Professor quits job at university over "craziness" in climate science

a reply to: D8Tee

Both are part of the carbon cycle. In respiration the energy yield is 686 kcal per mole of glucose oxidized to CO2, while photosynthesis requires 686 kcal of energy to boost the electrons from the water to their high-energy perches in the reduced sugar -- light provides this energy.

Exactly my point. Respiration, the process that reduces gasses to create energy, produces carbon dioxide and is not thus 'carbon neutral.' That may seem like splitting hairs, but it is a very poignant point in the debate overall. Most people don't realize the difference between "carbon' and 'carbon dioxide,' and will immediately make the connection that 'carbon neutral' means something makes no carbon dioxide. That was the original context of the term.

In science, though, everything outside a massive star is technically 'carbon neutral' because carbon, an element, cannot be created any other way. So by a purely literal definition, yes, respiration is carbon neutral, combustion is carbon neutral, cooking coal is carbon neutral, everything is carbon neutral.

But that's not the correct context for the term. The correct context is a chemical process that does not produce carbon dioxide. That is the context I use, and the context I will continue to use, just like I refer to Climate Change by its original term, Global Warming. I will not accept terminology changes in the midst of a debate... such is an intellectually dishonest exercise in propaganda. Respiration, defined by the equation you presented, produces carbon dioxide. Respiration is thusly not 'carbon neutral.'

The carbon cycle, if balanced, is carbon neutral. The carbon cycle, if properly balanced, could include combustive as well as respiratory sources of carbon dioxide.

TheRedneck

a reply to: smurfy

That's why I say they should get the shekels they need

I absolutely agree. But I think you may misunderstand how research works.

The vast majority of grant money is obtained through various government agencies. Most of my work funds come from the NSF (National Science Foundation), but there is grant money available from the Department of Commerce, the Department of Defense, Housing and Urban Development, etc, etc., etc. A few private organizations also provide grant money. Most grant money is administered through Universities, who manage the grant money and actually employ researchers based on that grant money. This is to help ensure the money actually goes to research, as well as to help involve more students in the process.

As an example: I write up a grant application on something I want to study. Let's say I want to study a Bluetooth mouse repellent (just something silly for sake of example). I know beforehand what the goals of the grantor are... maybe the NSF wants pest control in our satellites. I submit the grant application through my University, with one of the faculty members as PI (Primary Investigator). That application is then reviewed by the NSF, along with all the other applications, and let's say the NSF approves it for $50,000 over 12 months.

The University provides me with a lab and equipment. Any additional equipment I need can be purchased through grant money. Grant money is also used to pay my salary and purchase materials. At the end of the time period (which can be shorter than 12 months, but not longer), I publish my results.

My University gets approximately half the grant for administration, my PI adds his/her name to the paper, and I have a temporary job. If my paper gets good reviews, I get a little easier consideration for the next application. If I do good enough at the grant process, I may be hired full-time by the University.

The situation allows the grantors extreme control over what is researched, and that is where part of the problem comes in. If the grantors firmly believe that only carbon dioxide could be responsible for Global Warming, they are not likely to approve a study of solar variation or heat island effect. This may not even be intentional to try and skew results... why 'waste' money on an experiment that is 'obviously' going to show nothing of consequence? In addition, the University says which applications are even submitted, so those that buck present scientific opinion among the faculty can be dismissed out-of-hand.

It's not just that more money is needed (it is), but that the process tends to favor certain types of proposals.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: smurfy

That's why I say they should get the shekels they need

I absolutely agree. But I think you may misunderstand how research works.


The situation allows the grantors extreme control over what is researched, and that is where part of the problem comes in. If the grantors firmly believe that only carbon dioxide could be responsible for Global Warming, they are not likely to approve a study of solar variation or heat island effect. This may not even be intentional to try and skew results... why 'waste' money on an experiment that is 'obviously' going to show nothing of consequence? In addition, the University says which applications are even submitted, so those that buck present scientific opinion among the faculty can be dismissed out-of-hand.

It's not just that more money is needed (it is), but that the process tends to favor certain types of proposals.

TheRedneck

Yes, but that's exactly what I'm talking about, the funding scenario is much the same here in my part of the world, and money is being wasted, but there's more to it that, and one reason why I used the Squirrel thing, One researcher gets his/her grant on Squirrels as long as it includes some term of reference to climate change like sensitivity, habitat, predators or lack of and so on. However if the terms of reference of climate ch...let's just say global warming in itself is not correct due to a couple of centuries of which is obviously flawed ground based data, this is a whole production line of doo doo without a kill switch. making and revising parameters by messing about this way and that in modelling flawed data, or mixing or revising with something novel IMHO only makes things worse, and is a waste of money and time and brain power.
You've probably seen this video, it's not perfect by any means, but there is a clear enough message to know that the whole debacle over the subject is riven with deceit and arrogance all thrown to the plebs to make their voices known as if. I dare say many reseachers may be scrunching their bannocks over the way things have gone.

a reply to: D8Tee

Who are you quoting?

Is consumption a part of respiration? No.
Respiration is the chemical process itself. Consumption is the process of repletion of the resources necessary for respiration. No consumption = no respiration. Too much respiration without sufficient consumption --> death. They are not the same thing.

a reply to: TheRedneck

I agree, it is not inhabitable, yet. Yet....

a reply to: smurfy

I see I made an error. You sound like you do understand the grant process. Most people don't, in my experience.

Please forgive my presumptiveness. I agree completely.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

You are quite obviously a smart person.

I agree with your argument.

It is balanced in so much as the system remains balanced. It sounds like begging the question, but it actually is not. The former argument is the illogical of the two stated, i.e., that there is carbon neutral at all. Like I said earlier, and you stated in an argument that supports this, the total resources on Earth were made and change based on bodies crashing into the Earth. The makeup is no different than 100 billion years ago, plus the additional bodies that fell onto it. It's not rocket science ... literally.

Also, it does not matter what organism turns what molecule to another. All of the molecules where already here, and we, as organisms, transformed them into others. Carbon, on the other hand, is very specific. It is, what some of my friends call, Star Material.

That's the irony in saying someone is ... Star Material. TheRedneck might be Star Material.

On a side note, respiration, by definition, does not include consumption, regardless of what some math major said. That is the difference between math and people.

a reply to: rxh0272

Is consumption a part of respiration? No.

No consumption = no respiration.

You are good at contradicting yourself. I will quote what you have said to another member.

I am sorry, but you are an idiot.

a reply to: D8Tee


And, just to note, since I saw the question a few times...

Photosynthesis is NOT a part of respiration.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Of course you would know this, and some others would not. The topic from the start was that the professor resigned for this sole reason.

a reply to: rxh0272

Photosynthesis is NOT a part of respiration.

It's part of the carbon cycle, have to get the sugars from somewhere. Nowhere was it said that it was part of respiration. For someone who claims to be in health care, you show a surprising lack of knowledge. Are you aware of this equations for both processes?

a reply to: rxh0272

The makeup is no different than 100 billion years ago, plus the additional bodies that fell onto it.

Science doesn't seem to be your strong point.

rxh0272, you are only making yourself look bad by running around sucking up to some members you agree with and calling the others idiots, carry on. Remember not to drive when you are in this condition.

a reply to: rxh0272

That is either a very poor attempt at a strawman argument or you don't understand that the carbon cycle, in the context of global warming, which is the topic, concerns atmospheric CO2 levels. Respiration has no net effect on atmospheric CO2 levels. The combustion of fossil fuels does.

a reply to: D8Tee
[SNIP]

" The total amount of carbon on planet Earth never changes. We cannot create or
destroy carbon atoms" (STEM, 202).

As I said, the resources are finite. We, as creatures, simply convert one molecule to another. The entire system, as we know it, is balanced. It has nothing to do with humans. We, as humans, have created ideas and theories to try and understand what is and what is the future.

Simply put, we as a species simply do not understand our own existence or that of the world and how it functions. And, for one to believe so would only highlight one's stupidity.

a reply to: Phage

There is no carbon cycle, as you explain it. It is a theory, an idea, for you to try and understand what is happening. The truth is that no one actually knows how any of it works.

a reply to: rxh0272

Don't take my word for it nitwit.

Oh, there is no need to worry about that.

As I said, the resources are finite.

You are aware that most all of the fossil fuels we are burning have been sequestered and out of the system for quite some time? I'm unsure how far along the learning curve you are, but I'm getting a better idea with each post you make.