'Humans too stupid to stop climate change'

[Mattshark]

I agree with the guy. Most humans are too stupid to realize we can not do anything about it. First, because we are not causing it. Second, climate change has been going on since the earth was formed. It's a vicious cycle that humans do not control and will not for sometime. Although, we need to take care of our environment for human health reasons and for health reasons for all living things, climate change is NOT the problem, and imposing ridiculous rules that tax CO2, a trace atmospheric gas, is utterly stupid.

CO2 has little greenhouse effect. Water vapor is over 10,000 times more effective per unit volume than CO2 as a greenhouse gas. Are we regulating water vapor in the atmosphere? Surely not, that would be crazy. Plants require CO2. The most abundant, life flourishing times on this planet have been when CO2 levels have been elevated. CO2 is like steroids for plants.

CO2 is a product of global warming not the cause. As the Earth warms, due to other reasons that we won't go into now, the oceans heat up. As the oceans warm, the oceans lose their capacity to hold gases and when they do, the dissolved gases change phase from liquid to gas and leave the ocean and enter the atmosphere. This has been confirmed by studying ice cores and correlating paleo-atmopsheric CO2 to paleo-temperature data, but we don't hear much about because it does not support the agenda.

When plants flourish so does animal life. CO2 is good, not bad. CO2 was thought to be a greenhouse gas 30 years ago because it traps energy in the atmosphere, but did you ever think that it may reflect solar energy coming from the sun back into space as well. It was thought to be a green house gas initially for the purpose of explaining why Venus is so hot since Venus has a 97% CO2 atmosphere.

Later studies of Venus have indicated extreme volcanism on the surface where huge rivers of lava and molten material flow across the surface under extreme heat and pressure driven by the planet's core radioactive decay. Venus is hot because of this activity. Yes, the CO2 helps hold heat in just like clouds keep one feeling cool in the shade by not allowing the heat of the sun to hit ones body. CO2 shades space from the heat of the planet and keeps the heat from escaping the Venus atmosphere. Venus' heat comes from within, not the sun. Have you ever wondered why Mercury, since it is closer to the sun, doesn't have a molten crust like Venus? Now you know.

It is so sad that science has been raped by so many for the purpose of getting grant money. CO2 and global warming research sells just like reality TV. The scientists go where the money is, and if their research doesn't help the political agenda, they lose their funding. These scientists will never admit this on record because their livelihood will be jeopardized. So believe the hype if you want. Be controlled and enslaved if you desire. I don't. So, don't tax my air. Too late.

I have a friend who runs a carbon sequestration program for government in another state. He is a geologist as well, and he says, CO2 isn't the problem, but he won't go on record or he will lose his job. It's a money machine. It creates jobs. It takes from rich companies and creates a new industry with the money. Help the environment by recycling and reducing pollution, but stop the BS global warming ranting that just makes everyone who does it look like political correctness zombies.

We have all been sold down the river with global warming and climate change nonsense for the purpose of taxing you. This is the biggest hoax on Earth.

This is the biggest hoax on Earth.

Except that is biggest load of rubbish you have posted.

1) CO2 is a proven greenhouse gas. Disagreeing with this is just silly.

2) It is completely irrelevant that water vapour is a stronger greenhouse gas as we haven't had a 38% increase of water vapour in the last 150 years (since the industrial revolution).

3) Just because the climate changes naturally doesn't mean it is now. Concluding it is shows poor deductive reasoning.

4) We have massively decreased plant life on this planet as well as seeing massive phytoplankton die off, this means there are less plants and algae to absorb CO2 which we are pumping out at increasing rates.

5) Every major scientific institute in the world disagrees with you all the evidence disagrees with you and you friend is clueless.

6) Venus stays warm because CO2 traps the heat. This is accepted.

Edited April 6, 2010 by Mattshark

[Astute One]

a

Edited April 6, 2010 by Astute One

[Astute One]

1) CO2 is a proven greenhouse gas. Disagreeing with this is just silly.

Yes, it may appear to be a greenhouse gas on Earth and to add to the heating because of the hype, but it is not the cause or the EVIDENCE from ice cores would NOT show that increases in CO2 FOLLOW warming. Wait there's more, I prove the point in number 6.

2) It is completely irrelevant that water vapour is a stronger greenhouse gas as we haven't had a 38% increase of water vapour in the last 150 years (since the industrial revolution).

This is absurd nonsense and proof that you are a part of the problem. You are basing this rhetoric on what? I guess your next move will say that water vapor is irrelvent to the formation of a huricane. CO2 is a trace gas. There isn't enough to have an effect like on Venuse. Your reaching for the stars and grasping at anything your hands can catch, only to find they are empty.

3) Just because the climate changes naturally doesn't mean it is now. Concluding it is shows poor deductive reasoning.

Another absurd statement. "because it does, it doesn't" LMAO!!! got to wipe the soda off my key board. It shot out my nose on that one.

4) We have massively decreased plant life on this planet as well as seeing massive phytoplankton die off, this means there are less plants and algae to absorb CO2 which we are pumping out at increasing rates.

Do you think cutting down the rain forest has had anything to do with it? Stop the cutting. Focus on what matters. Not what doesn't. Phytoplanton? Let's see you prove that one. It's funny. Instead of performing valid scientific research to prove a point. The evidence is automatically interpreted as being caused by global warming without the proper attempts made to disprove it.

5) Every major scientific institute in the world disagrees with you all the evidence disagrees with you and you friend is clueless.

Just not true. If I was clueless, I would be knowledgeless and informationless like you. I would just believe, like you, because others say so, and take their word for. But the truth being, I have done my homework. I have performed the calculations for myself. The earth is a dynamic system. It is in equilibrium. It always moves toward equilibrium, a delicate balance. Add CO2 here, the earth scrubs it there, uses the dissolved CO2 to make carbonate rocks by formation of oolites in the ocean. If you study Eh/pH diagrams, you would understand how this process works. Everything competes for its place, and it's equilibrium concentration can be calculated. The process goes on and on. It is completely natural. It has happened before, it will happen again.

Man's ego is just too big thinking he can control what he can't. Man will only cause a worse catastropy by messing with processes that he doen't fully understand. Man knee jerks; he always does. Man can work all day trying to fix it, and his efforts will be so negligible that its not worth the time. The earth will fix itself. Man has got God syndrome AGAIN.

Case in point, the ice cores and temperature correlations. I have more evidence too, but let's see you disprove this before I waste my time. And then there is Climategate.

6) Venus stays warm because CO2 traps the heat. This is accepted.

Yes, when you have 97% CO2 it behaves as a greenhouse gas but when you have 0.04%, 0.0004 fraction, it is reasonable to say that it will have 4/10,000 the effect that it does on Venus. What is the temperature on Venus, about 850 to 900 degrees F. So if we use ratio and proportions. say 0.0004/0.97 to x/900 (the max). CO2 could be responible for what temperature, x. x = 0.37 degrees F. This is the max flux that it can do, but wait, we didn't account for the heat from the molten surface. If we did, we would have to add a few zeros in front of the .3.

Even when we ignore the effects of volcanism completely, you should be able to clearly see that 0.0004 has such a neglible impact, that this must all be a SCAM. Now double the CO2 on Earth and how much should the temperature rise, 0.74. OK, now increas it by 10 times, that's a 3.7degree change. Add the zero for the molten surface and we are back to 0.37 degree max flux with 10 times the CO2. Anthropogenic global warming is BS.

This is how science works, believe it or not!

Tunnel vision kills!

[danielost]

Except that is biggest load of rubbish you have posted.

1) CO2 is a proven greenhouse gas. Disagreeing with this is just silly.

2) It is completely irrelevant that water vapour is a stronger greenhouse gas as we haven't had a 38% increase of water vapour in the last 150 years (since the industrial revolution).

3) Just because the climate changes naturally doesn't mean it is now. Concluding it is shows poor deductive reasoning.

4) We have massively decreased plant life on this planet as well as seeing massive phytoplankton die off, this means there are less plants and algae to absorb CO2 which we are pumping out at increasing rates.

5) Every major scientific institute in the world disagrees with you all the evidence disagrees with you and you friend is clueless.

6) Venus stays warm because CO2 traps the heat. This is accepted.

1 he didnt say it wasnt a green has gas. he did say that water vapor was a better greenhouse gas.

2 if the world temp is going up and we are useing water for all kind of industrial applications such as cooling things off. how come water vapor has only ncreased 38%.

3 the climate changes all the time naturally or are you saying that there are times when the climate is always the same. i think there was but that gets into religion so moving on.

4 i dont believe you on this one. here the usa we keep hearing how trees are being cut down. but we dont hear about the ones we are planting. there are as many trees and probable more than when the pilgrams landed. or do you think all those trees in the desert are natural.

[Mattshark]

No Astute (ironic), ignorance of evidence kills.

I'd go through your points again, but I am fed up of going through the same ignorant BS and lack of evidence and lets face it, if I put papers up you won't bother to read. Feel free to search my posts as they fully cover why you are completely wrong. I doubt you will though.

Think you will find the science is pretty one sided and despite claims by certain political organisations (notice political, not scientific) is more than rigorous.

Edited April 6, 2010 by Mattshark

[Mattshark]

1 he didnt say it wasnt a green has gas. he did say that water vapor was a better greenhouse gas.

2 if the world temp is going up and we are useing water for all kind of industrial applications such as cooling things off. how come water vapor has only ncreased 38%.

3 the climate changes all the time naturally or are you saying that there are times when the climate is always the same. i think there was but that gets into religion so moving on.

4 i dont believe you on this one. here the usa we keep hearing how trees are being cut down. but we dont hear about the ones we are planting. there are as many trees and probable more than when the pilgrams landed. or do you think all those trees in the desert are natural.

Daniel, learn to read my posts posts correctly before replying.

[danielost]

Daniel, learn to read my posts posts correctly before replying.

i have learned to read your posts correctly. if anyone disagrees with you their idiots.

[Mattshark]

i have learned to read your posts correctly. if anyone disagrees with you their idiots.

Clearly you haven't as your last response shows.

I disagree with you because you are dishonest and not worth any more of my time.

[Astute One]

No Astute (ironic), ignorance of evidence kills.

I'd go through your points again, but I am fed up of going through the same ignorant BS and lack of evidence and lets face it, if I put papers up you won't bother to read. Feel free to search my posts as they fully cover why you are completely wrong. I doubt you will though.

Think you will find the science is pretty one sided and despite claims by certain political organisations (notice political, not scientific) is more than rigorous.

I have seen plenty of the one-sided interpretations of evidence by narrow minded individuals who have no creativity or ability to think outside the box, and who blame every little piece of evidence on global warming without looking for other reasons just because it is easy and it pays. Mattshark, you are part of the problem and not the solution. So, why should I waste MY time trying to convince someone who uses his preconceived ideas under the guise of science to promote a lie for profit. I tell you why, I'm not a quiter.

If everyone of your collegues were jumping off a cliff because they were told it's a rush, you would probably be one of the first in line. So go ahead and jump or run and hide and crawl in your hole to avoid backing up your nonsense. There are many other causes to global warming that make so much more sense that are backed up with evidence that you choose to ignore rather than suffer the consequences of having others like yourself question you. You take the easy way out. This is the sign of a coward, Mattshark. You are afraid. So, go cower in your hole and skew your data some more, make up some more data, write those papers, refuse to disprove your own theories, focus on the one thing that gets you funded, and promote the lie and earn a living. I expect that from you.

The main difference between you and me is that I can admit when I am wrong, but you refuse to do the same. I have been working in this field way too long at a real job where I observe the same quest and watch people play the same game driven by the same people with the same agenda. Boy, it sucks to be you.

So bring it on fraidy cat!

[SlimJim22]

I have seen plenty of the one-sided interpretations of evidence by narrow minded individuals who have no creativity or ability to think outside the box, and who blame every little piece of evidence on global warming without looking for other reasons just because it is easy and it pays. Mattshark, you are part of the problem and not the solution. So, why should I waste MY time trying to convince someone who uses his preconceived ideas under the guise of science to promote a lie for profit. I tell you why, I'm not a quiter.

If everyone of your collegues were jumping off a cliff because they were told it's a rush, you would probably be one of the first in line. So go ahead and jump or run and hide and crawl in your hole to avoid backing up your nonsense. There are many other causes to global warming that make so much more sense that are backed up with evidence that you choose to ignore rather than suffer the consequences of having others like yourself question you. You take the easy way out. This is the sign of a coward, Mattshark. You are afraid. So, go cower in your hole and skew your data some more, make up some more data, write those papers, refuse to disprove your own theories, focus on the one thing that gets you funded, and promote the lie and earn a living. I expect that from you.

The main difference between you and me is that I can admit when I am wrong, but you refuse to do the same. I have been working in this field way too long at a real job where I observe the same quest and watch people play the same game driven by the same people with the same agenda. Boy, it sucks to be you.

So bring it on fraidy cat!

"Applause" stops

Now, now.. back to the discussion. I was going to post something about Cassini and plutonium fuel and the ffect on the ozone layer byt a search suggests the hole is shrinking and we really don't understand the effects of minor radiation too well. A more healthy ozone layer would probably give us better protection from solar wind while keeping more heat in during winter. It doesn't really mater as we are where we are.

My big problem comes with deforestation because i has so many negative effects and I lament the hysteria brought on by the superficial eco crisi of climate change as it brought on the demand for palm oil and bio fuels. D'uh! How stupid are the people in charge. Alright indonesia is starting to get a grip nut Brazil could be ruined by the logging road netwroks.

Can we all agree that no matter what side of the climate change argument you are on, that forests are good?

[danielost]

Clearly you haven't as your last response shows.

I disagree with you because you are dishonest and not worth any more of my time.

and i am dishonest because i disagree with you. so of course i am not worth your time. i am right about this as i have been with most of our discussions.

[Wickian]

This is the kind of research that is needed before we can begin to start accurately predicting long term climate shifts.

link

[FurthurBB]

We are stupid if we don’t agree with him?

Don’t you just love how the fascist left-wing always resort to name-calling against anyone who disagree with them?

The fascist left and the socialist right always make me mad.

[FurthurBB]

And you don't think it's telling that the biggest proponents of AGW don't lead by example, if they really believed it?

I would say the biggest proponents do lead by example and are not out making money off speaking engagements and books, but, you know reality is subjective unfortunately.

[FurthurBB]

A flooding river is a good example. Humans can predict good enough to build defenses and alter the river bed during drier times to fix future problems. The technology is not the problem, we could easily set up hundreds of chemical plants that release gases into the air to "fix" the current Climate Change problem statements. But, we would not know what our fixes would do down the road. Just as building levies can damage other parts of the river, so would fixing, say by putting more water vapor into the air, have unknown effects for the future. But does that mean we should not try? No. That is like saying, "Let the river flood our town because we can't understand what our levies would do to the next town down." It is idiotic.

We are evolved enough and We can fix it.

Environmentalists crack me up, because most of them want all ecosystems to be Static, unchanging. If there are 200 Deep Woods Green Owls right now, they want there to always be 200 of those Owls. Which is not Natural for the Environment at all. The environment is Dynamic, not Static. But, you see it on TV day after day. Stop this or stop that, we need to keep everything "As is". It is Close Minded fanaticism to me. Sure we don't want animals to go extict by lack of habitat, when man is hacking down rain forests, but really, if there is a butterfly that only lives on one meadow on one mountain, does it need to have millions of dollars and hundreds of trees worth of paperwork done to save it?

Cutting down the rain forests is a serious thing. Just because some people go too far on lesser problems does not mean that they are all the same. Things are rarely ever that black and white.

[danielost]

Cutting down the rain forests is a serious thing. Just because some people go too far on lesser problems does not mean that they are all the same. Things are rarely ever that black and white.

cutting down rain forests just for the sake of cutting them down is wrong. but according to the amount of lose that i have heard they would have been gone 10 years ago. the state of utah is a pretty big state and one utah state of rainforest disappears every year.

[Mattshark]

I have seen plenty of the one-sided interpretations of evidence by narrow minded individuals who have no creativity or ability to think outside the box, and who blame every little piece of evidence on global warming without looking for other reasons just because it is easy and it pays. Mattshark, you are part of the problem and not the solution. So, why should I waste MY time trying to convince someone who uses his preconceived ideas under the guise of science to promote a lie for profit. I tell you why, I'm not a quiter.

If everyone of your collegues were jumping off a cliff because they were told it's a rush, you would probably be one of the first in line. So go ahead and jump or run and hide and crawl in your hole to avoid backing up your nonsense. There are many other causes to global warming that make so much more sense that are backed up with evidence that you choose to ignore rather than suffer the consequences of having others like yourself question you. You take the easy way out. This is the sign of a coward, Mattshark. You are afraid. So, go cower in your hole and skew your data some more, make up some more data, write those papers, refuse to disprove your own theories, focus on the one thing that gets you funded, and promote the lie and earn a living. I expect that from you.

The main difference between you and me is that I can admit when I am wrong, but you refuse to do the same. I have been working in this field way too long at a real job where I observe the same quest and watch people play the same game driven by the same people with the same agenda. Boy, it sucks to be you.

So bring it on fraidy cat!

There there, I told, search through my previous posts, lots of papers posted. That is what we call evidence. You are more than welcome to search through and you will find I have posted quite a bit. Also strangely enough, this is a major part of marine biology, which is my field and has had the some of the most notable effects their.

So I guess by thinking outside the box, you mean ignoring evidence?

[Mattshark]

cutting down rain forests just for the sake of cutting them down is wrong. but according to the amount of lose that i have heard they would have been gone 10 years ago. the state of utah is a pretty big state and one utah state of rainforest disappears every year.

And that is a serious problem, not just in terms of carbon sink loss, but in habitat loss and the importance forest plays in keeping soils stable, preventing mud slides, nutrients and providing O2 to the atmosphere.

Ecosystems are generally quite delicately balanced and major changes can cause a whole stream of problems.

[Guest]

FALSE! They did that for a while, but before they killed themselves with it, they actually did have a king who turned things around. When the Europeans came along, they brought the usual diseases and threw the Easter Islanders into a death spiral.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/viewnews.php?id=147454

Edited to add the article link.

Its seems that the truth lies somewhere between the two extremes.

The ecosystem of Easter Island had been devastated, almost all native species of flora and Fauna had been wiped out. They were no longer able to fish or build boats. The lack of trees had changed the local climatic conditions with impacts on agriculture. There culture was in some degree of crisis and changing. They readily abandoned their fixation on head carving - which points to it been a burden on their resources.

However as J.B. has stated most of the actual die off of population was brought on by the contact with western diseases.

Br Cornelius

[Astute One]

And that is a serious problem, not just in terms of carbon sink loss, but in habitat loss and the importance forest plays in keeping soils stable, preventing mud slides, nutrients and providing O2 to the atmosphere.

Ecosystems are generally quite delicately balanced and major changes can cause a whole stream of problems.

I have read some of your stuff. I agree with some of the evidence. It's the interpretations that I consider off. There are other causes for the effects that you mention. It seems you are quick to jump to the conclusion that is man's and CO2's fault without considering other options because anthropogenic warming is the hot topic.

There is not enough CO2, period. You say water vapor's not it, but as the earth warms, guys like you say there should be more h-canes. As such, As the earth warms there is more water vapor to cause more warming. Water vapor, the sun, and the mag field are the major contributors, not CO2 and certainly not humans. If what you are saying is true, the earth would have burnt up 100s of millions of years ago. Hey, then why are we here?

The 0.0004 trace CO2 is an effect of warming just like more storms. CO2 off-gasses from the oceans. You know this, so why do you play this game that man is causing it? $$$$$$

You are a smart guy. I don't doubt that. So, let's hear you explain this paper away? Oh, I can hear you now, its not published in one of the journals on your desk. The author is a PhD professor at UCLA. Get over it. He doesn't support your view either, and people like you control the publications blowing smoke up the world's behind. The bias pseudo-scientist, yes pseudo-scientist because they fail to use the scientific method by not allowing the publication of papers that will PROVE them wrong. READ IT! Let it soak in GOOD.

Would you like for me to calculate the amount of off-gassing that has occured during the industrial age for you? You say the ocean is a sink. I say that depends on location and time of year. Nothing is absolute but the fact that you are wrong. The paper below backs me up. You want me to show you my smoking guns. Here's my small arms fire. I have spent four years writng a book on this topic. When it comes out, I'll send you an autographed copy. Want to see my mechanized warfare? OR should we go nuclear and blow the socks off your conspiracy. Just wait for the book.

I can slam you with one paper after another that backs up my point of view written by very qualified, educated, individuals that are being ignored so you can keep on with your fraud and duping the world. Just say GO, and I will overload you!

Yes, the below paper says rocket scientist journal, but a smart marine biologist like you should be able to understand it. I come across as harsh, rude, or other adjectives, but I am tired of the nonsense you guys put out that is causing so many political problems. It is utterly irresponsible. So quit telling me I don't know what I am talking about. I do. READ FOR YOURSELF!!

THE ACQUITTAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE

by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD

Revised 11/16/09.

ABSTRACT

Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the product of oceanic respiration due to the well‑known but under‑appreciated solubility pump. Carbon dioxide rises out of warm ocean waters where it is added to the atmosphere. There it is mixed with residual and accidental CO2, and circulated, to be absorbed into the sink of the cold ocean waters. Next the thermohaline circulation carries the CO2‑rich sea water deep into the ocean. A millennium later it appears at the surface in warm waters, saturated by lower pressure and higher temperature, to be exhausted back into the atmosphere.

Throughout the past 420 millennia, comprising four interglacial periods, the Vostok record of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is imprinted with, and fully characterized by, the physics of the solubility of CO2 in water, along with the lag in the deep ocean circulation. Notwithstanding that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, atmospheric carbon dioxide has neither caused nor amplified global temperature increases. Increased carbon dioxide has been an effect of global warming, not a cause. Technically, carbon dioxide is a lagging proxy for ocean temperatures. When global temperature, and along with it, ocean temperature rises, the physics of solubility causes atmospheric CO2 to increase. If increases in carbon dioxide, or any other greenhouse gas, could have in turn raised global temperatures, the positive feedback would have been catastrophic. While the conditions for such a catastrophe were present in the Vostok record from natural causes, the runaway event did not occur. Carbon dioxide does not accumulate in the atmosphere.

READ THE ENTIRE PAPER. YOU NEED THE EDUCATION MATTSHARK!!! It's going to sting.

http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html

[Astute One]

Can we all agree that no matter what side of the climate change argument you are on, that forests are good?

yes, slim, forest are go, let's leave CO2 alone so they can grow faster.

[Perdition]

Since the industrial revolution the pH in the ocean between America and Europe have dropped making the ocean more acidic. CO2 when it is in water can turn into carbonic acid. pH changes are slight, but in an organism even slight pH changes can be fatal. These changes in acidity destroys coral reefs which are habitats for many creatures in the ocean. There maybe debates whether or not CO2 has an impact by green house gas effect, but it definitely has a big impact on oceanic life.

[Guest]

Since the industrial revolution the pH in the ocean between America and Europe have dropped making the ocean more acidic. CO2 when it is in water can turn into carbonic acid. pH changes are slight, but in an organism even slight pH changes can be fatal. These changes in acidity destroys coral reefs which are habitats for many creatures in the ocean. There maybe debates whether or not CO2 has an impact by green house gas effect, but it definitely has a big impact on oceanic life.

Changes in ocean pH will take hundreds of years to effect ocean life because of the buffering effect of carbonates. The small change which has happened is within the limits of what organisms can cope with. Coral reefs have been effected by temperature fluctuation to which they are very much more sensitive and respond in single seasons.

Br Cornelius

[SlimJim22]

Changes in ocean pH will take hundreds of years to effect ocean life because of the buffering effect of carbonates. The small change which has happened is within the limits of what organisms can cope with. Coral reefs have been effected by temperature fluctuation to which they are very much more sensitive and respond in single seasons.

Br Cornelius

I am concerned that overfishing could take us close to a tipping point in terms of squid and jellyfish populations. I know it's not ideal to mention tipping point but surely a lot more should be done to protect oceans as if the problem became too large I can't see how the damage could be undone. EU fishing quotas seem to do more harm than good so how can we actually protect the saes which in an over populated and harsher climate would become more important than ever.

[Guest]

I am concerned that overfishing could take us close to a tipping point in terms of squid and jellyfish populations. I know it's not ideal to mention tipping point but surely a lot more should be done to protect oceans as if the problem became too large I can't see how the damage could be undone. EU fishing quotas seem to do more harm than good so how can we actually protect the saes which in an over populated and harsher climate would become more important than ever.

As Matt will surely confirm, the Oceans are the ticking time bomb in the whole planetary ecosystem. Its a very complex system of linked parts. Already the hunting of whales has upset the natural balance by reducing the predation of zooplankton and krill by a dramatic extent. This has knock on effects in that the zooplanton/krill predate the phytoplankton which is a major source of atmospheric oxygen and a sink for atmospheric CO2 . So Whales are an integral part of the system which replenishes our oxygen supply and sequesters CO2. It seems that whale numbers are not rising at the expected rate since hunting has all but gone, so this represents a long term perturbation of the atmospheric system.

Here's an interesting analysis confirming that the oceans are warming;

"the zooplankton of the North Sea and the North Atlantic are surveyed every month by the continuous plankton recorder survey. Analysis of the species composition shows that since 1960 there have been marked changesn in the zooplankton community in the North Atlantic (Beaugrand 2002). Comparisons of the distribution of groups of species indicative of certain conditions, for example "temperate oceanic species typical of warm water masses" or "sub-arctic species" show large scale shifts occuring mainly since 1980 in the North east Atlantic and a little later in the adjacent shelf seas. Overall the pattern consisted of a move north of over 10 degrees of latitude for the warm water species groups and a commensurate retreat of Arctic and sub-arctic species. This can be interpreted as being the result of increasing northern hemisphere temperatures and associated changes in the dynamics of the North Atlantic Ocean".

Michael Dobson, 2009, Ecology of Aquatic Systems, Oxford University Press

Of course this will have knock on effects on oceanic primary productivity as warmer waters hold less oxygen and hence less life.

From the same book;

"...diversity of these oceanic predators had decreased by between 10-50% in every ocean in the last 50yrs, these declines being associated with overfishing, and climate fluctuations"

Of course been ecosystems, changing the balance of top predation will have effects across the whole system. Examples been in certain tropical waters the shark population has been replaced by squids and jellyfish. This has made these waters to dangerous for humans to fish. Also in a natural unfished reef system it seems that sharks represent up to 80% of the biomass of the reef (strange but true) which is a strong indication that almost all of the reef systems of the world are currently highly disturbed.

Let us not forget that every degree of ocean temperature rise releases more CO2 into the atmosphere, but there is an intrinsic time delay (due to the deep ocean convey belts). It is totally incorrect to say that just because an increase of atmospheric CO2 releases more atmospheric CO2, changing the initial CO2 level has had no effect. Its called a positive feedback, and is well understood and applied to the predictive science of climatology. Despite what some would like to believe the mechanism and magnitude of CO2 forcing is well understood, and yes it is significant. The fact that it only occupies a tiny percentage of the atmosphere does not diminish the fact that it creates a huge number of energy interactions as photons bounce about in the atmospheric volume. Atmospheric water is not the issue which some like to think, because its level has remained relatively constant over the last 160yrs and so it is not possible to attribute it to the temperature trend which has been measured. The effect of atmospheric H20 has remained constant and so can be removed from consideration of forcing mechanisms as experienced. Whether it will start to have a greater effect over extended periods of time is difficult to know and is one of the acknowledged uncertainties of climate models.

Br Cornelius