I have a question about CO2

[Tubbythin]

The vast majority of people are ridiculously better off today than in the past, and would like to see that trend continue.

Did I ever suggets otherwise?

increased frequency of extreme weather conditions

Absolute conjecture, unproven.

This is the mhaze definition of conjecture I'm guessing: anything that doesn't agree with how he wants to see the world.

Bengalis have lost 1.8M people in flooding events since mid 1800s, without any help from your CO2.

And?

That will stop when the developed world helps them help themselves better, not when we worry about whether boiling a cup of tea uses power derived from coal

Strawman. Nobody is suggesting you stop boiling cups of tea.

releasing CO2 speculated to cause a net driving temperature

And I suppose its just speculation that CO2 absorbs strongly in the infra-red too?

speculated to cause a extreme weather speculated to cause a causing flooding

Flooding is an extreme weather condition.

speculated to cause deaths in Bangladesh.

Erm, nice way to contradict yourself in the space of two sentences. You've just told us how many people in Bangladesh have been killed by floods in recent past. So either your use of the word speculated is entirely erroneous or you somehow thing future floods will be safe floods.

 

[tyr_13]

You don't think the number of buildings in flood plains is going to increase as sea levels do?

Yes I do. They have been here in the US, and we're supposed to be the richest people on earth. In many countries, people are so poor that they have to build in these places, and continue to do so as the sea level raises. People have been doing it since the start of history. We have many abandoned cities.

Its not just a human issue though is it? We can adapt to our surroundings. Other life can't.

Any life that cannot adapt will perish. That's always been true. New life takes it's place, and seeing as we have a great divirsisty of life compared to most times in Earth's history (even not counting times when it was uninhabitable), some species are going to go away. Thankfully, most life can adapt and will.

I don't agree on the latter half of the sentence. On the first half, I don't think anyone is saying we shouldn't go for prevention as well as protection.

To have a dent in the CO2 level, we would have to spend a MASSIVE amount of resources. In this case an ounce of protection costs 100 times a pound of cure, and won't even prevent that much. I think we need to prevent wasting time, money, and smart people on something we can't change (and who says we should change it?).

The time between solar minima is 11 years. The solar cycle is only 22 years in the sense that the first 11 years there is one polarity then it switches.

And that makes the eleven years examined by Lockwood et all valid because? It is still an inadequately short and cherry picked time frame.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't move away from fossil fuels, and I'm not saying we are doing things perfectly fine. I'm not saying we aren't polluting. What I am saying is that CO2 isn't the reason why we should change. Focusing on it is going to lead to expensive and destructive mistakes (like carbon trading schemes).

 

[Tubbythin]

Any life that cannot adapt will perish. That's always been true. New life takes it's place, and seeing as we have a great divirsisty of life compared to most times in Earth's history (even not counting times when it was uninhabitable), some species are going to go away. Thankfully, most life can adapt and will.

You don't think man has a responsibility to try to prevent this from happening?

To have a dent in the CO2 level, we would have to spend a MASSIVE amount of resources. In this case an ounce of protection costs 100 times a pound of cure, and won't even prevent that much. I think we need to prevent wasting time, money, and smart people on something we can't change (and who says we should change it?).

Source?

And that makes the eleven years examined by Lockwood et all valid because? It is still an inadequately short and cherry picked time frame.

I don't know enough about it to comment. I was just explaining why 11 years is often considered a solar cycle.

 

[lomiller]

All of mhaze's listed problems are larger and more immediate that CO2. How about over population? People building in flood plains? Mercury messing with fish? Dioxin? The wolves going away (not the damn polar bears who's numbers have doubled in the last 50 years)?

First of all polar bear populations certainly have not doubled. One or two sub populations have had modest increased but more are dropping. Significant worsening of all the problems you and mhaze mention are likely to result from global warming.

But even all of you pointed out a big, looming problem that those resources could better be spent focusing on, moving people away from those places that are becoming uninhabitable. Or even raising the level of a lot of those cities as has been done many times in the past. There are cities on earth that were built below sea level. I'm not saying that it's a good idea, but it certainly isn't an impossible one.

It's possible, but very very expensive. It's much cheaper the fix the problem rater then the symptoms.

So aren't the effects of climate change more deserving of those resources than a focus on CO2 which by all your estimates has already done most all the damage it is going to?

Eh? Fixing the problems caused by CO2 will certainly cost far more then limiting CO2 emissions. Most European countries already produce less then half CO2 per person the US does, and they are dropping and it’s not hurting the European economy at all. On the other hand, the cost of “fixing” the disappearance of nearly half the worlds food supply isn’t so easy.

I read the Lockwood paper and it is wrong. It looks at an eleven year part of the solar cycle only, which is cherry picking. That is much too small a time frame to 'debunk' that solar activity isn't affecting temperature. Besides that, if CO2 warms the Earth by absorbing and re-emitting, wouldn't the sun providing them more energy to absorb and re-emit warm the Earth with CO2? Doing just a little checking I found that they released that paper before it was published, and that the solar cycle is 22 years long. And you can't even draw a scientific conclusion looking at ONE cycle, let alone half of it.

The solar cycle is 11 years. There is some evidence to suggest a pattern in alternating solar cycles, but it’s less clear and far less significant then the 11 year cycle. The Lockwood paper looked at all the satellite data, which goes back to 1979.

 

[tyr_13]

First of all polar bear populations certainly have not doubled. One or two sub populations have had modest increased but more are dropping. Significant worsening of all the problems you and mhaze mention are likely to result from global warming.

You have it backwards. Two sub populations have decreased, the rest have increased. And what makes you think people will get poorer from a few degrees increase in temperature, or a few inches in sea level? How will that affect negatively any of the things we listed?

It's possible, but very very expensive. It's much cheaper the fix the problem rater then the symptoms.

Not according to the IPCC report you all linked me to. You call climate change a problem, and it can be, but it is one that exists no matter what. Even if we did completely cause this warming, that doesn't make the warming itself any different from the warming in the past. The 'problem' of the fact that the Earth changes isn't something humans can control right now.

Eh? Fixing the problems caused by CO2 will certainly cost far more then limiting CO2 emissions. Most European countries already produce less then half CO2 per person the US does, and they are dropping and it’s not hurting the European economy at all. On the other hand, the cost of “fixing” the disappearance of nearly half the worlds food supply isn’t so easy.

Wait, the European economy hasn't been hurt by carbon-trading schemes? The European economy is doing well? European CO2 emissions didn't raise faster than the US's in the last few years? And how is warming going to make nearly half the world's food supply disappear? It will make farms move, not disappear. That is only speculation either way at any rate.

The solar cycle is 11 years. There is some evidence to suggest a pattern in alternating solar cycles, but it’s less clear and far less significant then the 11 year cycle. The Lockwood paper looked at all the satellite data, which goes back to 1979.

Funny how when the satellite data doesn't point to CO2 it's 'wrong' but they can prove that the sun cycle doesn't effect our temperature?

I really can't wait to be able to link.

You don't think man has a responsibility to try to prevent this from happening?

Um, no. Why? Trying to make life on Earth a static system is foolish. I don't think we should hasten it either though.

 

[CapelDodger]

Is CO2 from human activity more damaging that CO2 from volcanic activity?

Yes, because there's vastly more of it.

Is natural warming less dangerous that man-made warming?

No, they're both dangerous if they exceed the variation we're used to.

Isn't the focus on CO2 just an over simplification of a dynamic and complex issue?

No, CO₂ is the crux of the problem.

Wouldn't a lot of the resources focused on the CO2 hunt and worse, 'carbon credits' be better spent on more immediate or dangerous problems?

Since almost nothing's being spent on CO₂ reduction why isn't something being done about these other problems anyway? Because they're somebody else's problem, and anyway the science isn't sound, and it would cost money, and anyway maybe it's a good thing (whatever it is). Irony

I guess my real question is, what justifies the focus?

The fact that everything revolves around climate (food, water, liveable space) and the current climate change revolves around CO₂

 

[CapelDodger]

You have it backwards. Two sub populations have decreased, the rest have increased.

If you look at the recent research (since 2003) you'll find that polar bear numbers are falling generally, and the condition of the suviving bears is deteriorating. The apparent increase is conjured by comparing numbers before the hunting ban to numbers a few years ago.

 

[mhaze]

First of all polar bear populations certainly have not doubled. One or two sub populations have had modest increased but more are dropping. Significant worsening of all the problems ....

Sez who?

http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/PolBears.pdf

We examined all references cited in the nine unpublished U.S. Geological Survey Administrative Reports posted on the Internet at http://usgs.gov/newsroom/special/polar_bears/. The reports were Amstrup et al. (2007); Bergen et al (2007); DeWeaver (2007); Durner et al. (2007); Hunter et al. (2007); Obbard et al. (2007); Regehr et al. (2007); Rode et al. (2007); and Stirling et al. (2007). The reports included 444 unique references in total. We were unable to find any references to works providing evidence that the forecasting methods used in the reports had been previously validated.
​

And...

Rather than relying on untested procedures to forecast polar bear populations, the most appropriate approach would be to rely upon prior evidence on which forecasting methods work best in which conditions. By doing this, one can turn to empirical evidence drawn from a wide variety of forecasting problems.

Given the enormous uncertainty involved in long-term forecasts of polar bear populations, the lack of accurate time-series data on these populations, and the complex relationships that are subject to much uncertainty, prior evidence from forecasting research calls for simple and conservative methods. This means that one should follow a trend only if such a trend has been persistent and there are no strong reasons to expect the trend to change. Given the upward trend in polar bear numbers over the past few decades, a modest upward trend is likely to continue in the near future given the lack of strong reasons for it to stop.

​

 

[mhaze]

...CO₂ is the crux of the problem......current climate change revolves around CO₂

Quoting my prior comment seems relevant:

The unproven hypothesis is that slight increases in the trace gas CO2 have huge effects on the atmosphere's temperature due to positive feedback mechanisms operating on the basic logrythmic response of CO2 to radiation. The far extreme of that unproven hypothesis that you are asked to believe without any scientific proof, just arm waving and computer modeling studies, is that CO2 is responsible for all of the warming of the last 50 years (or last 100 years, depending on where you read).
​

 

[gdnp]

The oceans look green at night and on over cast days because the algae plankton what ever raises, up in the water to take in CO2, more carbon more creatures eating it so it balances out. Carbon is food, be happy.

Could someone please ask the "algae plankton what ever" to eat a bit faster, because the atmospheric CO2 levels are already up by 100 ppm and the rise is showing no signs of diminishing. The balance seems to be tipping quite precariously...

 

[TrueSceptic]

You have it backwards. Two sub populations have decreased, the rest have increased. And what makes you think people will get poorer from a few degrees increase in temperature, or a few inches in sea level? How will that affect negatively any of the things we listed?

Not according to the IPCC report you all linked me to. You call climate change a problem, and it can be, but it is one that exists no matter what. Even if we did completely cause this warming, that doesn't make the warming itself any different from the warming in the past. The 'problem' of the fact that the Earth changes isn't something humans can control right now.

Wait, the European economy hasn't been hurt by carbon-trading schemes? The European economy is doing well? European CO2 emissions didn't raise faster than the US's in the last few years? And how is warming going to make nearly half the world's food supply disappear? It will make farms move, not disappear. That is only speculation either way at any rate.

Funny how when the satellite data doesn't point to CO2 it's 'wrong' but they can prove that the sun cycle doesn't effect our temperature?

I really can't wait to be able to link.

Um, no. Why? Trying to make life on Earth a static system is foolish. I don't think we should hasten it either though.

You seem to get all your information from "sceptic" sources and disregard that available from mainstream ones. Why is that? Don't you want to get to the truth?

 

[Spud1k]

That ipcc report draws different conclusions from the scientists who did the actual work. I might not understand the science 100%, but I do understand the politics of that report enough to not trust it completely.

Care to be specific on that? I can't comment much on the WG2 because that's not my field but I can vouch for WG1 (the science basis) is a very fair representation of the state of the science.

The clear and present risk doesn't seem like it is being addressed by focusing on CO2, all of the risk presented here get little to null benefit from it. Just looking over some of the stuff you all linked for me shows that stopping all CO2 producing processes would do little.

We're talking long-term on that one. The benefits of reducing CO2 outputs will be reaped on decadal timescales.

All of mhaze's listed problems are larger and more immediate that CO2. How about over population? People building in flood plains? Mercury messing with fish? Dioxin? The wolves going away (not the damn polar bears who's numbers have doubled in the last 50 years)?

Overpopulation I might give you. After all, if there were half as many people in the world, we'd have twice as much elbow room per capita for a lot of pollutants. Trouble is, short of wiping out a large fraction of the population, what do you do about it?

Not all rapid climate change in the past resulted in mass extinctions. Most all of the rapid warm changes were tied with increases in surface life. The idea that an Earth slightly warmer than this one, like the ipcc says, would be terrible is silly. People live in almost all the current temperature ranges on Earth. Am I in danger because where I live is a few degrees warmer than Canada? Is South Carolina in danger because they are a few degrees warmer than here? Is Australia boned?

Let's not forget that it would affect not just temperatures but weather patters and ocean currents and so on as well. Some places would get wetter and others would get drier. This would have a dramatic effect on what you can grow where, which would mean various countries would have to do some serious adaptation. Everyone who lives in a country that can't change will need somewhere else to live. That's hardly what you would call a trivial problem.

So aren't the effects of climate change more deserving of those resources than a focus on CO2 which by all your estimates has already done most all the damage it is going to?

Again, we need to think long-term.

I read the Lockwood paper and it is wrong. It looks at an eleven year part of the solar cycle only, which is cherry picking. That is much too small a time frame to 'debunk' that solar activity isn't affecting temperature.

Are you sure you read it? It never claims that solar activity isn't affecting temperature. In fact, quite the contrary. This is the first sentence of the abstract:

There is considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth’s re-industrial climate and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the first half of the last century.

The paper debunks the specific theory that solar activity is the sole cause of climate change since pre-industrial times. And for that, all you need to do is demonstrate a time period where you can't use solar activity to predict mean surface temperature. Which it does.

Besides all that, this isn't the only paper to counter that theory. I can dig up more references if you want. But the bottom line is that solar activity is a major driver in climate forcing, but in terms of significance, the increase in CO2 concentrations surpassed it somewhere in the middle of the 20th century.

 

[Spud1k]

The far extreme of that unproven hypothesis that you are asked to believe without any scientific proof, just arm waving and computer modeling studies, is that CO2 is responsible for all of the warming of the last 50 years (or last 100 years, depending on where you read).

Give me a citation for your bolded statement. Please.

One place I can guarantee you won't find it is the IPCC report; it claims that increases in CO2 concentrations is most likely to be responsible for the biggest fraction of climate change, not all of it. It also argues that reducing CO2 outputs would be the most effective way of mitigating it.

 

[tyr_13]

. It also argues that reducing CO2 outputs would be the most effective way of mitigating it.

How much? How soon? By whom?

Climate change isn't a trivial problem, but even if you stopped producing all CO2 now, what would that do? Would it really stop it? What about natural climate change? If it were natural, would we stop it too?

I started by getting my information by mainstream sources, but they seem to be pretty sensational, and, I know this is said WAY too much, but alarmist. The more I looked, the more I seemed to see that it isn't so simple. That maybe it isn't all man's fault. You see, I started this as a believer and became skeptical of it. Yes, polar bears have increased in the decades since hunting restrictions went in.

It is entirely possible that I'm just used to hearing the green nuts (that is extremists) using and twisting every thing science says into the AGW devil that I'm forgetting that it is a perfectly reasonable debate. That you can think it is all CO2's fault without thinking the weird extreme things.

The paper debunks the specific theory that solar activity is the sole cause of climate change since pre-industrial times. And for that, all you need to do is demonstrate a time period where you can't use solar activity to predict mean surface temperature. Which it does.

By that standard, all you need is to demonstrate one time period where you can use CO2 levels to predict mean surface temperature to debunk that? I know what the paper said, it says that the warming before there was much human CO2 could have been the sun, but that it can't be now (I guess because we have CO2).

Oh, and overpopulation? The more educated women are, the less children they have. It was working in Africa until Bush cut all the US funding for it in favor of abstinence only (which actually works the opposite).

 

[a_unique_person]

Water levels raising and people living near the coast are dangerous, but that doesn't mean focusing on CO2 will do one inch of lesser sea level raise. Geological history indicates that we are currently 100 feet below sea level based on the 'recent' geological pattern. That ipcc report draws different conclusions from the scientists who did the actual work. I might not understand the science 100%, but I do understand the politics of that report enough to not trust it completely.

The problem is change. It is global change, to the climate, in geological terms in the blink of an eye. All ports around the world, for example, will have to be re-engineered.

The clear and present risk doesn't seem like it is being addressed by focusing on CO2, all of the risk presented here get little to null benefit from it. Just looking over some of the stuff you all linked for me shows that stopping all CO2 producing processes would do little.

It's like you focus on the bacteria if someone has an infection. It's not a choice, it's just where the action is. They know that from research.

All of mhaze's listed problems are larger and more immediate that CO2. How about over population? People building in flood plains? Mercury messing with fish? Dioxin? The wolves going away (not the damn polar bears who's numbers have doubled in the last 50 years)?

False dichotomy. Why is it one or the other?

But even all of you pointed out a big, looming problem that those resources could better be spent focusing on, moving people away from those places that are becoming uninhabitable. Or even raising the level of a lot of those cities as has been done many times in the past. There are cities on earth that were built below sea level. I'm not saying that it's a good idea, but it certainly isn't an impossible one.

Not all rapid climate change in the past resulted in mass extinctions. Most all of the rapid warm changes were tied with increases in surface life. The idea that an Earth slightly warmer than this one, like the ipcc says, would be terrible is silly. People live in almost all the current temperature ranges on Earth. Am I in danger because where I live is a few degrees warmer than Canada? Is South Carolina in danger because they are a few degrees warmer than here? Is Australia boned?

Australia is experiencing a protracted drought in the Southern areas, which in a country that is mostly desert, is a serious issue. All the major cities are now building desalination plants. You are confusing spatial temperature differences and temporal ones. Ecosystems adapt to and optimise themselves to the existing conditions. Change those conditions, and they have to adapt, which means the 'natural selection' takes over, surivival of the fittest, and the least adaptable die off. Sure, changes have in the past have meant new life taking off, (in geological terms), and the the old life dying off.

All the climate drives are not stable. Why would you even say that? Sun activity has been slowing yes, but that isn't stable. The ocean currents are not currently 'stable' and they never are.

Ocean currents are not a driver, just a cycle or a feedback, unless you are talking about some massive change in them, but IIRC, that's not likely. It's the radiation coming in, and not leaving as quickly, that is the driver. As someone said, the 'leaky bucket' isn't leaking as quickly.

I read the Lockwood paper and it is wrong. It looks at an eleven year part of the solar cycle only, which is cherry picking. That is much too small a time frame to 'debunk' that solar activity isn't affecting temperature. Besides that, if CO2 warms the Earth by absorbing and re-emitting, wouldn't the sun providing them more energy to absorb and re-emit warm the Earth with CO2? Doing just a little checking I found that they released that paper before it was published, and that the solar cycle is 22 years long. And you can't even draw a scientific conclusion looking at ONE cycle, let alone half of it.

The 'sceptics' are claiming a direct link. Just look at TGGWS. They were more than happy to attribute a direct link, year by year almost. Lockwood is just responding to that claim.

 

[lenny]

Even if we did completely cause this warming, that doesn't make the warming itself any different from the warming in the past. The 'problem' of the fact that the Earth changes isn't something humans can control right now.

What makes it different is the speed with which we are pushing the change; admittedly the time resolution with which we can see how fast past changes happened gets worse the farther we into the past look, but if we take your "even if we did" clause, then this warming is different because of its speed and magnitude on top of natural variations.

?agreed?

 

[TrueSceptic]

The 'sceptics' are claiming a direct link. Just look at TGGWS. They were more than happy to attribute a direct link, year by year almost. Lockwood is just responding to that claim.

Quite so. I'll just add that anyone can get the figures and make their own graphs. It's obvious that whatever link was there in the past, it has disappeared over the last 30 years or so.

 

[Spud1k]

Climate change isn't a trivial problem, but even if you stopped producing all CO2 now, what would that do? Would it really stop it? What about natural climate change? If it were natural, would we stop it too?

Hate to sound like a stuck record, but read the IPCC report. Stopping all human CO2 emissions tomorrow is one of the hypothetical scenarios they consider. Short version is that we'd experience more warming over a few years but it'd start to go down again on the decades timescale. This is due to the long lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere and the heat capacity effects of the oceans.

I started by getting my information by mainstream sources, but they seem to be pretty sensational, and, I know this is said WAY too much, but alarmist. The more I looked, the more I seemed to see that it isn't so simple. That maybe it isn't all man's fault.

It all depends on what you consider 'mainstream' and what you consider 'trustworthy'. Me, I'd go for what the scientists themselves say over anything else but then I'd say that because I am one. Global warming isn't all man's fault, but if you took away anthropogenic CO2, it'd be much, much smaller.

By that standard, all you need is to demonstrate one time period where you can use CO2 levels to predict mean surface temperature to debunk that?

No.

I know what the paper said, it says that the warming before there was much human CO2 could have been the sun, but that it can't be now (I guess because we have CO2).

You're trying to read dichotomies out of it that don't exist. For the nth time: Climate change over the last 150 years has always been partly due to natural processes and partly due to human emissions. Natural processes may have been the more significant ones in the early 20th century but now the anthropogenic ones are dominating. It's not that the natural processes have gone away, they've just been dwarfed.

 

[Dancing David]

Water levels raising and people living near the coast are dangerous, but that doesn't mean focusing on CO2 will do one inch of lesser sea level raise. Geological history indicates that we are currently 100 feet below sea level based on the 'recent' geological pattern. That ipcc report draws different conclusions from the scientists who did the actual work. I might not understand the science 100%, but I do understand the politics of that report enough to not trust it completely.

So you cited the sources of your doubt of the science, where?
Where is your source for the 'scientists who did the actual work?

The clear and present risk doesn't seem like it is being addressed by focusing on CO2, all of the risk presented here get little to null benefit from it. Just looking over some of the stuff you all linked for me shows that stopping all CO2 producing processes would do little.

Again no cites to back you claim, where does it say that at all?

All of mhaze's listed problems are larger and more immediate that CO2. How about over population? People building in flood plains? Mercury messing with fish? Dioxin? The wolves going away (not the damn polar bears who's numbers have doubled in the last 50 years)?

But even all of you pointed out a big, looming problem that those resources could better be spent focusing on, moving people away from those places that are becoming uninhabitable. Or even raising the level of a lot of those cities as has been done many times in the past. There are cities on earth that were built below sea level. I'm not saying that it's a good idea, but it certainly isn't an impossible one.

Yeah, that going to work for Bangladesh real well, now yes the sea levels have risen three hundred meters in the past. Hopefully that won't happen now.

the issue is that CO₂ is a possible factor, and one we can control. Now if a serious volnaic event occurs (which hasn't since 1813) then the human influence won't matter as much. But due to forcing it is an issue now.

Not all rapid climate change in the past resulted in mass extinctions. Most all of the rapid warm changes were tied with increases in surface life.

Um, I dispute that, what are you trying to say, the diversity and level of plant and animal life is higher at the glacial fronts than it was fivehundred years ago in the same areas. Are you just saying that there is more land space available?
i dispute your conclusion. rapid warming has led to the extinction of the megafauna of the north american continent.

The idea that an Earth slightly warmer than this one, like the ipcc says, would be terrible is silly. People live in almost all the current temperature ranges on Earth. Am I in danger because where I live is a few degrees warmer than Canada? Is South Carolina in danger because they are a few degrees warmer than here? Is Australia boned?

Ever heard of drought?

So aren't the effects of climate change more deserving of those resources than a focus on CO2 which by all your estimates has already done most all the damage it is going to?

said where?

All the climate drives are not stable. Why would you even say that? Sun activity has been slowing yes, but that isn't stable. The ocean currents are not currently 'stable' and they never are.

I read the Lockwood paper and it is wrong. It looks at an eleven year part of the solar cycle only, which is cherry picking. That is much too small a time frame to 'debunk' that solar activity isn't affecting temperature. Besides that, if CO2 warms the Earth by absorbing and re-emitting, wouldn't the sun providing them more energy to absorb and re-emit warm the Earth with CO2? Doing just a little checking I found that they released that paper before it was published, and that the solar cycle is 22 years long. And you can't even draw a scientific conclusion looking at ONE cycle, let alone half of it.

No the solar cycle is eleven years.

I'm very grateful to everyone for the links. I'm learning so much about the science and politics of CO2 focus and realizing that the people doing the work are getting their results twisted and mangled by the media, and the special interest (I trust Greenpeace even less now, that's an accomplishment).

 

[varwoche]

The oceans look green at night and on over cast days because the algae plankton what ever raises, up in the water to take in CO2, more carbon more creatures eating it so it balances out. Carbon is food, be happy.

Unfortunately the facts don't support your ocean gazing experiences:

the world's oceans and forests, which scientists were counting on to help hold off catastrophic rises in carbon dioxide, are already so full of CO2 that they are losing their ability to absorb this climate change culprit. link

The Earth’s carbon sinks – of which the Southern Ocean accounts for 15% – absorb about half of all human carbon emissions. With the Southern Ocean reaching its saturation point more CO2 will stay in our atmosphere. link

The sun is in a quiet time now, no sun spots and we are cooling.

Wrong.

This is a great big con ... if you can't see this huge con you are gullibull.

Maybe you will be the first AGW pseudo skeptic to step up to the plate and provide evidence of the "con" -- in the appropriate thread:
CTs Concerning Global Warming Science