quote: Echinoderms suck in carbon from seawater to form their skeletal systems and include such happy marine animals as star fish, sea urchins and sea cucumbers. When these animals find the end of their lifecycle, they typically sink to the ocean floor with their captured carbon and become indefinitely buried in the sediments. Some of the calcium carbonate finds its way back up the “biological carbon pump,” but probably much less than is taken down to the depths.
quote: Humans have a far greater impact than such organisms because we do not produce gases just from breathing. Think of how many breathing humans would emit the same amount of CO2 as a smokestack running for a day.
quote: My point: although the question remains whether humans are having an impact or not it's certainly possible that we do. Other organisms have done it before and it will happen again.
quote: Now is that impact going to lead to the slow destruction of every living thing as we somehow destroy the climate ? NO. It's a big sham and the world now knows it.
quote: This sort of thing would be best left in college studies, not in scientific studies, where students can correlate easily gathered data and present it, rather than the expensive means of employment we have now.
quote: Therefore that portion of your argument is also null and void. Consider my words well, for they are statistically and mathematically sound.
quote: Their bioclimatic model attempted to predict the survival of alpine plant species in the Swiss Alps. When the model was run using 16 km by 16 km (10 mile by 10 mile) grid cells the model predicted a loss of all suitable habitats during the 21st century. When they changed the model's grid to a much finer 25 m by 25 m (80 ft by 80 ft) cell size the same model predicted persistence of suitable habitats for up to 100% of the plant species. The authors attributed these differences to the failure of the coarser spatial-scale model to capture local topographic diversity, as well as the complexity of spatial patterns in climate driven by topography
quote: and lets not get into the fact that none of the current models were able to predict the current cooling trend, or maybe we should.
quote: The entire ecosystem clearly has built in balancers, with the ability to cope for variances in the entire ecosystem in a variety of directions, and we cannot affect this system to the extent Al Gore and other so called AGW believing scientists say
quote: I think you and I disagree and I think both of our minds are pretty well made up. However I also think both of us are open to the idea that we may be wrong. As long as science continues to be open to the idea that it could be wrong then science will be alive and healthy.
quote: The AGW group says that CO2 concentration rises in the atmosphere, causing temperatures to rise, causing the ocean to absorb more CO2 and become more acidic.
quote: You can have a longer growing season and the precipitation is... get ready for it... rain instead of snow.
quote: "Snow is much more effective than rain in delivering water to these forests," said Monson. "If a warmer climate brings more rain, this won't offset the carbon uptake potential being lost due to declining snowpacks."
quote: Argh! I hate this attitude. "I've thought about it for a whole 3 seconds, and I can't figure out how rain would be any different than snow. This proves that their whole study is flawed and the researchers are stupid, because it's impossible that there might be something which I didn't think of in my whole entire three seconds of thinking about it. Revel in my genius."
quote: So my question is, should we disbelieve it because it seems like a conspiracy or should we believe it because it might be the truth?
quote: But, for those not comfortable with the wait and see approach, scientists continue to plunge into one of the crucial factors thought to govern global (I’m trying not to snicker) climate change, the global carbon sink system.
quote: If you read the article, you will see that I favor neither side of...