 10, 9:15 am, wrote:

But placing confidence that a given
unknown positive response from the earth's ecosystems will occur is
not prudent. Many claim that the climate models are not accurate
enough to cause action in our society to reduce emissions, but then
cite potential positive unknown feedbacks, disregarding the
possibility that there unknown unknowns.

My excuse for disregarding the unknown umknowns is that I didn't know
about them.

snip

Just incase you didn't bother to read, these are the sources;

Darn. I was hoping you were going to explain to us how you know about
the unknown unknowns.

On Aug 10, 9:40 am, wrote:
On Aug 10, 9:34 am, columbiaaccidentinvestigation

wrote:
On Aug 10, 9:15 am, wrote:
But placing confidence that a given
unknown positive response from the earth's ecosystems will occur is
not prudent. Many claim that the climate models are not accurate
enough to cause action in our society to reduce emissions, but then
cite potential positive unknown feedbacks, disregarding the
possibility that there unknown unknowns.

My excuse for disregarding the unknown umknowns is that I didn't know
about them.

snip

Just incase you didn't bother to read, these are the sources;

Darn. I was hoping you were going to explain to us how you know about
the unknown unknowns.

Read for yourself, unkown feedbacks from biological pump are the
concern.

http://cdiac2.esd.ornl.gov/ocean.html
Ocean Carbon Sequestration Abstracts
Iron fertilization of the Southern Ocean: Regional simulation and
analysis of C-sequestration in the Ross Sea
Kevin Arrigo, Stanford University
In the face of anticipated changes in the climate system due to
increasing atmospheric CO2, important questions that need to be
addressed include "How will climate change likely alter marine
ecosystem dynamics and C cycling in the SO?", "Can sequestration of
anthropogenic CO2 be increased by artificial trace metal fertilization
of the ocean surface?", and "Will there be any feedback between trace-
metal ocean fertilization, altered marine trophic structure, and the
efficiency of the biological pump?" Answers to these questions are
crucial to the ability to understand the capacity for increased C-
sequestration by the ocean, but have eluded researchers thus far
because of the current inability to include the necessary mechanistic
biological detail in large-scale global climate models. Recent
investigations at the regional scale are beginning to shed light on
these issues, however, and early results suggest that the feedback
between marine ecosystem structure and anticipated climate changes are
important. To address these issues, an existing fully coupled 3-
dimensional numerical model of the pelagic, ice/ocean ecosystem in the
Ross Sea will be modified to include inorganic and organic C pools,
O2, PO4, air-sea gas exchange, and a more sophisticated formulation
for particle export....

On Aug 10, 9:52 am, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
wrote:
On Aug 10, 9:40 am, wrote:





On Aug 10, 9:34 am, columbiaaccidentinvestigation

wrote:
On Aug 10, 9:15 am, wrote:
But placing confidence that a given
unknown positive response from the earth's ecosystems will occur is
not prudent. Many claim that the climate models are not accurate
enough to cause action in our society to reduce emissions, but then
cite potential positive unknown feedbacks, disregarding the
possibility that there unknown unknowns.

My excuse for disregarding the unknown umknowns is that I didn't know
about them.

snip

Just incase you didn't bother to read, these are the sources;

Darn. I was hoping you were going to explain to us how you know about
the unknown unknowns.

Read for yourself, unkown feedbacks from biological pump are the
concern.

Oh, I get it. You guys want to rearrange the world economy based on
feedbacks that are unknown.

Do you have secret powers that allow you to know the unknown?