AGW Front on Carbon Cycle
The extract below shows a graphic from AR4 and an argument for ACO2 uposetting the balance in some strange way. Given the diagram the appetite for CO2 of any variety is quite large. See the difference. The 29 Gtonnes of human generated CO2 = ACO2 is not this large by any other account. It is called cooking the books.
There is a dedication to promoting AGW on this website, and this is their answer to the carbon cycle and the accumulation of ACO2 in the atmosphere. The position below is not echoed in other papers and in more complete analysis.
SkepticalScience is a AGW front and never seems to publish anything that does not support AGW theories.
Figure 1: Global
carbon cycle.
Numbers represent flux of
carbon dioxide in gigatons (Source:
Figure 7.3,
IPCC
AR4).
But consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle – by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2.
About 40% of this additional
CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the
atmosphere,
and as a consequence, atmospheric
CO2 is at its highest level
in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati
2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to
20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years).
Human
CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the
carbon cycle. Man-made
CO2 in the
atmosphere
has increased by a third since the pre-industrial era, creating an
artificial forcing of global temperatures which is warming the planet.
While fossil-fuel derived
CO2 is a very small component of the global
carbon cycle, the extra
CO2 is cumulative because
the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional
CO2.
We should revisit occasionally what the proper role of government is. As the constitution was a good sense of direction, we need a core set of principles to add in order to deal with the future.
So many want to engineer society, remove risk, assist certain groups, rather than let individuals thrive and raise communities. Why?
Is Democracy where we all "get it good and hard" or is it the best means to a free society?
Should we roll with the special interests, or make the government achieve its proper role, what is that role, and how to do this?
When do deficits and governments become too large?
Government is becoming more elitist while trying to sell corrections to problems it created, what makes this possible?
This could also be inserted into the field above, or erased
Currently as a society, we are having a most difficult time discussing political issues. What is driving this? And why a rebirth in political culture would be a good thing.
Are "markets" dead as some would conjecture? Or is free enterprise what got us here?
At the heart of economics there are several possible economic schools of thought, the essence of these schools of thought and how they relate to our lives.
