Flame — HabitableZone

Flame » in reply to Photosynthesis

That's Handwaiving Not Reason
Marsby — (archived)

Photosynthesis uses CO2, but if it is measurably increasing it's obvious photosynthesis is not absorbing it all.

The constraint is CO2 is going up - explain why it wouldn't warm the atmosphere.

Your answer does nothing of the sort. It simply tries to shift the blame. Look up how much CO2 mankind has burned since the industrial revolution and how much atmospheric CO2 has gone up during the same period. Then do the math to compare pounds burned to pounds added to the atmosphere. The numbers match closely. This is why I think people who doubt GW are simply waving their hands in the air with half baked counter arguments. It makes no sense to claim something else caused the CO2 increase. CO2 is CO2. No matter where it comes from Plants will use it.

You can't claim that volcanoes did it and that what we have emitted somehow magically disappeared. The Earth's natural process do emit more CO2 than we do, they also absorb it at nearly the same rate. The Earth's climate and CO2 were at a semi-stable steady state between emission and absorption that was perfect for us developing agriculture then civilization then advanced technology. The "we couldn't possibly have a major impact on nature" mindset killed off the passenger pigeon, the carolina parakeet, and nearly killed off the buffalo and alligator. I doubt very much it will kill us off with regard to GW, but climate change has destroyed civilizations before and our recent experience with disasters both natural and Man made suggests our civilization can't handle even minor upsets all that great. How many Katrinas and financial meltdowns in a year or ten do you think we could take before we'd have something that would make the great depression look like a mild recession? How many wars would their be if a large portion of the Earth were starving due to shifting rainfall patterns?

Try using Occam's razor folks. You have an identified cause that matches a measurable result with lab data and planetary analogues to support a side effect. You've now got loads of data the side effect is happening. All it takes is common sense not rocket science to see the potential risk. The hard (rocket science like) part is predicting the impact through the complex models needed for the most dynamic terrestrial planet. It's relatively easy to model CO2 induced warming on Mars and Venus because they are very static compared to Earth with one primary surface type that reacts geologically rather than both biologically and geologically to change with relatively little potential for change in cloud cover.

Warmer oceans due indeed release CO2 that's one of many reasons why global warming is a dangerous vicious cycle. One obvious tipping point is shutting down warming ocean currents and another is releasing methane trapped in cold parts of the ocean.

And again - how long do you want to continue financing terrorists at the worst or repressive regimes at the best? Even if you don't believe in GW it's long past time we wean ourselves off of oil simply as a matter of national security.

Despite Grave doubts over Obama's sincerity and plans for Iraq, I would not have supported John MCCain if he weren't willing to admit GW was a real issue. I am truly thrilled to see Obama is trying to spend taxpayer money in a triple edged way to help the economy and address GW/foreign oil dependence.

Regards,
Mark

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (100 posts)