More Proof GWing Alarmists are Running Out of Time

[billvon 2,435]

> There a small insignificant CO2 increased being caused by man.

The pre-industrial CO2 concentration was 280ppm. It is now 380ppm and rising. What percentage of that increase do you believe was caused by man?

>The oceans contain and hold more CO2 than anything.

That was believed to be correct. However, a recent study has shown that the southern sea has absorbed all the CO2 it can; it is saturated. This means it will not absorb any more, and cannot slow down the increase.

http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0517-southern_ocean.html

In any case, the other oceans may well be able to absorb additional CO2, and slow down the anthropogenic increase. But so far they have not absorbed most of the CO2 we've released. What makes you think their behavior will change?

>But until the data makes a huge change you are the one on the
>political side of the issue, not me.

The data show pretty clearly that CO2 is rising, that our emissions of CO2 from burning fossil fuels match that rise, that CO2 is a strong greenhouse gas, and that the planet is warming.

In 1990, the IPCC predicted the earth would warm between .1C and .5C per decade, depending how much we did to try to slow things down. (.2 to .5 no mitigation, .1 to .2 with mitigation.) The data since then shows a .22C rise per decade. (1990-2006.) In other words, they made a prediction, and it turned out to be accurate. That's something all the rhetoric in the world can't get around.

So the deniers have switched from "the planet's not warming" to "the planet is warming but it's not our fault." You yourself have made such a switch. Are we to believe that this time the switch is permanent? Or will it last as long as the "the earth's not warming" argument?

>I am not trying to change anybodies life style. Can you make the same claim?

I'm not either. All my efforts so far have been towards reducing my own CO2 footprint - and my lifestyle hasn't changed much. (Indeed, I'm in better shape now.)

[billvon 2,435]

>Would you agree that it's a fair summation to say that nobody
>really knows what affect this increased activity has, then?

I think we have a fairly good idea.

If you put a 1000 watt heater in an insulated room and turn it on, we know how fast it will get hotter. That's basic thermo. We can measure the amount of the insolation increase, and that gives us watts/meter increase in heat. It accounts for about 6% of the warming we're seeing. (See forcing table below.)

Now, you could say that we really don't understand thermodynamics, and that all the situations that we _have_ used it (like in jet engine design) we just happened to get right accidentally. That's not that likely. Or you could say that since we really only have decent insolation records that go back about 100 years, that the sun could have been much colder than we think 200 years ago, and that it just recently changed its pattern of insolation changes significantly. Occam's Razor would suggest both those explanations are unlikely.

That's not to say we understand the climate completely. Think of it like a weather report - we don't know what the weather will be like on this day in 2010. But if the pressure is dropping, we see rain approaching on the radar, satellite imagery shows a storm approaching, and airliners are reporting thunderheads coming our way - it's a pretty safe bet it's going to rain. The observation that we can't forecast weather out years ahead does not mean that "no one really knows if it's going to rain tomorrow."

Along the same lines, if we predict that it will rain in San Diego in the winter and be pretty warm in the summer in 2010, we're 99% sure of being right - because that's what's happened before, and we understand why that is. Again, saying "well, we can't predict what the exact temperature will be on this day in 2010, and we don't know how much LA will develop by then - therefore you can't possibly know the summers will be warm!" is not a very valid argument.

Likewise, we don't understand everything about our climate. We don't fully understand heliosphere-mediated cosmic ray cloud nucleation, as explained above. From there to "therefore we don't understand anything" is a bit of a large jump.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

By the way, not comment on "how you know me"?

Sucks to get caught in that shit now doesn't it!

Usually I can read through your sloppy writing but you're varying so far from English that I really just can't figure out what you're trying to say. Care to try again?

What I CAN tell is you've completely 100% failed to understand. That much is clear.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[rushmc 18]

Quote

> There a small insignificant CO2 increased being caused by man.

The pre-industrial CO2 concentration was 280ppm. It is now 380ppm and rising. What percentage of that increase do you believe was caused by man?less than 1%

>The oceans contain and hold more CO2 than anything.

That was believed to be correct. However, a recent study has shown that the southern sea has absorbed all the CO2 it can; it is saturated. This means it will not absorb any more, and cannot slow down the increase.Not talking about an increase in absorbtion, we are talking about a release due to increased temps

http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0517-southern_ocean.html

In any case, the other oceans may well be able to absorb additional CO2, and slow down the anthropogenic increase. But so far they have not absorbed most of the CO2 we've released. What makes you think their behavior will change?I am not talking about a change in behavior at all. At lower temps water will hold more gas. At higher temp the reverse is true

>But until the data makes a huge change you are the one on the
>political side of the issue, not me.

The data show pretty clearly that CO2 is rising, that our emissions of CO2 from burning fossil fuels match that rise, that CO2 is a strong greenhouse gas, and that the planet is warming.Theory, there are many more expliniations but this is the only one you want to quote. Yes the planet is warming. Historical research sugests that this is normal and not as big a swing as what has been record before.

In 1990, the IPCC predicted the earth would warm between .1C and .5C per decade, depending how much we did to try to slow things down. (.2 to .5 no mitigation, .1 to .2 with mitigation.) The data since then shows a .22C rise per decade. (1990-2006.) In other words, they made a prediction, and it turned out to be accurate. That's something all the rhetoric in the world can't get around. There are many agruments as to how much the planet has really warmed. Many researchers sugest that the alarmist are using the extreem measures. Many say the warming is less. Again, the planet is warming in a natural cycle.

So the deniers have switched from "the planet's not warming" to "the planet is warming but it's not our fault." You yourself have made such a switch. Are we to believe that this time the switch is permanent? Or will it last as long as the "the earth's not warming" argument?I am will to learn and change my opinion. Are you?

>I am not trying to change anybodies life style. Can you make the same claim?

I'm not either. All my efforts so far have been towards reducing my own CO2 footprint - and my lifestyle hasn't changed much. (Indeed, I'm in better shape now.)

I have no problem with that seeing what you believe. However, the main force in this drive is to collect money and force change. Are you on board with that?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

By the way, not comment on "how you know me"?

Sucks to get caught in that shit now doesn't it!

Usually I can read through your sloppy writing but you're varying so far from English that I really just can't figure out what you're trying to say. Care to try again?

What I CAN tell is you've completely 100% failed to understand. That much is clear.

Since you state you have no position why should I try?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,435]

>>What percentage of that increase do you believe was caused by man?

>less than 1%

OK. We put 6.5 billion metric tons of carbon in the atmosphere a year by burning fuel. That is provable by simply adding up the carbon contributions for all the fuel we burn (coal, oil, gasoline, natural gas etc) and those quantities are well known. That equates to 26 billion tons a year of CO2.

Now, each PPM of CO2 in our atmosphere represents about 7.7 billion tons of CO2. We started off with 2.1 trillion tons of CO2 in our atmosphere; we're now at 2.9 trillion tons. Again, that's provable by measuring how much CO2 is in our atmosphere and dividing by its volume (which is also a well known number; spacecraft could not re-enter if we didn't understand how high the atmosphere went and how fast it thins out.)

Adding the above numbers up, and going back over our fuel-burning history, we've put about 1.5 trillion tons a year of CO2 into the atmosphere since 1880 or so, about half of which is absorbed by plants, the oceans, chemical weathering etc. The other half is still around, which is why the CO2 percentage has gone up.

So if you claim that we've only increased atmospheric CO2 by 1% (instead of the 50% we've seen) - where did that 1.5 trillion tons of CO2 go? And who put another 1.5 trillion tons back in the atmosphere? Because if your belief is correct, an unknown natural process took 1.5 trillion tons of our burned CO2 out of the atmosphere - and a SECOND unknown process put 1.5 trillion tons back IN the atmosphere.

Do you have any evidence at all for either process?

>Not talking about an increase in absorbtion, we are talking about
>a release due to increased temps

Ah. So you're referring to a positive feedback mechanism, where increased temperatures force a further imbalance in the energy balance. I thought you claimed those were "alarmist nonsense?"

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>>What percentage of that increase do you believe was caused by man?

>less than 1%

OK. We put 6.5 billion metric tons of carbon in the atmosphere a year by burning fuel. That is provable by simply adding up the carbon contributions for all the fuel we burn (coal, oil, gasoline, natural gas etc) and those quantities are well known. That equates to 26 billion tons a year of CO2.

Now, each PPM of CO2 in our atmosphere represents about 7.7 billion tons of CO2. We started off with 2.1 trillion tons of CO2 in our atmosphere; we're now at 2.9 trillion tons. Again, that's provable by measuring how much CO2 is in our atmosphere and dividing by its volume (which is also a well known number; spacecraft could not re-enter if we didn't understand how high the atmosphere went and how fast it thins out.)

Adding the above numbers up, and going back over our fuel-burning history, we've put about 1.5 trillion tons a year of CO2 into the atmosphere since 1880 or so, about half of which is absorbed by plants, the oceans, chemical weathering etc. The other half is still around, which is why the CO2 percentage has gone up.

So if you claim that we've only increased atmospheric CO2 by 1% (instead of the 50% we've seen) - where did that 1.5 trillion tons of CO2 go? And who put another 1.5 trillion tons back in the atmosphere? Because if your belief is correct, an unknown natural process took 1.5 trillion tons of our burned CO2 out of the atmosphere - and a SECOND unknown process put 1.5 trillion tons back IN the atmosphere.

Do you have any evidence at all for either process?

>Not talking about an increase in absorbtion, we are talking about
>a release due to increased temps

Ah. So you're referring to a positive feedback mechanism, where increased temperatures force a further imbalance in the energy balance. I thought you claimed those were "alarmist nonsense?"

First off quit with the bs.

As for the numbers. More CO2 is absorbed or used than your numbers suggest according to some researchers. The numbers you give are on the low end of those I have seen. (although more report your number) This is again, one of the highly complex sistems nearly all say they do not yet have full understanding of.

The increases are from release but the positive feedback is CO2 released from temp increases, not temp increases from CO2 accumulation.

Again, quit twisting my words. Do you think that doing that helps or is condescending?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

By the way, not comment on "how you know me"?

Sucks to get caught in that shit now doesn't it!

Usually I can read through your sloppy writing but you're varying so far from English that I really just can't figure out what you're trying to say. Care to try again?

What I CAN tell is you've completely 100% failed to understand. That much is clear.

I gotta find those monitoring devices

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,649]

Quote

Quote

>>What percentage of that increase do you believe was caused by man?

>less than 1%

OK. We put 6.5 billion metric tons of carbon in the atmosphere a year by burning fuel. That is provable by simply adding up the carbon contributions for all the fuel we burn (coal, oil, gasoline, natural gas etc) and those quantities are well known. That equates to 26 billion tons a year of CO2.

Now, each PPM of CO2 in our atmosphere represents about 7.7 billion tons of CO2. We started off with 2.1 trillion tons of CO2 in our atmosphere; we're now at 2.9 trillion tons. Again, that's provable by measuring how much CO2 is in our atmosphere and dividing by its volume (which is also a well known number; spacecraft could not re-enter if we didn't understand how high the atmosphere went and how fast it thins out.)

Adding the above numbers up, and going back over our fuel-burning history, we've put about 1.5 trillion tons a year of CO2 into the atmosphere since 1880 or so, about half of which is absorbed by plants, the oceans, chemical weathering etc. The other half is still around, which is why the CO2 percentage has gone up.

So if you claim that we've only increased atmospheric CO2 by 1% (instead of the 50% we've seen) - where did that 1.5 trillion tons of CO2 go? And who put another 1.5 trillion tons back in the atmosphere? Because if your belief is correct, an unknown natural process took 1.5 trillion tons of our burned CO2 out of the atmosphere - and a SECOND unknown process put 1.5 trillion tons back IN the atmosphere.

Do you have any evidence at all for either process?

>Not talking about an increase in absorbtion, we are talking about
>a release due to increased temps

Ah. So you're referring to a positive feedback mechanism, where increased temperatures force a further imbalance in the energy balance. I thought you claimed those were "alarmist nonsense?"

First off quit with the bs.

As for the numbers. More CO2 is absorbed or used than your numbers suggest according to some researchers. The numbers you give are on the low end of those I have seen. (although more report your number) This is again, one of the highly complex sistems nearly all say they do not yet have full understanding of.

The increases are from release but the positive feedback is CO2 released from temp increases, not temp increases from CO2 accumulation.

Again, quit twisting my words. Do you think that doing that helps or is condescending?

Why don't you put up or shut up? Bill has asked a very simple question.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>>What percentage of that increase do you believe was caused by man?

>less than 1%

OK. We put 6.5 billion metric tons of carbon in the atmosphere a year by burning fuel. That is provable by simply adding up the carbon contributions for all the fuel we burn (coal, oil, gasoline, natural gas etc) and those quantities are well known. That equates to 26 billion tons a year of CO2.

Now, each PPM of CO2 in our atmosphere represents about 7.7 billion tons of CO2. We started off with 2.1 trillion tons of CO2 in our atmosphere; we're now at 2.9 trillion tons. Again, that's provable by measuring how much CO2 is in our atmosphere and dividing by its volume (which is also a well known number; spacecraft could not re-enter if we didn't understand how high the atmosphere went and how fast it thins out.)

Adding the above numbers up, and going back over our fuel-burning history, we've put about 1.5 trillion tons a year of CO2 into the atmosphere since 1880 or so, about half of which is absorbed by plants, the oceans, chemical weathering etc. The other half is still around, which is why the CO2 percentage has gone up.

So if you claim that we've only increased atmospheric CO2 by 1% (instead of the 50% we've seen) - where did that 1.5 trillion tons of CO2 go? And who put another 1.5 trillion tons back in the atmosphere? Because if your belief is correct, an unknown natural process took 1.5 trillion tons of our burned CO2 out of the atmosphere - and a SECOND unknown process put 1.5 trillion tons back IN the atmosphere.

Do you have any evidence at all for either process?

>Not talking about an increase in absorbtion, we are talking about
>a release due to increased temps

Ah. So you're referring to a positive feedback mechanism, where increased temperatures force a further imbalance in the energy balance. I thought you claimed those were "alarmist nonsense?"

First off quit with the bs.

As for the numbers. More CO2 is absorbed or used than your numbers suggest according to some researchers. The numbers you give are on the low end of those I have seen. (although more report your number) This is again, one of the highly complex sistems nearly all say they do not yet have full understanding of.

The increases are from release but the positive feedback is CO2 released from temp increases, not temp increases from CO2 accumulation.

Again, quit twisting my words. Do you think that doing that helps or is condescending?

Why don't you put up or shut up? Bill has asked a very simple question.

My aint we grummp this am...

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,649]

Quote

However, the main force in this drive is to collect money and force change. Are you on board with that?

Like the $10,000 Exxon has put up through the AEI for "scientists" to refute the IPCC report?

What is the source of the money you claim is available, and how does it compare with the resources of the world's most profitable industry?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

However, the main force in this drive is to collect money and force change. Are you on board with that?

Like the $10,000 Exxon has put up through the AEI for "scientists" to refute the IPCC report?

What is trhe source of the money you claim is available, and how does it compare with the resources of the world's most profitable industry?

Lets see, you tell others you don't have time to do the research and they should do it themselves. Works for me.

Quite the claim that Energy is the "worlds most profitable industry". In as much as they have had records profits you must be infering that they make more money (ah, return on a dollar) than any other industry? Wow, that is a new one

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,649]

Quote

Quote

Quote

However, the main force in this drive is to collect money and force change. Are you on board with that?

Like the $10,000 Exxon has put up through the AEI for "scientists" to refute the IPCC report?

What is trhe source of the money you claim is available, and how does it compare with the resources of the world's most profitable industry?

Lets see, you tell others you don't have time to do the research and they should do it themselves. Works for me.

Quite the claim that Energy is the "worlds most profitable industry". In as much as they have had records profits you must be infering that they make more money (ah, return on a dollar) than any other industry? Wow, that is a new one

Making record profits seems a pretty good indicator of being more profitable unless you live in Looking Glass Land with the Jabberwock.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

However, the main force in this drive is to collect money and force change. Are you on board with that?

Like the $10,000 Exxon has put up through the AEI for "scientists" to refute the IPCC report?

What is trhe source of the money you claim is available, and how does it compare with the resources of the world's most profitable industry?

Lets see, you tell others you don't have time to do the research and they should do it themselves. Works for me.

Quite the claim that Energy is the "worlds most profitable industry". In as much as they have had records profits you must be infering that they make more money (ah, return on a dollar) than any other industry? Wow, that is a new one

Making record profits seems a pretty good indicator of being more profitable unless you live in Looking Glass Land with the Jabberwock.

I can assume you are not an economic professor are you.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,649]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

However, the main force in this drive is to collect money and force change. Are you on board with that?

Like the $10,000 Exxon has put up through the AEI for "scientists" to refute the IPCC report?

What is trhe source of the money you claim is available, and how does it compare with the resources of the world's most profitable industry?

Lets see, you tell others you don't have time to do the research and they should do it themselves. Works for me.

Quite the claim that Energy is the "worlds most profitable industry". In as much as they have had records profits you must be infering that they make more money (ah, return on a dollar) than any other industry? Wow, that is a new one

Making record profits seems a pretty good indicator of being more profitable unless you live in Looking Glass Land with the Jabberwock.

I can assume you are not an economic professor are you.

Tell us where the money comes from to promote the claimed "hoax", and how it compares with the money available to Exxon Mobil, the company with the world's largest profits, which HAS pumped enormous amounts into efforts to refute good science about CO2 emissions, etc.

www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=9
www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2004399,00.html
www.nytimes.com/2007/02/02/business/02oil.html?ex=1328072400&en=08a4aef44d86ae08&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

However, the main force in this drive is to collect money and force change. Are you on board with that?

Like the $10,000 Exxon has put up through the AEI for "scientists" to refute the IPCC report?

What is trhe source of the money you claim is available, and how does it compare with the resources of the world's most profitable industry?

Lets see, you tell others you don't have time to do the research and they should do it themselves. Works for me.

Quite the claim that Energy is the "worlds most profitable industry". In as much as they have had records profits you must be infering that they make more money (ah, return on a dollar) than any other industry? Wow, that is a new one

Making record profits seems a pretty good indicator of being more profitable unless you live in Looking Glass Land with the Jabberwock.

I can assume you are not an economic professor are you.

Tell us where the money comes from to promote the claimed "hoax", and how it compares with the money available to Exxon Mobil, the company with the world's largest profits, which HAS pumped enormous amounts into efforts to refute good science about CO2 emissions, etc.

www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=9
www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2004399,00.html
www.nytimes.com/2007/02/02/business/02oil.html?ex=1328072400&en=08a4aef44d86ae08&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

As soon as I read "good science", I quit...

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

http://junkscience.com/Greenhouse/What_Watt.html

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Tell us where the money comes from to promote the claimed "hoax", and how it compares with the money available to Exxon Mobil, the company with the world's largest profits, which HAS pumped enormous amounts into efforts to refute good science about CO2 emissions, etc.

www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=9
www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2004399,00.html
www.nytimes.com/2007/02/02/business/02oil.html?ex=1328072400&en=08a4aef44d86ae08&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

As a rule, effective propaganda mixes lies in with truths.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009649

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Tell us where the money comes from to promote the claimed "hoax", and how it compares with the money available to Exxon Mobil, the company with the world's largest profits, which HAS pumped enormous amounts into efforts to refute good science about CO2 emissions, etc.

www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=9
www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2004399,00.html
www.nytimes.com/2007/02/02/business/02oil.html?ex=1328072400&en=08a4aef44d86ae08&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

As a rule, effective propaganda mixes lies in with truths.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009649

I had forgot about this. Thanks for bring it back up.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[narcimund 0]

Quote

sidestep sidestep sidestep}

Sorry Kallend and Billvon. He's not going to participate. He's just not gonna.

I think we can guess why not.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

sidestep sidestep sidestep}

Sorry Kallend and Billvon. He's not going to participate. He's just not gonna.

I think we can guess why not.

And here we have it folks. More thought and insight than can be found from anyone on the site. Priceless........

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,649]

Quote

Quote

Tell us where the money comes from to promote the claimed "hoax", and how it compares with the money available to Exxon Mobil, the company with the world's largest profits, which HAS pumped enormous amounts into efforts to refute good science about CO2 emissions, etc.

www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=9
www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2004399,00.html
www.nytimes.com/2007/02/02/business/02oil.html?ex=1328072400&en=08a4aef44d86ae08&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

As a rule, effective propaganda mixes lies in with truths.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009649

Oh yes, The WSJ Opinion page - ha ha. About as impartial as Salon.

It didn't deny the $10k bribe, it just called it a "commission fee".

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,649]

Quote

Quote

Quote

sidestep sidestep sidestep}

Sorry Kallend and Billvon. He's not going to participate. He's just not gonna.

I think we can guess why not.

And here we have it folks. More thought and insight than can be found from anyone on the site. Priceless........

Still avoiding the question about the source of the money?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Still avoiding the question about the source of the money?

He'll avoid it with snipes all day long if he has to. But pretty quick here everyone else will lose interest. He'll check back in to the thread every few minutes and when an hour passes without another challenge he'll breathe a big sigh of relief.

Then he'll gleefully post another very silly anti-global-warming editorial from "Oil News Weekly" or "S.U.V. Enthusiast" or "Republican Talking Points Review".

(If we're lucky he'll do something really funny like forget to read it first and accidently post another PRO-global-warming article thinking it's the opposite. I like it when he does that.)

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[rushmc 18]

After this post I did a little more digging. Linked is one article (or what ever) that I found.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/07/potential_leaka.html

So I got to thinking. And you like to use analogies so I thought about this one.

Ethanol is being pushed hard in the Midwest right now. Anything the gov does to promote something usually has somebody getting rich and , even more unfortunately, major unintended consequences. This new ethanol industry is haveing major unintended impacts.

1st, the price of corn going up so much has caused land owners to till land that is not well suited for row crop production. Run off and loss of wild life cover is a result

2nd the meat industry is getting hit hard. Many farmers will stop meat production if the price does not lower. Hense, and industry is hurt and prices will go up

3rd I am now even seeing claims that burning ethanol creates more pollution than gas??. This one remains an open topic for me

So, to tie this together with the CO2 storage issue. (I admit I know very little about this) But common sense dictates to me that concentrations of anything, including CO2 would or could create something very toxic. To remove it, concentrated it and store it today, when the true impacts of it in the atmosphere are still very much up in the air seems irresponsible to me.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln