Yea co2 is what limits the biosphere, Plant growth isnt really burial though, but a raised level of co2 will expand the biosphere, shell/ocean sediment is probably the largest biological burial at a guess…

So a raised level of co2 will increase the amount of life the planet is able to sustain, yes.. But its not going to cause a “negative feedback” as such. Water vapor very possibly does that all on its own. A negative feedback would be say more co2=more h2o vapor=more cloud=less energy in the system. What youre saying, is the biosphere going too increase burial… i dont know.

The question is whether raised co2 is going to cause a run away green house effect? Probably not, considering in the past it has been many times higher, and for that matter the climate has been warmer since the last ice age than present with low co2, which points too greater climate variability than the AGW crowd would acknowledge. Or are the climate implications from the raised co2 level going to be adverse to life on the planet? I dont see any evidence of it. It certainly hasnt worked that way in the past.

End of the day the only real constant in the climate is change, and life adapts to the climate…

I said “express purpose.” Perhaps that should be “inherent functionality.”

I think my argument goes as follows: “Are we trying to manage something that the planet manages already?”

Could it even be postulated that global temperature increases are a part of that management scheme (higher temperatures and available carbon= more plant growth, hence stronger negative feedback?)

I am perfectly ready to be corrected on this.

Would you consider it true that the biosphere is a system that is set up with the express purpose of managing carbon?

It is after all the foundation of life on the planet. To me the notion connotes that we have a planet that has a robust capability to deal with fluctuations in CO2.

Are there any scientists out there that look at the world in this way?

I am not trying to be another little Goebbels here, but it seems to me a pretty powerful organizing principle for explaining to a semi-interested, semi-aware public why an increase in our current low atmospheric CO2 concentration is going to be handled just fine by the planet.

The irony of AGW history is that the first political leader who discovered planetary doom fear and panic as a strong propellant for a political career – Mrs. Merkel – has become absolutely silent about this topic and has stopped using even the words “global warming” (or, as we are in Germany, where problems become catastrophes very soon, “clima catastrophe”) since Lehman Brothers Day, 4 months ago. It´s the economy, now. As we like to say:”The jammed penny has finally fallen.”
But now Obama is taking over this part – with the same intention as Merkel. He will have to cut the curve like Merkel did, of course. I estimate his time constant to be about 6 months. But don´t be sad – you still have Al Gore. His time constant is much longer than the PDO.

Collision of galaxies have no effect on the stars in them because of the vast distance between each star.

Um, wasn’t there a stir about us presently being in a collision with dwarf Sagittarius and maybe earth being from it, not the Milky Way and that’s why the MW is not on the ecliptic? As in this article:

http://viewzone.com/milkyway.html

That would kinda be an existence proof of Leif’s point… and… We’re space aliens from another galaxy!

hkyson (04:08:38) :

If historical patterns of climate change strongly indicate that we are now due for another ice age, is it possible that increasing amounts of carbon dioxide and methane in our atmosphere are beneficial because they will act as a countervailing force against the onset of a new ice age?

If ice core analysis is correct, then there’s no reason to believe any reasonable amount of CO2 will prevent an ice age.

As for “no ice ages occurring when CO2 is above 500ppm”, that pretty much ignores other factors, such as the positions of the continents and the affects they have on ocean currents.

I read in one paper that glaciations didn’t occur when the CO2 was above about 500PPM. Nobody knows if CO2 would really make a difference, but even if it does we’re still too low.

Harleigh Kyson Jr.

Re: B Kerr (03:35:51) : (Discovery Channel – “Ways to Save the Planet”)

Providing the focal point could be varied and moved around the planet, cities and even entire countries could pre-order their weather. Using mirrors it could even be ordered for the night time hours when, of course, it would be cheaper.

Lets hear you Australians and Californians mock the UK when we have a pleasant and sunny 23C year-round, even at night. Not laughing so loud now are you?

23C sounds good to me.
But moving 16 trillion lenses all at once?

Leif Svalgaard (21:36:28) :
Try it now!

Nice anim too!

Leif Svalgaard (21:36:28) :
Try it now!

… but, but,
…can’t believe my lying eyes;
I see it, yet it is not.

Negative self-referential statements are not to be believed.

There’s only one effect, the suns effect on the oceans(water) and land.

And if you dive( I do) you’ll notice the temperature drop the deeper you dive with lack of light.

There’s no hidden heat under the oceans, heat rises up last time I checked my physics books.

The sun warming of H2O will off gas water vapor that’s lighter then air and rises radiating the heat through convection, out of our atmosphere.

Of course then colliding with particles in the ionosphere, producing a nuclei to gather up the clean water vapor into clouds and return it to earth with small amounts of CO2, NO2, C14 dissolved(or included)) in it.

The Chu effect is indeed impressive.

Accuweather is forecasting another two feet of snow for Lake Tahoe
http://www.accuweather.com/us/ca/lake-tahoe/AB957/forecast.asp?partner=forecastfox&traveler=1&zipChg=1&metric=0

And Kirkwood has received 86cm in the last three days.
http://www.onthesnow.co.uk/california/skireport.html
Northstar has received 132cm in the last three days.
Mammoth has a 493cm base.

Good thing Arnie declared a drought emergency last week.

The esteemed Dr. Hansen (who spent the day yesterday freezing with a bunch of Hippies) has reportedly forecast that 2009 or 2010 may be the hottest year on record.”

What else is new. With GISS data passing through his hands before it reaches the public that prediction has a very high probability of happening–at least in that data set. Nice to have to power to make your predictions come true. ;)
————————

Steven,

Do you have an update on snow total at Kirkwood since the Steven Chu’s visit to California? Heavenly got 30″ just today.

Right now The Weather Channel is talking about “combating the drought” in California. It’s been raining for days here in the Bay Area with few days in the last month where it hasn’t rained. I think rain is a pretty descent way to combat drought.