Good lord, they know all of this-lol! They have taken all of that into account.
Go get your PHD in atmospheric chemistry and then they will listen to you. Maybe like Einstein you see something the rest of them don't.
It is the speed of change that is alarming them. 200,000 times normal change. They also figure CO2 need to stay below 350 PPM and it is already almost 400.
The GLARING ERROR in AGW is trying to assert that the majority of CO2 increases in the atmosphere are due to Fossil Fuel emissions, when that same "99%" seem to utterly ignore the fact that we've seen a 20-30% decline in phytoplankton that are responsible for absorbing the majority of that CO2.
Even if we held CO2 emissions at neutral, or even decreased them, if for what ever reason, oceanic flora decline CO2 levels will increase.
If you have a sponge that is capable of sopping up all the water in a pail will would have to increase the amount of water beyond it's saturation point in order to see water levels actually rise in that pail.
Now if you reduce the size of that sponge by 30%, it will have 30% less ability to sop up the existing amount of water and you'll perceive an increase in water in the pail. If you FAIL TO NOTE that the sponge is now 30% smaller, you would see water levels in the pail increase and It might lead you to actually believe that water is "leaking" into the pail.
No actual water has been added, but you're observable data would lead you to believe that water levels are increasing.
Phytoplankton and other flora, are CO2 sponges. They thrive on the stuff!! In fact, many green houses actually increase the level of CO2 inside their buildings to enhance the growth of their plants. And so long as all of the other conditions are ideal for plant life, they will flourish and soak up any excess CO2 and augment the levels of O2, the by-product of photosynthesis.
The minute you can show me where that "99%" have incorporated the 20-30% reductions in phytoplankton into their AGW models and can show that reduced phytoplankton levels are not responsible for increases in atmospheric CO2, then you'll have something I will find hard to ignore.
But you can't because atmospheric scientists are myopic when it comes to understanding how the planet's geophysical processes, AND LIFE FORMS contribute to maintaining, or distorting, the levels of atmospheric gases. They just ignore phytoplankton declines because it's not within their field of specialty.
Now I cannot refute that the burning of Hydrocarbons releases CO2, just as the respiration of living creatures do the same.
But what I want answered is why phytoplankton, which represent the "lungs" of this planet's eco-system, are in decline. It is because of acidification? Or is that acidification due to lack of trace nutrients so necessary for the production of chlorophyll, fixation of nitrogen, and the process of photosynthesis?
The CO2 were releasing was botanically sequestered once before, eventually turning into coal and other hydrocarbons. Why did that happen before and how can we make it happen in again? |
