IPCC Climate Change Report: Human Activities Linked to Global Warming

February 2, 2007

  • February 2, 2007 at 5:35 am
    Al says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Hopefully this report will help all the skeptics see that global warming is real. I read the IJ often and see the comments posted by many stating that global warming is a liberal political agenda only. Maybe some will finally open their eyes to realize that the climate as we know it is drastically changing and will continue to do so. The future impacts will be more severe and devastating. The insurance industry is particularily susceptible due to the direct link between the climate and financial losses. Global warming is not a belief or non-belief issue, it is real and hopefully this report will help some realize the truth.

  • February 5, 2007 at 10:18 am
    Algoresucks says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The long term carbon cycle is a system with built-in feedback mechanisms. One that has long been proposed is quite simple.

    Suppose the plate tectonic cycle sped up so that more CO2 was being released into the atmosphere? If weathering rates and photosynthesis remained constant, CO2 would \”pile up\” in the atmosphere. But CO2 is a green house gas – the more CO2 there is the more heat gets trapped in the atmosphere and the warmer it gets.
    Chemical reactions, however, run faster as it gets warmer.
    So, as it gets warmer, the chemical reactions of weathering increase and more CO2 gets consumed, so lower atmospheric CO2 levels result. It is a negative feedback.
    Suppose, now, that the plate tectonic system slows down so very little CO2 is added to the atmosphere; what happens?

    As it gets colder because of the reduced CO2 in the atmosphere, the chemical weathering reactions slow down.
    CO2 now \”piles up\” because its consumption has dropped.
    The same kind of relationship holds for photosynthesis.
    If photosynthesis increased wildly for some reason, O2 would go up because more organic carbon would be buried.
    But if O2 goes up things burn easily (forests are close to self-imolation all the time now). The increase in forest fires would decrease photosynthesis.

    In addition to supplying O2 though carbon burial, plants also act to \”fertilize\” weathering. Carbonic acid comes not only from water reacting with atmospheric CO2 but even more important is the carbonic acid produced from CO2 in the soil. CO2 is much more concentrated in the soil because of the respiration of plant-produced organic matter by microbes, fungi, the soil fauna, and plant roots themselves.
    Thus the more land plant photosynthesis there is, the faster the weathering – all again subject to negative feedback. If too much CO2 is removed it gets too cold for plants to live, plant-mediated weather decreases and the CO2 can build up again.

    Doesn\’t this suggest that whatever affects the long-term distribution of plants will also effect atmospheric CO2? – it sure does, as we will see in subsequent lectures.


    Now we can seen what I mean by life being an active chemical system separated from its surroundings and out of chemical equilibrium with its surroundings.

    If there were no photosynthesis, all of the O2 would combine with reactive minerals and organic matter. CO2 would build up in the atmophere in exact proportion to the lack of carbon burial. We would end up with a super-greenhouse effect and end up more like Venus.
    The only time organisms are in chemical equilibrium with their surroundings is when they are dead: thus, Chemical equilibrium = death.

    Our own Greenhouse problem from the burning of fossil fuels has a quite interesting relationship to the long term carbon cycle.

    Presently nearly all of the organic carbon produced by photosynthetic organisms gets respired by animals, fungi, and microbes. Only the tiniest bit gets buried. But this is enough not only to maintain the O2 levels at a more or less steady state, but over geological time it is directly responsible for the formation of fossil fuels.


    You couldn\’t possibly understand all this and so I will put it simply just because people say it is true doesnt make it true especailly when the experts are being paid to say it is a problem. Liberials!!!!!!

  • February 6, 2007 at 4:38 am
    Jeff says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0


    Thanks for the Biology 101 lesson. My worst subject in school, so I certainly cannot confirm or deny your comments. But with regards to the liberals paying the experts. Here\’s an excerpt from the article…

    \”The report,\” said the IPCC bulletin, \”was produced by some 600 authors from 40 countries. Over 620 expert reviewers and a large number of government reviewers also participated. Representatives from 113 governments reviewed and revised the Summary line-by-line during the course of this week before adopting it and accepting the underlying report.\”

    Are you telling me the liberals \”bought off\” 620 experts from 40 nations, and then also \”bought off\” the 113 government reviewers. Come on.

    I\’m not trying to be smart here either, but what would it take for you to believe there\’s a problem?

    P.S. Oh, and just so you know, Exxon sponsored $ 10,000 payouts for scientists to write articles denoucing the theory. That is not in dispute.

  • February 7, 2007 at 10:09 am
    AJ says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    In response to Algoresucks\’s \”You couldn\’t possibly understand all this\” post.
    The various biogeochemical cycles you outlined were interesting. A professor in earth systems science may argue with one or two small points you have stretched, but we’ll let those slide.
    However, the processes you describe exist on millennial timescales. We have seen a rise in CO2 levels, in our own lifetimes, that have never been witnessed by any human being before in the same period of time. Granted, some of the processes you describe will eventually “soak up” all this carbon, bringing the system back into equilibrium. But in the few hundred years until that happens we’ll just have to ride out the unprecedented temperature increases and increases in frequency and intensity of extreme weather events. But I’m sure you’ll be fine with you head securely buried in the sand.

  • February 7, 2007 at 1:58 am
    algoresucks says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Man has not witnessed global warming or cooling over that same time period either but why apply logic? Also inter-family evolution (a donkey and horse mated still results in a sterile animal) also has never been demonstrated either- My head will actully be above the sand at the beach hopefully in March enjoying the fine weather-thank you very much!

  • March 16, 2010 at 12:14 pm
    Yet Another Skeptic says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Has anyone seen info on ClimateGate? Payoffs don’t have to be done on a monetary level. There are many ways to pay someone off. Further their political agenda, getting published as an author of a major global report; the ways to pay off someone are endless.

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *