But that is not really the point of all these studies
It should be. All you have is half an explanation and in science, thats not good enough.
the point is that they are showing that CO2 levels actually has a negligible effect on global temperature.
And I can find probably twice that number that state the exact opposite
As far as why CO2 rises with/after temp change as I have said no formal study has yet taken place and so many scientists are most probably unwilling to put down their educated guesses before the facts are determined. It is quite difficult to get funding for an idea that contradicts such large organisations as the IPCC.
There havent been any studies on it for the same reason that there havent been any studies to determine if the Earth is flat. Because the idea is so half-baked and un-supported that its not accepted as valid.
What exactly? You stated the average absorption, I found the estimated global volume and from that it is quite easy to deduce that CO2 is absorbed in the billions. What exactly is wrong with that??
Because its not the water itself that absorbs the CO2, its the microscopic life-forms in the water that actually absorb the CO2. Yes it does disperse in the water but the water itself does not absorb it.
However, the below graph shows a small spike in CO2 levels at the end of the Cretaceous period.
http://static.flickr.com/50/112747981_6990ff2b33_o.jpg
I actually see a pretty steady downward trend all through the Cretaceous period.
No, my point was that it didn't effect the atmosphere or global temperatures even though the CO2 released was in fairly large volume.
It DID effect the atmosphere, but not through CO2. Enormous volumes of ash and dust were thrown into the air and sulfur dioxide gas was throw into the clouds, acting like a mirror and reflecting back solar radiation. Global temperatures fell by several degrees in the several years after Krakatoa.
Such as increased earthquakes, more volcanic eruptions, changes in magnetic pole position and increased tectonic activity before and during warming?
We would see a DRAMATIC surge in volcanic activity, as in FAR more than we have now.
Im curious, what exactly, in your opinion, is causing the core of the Earth to heat up.
From the article-
"Through
photosynthesis, plants absorb
carbon dioxide from the
atmosphere, store the carbon in
sugars,
starch and
cellulose, and release the
oxygen into the atmosphere"
"Mature forests, made up of a mix of various aged trees as well as dead and decaying matter, may be carbon neutral above ground. In the soil, however, the gradual buildup of slowly decaying organic material will continue to accumulate carbon, but at a slower rate than an immature forest. This accumulation of organic material in the form of
humus in the forest floor only occurs below about 25 degrees Celcius. Above this temperature, humus is oxidized. Tropical jungles, for this reason, have very thin organic soils. The forest eco-system may eventually become carbon neutral. Forest fires release absorbed carbon back into the atmosphere."
So apparently forrests do release carbon, but not in massive ammounts. Peat bogs apparently produce more carbon, but there arent enough peat bogs on the Earth to effect the atmosphere.
It may be a large amount of gas but it is still relatively small.
STATISTICALLY it is small, yes. But REALISTICALLY, thats a huge volume of gas. Even a small percentage of a large group is still a large piece in and of itself
Because heat is one of them!
Yes, by your logic heat would limit the growth of organisms that create CO2....thus you would have LESS CO2 in the atmosphere. Im picking up on a pattern with you and self-defeating systems.
The particularly interesting section of the cosmic rays, the muons does spark cloud seeding pretty much as soon as it enters the atmosphere as it produces a pretty high and exponential charge when reacting with particles in the air. This means that the change in temp. could only be as long as it takes for a cloud to form which is comparitively not long at all; I'm not saying that the whole thing is like a light switch but it is still a pretty quick process.
There needs to be the right gasses in the air to trap the heat, and the right concentrations take time to build up. According to your theory, cosmic rays produce heat which produces more heat which produces more CO2. The original heat has to create the CO2. You have GOT to see how non-sensical this sounds.
Changes in solar activity can occur quickly as I have said before. We maybe on a natural warming trend now but that doesn't stop anomalies such as markable warming over a short time from occuring.
Do you have evidence for solar anomolies occuring at the same time as other global warming trends?
