That's interesting.  But, first I have to dog you on this:

Quote from: The Buddha on February 23, 2009, 01:21:51 PM
So we landed

Moving on...

That's interesting about the forest fires.  I haven't given that a single thought.  Are you putting these things together yourself, or hearing it from a radio critic?  You'd make a nice bit of change if you had enough of this stuff to fill a few hundred pages, nowadays.  Or, just a few more counterpoints and some rambling prose.  The baby boomers would eat this stuff like Fiber-One.  

I've never heard any hard comparative data on the difference in fire size or frequency, but I've never considered it much of a factor anyway.  Given the amount of carbon-based fuel used since the Industrial Revolution and all.  Granted, CO2 released in such a fire would be enormous, but just the amount of coal we're burning each day (or month, year, pick your duration) has got to be pretty comparable.  But, even if you don't agree, there's also the fact that we're building on these levels constantly.  Whereas, atmospheric CO2 levels from a prehistoric forest fire would be mitigated by over a long period of time by natural sequestering.  That's the whole problem that Gore and everyone have been proposing.  

No, I don't think burning a forest wouldn't come close to releasing the same amount of CO2 as coal, natural gas, benzene or diesel we're using for fuel in a year.  
And, no, there's not going to be a "soylent green" issue with carbon availability.  People like to say the same thing about aluminum, but we've only mined about 11% of it (more and more of which we're recycling, due to high overheads).  Even though OctoMom is putting us on the brink.  

In the old days if there was a fire, nearly no way it would be stopped. Also we will sequester it over a few centuries, but mind you we are doing the saqme thing with crops and people reproducing like bunnies. There is also a ton of carbon that has been pulled from the picture, as good as being buried by your house. Essentially think about this rationally and you'd see that much like the potable water equation the carbon is 0 sum.

Here is another thought - in the 30's a meteor crashed into tunguska in siberia, russia. That impact is likely to have hiked up the earth's temperature, permanently. So saying we made it rise 2 degrees in the last 150 years, probably has 75% of it due to that.

I am also about letting the scientists theorise and listen. However the scientists seem to be theorising and in a couple years theorising again. We have no caliberation to that hypothesis. I am not making all of this up, I listen and read various things and make up my own mind. The most glaring thing to me is that there has been a theory, its based on some assumptions, and its predited a certain course for the problem. How far off the course are we, how did we get that far out and is it a case of assumptions that weren't realised, or was the theory needing a modification.

Again I am not saying global warming isn't real or even man made or even relevant. I am not even discussing these things. What I am saying is, none of this has been studied and checked with what the earlier predictions were.

Once again if in 1989 Al Bore had said the GS 500 in 20 years will rule the world. And in 2009 you find that its about to be dumped by suzuki wont you get back to him and say ... you fool, listening to you I bought 400 GS500's From Al Bore's suzuki dealership, and now they are worthless. Somehow global warming is immune to that.
Cool.
Buddha.

Well, I see the idea of a "carbon pump" that you're mentioning.  Carbon pulled from the air by the plants, then the plants to us, then back out.  And, the null sum from that.  Yes.  But, it's the infrastructure that concerns me. 

Now, I don't want to push it any further.  Frankly, I don't trust you not to freak out.  As far as I know, you might pull a RoadsterGal on me. 
I respect your opinion and (more so) your ability to defend it, but I don't appreciate people that make @sses out of others in order to prove their point.  And, I'll just leave it at that.

I didn't make an @ss of you or any one here did I.
Yes Al Gore - yes, but that's only because he's making money of the CO2 fear mongering, and he's creating mercury and many other pollutants in the name of avoiding mercury < oops should be co2.
In a way, I almost buy the theory that when all the dinosaurs (more like the first multi cell life was on earth) I think the earth was much much warmer. As carbon got into life forms, and eventually as they all got buried - burned is back into the air, burying is the only thing that will take them out of circulation, and fossillised, more of the carbon got out of circulation and the earth cooled, and that was the point at which we entered the picture. Now that we lived for so many years and we are getting that carbon out of the ground and pumping into the air ... we will just return the earth to where that 100% carbon was in circulation, maybe that means it will be 8-10-15 degrees warmer and it will be catastrophic for us.

I however still think there are more people trapping carbon in their body and plants and animals and other infrastructure that sustain us is still going to retain so much of the carbon we'd never go back to being as warm as it was when 100% carbon was in play. However 100% say = 20 degrees, we could releast 30% and get shafted with a 8-9 degree hike and end up with a world too warm to live in. Hence we all go extinct and soon enough the whole world goes back to being 100% carbon as forest fires and this and that take back the earth.

I just want the old theories to be re examined and proved/rejected and our forecasting needs refining.
Cool.
Buddha.

Alright.  Let's see if you live up to your sobriquet. 

I had to reread your last post a few times to understand what you meant.  Guess I'm used to different terminology.  But, it sounds like (more or less) that you've actually summed up what I and others are trying to explain.  The 8-9 degree hike varies in magnitude depending on who's on the soapbox, but that 8 to 9 degrees is the entire problem. 

That much difference could precipitate a global climate change for which we're not prepared as a species.  As many variables that are at play, any type of acceleration of a particular process tends to spark interest in researchers.  Yes, over-publication may occur, as some researchers tend to be attention-whores (it's a lonely life).  The general public gets scared as the media blows up the story, and off we go! 
But, re-examination is constantly underway.  There are so many variables that a controlled study is evidently pretty difficult, leading to harsh criticism and words like "junk science". 

We're living on the brink of a precipice in either direction, as a species, and maintaining equilibrium is essentially the focus.  Some people believe that should happen naturally, and some think we should invest resources.  Ironically, the "naturalists" feel that natural progress for humanity is to use available resources to promote and enhance human life.  "The world is my oyster", and all of that.  And, where there is irony, there is drama and debate. 
So, the media's having a field day, making any agreement for particular decisions fairly impossible.  This limits the ability to affect environmental impact to the contrary, making it difficult for researchers to make certain determinations.  For instance, whether delta temperature can be deaccelerated (since temperature has become one of the pillars of our little chat). 

Meanwhile, I'm backed up on physics homework, and my A&P notes are cold.  I need to leave this stupid interweb alone for a while. 

They are really not examining  the theories of old, and checking the assumptions against the current facts and caliberating anything. They are saying its obsolete and making up new theories. I am yet to see anything that says, in 1970 we did this and assumed this and thought the outcome is this. This is where the assumption went off course, and this is our result. Have you seen any ... anyone else ?
There are other things they are not counting in.
If the sea level rises and it gets warmer, the humidity will rise. That in itself is not that much of an issue, but consider that most snow that occours happens at around freezing and a wee bit on either side, and it is between 5-10% water (I think even artificial snow is ~10-15% water) what will happen is that the snow around the world will get wetter and there will be more of it. A lot of times, weather is cold enough to snow, what is lacking is that there is not enough moisture to do so. So you'd have more wet soppy snow but a shorter winter and a warmer summer. It of course depends on the location in the world where you are. BTW we could have more hail and in general more rain.
While its a change, its not neccesarily a catastrophe.
BTW we will have to smartly change some things to postpone or avert a catastrophe. We cannot have fresh water which is in the on land ice caps and glaciers melt and run to the oceans. That will make them salty and rising sea levels will flood into land and rivers will be polluted with salt from the sea as the rivers now are taking in water from the ocean.
We may have to do an ice harvest and get that ice out of there especially on land. But that is more along the lines of managing the problem than averting it.
Cool.
Buddha.