quote:

I completely understand your premise, Remove Carbon from the earth put it in the atmoshere is bad. That is true. I'm saying it is not that big of an effect.

quote:

I know you may want to disregard previous climates but it is not really helping you understand what it currently going on. Context.

quote:

Comes from that carbon since we use it to fertilize our food.

quote:

Look around you, where you're sitting right now. How much plastic do you see (electronics, computers, gadgets, polyester, etc)? That's all carbon that used to be buried throughout human history until 200 years ago.

quote:

I'm not disregarding it. I'm telling you it's spin, it's not context.

quote:

but it couldn't support human life until it buried a bunch of its carbon and cooled itself down. And the warming we're causing is too rapid for a natural adaption to occur.

quote:

I'm still waiting for peer-review studies

quote:

I'm a software engineer. Nothing I do goes into production without my peers first scrutinizing it and giving it a "thumbs up.

quote:

It's how you make sure your work is sane -- no one can do it alone. If you don't understand that, I can see why you won't accept Global Warming.

quote:

Look at all the landfills, It's all going back to the earth

quote:

I haven't run across any studies that say peer-reviewed on them.

quote:

I really try not to insult anyone here, but how the hell can any of you have an opinion when you're so ignorant of how basic things work?

quote:

Come on... we are doing so well.

quote:

My bet is that you won't find any. But I'm open to it. You should be asking those propagandists why they don't want their work reviewed.

quote:

This is a peer-review study:

quote:

Most fertilizers used today are manufactured from the petro-chemical industry (ever heard of DuPont?).

quote:

Peer-reviewed research is research that has been published in a scholarly scientific journal after review by an expert peer or peers from the authors’ same field. The process is undertaken to ensure that authors meet the standards of their discipline, and to establish the validity and accuracy of the research. With an occasional exception, the peer-review process generally works quite well.

quote:

What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?

This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it. At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.


Does this prove that CO2 doesn't cause global warming? The answer is no.


The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.


The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming.


It comes as no surprise that other factors besides CO2 affect climate. Changes in the amount of summer sunshine, due to changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun that happen every 21,000 years, have long been known to affect the comings and goings of ice ages. Atlantic ocean circulation slowdowns are thought to warm Antarctica, also.


From studying all the available data (not just ice cores), the probable sequence of events at a termination goes something like this. Some (currently unknown) process causes Antarctica and the surrounding ocean to warm. This process also causes CO2 to start rising, about 800 years later. Then CO2 further warms the whole planet, because of its heat-trapping properties. This leads to even further CO2 release. So CO2 during ice ages should be thought of as a "feedback", much like the feedback that results from putting a microphone too near to a loudspeaker.


In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway. From model estimates, CO2 (along with other greenhouse gases CH4 and N2O) causes about half of the full glacial-to-interglacial warming.


So, in summary, the lag of CO2 behind temperature doesn't tell us much about global warming. [But it may give us a very interesting clue about why CO2 rises at the ends of ice ages. The 800-year lag is about the amount of time required to flush out the deep ocean through natural ocean currents. So CO2 might be stored in the deep ocean during ice ages, and then get released when the climate warms.]

quote:

Comes from that carbon since we use it to fertilize our food.

quote:

Originally posted by Common_Man_Jason:
I really try not to insult anyone here, but how the hell can any of you have an opinion when you're so ignorant of how basic things work?

Most fertilizers used today are manufactured from the petro-chemical industry (ever heard of DuPont?).
[ Partially correct and Don showed there is still mining for some of the fertilizers. So Ok up till now. ]
For those that don't know, "petro-chemicals" are man-made compounds of hydrogen and carbon (the basis of all food, most of what you eat is hydrogen-carbon compounds). Oil is used to create these new compounds. Yes, the food we eat today is mostly oil.

The term "organic farming" came about as a way of distinguishing traditional farming with the new petro-chemical style of farming. So if it ain't "organic" it's oil based food.

Oil is everything to us, not just gas and lubrication for our cars.

quote:

Fertilizers (British English fertilisers) are compounds given to plants to promote growth; they are usually applied either via the soil, for uptake by plant roots, or by foliar feeding, for uptake through leaves. Fertilizers can be organic (composed of organic matter, i.e. carbon based), or inorganic (containing simple, inorganic chemicals). They can be naturally-occurring compounds such as peat or mineral deposits, or manufactured through natural processes (such as composting) or chemical processes (such as the Haber process).

Fertilizers typically provide, in varying proportions, the three major plant nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium), the secondary plant nutrients (calcium, sulfur, magnesium), and sometimes trace elements (or micronutrients) with a role in plant nutrition: boron, chlorine, manganese, iron, zinc, copper and molybdenum. Fertilizers

quote:

The IPCC does not carry out research nor does it monitor climate related data or other relevant parameters. It bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific/technical literature.

quote:

What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?

quote:

It is peer-reviewed. But that's just a stupid argument to have.