What you are saying is that the annual 15 billion tonnes of CO2 that are
spewing out of our chimneys and exhaust pipes, year in, year out, is for
nought? PLEEEEEEZE! Nor the 6 billion tonnes that are not absorbed
because of deforestation.

Yes, the ocean surface waters contain 1000 billion tonnes of carbon,
some in life forms, some in dissolved CO2, but the annual carbon
emissions from the oceans are 90 billion tonnes, whereas the absorption
by the oceans is 92 billion tonnes. In fact, the annual increase of
carbon in the surface oceans is only 1 billion tonnes, because there are
other interchanges into deep waters and, eventually into sedimentation.
[figures from Sundquist, Trabalka, Bolin and Siegenthaler, IPCC 1990]

Sorry, if your hypothesis were correct, we would be in a positive
feedback cycle, snowballing into ever-increasing GHG emissions, causing
more global climate change, causing more ocean heating... Hopefully, we
are not there - yet.

No, I'm sorry, it is you and I who are responsible, not some quirk of
nature. This is now definite and no apologetics of bad science will
diminish our responsibilty. Even GWB is admitting it!

Brian

Karl Sauter wrote:
> Brian,
>
> Since the oceans contain a significant amount of carbon dioxide, and
> will emit carbon dioxide when heated, how do we know that more direct
> heating from the Sun is not causing the oceans to warm (generating most
> of the carbon dioxide increase)?  Also ocean heating and carbon dioxide
> levels to not seem to correlate well with anthropogenic carbon dioxide
> production (http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html).
>
> Regards,
>
> Karl Sauter
>
>
>
> Brian Ellis wrote On 11/04/05 00:05,:
>
>>You mean the Senate has some sense??? :-)
>>
>>Seriously, the crunch will lie in section (b)(1) which can be
>>interpreted as business as usual and (b)(2) tell China that they have to
>>implement strict measures so that they become less competitive.
>>
>>Maybe you can detect a tiny touch of cynicism.
>>
>>I have done some back-of-envelope calculations and I estimate that GHG
>>emissions must be reduced by 55-60% just to maintain the status quo,
>>i.e., not to add to the damage already done. At 60% reduction, there
>>will even be a slight improvement over time, perhaps dropping from the
>>current 390-400 ppm CO2 to 325-350 ppm in 300 years (the pre-industrial
>>revolution figure was 280 ppm). The most rapid drop would be if we could
>>reduce methane emissions, which accounts for ~15% of GHG emissions. This
>>would mean drastically cutting down on natural gas, which, holistically,
>>is the worst fossil fuel, although it is the least polluting fossil fuel
>>in other ways.
>>
>>I posted the following in another forum. It may be of interest:
>>
>>[quote]... To put the church back to the middle of the village, please
>>allow me to re-state my credo for the nth time. I believe that carbon
>>emissions are the current greatest threat to mankind and this planet.
>>They must be reduced as drastically and as rapidly as possible. For
>>this, I foresee a four-pronged approach:
>>1. Conservation: using low-consumption appliances, cars etc. to the
>>maximum possible, maximal recycling of all resources, implementation of
>>efficient electrical mass transport schemes for persons and merchandise
>>at both urban and exurban (inter-city) levels
>>2. Fixed renewables: defined as renewables that can run 24/7/50 (2 weeks
>>for maintenance): generation and hot water from the incineration of
>>household garbage, HE where feasible (not much scope left in most parts
>>of the world), but only if there are no major environmental impacts (no
>>3-Gorges, for instance), some biomass (limited by inroads to food
>>production)
>>3. Variable renewables: wind, solar, tide, waves. Whichever, where
>>feasible and economically viable. I happen to live in the most
>>solar-oriented country of the world, with ~95% of habitations having
>>solar hot water heating, so I know what it can do. However, because of
>>its variability, this category is limited for electricity generation to
>>~20% of the peak demand; above that, grid instability is too dangerous.
>>4. Nuclear: this must be sized to satisfy peak demand (when no sun, no
>>wind etc.) and cranked down to actually, at any given moment, provide
>>the power that the other systems cannot.
>>
>>I know of no other formula that will reduce carbon emissions
>>significantly without forcing the world back to a lower standard of
>>life. At the same time, it will reduce our dependence on oil, coal or,
>>worse, natural gas and allow the remaining reserves to be used sensibly
>>so that our great-great-grandchildren can still profit from them.
>>
>>Can you pick any real holes (based on science and technology and not on
>>perceived emotional responses) in this credo? [/quote]
>>
>>Best regards,
>>
>>Brian
>>
>>Joe Fjelstad wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Senate Amendment 866, Sec. 16 was adopted after being submitted by Sen.
>>>Bingaman for himself and Senators Arlen Specter (R-PA), Pete Domenici (R-NM), Lamar
>>>Alexander (R-TN), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Joseph Lieberman (D-CT), Frank
>>>Lautenberg (D-NJ), John McCain (R-AZ), James Jeffords (I-VT), John Kerry (D-MA),
>>>Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Susan Collins (R-ME), and Barbara Boxer (D-CA).
>>>
>>>(a) FINDINGS. - Congress finds that -
>>>
>>>(1) greenhouse gases accumulating in the atmosphere are causing average
>>>temperatures to rise at a rate outside the range of natural variability and are
>>>posing a substantial risk of rising sea-levels, altered patterns of atmospheric
>>>and oceanic circulation, and increased frequency and severity of floods and
>>>droughts;
>>>
>>>(2) there is a growing scientific consensus that human activity is a
>>>substantial cause of greenhouse gas accumulation in the atmosphere; and
>>>
>>>(3) mandatory steps will be required to slow or stop the growth of greenhouse
>>>gas emissions into the atmosphere.
>>>
>>>(b) SENSE OF THE SENATE. - It is the sense of the Senate that, before the end
>>>of the first session of the 109th Congress, Congress should enact a
>>>comprehensive and effective national program of mandatory, market-based limits on
>>>emissions of greenhouse gases, that slow, stop and reverse the growth of such
>>>emissions at a rate and in a manner that -
>>>
>>>(1) will not significantly harm the United States economy; and
>>>
>>>(2) will encourage comparable action by other nations that are major trading
>>>partners and key contributors to global emissions.
>>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>______________________________________________
>>Please note new e-mail address [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>
>

--
______________________________________________
Please note new e-mail address [log in to unmask]