Oh, you know those scientists, Fred. You can't trust what they say. They're all just grubbing for gubmint grant money.
No Scott we must accept everything they say without question...
You taught me that.
Sucks about the trees. But that's okay, because Global Warming is not even real!
You are so misguided Jay.
I've said here about a hundred times that we are in a warming trend. What is in doubt is what is causing it and the gloom and doom and end of the earth scenarios.
How the heck do you know we are in a warming trend, Fred? What makes you so sure?
At the rate they are changing statistics Scott and revising things down due to errors in the computer models they have been using, perhaps I should reconsider that.
Thanks for making the suggestion.
(perhaps you should follow it yourself)
But how can you be confident in these 'revisions'??? We all know these guys can't be trusted!
Nice try Scottie. I do have an open mind on this...
You are the one not open to anything other than your closed view of this situation.
I really don't feel like playing your game on this today.
I'm just trying to figure out how you know which scientists to trust and which are just money-grubbing liars.
WOA, wait a minute!!!
I admit that my science knowledge is not up to PhD standards, BUT it seems to me that way back in biology 101 I learned that plants take up carbon dioxide in daylight to use for the photosynthesis process, and they emit oxygen in that process.
However, at night plants take up oxygen and emit carbon dioxide, which is why, before air conditioning was introduced into hospitals, nurses removed all plants from patient rooms.
So if that is true, it seems to me that plant respiration would balance things out in the atmosphere and really make no difference at all. Or was science wrong at one time. Nah, that couldn't be! Science is always right.
If you have more recent knowledge about this, I would like to know---with proof of course, because I won't just take your word for it.
Another question I have is: If dry ice is just CO2 and if we want to get rid of some of the CO2, why can't we just turn a portion of it into dry ice? I guess it would depend on the energy balance in that it might take more enery to make dry ice than just to leave things as they are?
But CO2 can also be turned into a type of glass. So why can't we get rid of some of it and turn it into that and store it the way we would store nuclear energy?
I know these questions probably have good answers, but I would like to hear them from some of the "brains" on this blog and see what you have to say.
But, Rose, I've been hearing all year how it's not CO2 causing the warming, but Solar Activity! Which is why Mars! Is warming! And why it doesn't matter! That trees don't suck up more CO2!
Look, either admit that CO2 is a cause of warming--meaning that human production of more and more CO2 is a contributing factor--or stick to your line that CO2 isn't the cause. I can't argue with you if you can't keep your stories straight!
No, I do not believe CO2 is causing global warming, except maybe in a very minor way which we don't understand as yet. My story is quite straight.
My questions are theoretical because a lot of things I learned seems to contradict what is being said these days by the global warming ilk------ like the current balderdash about trees and CO2.
So answer the question without your usual insults and silly insinuations.
As for claiming that solar activity causes global warming, I said no such thing. What I did say, however, is that solar activity has increased and all the planets are warming and NO ONE KNOWS WHY. That means, at least to me, that these known facts may or may not be a causative factor and we simply don't know.
Please learn to read without extracting preconceived notions from what you read.
By the way, if you read scientific information in the same way you read my commentary, with preconceived notions instead of what is actually being said, then I can certainly understand how you have come to the incorrect conclusions you've come to.
It's easy to do, but it doesn't cut it with me.
Jay the point is the science is not settled.
You and yours seem to think it is and wish to heap ridicule on those who disagree.
Much like you are doing here.
Fred, I find it amazing that we read so much contradictory stuff, including this article about trees, and yet the global warming crowd says it's all settled.
For heaven's sake, they don't even understand the carbon cycle as far as vegetation is concerned, but they claim they know it all, and reporters like this one never ask the questions they should be asking---like not only do trees NOT offset the carbon cycle, but what happens at night? Did they study these trees at night? What sort of trees is she talking about? Are there trees that make more CO2 and less CO2 or oxygen? Does sunlight have anything to do with it? Hey, they've found that moisture has something to do with it, but nothing is mentioned about other variables.
This is the sort of garbage that I resent being put out there. Whatever studies were done are filtered through a know-nothing reporter and perpetuated in the media.
Frankly, that sort of ignorance by reporters and their readers astounds me more than anything else. If it weren't so serious in the way that this ignorance is bound to affect my life at some point, it would be downright funny.
I just did some cursory reading about this subject, namely global warming and trees, and the contradictory information is mind boggling. No one reallky seems to know what they are talking about, including some scientists (or the reporter did not report all the scientist actually said, which is the more likely scenario). And not one reporter I read asked the right questions. Frankly, I can't believe some of the studies that have been done even get funding.
But that's the Chicken Little Syndrome in action! Panic and irrelevance and wrong conclusions!
As I have said in the past, we are probably 20 years or more away from having enough data and computing power to acurately model the activity of a single eukaryotic cell - the whole point of systems biology. To even suggest that we have enough data and computers to model all of the inputs, outputs and activity of an entire planet is arrogance squared.
While it is best to make educacted decisions before crises occur, I continue to submit that we need to spend the global warming remediation fund on things that we can all agree are bad for people and the planet, like famine, cancer, mercury and other heavy metal pollution, access to clean water, etc.
Sequestration of CO2 by plants is pretty simple. They photosynthesize during the day and respire 24 hours a day. When they create net biomass (they grow), that means on balance they are taking up more CO2 than they respire and storing it as cellulose.
The reporter for this article is pretty clueless. If trees don't have enough water or nutrients, they won't grow. This is not news. The idea behind carbon offsets is to restore forests where they naturally occur but have been destroyed. The biomass of the restored forest will come from CO2. There are issues related to accounting for carbon offsets and making sure the offsets wouldn't have occurred anyway without intervention, but this article is pretty off the mark.
Hey, I'm all in favor of trees. In fact, the more the better.
But overall I agree with ed's posting, including that when it comes to priorities we should be spending money on those things we actually do have some control over, such as like famine, cancer, mercury and other heavy metal pollution, access to clean water, etc
Hmmmm, regarding this one: " Sequestration of CO2 by plants is pretty simple." Oh yeah, if it's so simple how come even the scientific papers I've read niggle about the details?
" They photosynthesize during the day and respire 24 hours a day. When they create net biomass (they grow), that means on balance they are taking up more CO2 than they respire and storing it as cellulose." --- Sure of that are ye? About the balance part I mean? even if the scientists are not sure? And you deliberately did not say that when that biomass dies it causes methane, right? That's why there is usually a high methane content over the rain forest---because of all the dying plant material there. And isn't methane one of the gases being accused of all sorts of wrongdoing? And did you include that in your equasion by any chance?
Just curious.
I've discovered who is responsible for global warming.
Apparently there are these scientists at Duke University that have been pumping CO2 into the atmosphere every day for the last ten years!
Notice Scott tries the cheap liberal dodge when Fred acknowledges the planet is warming???
The SCOTT/LIB template is destroyed.
Scotts whole juvenile game is that CONSERVATIVES deny the planet is warming.
I'm conservative. I'm not debating whether or not the planet is warming. I'm saying that Scott and his ILK are f'ing goofballs.
Scott isn't asserting that the planet is warming. No one really is. But libs like Scott try to win and argument dishonestly.
I.E. "You cons deny the planet is warming, and all of the data says it is".
Bullshyte. The planet has warmed before. It has cooled before. Scott and his lefty friends, need a CAUSE. 4 DEAD IN OH-HIGH-OH is no longer sexy.
So, despite cleaner air, less factory pollution, 3x higher fuel standards. LIBS like Scott, need something to bitch about, because libs like Scott are impotent clowns.
I'm trying to figure out how Fred on the one hand denies a vast number of scientists' opinion because they're "just trying to get government grant money" while at the same time putting up scientists with another opinion and saying they can be trusted. I'd like to know what the criteria is for deciding which are greedy liars and which are crusading good guys.
I have an open mind Scott.
Tell me why do you blindly stick to your consensus?
I take each one on its merit and decide based on that.
For example. Dr Landsea has MUCH credit with me for standing on principle. While the consensus he opposed as being rhetoric slinging liars you seem to cast your lot with.
Tell me why do you blindly stick to your consensus?
Because it's a, uh.. consensus? A majority? If there's a better way for us laypersons to decide which scientific view to "cast our lot" with, I'd like to hear it.
The consensus used to be the Earth was flat...
The issue Scott is some people (yourself included) think this science is settled. It is far from settled.
We learn something new every day.
Move beyond the political rhetoric where people are threatening to destroy careers if they do not change their beliefs....
Read this for starters.
http://www.norcalblogs.com/
watts...t_from_the.html
Hmmmm, regarding this one: " Sequestration of CO2 by plants is pretty simple." Oh yeah, if it's so simple how come even the scientific papers I've read niggle about the details?
No, this is really, really simple. No niggling needed. Plants have mass, right? They are made of cellulose, which is just really long chain sugar molecules strung together. Those molecules are created by photosynthesis. CO2 which was in the air becomes the structure of the tree. By conservation of mass, the plant takes up more carbon than it produces.
"Sequestration of CO2 by plants ....consensus...photosynthesize "
Big words........more big words....feels self important.....BLAH, BLAH,BLAH!
ENOUGH!
SOMEONE TELL ME WHAT THE CORRECT TEMPERATURE OF THE EARTH SHOULD BE, ACCORDING TO YOU.
OK CPJ, I get it. You know all about photosynthesis and sequestration, BUT YOU NEVER ANSWERED ANY OF THE POINTS I MADE about the carbon/CO2 balance or the methane that plants emit when they rot. Nor have any of the articles I've read answered those.
So I'm just wondering, could all of you wise guys possibly not know what you're talking about? Just because you know ONE SEQUENCE in the chain doesn't mean you know all about the whole sequence. And that's the point I'm driving at.
Frankly, I know about photosynthesis also as well as carbon sequestration. But that's only one little part of the big picture---and it's the big picture I'm after, see?
Unreal, the correct temperature the earth , according to the global warming crowd, is I think, whatever they feel is the most comfortable at the time. So I believe it varies and there's no "consensus" amonst them.
That makes me wonder even more why they are so unglued about global warming.
(all sarcasm here)
I sure am happy that none of these people I've talked to here or read in other places so far were my teachers. I actually had respect for some of my teachers who did know what they were talking about and were smart enough to answer my questions.
(more sarcasm)
roseindigo, the primary means of organic matter decay is aerobic, producing CO2. Plant matter is converted to humic and fulvic acids (the stuff in tea, more or less) and that decays in the presence of oxygen into CO2. It's certain anaerobic environments like swamps and lake beds where methanogenic bacteria produce methane.
As far as what temperature is "correct", civilization is well served by minimal change, as we have built cities and economic infrastructure based on our existing climate. Moving civilization gets really expensive.
Well then, according to your above commentary most of the environmental commentary I've read doesn't know what it's talking about, since they claim methane is one of the "bad" gases and it's caused by organic decay and farting cows (what about farting husbands??? they forgot about those and I bet they're worse than cows). I also read some drivel about trees being the only possible source of CO2 sequestration because other organic matter such as weeds and grasses decay too fast and therefore add to the methane load---pretty much all reading material from university think tanks with real live scientists who put this out for public consumption. Can't believe they get funding for this sort of babble.
And just because civilization is well served by "minimal" climate change, as you put it, doesn't mean that humanity can't survive very well with even some maximum climate change. Yes, it may be expensive and inconvenient and cause a whole new crop of wars for territory, but it's been done before and can be done again. And in many ways it may even be good for us overall because it will force us to become more creative.
So instead of spreading panic and government enforcement of all sorts of regulations we don't need and don't want, how about getting creative just in case global warming is for real and is something beyond mankind's control? Like, learning how to adapt, building new housing underground, manipulating crop genetics so we can grow food, learning how to make potable water from salty seas, and visiting the NorthWest Territories in Canada or Siberia to see what's up.
I think you global warmers just love to deal in creative horror scenarios. It seems to be a foreign concept to you to just be happy and deal with stuff in creative ways. You just seem to want to slap restrictions on everyone and give government more power than ever.
And you still haven't answered my questions about the overall balance of CO2 and methane and all the other variables that must be included in your so-called global warming shtick. Could it be that you just don't know? Nah! Not possible with people who are so smart and who have a "consensus".
And just because civilization is well served by "minimal" climate change, as you put it, doesn't mean that humanity can't survive very well with even some maximum climate change. Yes, it may be expensive and inconvenient and cause a whole new crop of wars for territory, but it's been done before and can be done again. And in many ways it may even be good for us overall because it will force us to become more creative.
I actually welcome this line of thinking although I strongly disagree with you. What you are talking about is whether we should do something about climate change. Personally, I think it's worth trying to prevent resource wars, economic upheaval etc. especially since reducing climate change has the side benefits of not having to kiss dictators' rings for their oil and reducing air pollution. This is the debate we should be having, however.
And you still haven't answered my questions about the overall balance of CO2 and methane and all the other variables that must be included in your so-called global warming shtick. Could it be that you just don't know? Nah! Not possible with people who are so smart and who have a "consensus".
I don't know exactly what question you still have regarding CO2 and methane. I suppose you're referring to a paper which claimed that forests were a significant source of methane produced aerobically through some unknown process. The paper may be interesting, but of course it does fly in the face of alot of other research, so I wouldn't give it much weight unless it is confirmed. A paper published since has flatly contradicted it using similar methodology. Note that anthropogenic climate change denialists such as yourself often claim that scientific dissent is stifled; the first paper belies that claim.
I think that if people here are questioning whether plants use more CO2 than O2 then it isn't even worth debating much scientific with them. Plants, like people are based on carbon molecules. They get their carbon out of the air. Carbon as CO2 is released when they die or burn, but the net effect of a forest is more Carbon in plant form than in CO2 form.
I also think that this "some maximum climate change" being something we shouldn't try to avoid argument that rose has thrown out yet again is excuse making at its worst. Seriously? The United States is very well situated in the current climate, I guess you'd prefer it be more like Northern Africa or the Mexican desert?
The main objection to taking actions against climate change is that it has a high cost right (the uncertainty of it happening wouldn't be much of an issue if it was free to address), but the maximum climate change scenario and moving civlization would be far more expensive.
There are certainly places where there is room for debate on climate change, but the argument that we're better off doing nothing even if drastic climate change will happen makes almost no sense if you actually think about it. Then again, Rose is just excuse making as she plays cheerleader for her team.
Commenting by HaloScan
