Most excellent, sir.

The daily heat and the sudden cold of the Sahara Desert is the perfect example of the weather without the buffering aspects of oceans and plants, and it’s not even isolated from a world that is 70% ocean and covered with plants.

People want a magic know to turn the heat down. That’s just not going to happen. The real magic knob is the dampening effect of life. Increase plant life and consequently, animal life as well, and any possible problems are minimized.

But I don’t agree that there’s a lag time for plant response in the first place. Carbon dioxide uptake by a plant depends, among other things, on the pressure, or concentration, of carbon dioxide that is immediately available to it, and the solar intensity. Growth on the day’s take can wait until the evening, if not sooner, but the energy is stored in chemical form right away. The lag is literally overnight, minimum. Plants will slow their uptake in increasingly scarce pressures of CO2. The idea is that plants are growing as quickly as they are designed at all times under given conditions.

People assume the earth , even near coasts are completely steadfast, too. I won’t go into that, but it just ain’t the case.

It’s usually reported as “this amount of warming has already occurred, so the oceans have risen this much”. The numbers quoted for rising oceans are usually the numbers that are calculated by assuming (prematurely) that the oceans have warmed up and expanded –because the earth is “known to be” warming– not to mention that land-based glaciers have been/are disappearing and will eventually dwarf the changed currently seen.

About the calcium part: it’s not exactly right. Calcium carbonate can dissolve or precipitate, depending on its immediate surroundings.

The carbonate ions that enter the ocean are themselves formed by the action of aqueous CO2 (H2CO3) on calcium oxide, which, when in contact with the ocean, forms calcium hydroxide. Even after the hydroxide becomes CO3, calcium is just a free spectator cation, like sodium. Yet another molecule of H2CO3, can come along and react with CO3–, forming two molecules of bicarbonate, HCO3-. It’s all interchangeable, and in equilibrium the pH is largely determined by the carbonate/bicarbonate/carbonic acid ratios. Those are different regionally, because the ocean is not homogeneous in latitude, temperature, pressure, or surface contact. But the most important thing of all is that oceanic organisms affect CO2 levels, and the bicarbonate carbonate levels shift correspondingly. When they become massive enough in scope, organisms can even control their local acidity, sometimes even regionally.

Passive and active pH changes by living organisms are the 800-pound gorilla in the corner at the acidic-ocean alarmists’ cocktail party.

That line would span the downtown area of quite a few large cities, with some to spare. Here in Houston, the downtown streets are 16 to the mile, making their spacing about 100 meters. Thus, that line would be about 46 blocks.

The dinosaur’s reign ended around 65 million years ago (65 meters, about 2/3 of a city block down that line from today).

The first of our ancestors verging on intelligence may have emerged from 2 to 4 million years ago (2 to 4 meters, say 6.5 to 13 feet; your living room could be around 4 meters in one of its’ dimensions).

What we call “modern” man may go back 40,000 years or so (40 mm, TWO finger-widths on that line).

Written history goes back 6000 years (six millimeters, 1/4 inch on that line).

Fahrenheit’s thermometer is around 300 years old ( 0.3 mm, you’re approaching the thickness of a business card now).

The portion of that time-line during which precise temperature measurements were recorded would be literally microscopic.

And from that portion, we dare to make really long range climate predictions, and mandate actions based on them?

-

There is no “magic knob” that can be turned or adjusted to specifically control the climate (or the weather).

Sure there is. It’s a matter of opening up and shutting down various weather-reporting stations. I was heartened to read Mr. Watts’ comments on the quality of data coming from those stations; I have suspected those data for years.

Some years ago I read an article on climate change which included the obligatory table of year-by-year temperature increases. Later on in the article was another table of the number of weather-reporting stations. The correlation between the data from the two tables was over 0.90 with 95% confidence. My conclusion is that we can control global temperature by opening or closing weather stations; using them for a global thermostat, as it were.

Yes, I know that correlation is not causation. But whatever is being measured by the aggregation of data from those weather-reporting stations, it isn’t the global weather. It would be interesting to see what the climate prediction models would produce if there inputs were based only upon weather-reporting from stations that were in existence in, say, 1969. Assuming “metrology” hasn’t wrecked their inputs, too.

The guy that founded the Weather Channel has been all over about the Climate Scam…. He was “supposedly” the be all and end all of WEATHER for who knows how many years after founding the Channel…. The Libs/Dems quickly abandoned and did the usual “discredit” tactics.

I feel like Michelle Obama in REVERSE, for the first time in my Life I’m really getting to be so darn peeved and EMBARASSED by the stupidity of my fellow Americans!!! The Election of ObamaBinBiden that final insult to our Nations founding/founders concerns/direction for the country.

I also made the assessment that we will see a cooler summer this year and even if areas of the U.S. fail to have summer which means about anything you want it to mean it is solely due to cyclical nature of weather, solar, etc and nothing to do with an increase in CO2 from 360 to 370 ppm. I just had to defend myself after my comments of a cool summer for upper midwest and the great lakes this year, also if we fail to have summer in these area then it is cyclical and it has nothing to do with the nonexistent AGW.

I would have to do additional research but a sustained increase in CO2 levels will necessarily cause an increase in the mass of plant life. This increase in plant mass will of course lag the increase in CO2 levels but assuming the rate of increase in CO2 plateaus or increases at a decreasing rate then the volume of CO2 extracted from the atmosphere by the increased biomass will eventually nullify the CO2 increase and, again being a lagging response, could cause a slight reduction in CO2 over time.

I ran across an article earlier this year that I’ve since been unable to locate that stated global biomass had increased 13%.

Earth heal thyself!

This article is pretty interesting: http://www.purgit.com/co2ok.html

He further went on to take to task the CLIMATE MODELING that FAILS to account for these ACTUAL happenstances in/of Weather that those that are actually committed to accurately reporting what is going on with the CLIMATE CYCLES/SHIFTS can/do see if they put in the appropriate home-work to get it right…. The Hurricaine season, while still any ONE storm can be a threat, should be far less of a concern than the CLIMATE TERROR CROWD wants people drummed up into a frenzy about in order to push the Climate Scam….

related past discussions:
Climate $cam – Climate $cam
+Cycles/Shift – Climate Cycles/Shifts
+China projects – China gets the Flood/Drought Cycles preperation right
+tidal-gen – Tidal power generation (finally)
+Earth 2100 – Earth 2100 TV special (Liberal propaganda)
+Extortion – Extortion, pure and simple (to raise taxes or avoid/enact legislation)

And on your mean sea level comment – not only is it difficult to measure mm changes in water level, subsidence of the land is common. In the Gulf Coast, the sediment load of the Mississippi River fills the Gulf of Mexico like a giant bowl, which has the effect of pushing down on the center of the bowl, tilting the edges basinward.