Originally posted by Doc Velocity
Originally posted by lordtyp0
I am sorry, perhaps you should re-read what I said. I did not indicate anything about the priority of it's role. I simply said it would logically slow down the scrub process.
Then we should see a much more erratic progression of atmospheric CO2 levels over the life history of the Earth; for, while land-based vegetation has never been a constant in the Earth's capacity to process CO2, the Earth's oceans have been uniformly constant in scrubbing the atmosphere for hundreds of millions of years — much more constant than the transient plant life of Earth's limited land masses.
And I comprehended your writing quite well the first time — you're an eloquent and intelligent communicator.
— Doc Velocity
Well, there are other factors, such as the Taiga's permafrost layer of moss. It holds a tremendous level of carbon. I have not seen a comprehensive study showing all factors, just generalized of specific ones such as a University studying a specific wetland, or a specific factor such as that.
What I am trying to convey here is NOT that GW is real. That there has not been enough level-headedness to the whole debate. There are many sources of information which could hold the keys to this issue.
Screaming fraud at the top of ones lungs does not do anything but shut down rational discourse and make it impossible to make any progress.
The whole point of homogeneous information is to pull from multiple sources and see how they compare. If one source in 10 is showing anomoly you have to correct it or it drags the whole data set down. Something which appears lost in other exchanges in this thread.
In this case it is about the data is about temperature shift itself, not the temperature total. Various factors I have not seen included (together) in the larger papers are things like: volcanic activity in the period, solar activity, nuclear tests etc. etc. etc.
I really hope the GW IS a fraud. But to turn off ones ability to see evidence and weigh it COULD doom everyone on earth.
ie: less jumping to conclusions and more looking at evidence would be awesome.
Yeah, that is why humans have enough bombs to destroy the planet 100 times over. Sure ok, with your logic
we can just trash the world, who cares right, we are inconsequential.... 
