It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Controversial New Climate Change Data: Is Earth's Capacity To Absorb CO2 Much Greater Than Expected
page: 2share:
Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
To even think that we, as mere humans, can affect something so huge in scope is absurd. Always has been, always will be.
It is like a colony of ants thinking they are moving a mountain after a rockslide occurs. Must stop making those ant tunnels under our square foot of mountain so the whole mountain does not collapse!
Ludicrous.
[edit on 11/12/2009 by Lemon.Fresh]
This is exactly what I have said for years. How egotistical it is of man to think that he can alter the entire ecosystem of a planet... and by accident as well!
As you said, absurd!
Originally posted by mattpryor
reply to post by prof-rabbit
Exactly. Earth will recover from whatever we throw at it. It may take a while though.
It's humanity we should be concerned about, and what sort of planet we want to live on.
If we stopped all major pollution today the degradation would increase for the next 50 years, as it is basic greed at all levels will continue.
The scientific community has spoken about climate change for a very long time. vis.
quote
In 1952 the New York Times remarked that thirty years from now, people might look back fondly on the mild winters of the 1950s.
and
in 1959 the New York Times reported that the ice in the Arctic Ocean was only half as thick as it had been in the previous century. Still, the report concluded, "the warming trend is not considered either alarming or steep."
and
Another scientist the media noticed was the physicist Gilbert Plass, whose own work had convinced him that CO2 would warm the planet. In a 1959 Scientific American article he boldly predicted that global temperatures would rise something like 3°F (1.7°C) by the end of the century. Plass, thinking as a scientist, only remarked that this would allow a conclusive test of the CO2 theory of climate change.
and
The one unchallenged fact was Keeling's measurement of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. His curve rose year by year through the 1960s.The rise impressed scientists who reviewed climate issues on behalf of various committees. A pioneer was the private Conservation Foundation, which sponsored a 1963 conference on climate. The scientists issued a report warning of "potentially dangerous atmospheric increases of carbon dioxide."
and
This "Study of Man's Impact on Climate," focused tightly on climate change, was a landmark in the development of awareness. The group concluded with a ringing call for attention to the dangers of humanity's emissions of greenhouse gases and particle pollutants. Their widely read report gave as its epigraph a Sanskrit prayer: "Oh, Mother Earth... pardon me for trampling on you."
Here it is, 2009 and all we can do is "talk" about what to do.
Originally posted by IrnBruFiend
1) Making people more submissive through fear
- the BBC news presented images showing a large part of the UK underwater
[edit on 12-11-2009 by IrnBruFiend]
I remember that. Also do you recall the DocuDrama a couple of years ago, where the whole of London was flooded because of Climate change? I can't remember who made that, but it was either BBC or C4.
The media are definately scare mongering and the (State funded and run) BBC are the worst for it. Coincidence? Nah!
P.S. When they find proof that climate change is a natural phenomenon and the public find out, do you think we'll get our money back from Grren Taxes?
Will we arses!
reply to post by melatonin
Oh?
That sounds pretty much like 'irrelevance' to me, mel.
Please elucidate? Exactly what context are you referring to?
I think that is the whole point.
This study does not have a computer model to go along with it. It makes no future prediction. It simply shows that other, previous studies have potential errors in them.
Computers are not psychics. Computers are little more than programmable calculators, mathematical robots if you will. Even this screen, which contains more alphabetic than numerical data at first glance, is just a representation of mathematical processes. Each letter is a representation of a hexadecimal number.
When it comes to crunching numbers, computers are awesome. They can perform calculations millions of times faster than humans, with no errors, and they do it 24/7. But a computer does not understand what it is doing. It is simply executing a program using the data that is given to it in the manner in which it is programmed. That means a computer model is subject to the same logical errors and mistakes that the programmer is subject to... actually more, since most debugging of routines involves locating and fixing typos.
That does not mean we should discount computer models out of hand, but it does mean we should not trust them implicitly either. It means they are no more than an educated guess, carried forward to try and understand/predict results. This has been going on long before computers; every scientist makes such predictions, as a way to test his/her hypotheses.
Where I have problems is when a computer model is given so much weight that studies of actual historical data (such as this one) as minimized because they do not come complete with some computer model. It is sometimes enough to simply state that there could be errors in the data and assumptions that went into a previous model.
That is called 'peer review'.
Again, you miss the point. If there is an error in an assumption that was made in the models used, it follows that not only should these models be adjusted to agree with observed data, but also it would indicate the possibility of other errors.
GIGO, mel, GIGO. Garbage In = Garbage Out.
That's one of the things I like about you, mel. You are an eternal optimist. Even when faced with observed data errors, you can still spin things around to make an argument look contradictory.
I don't think I have even stated that we should not continue research into man-made effects on climate. Instead, I continue to call for more research. My continual concerns over financial conflicts of interest have focused on predictions and their related political aspirations, rather than the actual research.
Research = good. Hysterical promotion of doomsday scenarios in order to tax/control people and industries based on predictions = bad.
No, I'm not. Thus far, any suggestion of photosynthetic adjustments to CO2 absorption have been met with scorn and ridicule. I also have found precious little study concerning the heat island effect.
Now, that could be ignorance on my part. I have much more important things to do than scour the scientific horizon for studies which are dismissed in favor of Cap & Trade. Of course, if you have such information, feel free to post it and deny my ignorance.
Oh, and while I thank you for the thought, you should realize by now the only title I take seriously is the one to the left, at the very top:
TheRedneck
It's not an irrelevant study. I even said in the post, it raises further questions about the future of the carbon cycle.
Oh?
Originally posted by melatonin
Originally posted by willow1d
Here is something that is indeed extremely important to the Climate Summit in Copenhagen and the Cap & Trade bill.
Why?
Even at the current rate we'll see rapid climate change, with or without failure of ocean and terrestrial sinks. Just even more rapid with failure.
That sounds pretty much like 'irrelevance' to me, mel.
It's irrelevant in the context people here are trying to apply it.
Please elucidate? Exactly what context are you referring to?
Doesn't actually show that. It shows that since 1850 the absorption ability of sinks hasn't changed. It's only very recently that a small number of studies have suggested reductions. What the situation is in 50 years is still up in the air.
This article doesn't even go there.
I think that is the whole point.
This study does not have a computer model to go along with it. It makes no future prediction. It simply shows that other, previous studies have potential errors in them.
Computers are not psychics. Computers are little more than programmable calculators, mathematical robots if you will. Even this screen, which contains more alphabetic than numerical data at first glance, is just a representation of mathematical processes. Each letter is a representation of a hexadecimal number.
When it comes to crunching numbers, computers are awesome. They can perform calculations millions of times faster than humans, with no errors, and they do it 24/7. But a computer does not understand what it is doing. It is simply executing a program using the data that is given to it in the manner in which it is programmed. That means a computer model is subject to the same logical errors and mistakes that the programmer is subject to... actually more, since most debugging of routines involves locating and fixing typos.
That does not mean we should discount computer models out of hand, but it does mean we should not trust them implicitly either. It means they are no more than an educated guess, carried forward to try and understand/predict results. This has been going on long before computers; every scientist makes such predictions, as a way to test his/her hypotheses.
Where I have problems is when a computer model is given so much weight that studies of actual historical data (such as this one) as minimized because they do not come complete with some computer model. It is sometimes enough to simply state that there could be errors in the data and assumptions that went into a previous model.
That is called 'peer review'.
Fair enough, if that's what you want to focus on.
Only if you reduce land use changes to fit best a potential 0 change in AF, but the study actually produced a best estimate positive AF. TBH, land use changes are viewed as a minimal influence on climate change. It's more a problem for those trying to big up land use changes even more than is currently estimated. Forcing estimates of land use were even negative only a decade of so ago...
Again, you miss the point. If there is an error in an assumption that was made in the models used, it follows that not only should these models be adjusted to agree with observed data, but also it would indicate the possibility of other errors.
GIGO, mel, GIGO. Garbage In = Garbage Out.
lol, I like this sort of comment. We have denialists saying that climate scientists need this idea to keep their jobs and make big moolah. Yet others want to keep them working and studying in an effort to delay action, even when the general message is loud and clear.
That's one of the things I like about you, mel. You are an eternal optimist. Even when faced with observed data errors, you can still spin things around to make an argument look contradictory.
I don't think I have even stated that we should not continue research into man-made effects on climate. Instead, I continue to call for more research. My continual concerns over financial conflicts of interest have focused on predictions and their related political aspirations, rather than the actual research.
Research = good. Hysterical promotion of doomsday scenarios in order to tax/control people and industries based on predictions = bad.
Also noting the photosynthesis point, I shall now label you 'ATS chief delayer' rather than a denier. Have you actually looked for studies in that area? You are joking?
No, I'm not. Thus far, any suggestion of photosynthetic adjustments to CO2 absorption have been met with scorn and ridicule. I also have found precious little study concerning the heat island effect.
Now, that could be ignorance on my part. I have much more important things to do than scour the scientific horizon for studies which are dismissed in favor of Cap & Trade. Of course, if you have such information, feel free to post it and deny my ignorance.
Oh, and while I thank you for the thought, you should realize by now the only title I take seriously is the one to the left, at the very top:
TheRedneck
Originally posted by TheRedneck
It's not an irrelevant study. I even said in the post, it raises further questions about the future of the carbon cycle.
Oh?
Originally posted by melatonin
Originally posted by willow1d
Here is something that is indeed extremely important to the Climate Summit in Copenhagen and the Cap & Trade bill.
Why?
Even at the current rate we'll see rapid climate change, with or without failure of ocean and terrestrial sinks. Just even more rapid with failure.
That sounds pretty much like 'irrelevance' to me, mel.
It's irrelevant in the context people here are trying to apply it.
Please elucidate? Exactly what context are you referring to?
In the context you also just tried to implicitly suggest like others in this thread.
I think that is the whole point.
It is still arguable for the very recent future, but the notion of increasing air fraction on the longer scale is a tad more established (based in basic physics). When that happens, and at what rate would also be arguable.
This study does not have a computer model to go along with it. It makes no future prediction. It simply shows that other, previous studies have potential errors in them.
lol, so a study that has even larger uncertainties (error margins) than, for example, the Canadell study would be the best to rely on? All studies have errors/uncertainties.
Knorr's study does have a model actually, and it was done on a computer, lol. The guy has fit a set of data to a statistical model, and he found by reducing land use influences in the model he could make AF = 0. Cool.
That does not mean we should discount computer models out of hand, but it does mean we should not trust them implicitly either. It means they are no more than an educated guess, carried forward to try and understand/predict results. This has been going on long before computers; every scientist makes such predictions, as a way to test his/her hypotheses.
You do understand that these climate models are actually based on known physics? I'm not sure someone just types into a google-like program, 'what's the temperature in 100 years?'. They do have a physical basis. The calculations could be done on paper - would that make you happier? Computers are just a tad faster.
Where I have problems is when a computer model is given so much weight that studies of actual historical data (such as this one) as minimized because they do not come complete with some computer model. It is sometimes enough to simply state that there could be errors in the data and assumptions that went into a previous model.
That is called 'peer review'.
How has it been 'minimised'? It is what it is. It would only look 'minimised' if you are trying to exaggerate its importance and implications.
You've just said that it tells us nothing about the future and that previous studies are actually somewhat consistent with its large uncertainty.
Again, you miss the point. If there is an error in an assumption that was made in the models used, it follows that not only should these models be adjusted to agree with observed data, but also it would indicate the possibility of other errors.
GIGO, mel, GIGO. Garbage In = Garbage Out.
Models such as Hansen's late 80s version had a negative land use forcing. They still showed rapidly increasing temperatures for BAU. They are adjusted to account for the current data. That's why there is now a small positive forcing for land use changes - that's what the data from the likes of Pielke Sr suggested. If Knorr's assumption is valid (in that he just reduces land use to fit an idealised 0% AF model), the forcings due to land use will be downgraded yet again (they were reduced in the last IPCC report).
That's one of the things I like about you, mel. You are an eternal optimist. Even when faced with observed data errors, you can still spin things around to make an argument look contradictory.
The data from this study is still covers Canadell's data. Knorr tested the hypothesis of increasing AF, he found a mean positive AF which was actually larger than Canadell. But the uncertainties in his method and data were so large he could not reject the hypothesis of no change. You're trying to make out that this study from Knorr is controversial or overturns some sort of well-established position in climate science - it isn't and it doesn't. For example, Jones & Cox (2005) suggest constant AF as well.
This is a discussion at the forefront of research. It's pretty up in the air for both past changes in AF, current changes in AF, and near future changes in AF. None of which have any great import for the general claim that we are facing a pretty warm future.
No, I'm not. Thus far, any suggestion of photosynthetic adjustments to CO2 absorption have been met with scorn and ridicule. I also have found precious little study concerning the heat island effect.
lol, scientists are well aware of the UHI. A few years back you could barely get deniers to shut up about it, like anti-science nomads they move on to another area of the science to spread FUD. Numerous studies have assessed it.
Photosynthesis...
www.bnl.gov...
This area of research is not new. It appears some plants will do well, others it makes no difference (different types of photosynthesis). But it's more complicated than just CO2 increases (nutrients, temps, water etc). Even some of those that increase photosynthesis are suggested to only do so temporarily.
The problem here is that any extra absorption of CO2 isn't magicked away. It stays in the carbon cycle. Maybe you think plants send the carbon to mars - perhaps that's why it's warming (lol). Models even include increased productivity from photosynthesis.
Now, that could be ignorance on my part. I have much more important things to do than scour the scientific horizon for studies which are dismissed in favor of Cap & Trade. Of course, if you have such information, feel free to post it and deny my ignorance.
Ignorance is bliss, as they say.
[edit on 13-11-2009 by melatonin]
reply to post by melatonin
Arguable, yes. I have no disagreement that it is indeed an arguable position.
I only have disagreement when someone says a position is not arguable.
I don't think giving thought to one study necessarily implies that one must completely discount other studies. Do you?
Are you seriously suggesting the article that started this thread is incorrect? Could I see some evidence of this claim?
There have been many movies made that were 'based on a real story'... that does not mean they are an exact representation of that story, only that they are a loose interpretation of it.
It would appear to me that many of the present models are approached in the same way. Perhaps they were written in Hollywood CA?
Really, mel, you should get past this habit of jumping to conclusions. Where did I say any studies came from a Google search?
It is not the fact that a computer is used that bothers me. It is the fact that once a calculation is done, it must somehow be accepted as the final word, even when evidence of possible errors are shown.
The use of computers to do the modeling is only relevant when the computations are thus unable to be vetted by the public.
Correct. It alone does not foretell the future. It does indicate a problem with the data used to foretell the future. A psychic skeptic does not foretell the future, but he typically points out when the psychic (who does foretell the future) is running a scam.
That's exactly what this report (along with the countless other indications of improper data collection, intentional skewing of reports, and exaggerated claims concerning predictions) does: it casts some doubt on the present models. No more, no less.
So the AF values are irrelevant?
No, I have to ask this twice: are you saying that the amount of CO2 absorption by the ecosphere (which is what the AF values represent) have no bearing on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere? Would that not mean that the CO2 levels are themselves irrelevant to global temperatures?
Oh, I guess I am a bad denier then. I still haven't 'shut up about it'.
How about some of those famous melatonin 'linky-dinks'?
Different types of photosynthesis?
(x)CO2 + (x)H2O + solar energy --> (x)glucose + (x)O2
Care to give an example of these 'different' photosynthetic formulas you speak of?
Also, please give me an example of a plant which will do poorly when the ingredients for photosynthesis and environmental conditions improve.
I would also like an example of a photosynthetic organism which will slow its photosynthesis in response to improving conditions.
True. But that is also true whether or not that CO2 is produced from industrial means. There is no more carbon here today than there was 100 years ago, 1000 years ago, 1,000,000 years ago, or even 1,000,000,000 years ago! No matter what we do (short of shooting graphite into space ), there will be the same amount of carbon in 1000 years.
The only question even in the minds of the AGW alarmists is the sequestration of carbon into organic compounds as opposed to CO2. So exactly how is that sequestration not relevant?
Well, thank you for not popping my 'bliss'ter?
TheRedneck
It is still arguable for the very recent future, but the notion of increasing air fraction on the longer scale is a tad more established (based in basic physics). When that happens, and at what rate would also be arguable.
Arguable, yes. I have no disagreement that it is indeed an arguable position.
I only have disagreement when someone says a position is not arguable.
lol, so a study that has even larger uncertainties (error margins) than, for example, the Canadell study would be the best to rely on? All studies have errors/uncertainties.
I don't think giving thought to one study necessarily implies that one must completely discount other studies. Do you?
Knorr's study does have a model actually, and it was done on a computer, lol. The guy has fit a set of data to a statistical model, and he found by reducing land use influences in the model he could make AF = 0. Cool.
Source: www.sciencedaily.com...
The strength of the new study, published online in Geophysical Research Letters, is that it rests solely on measurements and statistical data, including historical records extracted from Antarctic ice, and does not rely on computations with complex climate models.
(emphasis mine)
Are you seriously suggesting the article that started this thread is incorrect? Could I see some evidence of this claim?
You do understand that these climate models are actually based on known physics?
There have been many movies made that were 'based on a real story'... that does not mean they are an exact representation of that story, only that they are a loose interpretation of it.
It would appear to me that many of the present models are approached in the same way. Perhaps they were written in Hollywood CA?
I'm not sure someone just types into a google-like program, 'what's the temperature in 100 years?'. They do have a physical basis.
Really, mel, you should get past this habit of jumping to conclusions. Where did I say any studies came from a Google search?
The calculations could be done on paper - would that make you happier? Computers are just a tad faster.
It is not the fact that a computer is used that bothers me. It is the fact that once a calculation is done, it must somehow be accepted as the final word, even when evidence of possible errors are shown.
The use of computers to do the modeling is only relevant when the computations are thus unable to be vetted by the public.
You've just said that it tells us nothing about the future and that previous studies are actually somewhat consistent with its large uncertainty.
Correct. It alone does not foretell the future. It does indicate a problem with the data used to foretell the future. A psychic skeptic does not foretell the future, but he typically points out when the psychic (who does foretell the future) is running a scam.
That's exactly what this report (along with the countless other indications of improper data collection, intentional skewing of reports, and exaggerated claims concerning predictions) does: it casts some doubt on the present models. No more, no less.
This is a discussion at the forefront of research. It's pretty up in the air for both past changes in AF, current changes in AF, and near future changes in AF. None of which have any great import for the general claim that we are facing a pretty warm future.
So the AF values are irrelevant?
No, I have to ask this twice: are you saying that the amount of CO2 absorption by the ecosphere (which is what the AF values represent) have no bearing on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere? Would that not mean that the CO2 levels are themselves irrelevant to global temperatures?
lol, scientists are well aware of the UHI. A few years back you could barely get deniers to shut up about it, like anti-science nomads they move on to another area of the science to spread FUD. Numerous studies have assessed it.
Oh, I guess I am a bad denier then. I still haven't 'shut up about it'.
How about some of those famous melatonin 'linky-dinks'?
This area of research is not new. It appears some plants will do well, others it makes no difference (different types of photosynthesis). But it's more complicated than just CO2 increases (nutrients, temps, water etc). Even some of those that increase photosynthesis are suggested to only do so temporarily.
Different types of photosynthesis?
(x)CO2 + (x)H2O + solar energy --> (x)glucose + (x)O2
Care to give an example of these 'different' photosynthetic formulas you speak of?
Also, please give me an example of a plant which will do poorly when the ingredients for photosynthesis and environmental conditions improve.
I would also like an example of a photosynthetic organism which will slow its photosynthesis in response to improving conditions.
The problem here is that any extra absorption of CO2 isn't magicked away. It stays in the carbon cycle.
True. But that is also true whether or not that CO2 is produced from industrial means. There is no more carbon here today than there was 100 years ago, 1000 years ago, 1,000,000 years ago, or even 1,000,000,000 years ago! No matter what we do (short of shooting graphite into space ), there will be the same amount of carbon in 1000 years.
The only question even in the minds of the AGW alarmists is the sequestration of carbon into organic compounds as opposed to CO2. So exactly how is that sequestration not relevant?
Ignorance is bliss, as they say.
Well, thank you for not popping my 'bliss'ter?
TheRedneck
Originally posted by TheRedneck
Arguable, yes. I have no disagreement that it is indeed an arguable position.
I only have disagreement when someone says a position is not arguable.
All positions are arguable with real evidence, though. The point is that some issues are understood well, others are pretty vague and very open (especially those at the forefront).
I don't think giving thought to one study necessarily implies that one must completely discount other studies. Do you?
That sounds good to me. I'm hoping that it's pretty clear the only really issue I have here is people's interpretation of the study - not really controversial and no groundbreaking import. It's looks a decent enough study and will stimulate more research.
Source: www.sciencedaily.com...
The strength of the new study, published online in Geophysical Research Letters, is that it rests solely on measurements and statistical data, including historical records extracted from Antarctic ice, and does not rely on computations with complex climate models.
(emphasis mine)
Are you seriously suggesting the article that started this thread is incorrect? Could I see some evidence of this claim?
I think the media article is overblown and the deniersphere's responses to it predictable, yes. But I was actually playing with you - statistics is a form of modelling, though, and we do them on computers now.
There have been many movies made that were 'based on a real story'... that does not mean they are an exact representation of that story, only that they are a loose interpretation of it.
It would appear to me that many of the present models are approached in the same way. Perhaps they were written in Hollywood CA?
Not enough explosions. If the model ended with Matt Damon saving the day, then I'd be convinced.
They do try to emulate the real-world as best as possible, and are based on real data and use real physics. Not perfect, of course. Never will be. Doesn't mean they are useless.
Really, mel, you should get past this habit of jumping to conclusions. Where did I say any studies came from a Google search?
It is not the fact that a computer is used that bothers me. It is the fact that once a calculation is done, it must somehow be accepted as the final word, even when evidence of possible errors are shown
I was pulling legs. Just to highlight that they are actually based on real-world science rather than expecting a computer to magic an answer from cyberspace.
Who said it was the final word? The models show warming into the future, they estimate climate sensitivity that is confirmed by real-world observations. You can take the observations or the models, they essentially show the same thing.
The use of computers to do the modeling is only relevant when the computations are thus unable to be vetted by the public.
Oh, please, RD. Don't regurgitate this sort of stuff. Most of the models are available freely online. I'm sure the public would have fun with a piece of FORTRAN software, lol.
Correct. It alone does not foretell the future. It does indicate a problem with the data used to foretell the future. A psychic skeptic does not foretell the future, but he typically points out when the psychic (who does foretell the future) is running a scam.
That's exactly what this report (along with the countless other indications of improper data collection, intentional skewing of reports, and exaggerated claims concerning predictions) does: it casts some doubt on the present models. No more, no less.
Now you're going all anti-science ideologue on me. Good while it lasted...
Why does it cast doubt on current models? All they do is plug in the numbers. If the data shows negative forcing from land use, that's what's used. If the data shows positive, that's what's used. Models have used both extremes and still find the same general outcome - we get warm.
Land use is a minimal influence. And for past AF, most models have been estimating a negative AF - therefore they should be more extreme than they are.
So the AF values are irrelevant?
No, but they are easily misinterpreted. They can stay stable and the carbon cycle be altered, and they can change without meaning feedbacks are kicking in.
The AF depends on a number of factors, and even exponential increases in emissions could still be associated with consistent AF.
No, I have to ask this twice: are you saying that the amount of CO2 absorption by the ecosphere (which is what the AF values represent) have no bearing on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere? Would that not mean that the CO2 levels are themselves irrelevant to global temperatures?
That's actually a non-sequitur.
But I never said that. I am saying that much of the noise in this thread is irrelevant - this article is not controversial nor especially important to the level that the OP suggests.
What I did say is that even with constant AF, the future isn't bright. Lets say that AF stays constant. Lets say the sinks remove 50% of all CO2 emitted, and do so into the future - if we release 8GtC, then 4 is absorbed. If we release 12GtC, then 6 is absorbed. Both are still 50%AF, but the second is more problematic. So we can see increasing rates of CO2 accumulating with a constant AF. If AF turns positive, then it just exacerbates the problem. It will very likely happen in time, for one, the basic chemical physics of the oceans will ensure that.
So what I was saying is that even with constant AF, emissions are still an issue. To answer the non-sequitur, the level of AF and sink absorption has no influence on the physical characteristics of a CO2 molecule.
How about some of those famous melatonin 'linky-dinks'?
I've made a decision to ignore septic zombieisms, it's tedious, if you go scattergun denialism on me I'll pick and choose what I find interesting enough to bother with. Try Parker's studies at Hadley.
Different types of photosynthesis?
Yes. There is C3, C4, and CAM.
Care to give an example of these 'different' photosynthetic formulas you speak of?
Educate yourself. You might need to go beyond high-school biology.
Also, please give me an example of a plant which will do poorly when the ingredients for photosynthesis and environmental conditions improve.
I would also like an example of a photosynthetic organism which will slow its photosynthesis in response to improving conditions.
I didn't say they would do poorly. I said this:
"This area of research is not new. It appears some plants will do well, others it makes no difference (different types of photosynthesis)"
TBH, I'm sure I could find some, but I can't be bothered, once the dead are dragged out I find myself losing interest...
True. But that is also true whether or not that CO2 is produced from industrial means. There is no more carbon here today than there was 100 years ago, 1000 years ago, 1,000,000 years ago, or even 1,000,000,000 years ago! No matter what we do (short of shooting graphite into space ), there will be the same amount of carbon in 1000 years.
Except that this carbon had been locked up out of the carbon cycle for millions of years.
The only question even in the minds of the AGW alarmists is the sequestration of carbon into organic compounds as opposed to CO2. So exactly how is that sequestration not relevant?
It is important in that it provides more absorption. But plants die and decompose, releasing the carbon. If it gets locked up as woody material, then it stays out the cycle a bit longer. But vegetative mass, especially in tropics, decomposes rapidly.
Well, thank you for not popping my 'bliss'ter?
TheRedneck
lol. Well, maybe at the minimum you might be motivated to learn about the different types of photosynthesis.
[edit on 13-11-2009 by melatonin]
reply to post by melatonin
Have you noticed that whenever we tie up like this, everyone else quits posting?
Agreed. Even scientific principles which have a good deal of evidence are arguable, especially when the evidence is in doubt or when contradictory evidence is unearthed. But I will also agree that those principles which have a good deal of supporting evidence will require more to dislodge them.
Again, I can't argue with that position.
All media articles are overblown. It seems to be a constant whenever there is a controversial scientific topic.
And yes, I understand that statistics are a form of modeling.
I hope you understand that my only objection to the use of computer models is that they are not 100% accurate, but typically the media reports them as such. Any model is only as accurate as the data that is used and the algorithms it contains. Models are indeed helpful and a valuable tool, as long as one realizes that a 'model' is not an 'observation'.
Probably don't need the explosions. You have to admit some contain plenty of drama without explosions.
Not useless, but also not perfect. A prediction, to be tested against future observations to verify the integrity of the model.
Who said it? The media... pundits... politicians... essentially everyone with a vested interest except the actual hands-on scientists.
The problem is that most people never get to hear from the scientists themselves. They stay locked up in laboratories, making observations and writing papers that no one except other scientists ever see.
The observations are not entirely consistent with the models. There are fairly regular adjustments made to keep the models consistent with the observations. Acknowledged, these are typically minor corrections, but taken over time, will they be enough to render today's data set unreliable as it pertains to tomorrow?
This is the true heart of our disagreement. You say no; I say yes. In the end, the only way for us to settle this disagreement is to wait and see what happens.
Exactly my point. Who is going to sort through source code looking for errors? I will admit I don't; I simply have more important things to do. As a matter of fact, are they using FORTRAN for the code? That was my best computer science subject way back in stone-age college. I didn't think anyone used it any more...
OK, for the sake of argument I'll temporarily accept that in both cases we 'get warm'. But do we get as warm? Do we get warmer? Different numbers entered as data will give different answers, and if land use is not relevant, then that in itself indicates to me that there may be something amiss in the models used. A city block absorbs far far less CO2 than a section of rainforest; that is self-evident. So if the model shows that a city block contributes no more or less to climate change than an equal area of rainforest, that shows one of two possibilities: either the models are wrong, or CO2 levels themselves have no effect on temperature.
Now, I personally do not believe CO2 levels have no influence on temperature (just not as great an influence as you do). That means that the models must have some problem in them.
In another area of research, this would not be a major deal; someone in scientific circles would discover that there was a problem eventually, the problem would be located and corrected, and research would continue. But when you include the socio-political consequences surrounding Global Warming, this normally minor (and to some degree expected) adjustment could have serious consequences.
No disagreement here.
Oh, and we were doing so good... Sorry, mel, but you did mistype your (assumed) intentions. As worded, your response was a non-sequitur.
That much is apparent, assuming constant CO2 AF. However, it would appear to me that the data does not indicate constant AF, or even linear progression of AF. It instead indicates a complex curve, which could lead to areas of positive and negative AF at differing concentrations.
It could also indicate that we may have some control over AF based on land use. Perhaps that is an area that should be investigated as a solution for rising CO2 levels, instead of some silly taxation scheme? I mean, it would do more good to plant trees than it would to tax a company, and would cost far less to the average consumer as well.
Excuse me? Perhaps you should educate yourself.
C2, C4, and CAM are not different types of photosynthesis; they refer to different pathways used in the process. To use a rough analogy, Fords and Chevys use different components, but both use gasoline to produce mechanical energy which is then used to propel them from one point to another under the control of the operator.
C3, C4, and CAM all are responsible for the following equation:
(x)CO2 + (x)H2O + solar energy --> (x)Glucose + (x) O2
C3, C4, and CAM differ only in the chemical pathways used to accomplish the above equation.
C3, C4, and CAM all proceed at a rate determined for the most part by the temperature (within a certain range), CO2 availability, and solar irradiation absorbed.
Stating that they are different in the context of this discussion is, to quote a favorite term of yours, a complete strawman argument.
Yes, you did. I apologize for incorrectly paraphrasing your words.
However, there are no green plants which will be unaffected by rising levels of temperature, CO2, and water vapor. Every green photosynthesis-based plant will react the same way to these conditions, since they all use essentially identical chemical reactions. Also, there will be no 'temporary' improvements to the efficiency of the photosynthesis; we're not talking about Ni-Cad batteries here. A blade of grass does not change its photosynthetic properties short of dying off. As long as it is alive (the processes are continuing), it will function as it has to, according to basic laws of chemistry.
And where was it before that? If you do not ascribe to the abiotic oil theory, then all that carbon was at one time in the 'carbon cycle', as part of a host of living creatures. Obviously, it didn't make life impossible then, or the creatures would not have been living in the first place.
If you do subscribe to abiotic oil, then all that crude is being manufactured at a fairly regular rate, and that would mean if we didn't pump it out, it would soon start spewing out of the ground.
Decomposition is not combustion. Combustion releases CO2 into the atmosphere almost exclusively. Decomposition involves many pathways for the carbon compounds to follow, some into soil soil nutrients, some into animal products, some into CO2.
That, my friend, is your 'carbon cycle'. It has also been called 'the circle of life'.
And you feel free to read up on the actual pathways involved in decomposition.
TheRedneck
[edit on 11/13/2009 by TheRedneck]
Have you noticed that whenever we tie up like this, everyone else quits posting?
All positions are arguable with real evidence, though. The point is that some issues are understood well, others are pretty vague and very open (especially those at the forefront).
Agreed. Even scientific principles which have a good deal of evidence are arguable, especially when the evidence is in doubt or when contradictory evidence is unearthed. But I will also agree that those principles which have a good deal of supporting evidence will require more to dislodge them.
I'm hoping that it's pretty clear the only really issue I have here is people's interpretation of the study - not really controversial and no groundbreaking import. It's looks a decent enough study and will stimulate more research.
Again, I can't argue with that position.
I think the media article is overblown and the deniersphere's responses to it predictable, yes. But I was actually playing with you - statistics is a form of modelling, though, and we do them on computers now.
All media articles are overblown. It seems to be a constant whenever there is a controversial scientific topic.
And yes, I understand that statistics are a form of modeling.
I hope you understand that my only objection to the use of computer models is that they are not 100% accurate, but typically the media reports them as such. Any model is only as accurate as the data that is used and the algorithms it contains. Models are indeed helpful and a valuable tool, as long as one realizes that a 'model' is not an 'observation'.
Not enough explosions. If the model ended with Matt Damon saving the day, then I'd be convinced.
Probably don't need the explosions. You have to admit some contain plenty of drama without explosions.
They do try to emulate the real-world as best as possible, and are based on real data and use real physics. Not perfect, of course. Never will be. Doesn't mean they are useless.
Not useless, but also not perfect. A prediction, to be tested against future observations to verify the integrity of the model.
Who said it was the final word? The models show warming into the future, they estimate climate sensitivity that is confirmed by real-world observations. You can take the observations or the models, they essentially show the same thing.
Who said it? The media... pundits... politicians... essentially everyone with a vested interest except the actual hands-on scientists.
The problem is that most people never get to hear from the scientists themselves. They stay locked up in laboratories, making observations and writing papers that no one except other scientists ever see.
The observations are not entirely consistent with the models. There are fairly regular adjustments made to keep the models consistent with the observations. Acknowledged, these are typically minor corrections, but taken over time, will they be enough to render today's data set unreliable as it pertains to tomorrow?
This is the true heart of our disagreement. You say no; I say yes. In the end, the only way for us to settle this disagreement is to wait and see what happens.
Oh, please, RD. Don't regurgitate this sort of stuff. Most of the models are available freely online. I'm sure the public would have fun with a piece of FORTRAN software, lol.
Exactly my point. Who is going to sort through source code looking for errors? I will admit I don't; I simply have more important things to do. As a matter of fact, are they using FORTRAN for the code? That was my best computer science subject way back in stone-age college. I didn't think anyone used it any more...
Why does it cast doubt on current models? All they do is plug in the numbers. If the data shows negative forcing from land use, that's what's used. If the data shows positive, that's what's used. Models have used both extremes and still find the same general outcome - we get warm.
OK, for the sake of argument I'll temporarily accept that in both cases we 'get warm'. But do we get as warm? Do we get warmer? Different numbers entered as data will give different answers, and if land use is not relevant, then that in itself indicates to me that there may be something amiss in the models used. A city block absorbs far far less CO2 than a section of rainforest; that is self-evident. So if the model shows that a city block contributes no more or less to climate change than an equal area of rainforest, that shows one of two possibilities: either the models are wrong, or CO2 levels themselves have no effect on temperature.
Now, I personally do not believe CO2 levels have no influence on temperature (just not as great an influence as you do). That means that the models must have some problem in them.
In another area of research, this would not be a major deal; someone in scientific circles would discover that there was a problem eventually, the problem would be located and corrected, and research would continue. But when you include the socio-political consequences surrounding Global Warming, this normally minor (and to some degree expected) adjustment could have serious consequences.
No, but they are easily misinterpreted. They can stay stable and the carbon cycle be altered, and they can change without meaning feedbacks are kicking in.
The AF depends on a number of factors, and even exponential increases in emissions could still be associated with consistent AF.
No disagreement here.
That's actually a non-sequitur.
But I never said that. I am saying that much of the noise in this thread is irrelevant - this article is not controversial nor especially important to the level that the OP suggests.
Oh, and we were doing so good... Sorry, mel, but you did mistype your (assumed) intentions. As worded, your response was a non-sequitur.
So what I was saying is that even with constant AF, emissions are still an issue. To answer the non-sequitur, the level of AF and sink absorption has no influence on the physical characteristics of a CO2 molecule.
That much is apparent, assuming constant CO2 AF. However, it would appear to me that the data does not indicate constant AF, or even linear progression of AF. It instead indicates a complex curve, which could lead to areas of positive and negative AF at differing concentrations.
It could also indicate that we may have some control over AF based on land use. Perhaps that is an area that should be investigated as a solution for rising CO2 levels, instead of some silly taxation scheme? I mean, it would do more good to plant trees than it would to tax a company, and would cost far less to the average consumer as well.
Yes. There is C3, C4, and CAM.
Educate yourself. You might need to go beyond high-school biology.
Excuse me? Perhaps you should educate yourself.
C2, C4, and CAM are not different types of photosynthesis; they refer to different pathways used in the process. To use a rough analogy, Fords and Chevys use different components, but both use gasoline to produce mechanical energy which is then used to propel them from one point to another under the control of the operator.
C3, C4, and CAM all are responsible for the following equation:
(x)CO2 + (x)H2O + solar energy --> (x)Glucose + (x) O2
C3, C4, and CAM differ only in the chemical pathways used to accomplish the above equation.
C3, C4, and CAM all proceed at a rate determined for the most part by the temperature (within a certain range), CO2 availability, and solar irradiation absorbed.
Stating that they are different in the context of this discussion is, to quote a favorite term of yours, a complete strawman argument.
I didn't say they would do poorly. I said this:
"This area of research is not new. It appears some plants will do well, others it makes no difference (different types of photosynthesis)"
Yes, you did. I apologize for incorrectly paraphrasing your words.
However, there are no green plants which will be unaffected by rising levels of temperature, CO2, and water vapor. Every green photosynthesis-based plant will react the same way to these conditions, since they all use essentially identical chemical reactions. Also, there will be no 'temporary' improvements to the efficiency of the photosynthesis; we're not talking about Ni-Cad batteries here. A blade of grass does not change its photosynthetic properties short of dying off. As long as it is alive (the processes are continuing), it will function as it has to, according to basic laws of chemistry.
...this carbon had been locked up out of the carbon cycle for millions of years.
And where was it before that? If you do not ascribe to the abiotic oil theory, then all that carbon was at one time in the 'carbon cycle', as part of a host of living creatures. Obviously, it didn't make life impossible then, or the creatures would not have been living in the first place.
If you do subscribe to abiotic oil, then all that crude is being manufactured at a fairly regular rate, and that would mean if we didn't pump it out, it would soon start spewing out of the ground.
It is important in that it provides more absorption. But plants die and decompose, releasing the carbon. If it gets locked up as woody material, then it stays out the cycle a bit longer. But vegetative mass, especially in tropics, decomposes rapidly.
Decomposition is not combustion. Combustion releases CO2 into the atmosphere almost exclusively. Decomposition involves many pathways for the carbon compounds to follow, some into soil soil nutrients, some into animal products, some into CO2.
That, my friend, is your 'carbon cycle'. It has also been called 'the circle of life'.
Well, maybe at the minimum you might be motivated to learn about the different types of photosynthesis.
And you feel free to read up on the actual pathways involved in decomposition.
TheRedneck
[edit on 11/13/2009 by TheRedneck]
reply to post by willow1d
What? Messed up data models? No way No way No way.......we do not make mistakes and if we did, so what you still have to pay.
S & F - good stuff.
What? Messed up data models? No way No way No way.......we do not make mistakes and if we did, so what you still have to pay.
S & F - good stuff.
OK ! The truth will set us free ! But the attempt is to set up new technologies and industries to trickle down into the third worlds ! You see how
important it is to set up this structure ? It is believable to the masses for the most part ! The real engine of our advanced societies has stalled !
We need this new alliance to re-establish our economy ! The great information age has propelled the advanced societies of modern man beyond his
ability to source himself locally.
A dangerous place to be !
A dangerous place to be !
Originally posted by TheRedneck
I hope you understand that my only objection to the use of computer models is that they are not 100% accurate, but typically the media reports them as such. Any model is only as accurate as the data that is used and the algorithms it contains. Models are indeed helpful and a valuable tool, as long as one realizes that a 'model' is not an 'observation'.
But that's the media, as you clearly know. If an issue in the media seems important, makes sense to always look behind the curtain.
The problem is that most people never get to hear from the scientists themselves. They stay locked up in laboratories, making observations and writing papers that no one except other scientists ever see.
Somewhat true. I think scientists can do better with engaging with the public.
The observations are not entirely consistent with the models. There are fairly regular adjustments made to keep the models consistent with the observations. Acknowledged, these are typically minor corrections, but taken over time, will they be enough to render today's data set unreliable as it pertains to tomorrow?
But the adjustments just tend to be tweaks. It makes sense to improve them, and little has changed really from the simpler models of 20 years ago - we just have coupled models now, the projections are similar. And I don't think they adjust the models in the way you seen to suggest - if they can be tweaked for improvements, then they will be, but if new data comes in then it makes sense to use that new data (e.g., for estimates of forcings), if computing power allows greater resolution, makes sense to use it.
I do know a few times where data had to be adjusted for errors because it conflicted with the models - the models actually highlighted the problem.
Exactly my point. Who is going to sort through source code looking for errors? I will admit I don't; I simply have more important things to do. As a matter of fact, are they using FORTRAN for the code? That was my best computer science subject way back in stone-age college. I didn't think anyone used it any more...
Many do.
OK, for the sake of argument I'll temporarily accept that in both cases we 'get warm'. But do we get as warm? Do we get warmer? Different numbers entered as data will give different answers, and if land use is not relevant, then that in itself indicates to me that there may be something amiss in the models used. A city block absorbs far far less CO2 than a section of rainforest; that is self-evident. So if the model shows that a city block contributes no more or less to climate change than an equal area of rainforest, that shows one of two possibilities: either the models are wrong, or CO2 levels themselves have no effect on temperature.
I think that last bit is also a non-sequitur.
Now, I personally do not believe CO2 levels have no influence on temperature (just not as great an influence as you do). That means that the models must have some problem in them.
But the observations are consistent with the models.
That's actually a non-sequitur.
But I never said that. I am saying that much of the noise in this thread is irrelevant - this article is not controversial nor especially important to the level that the OP suggests.
Oh, and we were doing so good... Sorry, mel, but you did mistype your (assumed) intentions. As worded, your response was a non-sequitur.
Wut?
That much is apparent, assuming constant CO2 AF. However, it would appear to me that the data does not indicate constant AF, or even linear progression of AF. It instead indicates a complex curve, which could lead to areas of positive and negative AF at differing concentrations.
I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here. That certain parts of the earth are sinks and others sources? Yeah. But the study is assessing the net AF.
It could also indicate that we may have some control over AF based on land use. Perhaps that is an area that should be investigated as a solution for rising CO2 levels, instead of some silly taxation scheme? I mean, it would do more good to plant trees than it would to tax a company, and would cost far less to the average consumer as well.
We possibly do. Seeding oceans with iron to stimulate absorption via algae would do just that. What you're proposing, to be really effective, is large-scale geo-engineering.
Educate yourself. You might need to go beyond high-school biology.
Excuse me? Perhaps you should educate yourself.
C2, C4, and CAM are not different types of photosynthesis; they refer to different pathways used in the process. To use a rough analogy, Fords and Chevys use different components, but both use gasoline to produce mechanical energy which is then used to propel them from one point to another under the control of the operator.
C3, C4, and CAM all are responsible for the following equation:
(x)CO2 + (x)H2O + solar energy --> (x)Glucose + (x) O2
C3, C4, and CAM differ only in the chemical pathways used to accomplish the above equation.
So, hang on, you're providing a simplistic chemical pathway, and saying this is the process, but then also saying they differ in chemical pathway.
6 impossible things before breakfast?
Stating that they are different in the context of this discussion is, to quote a favorite term of yours, a complete strawman argument.
You are joking? You ask me about how plants respond to increasing CO2. I said that different plants have been shown to respond differently, and that this is likely due to using different types of photosynthesis.
And that's a strawman, lol.
Yes, you did. I apologize for incorrectly paraphrasing your words.
No worries. Nice of you to note it.
However, there are no green plants which will be unaffected by rising levels of temperature, CO2, and water vapor. Every green photosynthesis-based plant will react the same way to these conditions, since they all use essentially identical chemical reactions. Also, there will be no 'temporary' improvements to the efficiency of the photosynthesis; we're not talking about Ni-Cad batteries here. A blade of grass does not change its photosynthetic properties short of dying off. As long as it is alive (the processes are continuing), it will function as it has to, according to basic laws of chemistry.
They don't have the same reaction pathways and some have been shown to respond differently. A single plant even respond differently depending on the combination of conditions:
people.ucsc.edu...
Do check the graph on page 1989. The one that shows this species response to 1) elevated CO2 with elevated precipitation; 2) elevated CO2 with elevated precipitation and temperature.
[edit on 13-11-2009 by melatonin]
reply to post by melatonin
That's basically what I am saying. If a model makes predictions which are later shown to be inaccurate, it is an indication that the model is in error and needs to be adjusted to compensate. If, on the other hand, a model agrees with future observations, that indicates some confidence in the model is warranted.
Wait: the data had to be adjusted to fit the model?
I sincerely hope I am misunderstanding you.
No, I am not speaking of geographic areas.
How do I explain this to you? Progression need not be linear. If doubling the CO2 level results in a doubling of the sink effect of the biosphere, it need not follow that tripling the CO2 level will lead to a tripling of the sink effect. The resulting sink effect may be more or less at a triple concentration than what would be expected using linear progression.
Close. I suggest allowing (encouraging?) individual bio-engineering on small areas, which would lead to a cumulative total large-scale change. If 1% of the present population of 6 billion? people planted a single tree each year, that is 60 million new trees every year to soak up all that CO2 you are so afraid of.
I am saying that although there may be different pathways, these different pathways do not change the overall equation. The results are the same, even though some of the actual chemical reactions internal to the equation may vary.
I am also stating that chemical equilibria react in a predictable way to temperature changes as well as concentration of reactants. If you increase the concentration of reactants, the equation shifts right, allowing more production of the products... not less
Yes, it is.
I just looked it over. It appears to be in order, except for one fact: the results are in direct contradiction to known agricultural practices.
I'm sorry to burst your bubble, mel, but unless this experiment has some peer review, I call BS. Adding water and CO2 does not stunt growth compared to adding only water. Raising temperature and adding CO2 does not stunt growth compared to simply raising temperature.
TheRedneck
But the adjustments just tend to be tweaks. It makes sense to improve them, and little has changed really from the simpler models of 20 years ago - we just have coupled models now, the projections are similar. And I don't think they adjust the models in the way you seen to suggest - if they can be tweaked for improvements, then they will be, but if new data comes in then it makes sense to use that new data (e.g., for estimates of forcings), if computing power allows greater resolution, makes sense to use it.
That's basically what I am saying. If a model makes predictions which are later shown to be inaccurate, it is an indication that the model is in error and needs to be adjusted to compensate. If, on the other hand, a model agrees with future observations, that indicates some confidence in the model is warranted.
I do know a few times where data had to be adjusted for errors because it conflicted with the models - the models actually highlighted the problem.
Wait: the data had to be adjusted to fit the model?
I sincerely hope I am misunderstanding you.
I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here. That certain parts of the earth are sinks and others sources? Yeah. But the study is assessing the net AF.
No, I am not speaking of geographic areas.
How do I explain this to you? Progression need not be linear. If doubling the CO2 level results in a doubling of the sink effect of the biosphere, it need not follow that tripling the CO2 level will lead to a tripling of the sink effect. The resulting sink effect may be more or less at a triple concentration than what would be expected using linear progression.
Seeding oceans with iron to stimulate absorption via algae would do just that. What you're proposing, to be really effective, is large-scale geo-engineering.
Close. I suggest allowing (encouraging?) individual bio-engineering on small areas, which would lead to a cumulative total large-scale change. If 1% of the present population of 6 billion? people planted a single tree each year, that is 60 million new trees every year to soak up all that CO2 you are so afraid of.
So, hang on, you're providing a simplistic chemical pathway, and saying this is the process, but then also saying they differ in chemical pathway.
I am saying that although there may be different pathways, these different pathways do not change the overall equation. The results are the same, even though some of the actual chemical reactions internal to the equation may vary.
I am also stating that chemical equilibria react in a predictable way to temperature changes as well as concentration of reactants. If you increase the concentration of reactants, the equation shifts right, allowing more production of the products... not less
You are joking? You ask me about how plants respond to increasing CO2. I said that different plants have been shown to respond differently, and that this is likely due to using different types of photosynthesis.
And that's a strawman, lol.
Yes, it is.
They don't have the same reaction pathways and some have been shown to respond differently. A single plant even respond differently depending on the combination of conditions:
people.ucsc.edu...
Do check the graph on page 1989. The one that shows this species response to 1) elevated CO2 with elevated precipitation; 2) elevated CO2 with elevated precipitation and temperature.
I just looked it over. It appears to be in order, except for one fact: the results are in direct contradiction to known agricultural practices.
I'm sorry to burst your bubble, mel, but unless this experiment has some peer review, I call BS. Adding water and CO2 does not stunt growth compared to adding only water. Raising temperature and adding CO2 does not stunt growth compared to simply raising temperature.
TheRedneck
Originally posted by TheRedneck
That's basically what I am saying. If a model makes predictions which are later shown to be inaccurate, it is an indication that the model is in error and needs to be adjusted to compensate. If, on the other hand, a model agrees with future observations, that indicates some confidence in the model is warranted.
But all measurements have a level of inaccuracy. Just like the article that is the basis of this thread.
Wait: the data had to be adjusted to fit the model?
I sincerely hope I am misunderstanding you.
Perhaps my lack of clarity at whatever AM, the observational data conflicted with the models. This highlighted an issue - either inaccuracy of model or inaccuracy of observation. Such conflicts force further examination...
It was the observations in error. The one example that easily comes to mind was the MSU satellite data - it showed no warming, but the data had severe systematic biases. Once corrected, it was entirely consistent with the models.
How do I explain this to you? Progression need not be linear. If doubling the CO2 level results in a doubling of the sink effect of the biosphere, it need not follow that tripling the CO2 level will lead to a tripling of the sink effect. The resulting sink effect may be more or less at a triple concentration than what would be expected using linear progression.
OKays, I think I get the point. You're saying that, for example, if we emit 8GtC and see 4GtC absorbed by sinks, this doesn't necessarily mean that an emission of 12GtC would lead to 6GtC absorption (or for tripling, 24/12). True. But I was just using an illustrative example of how consistent AF isn't any great situation.
Over the last century we have seen increasing emissions but apparently consistent AF (if we take Knorr and Jones & Cox as indicative).
Close. I suggest allowing (encouraging?) individual bio-engineering on small areas, which would lead to a cumulative total large-scale change. If 1% of the present population of 6 billion? people planted a single tree each year, that is 60 million new trees every year to soak up all that CO2 you are so afraid of.
Trees will slow the problem. And I'm sure you already know that planting trees and such (even just maintaining/enhancing forests) is being encouraged.
I'm not really afraid of CO2. I'm too laid back for that, lol.
...pathways do not change the overall equation. The results are the same, even though some of the actual chemical reactions internal to the equation may vary.
I am also stating that chemical equilibria react in a predictable way to temperature changes as well as concentration of reactants. If you increase the concentration of reactants, the equation shifts right, allowing more production of the products... not less
Yeah, I know. Basic chemical kinetics. But I was outlining that the different types of photosynthesis are often associated with different responses to changes in conditions. Even C3 plants have a tendency to prefer different conditions to C4 (same for CAM).
Yes, it is.
I actually answered your question. You ask about plants responses to climate change, I answer. Nothing like a strawman.
I just looked it over. It appears to be in order, except for one fact: the results are in direct contradiction to known agricultural practices.
Oh, I see, lol.
I'm sorry to burst your bubble, mel, but unless this experiment has some peer review, I call BS. Adding water and CO2 does not stunt growth compared to adding only water. Raising temperature and adding CO2 does not stunt growth compared to simply raising temperature.
TheRedneck
It's a paper in Science. Here, again, you're being overly simplistic. Earlier you were trying to suggest that:
Every green photosynthesis-based plant will react the same way to these conditions, since they all use essentially identical chemical reactions. Also, there will be no 'temporary' improvements to the efficiency of the photosynthesis.
Such a generalisation to a complex situation is always going to be problematic. You do know that plants are suited to different climates, even evolved to suit those climates (and the different photosynthetic pathways are a result of this)?
Photosynthesis and Growth of Water Hyacinth under CO2 Enrichment 1
William Spencer and George Bowes
Department of Botany, 3157 McCarty Hall, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611
Abstract
Water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes [Mart.] Solms) plants were grown in environmental chambers at ambient and enriched CO2 levels (330 and 600 microliters CO2 per liter). Daughter plants (ramets) produced in the enriched CO2 gained 39% greater dry weight than those at ambient CO2, but the original mother plants did not. The CO2 enrichment increased the number of leaves per ramet and leaf area index, but did not significantly increase leaf size or the number of ramets formed. Flower production was increased 147%. The elevated CO2 increased the net photosynthetic rate of the mother plants by 40%, but this was not maintained as the plants acclimated to the higher CO2 level. After 14 days at the elevated CO2, leaf resistance increased and transpiration decreased, especially from the adaxial leaf surface. After 4 weeks in elevated as compared to ambient CO2, ribulose bisphosphate carboxylase activity was 40% less, soluble protein content 49% less, and chlorophyll content 26% less; whereas starch content was 40% greater. Although at a given CO2 level the enriched CO2 plants had only half the net photosynthetic rate of their counterparts grown at ambient CO2, they showed similar internal CO2 concentrations. This suggested that the decreased supply of CO2 to the mesophyll, as a result of the increased stomatal resistance, was counterbalanced by a decreased utilization of CO2. Photorespiration and dark respiration were lower, such that the CO2 compensation point was not altered. The photosynthetic light and CO2 saturation points were not greatly changed, nor was the O2 inhibition of photosynthesis (measured at 330 microliters CO2 per liter). It appears that with CO2 enrichment the temporary increase in net photosynthesis produced larger ramets. After acclimation, the greater total ramet leaf area more than compensated for the lower net photosynthetic rate on a unit leaf area basis, and resulted in a sustained improvement in dry weight gain.
If you are saying that, overall, the response of plants to CO2 will be net increased productivity, then OK. That's already something that climate science accounts for. But different plants do respond differently. There are different types of photosynthesis, and this appears to underpin some of the variation.
[edit on 14-11-2009 by melatonin]
Originally posted by melatonin
lol, I like this sort of comment. We have denialists saying that climate scientists need this idea to keep their jobs and make big moolah.
Well don't they? Oh and by the way, why do you call them "denialists" unless you think they are denying the truth, what is their to deny?
It seems to me, science just keeps making stuff up as it goes along and that's the only message I seem to keep getting that is loud and clear is C02 very bad, MONEY to fix stuff that has nothing to do with C02, very good. They haven't got a clue which idea is the right one and in the meantime I see just as much compelling data that negates the other data and vice versa. It's enough to make someone nuts
Yet others want to keep them working and studying in an effort to delay action, even when the general message is loud and clear.
and in order to do that they demonize C02 and that is the only message that's loud and clear.
If we really are enhancing global warming, then I guess these scientists better come up with something more convincing. People are really getting sick and tired of shelling out for BS Government and science pet projects and bailing out banks and other peoples foreclosed homes asking for billion dollar bonus's for the piss poor job they've done. Then they want to charge us extra on the additional c02 all that extra work and heavy breathing is going to take to catch up.
Makes one wanna throw their hands in the air and say, I give up. Let the whole damn world go to hell in a handbasket
reply to post by prof-rabbit
Whats really interesting is going back all those years reading the many threats and doomsday prophesy they said back then would be with us now and none of it has happened.
Whats really interesting is going back all those years reading the many threats and doomsday prophesy they said back then would be with us now and none of it has happened.
reply to post by melatonin
True; it's called 'tolerance'. But just because two data sets overlap due to this tolerance, it does not follow that the two data sets are equal. As the variance increases from the mean, the confidence in the data decreases. The extent of the tolerance is simply the point where confidence in the data reaches a point where it is no longer considered accurate.
In the article, the mean observation has changed.
OK, I will accept that. However, while I accept that observational data can be in error (as you state in this case), it would typically be more likely that the models were in error.
By George, I think you got it! That was exactly what I was saying: the curve need not be linear.
I will have to take your word for this, for the time being anyway. I do not have sufficient knowledge of observed AF values to argue this point.
Yes they will. But is it really being encouraged?
There have also been threads right here on ATS which outlined attempts to remove any offsets based on creating or maintaining carbon sinks in the form of plant life.
I will admit that while searching for the above article, I found many more links praising and explaining carbon offsets based on planting/maintaining trees. If this were to be allowed, I would no doubt profit greatly on it overall (90 acres of virgin forest behind my house). But based on my experience with governmental controls, I would gladly forgo that profit just to be left alone.
But you still miss my point. The overall equations are the same, although there are some efficiency issues between the different types. C3 has a tendency to absorb oxygen, which decreases the viability of the chemical process, for instance (similar to the way inhaling CO reduces our ability to provide oxygen to our bodies). Yet, C3 still exhibits the same basic overall equation as any other type of photosynthesis. And all types obey chemical kinetics.
If we were discussing agricultural techniques to maximize yield, your arguments would have some bearing. But we are not. We are discussing carbon sinking, and the different pathways create minuscule differences at best in that respect.
OK, I'll bite. If you are trying to get me to admit that somewhere there may be a species of plant that reacts negatively to rising CO2 conditions, sure, I'll admit that possibility. But it's a moot point, and you know it. It would be like saying that in this 90-acre forest, there is one sick tree that reacted negatively to rising CO2 levels, and therefore none of the trees are doing any good.
99.999% is close enough to 100% for me.
As for the article you posted, I don't care if it is chiseled in stone on the walls of the Smithsonian. Wrong is wrong. Every commercial greenhouse nursery in existence (99.999% anyway ) uses some sort of acceleration method, based on increasing CO2 levels, humidity, and temperature. They all report vastly accelerated growth and vitality of their plants.
That's exactly what I am saying. I'm a bit surprised that it has taken so many for you to get that.
But I am not yet convinced that climate 'science' (referring to the IPCC et.al.) is taking flora activity into consideration. I'm sorry, but all I see are the same old cries of 'using energy will kill the planet' and 'anyone who says different is to be ostracized and punished'.
Again, I state what I have stated so many times in these forums: show me real, concrete plans to reduce CO2 levels (as opposed to raising taxes), and I will be more likely to concede that at least those behind the 'science' are sincere.
TheRedneck
But all measurements have a level of inaccuracy. Just like the article that is the basis of this thread.
True; it's called 'tolerance'. But just because two data sets overlap due to this tolerance, it does not follow that the two data sets are equal. As the variance increases from the mean, the confidence in the data decreases. The extent of the tolerance is simply the point where confidence in the data reaches a point where it is no longer considered accurate.
In the article, the mean observation has changed.
It was the observations in error. The one example that easily comes to mind was the MSU satellite data - it showed no warming, but the data had severe systematic biases. Once corrected, it was entirely consistent with the models.
OK, I will accept that. However, while I accept that observational data can be in error (as you state in this case), it would typically be more likely that the models were in error.
OKays, I think I get the point. You're saying that, for example, if we emit 8GtC and see 4GtC absorbed by sinks, this doesn't necessarily mean that an emission of 12GtC would lead to 6GtC absorption (or for tripling, 24/12). True. But I was just using an illustrative example of how consistent AF isn't any great situation.
By George, I think you got it! That was exactly what I was saying: the curve need not be linear.
Over the last century we have seen increasing emissions but apparently consistent AF (if we take Knorr and Jones & Cox as indicative).
I will have to take your word for this, for the time being anyway. I do not have sufficient knowledge of observed AF values to argue this point.
Trees will slow the problem. And I'm sure you already know that planting trees and such (even just maintaining/enhancing forests) is being encouraged.
Yes they will. But is it really being encouraged?
Source: www.eenews.net...
"If you allow a utility to emit 1 extra ton of CO2 and they buy a forest carbon offset credit, that credit isn't really real if the forest burns up next year or the landowner was going to plant those trees anyway," explained [Craig] Hanson, who directs WRI's People & Ecosystems Program. "There's a big question here about the integrity of the system. You don't want to have one where offsets are neither real nor permanent, because if you do, you'll blow the cap."
There have also been threads right here on ATS which outlined attempts to remove any offsets based on creating or maintaining carbon sinks in the form of plant life.
I will admit that while searching for the above article, I found many more links praising and explaining carbon offsets based on planting/maintaining trees. If this were to be allowed, I would no doubt profit greatly on it overall (90 acres of virgin forest behind my house). But based on my experience with governmental controls, I would gladly forgo that profit just to be left alone.
Yeah, I know. Basic chemical kinetics. But I was outlining that the different types of photosynthesis are often associated with different responses to changes in conditions. Even C3 plants have a tendency to prefer different conditions to C4 (same for CAM).
But you still miss my point. The overall equations are the same, although there are some efficiency issues between the different types. C3 has a tendency to absorb oxygen, which decreases the viability of the chemical process, for instance (similar to the way inhaling CO reduces our ability to provide oxygen to our bodies). Yet, C3 still exhibits the same basic overall equation as any other type of photosynthesis. And all types obey chemical kinetics.
If we were discussing agricultural techniques to maximize yield, your arguments would have some bearing. But we are not. We are discussing carbon sinking, and the different pathways create minuscule differences at best in that respect.
It's a paper in Science. Here, again, you're being overly simplistic.
Such a generalisation to a complex situation is always going to be problematic. You do know that plants are suited to different climates, even evolved to suit those climates (and the different photosynthetic pathways are a result of this)?
OK, I'll bite. If you are trying to get me to admit that somewhere there may be a species of plant that reacts negatively to rising CO2 conditions, sure, I'll admit that possibility. But it's a moot point, and you know it. It would be like saying that in this 90-acre forest, there is one sick tree that reacted negatively to rising CO2 levels, and therefore none of the trees are doing any good.
99.999% is close enough to 100% for me.
As for the article you posted, I don't care if it is chiseled in stone on the walls of the Smithsonian. Wrong is wrong. Every commercial greenhouse nursery in existence (99.999% anyway ) uses some sort of acceleration method, based on increasing CO2 levels, humidity, and temperature. They all report vastly accelerated growth and vitality of their plants.
If you are saying that, overall, the response of plants to CO2 will be net increased productivity, then OK. That's already something that climate science accounts for.
That's exactly what I am saying. I'm a bit surprised that it has taken so many for you to get that.
But I am not yet convinced that climate 'science' (referring to the IPCC et.al.) is taking flora activity into consideration. I'm sorry, but all I see are the same old cries of 'using energy will kill the planet' and 'anyone who says different is to be ostracized and punished'.
Again, I state what I have stated so many times in these forums: show me real, concrete plans to reduce CO2 levels (as opposed to raising taxes), and I will be more likely to concede that at least those behind the 'science' are sincere.
TheRedneck
reply to post by Kerry_Knight
Exactly the reason I continually question the honesty of those who call for global change. The message being put forward is not a scientific one, but a financial one.
I have to wonder if you actually realize just how close that sentence comes to the truth. Are you psychic, by any chance?
Star for that. Keep questioning: the answers may be hidden, but can be revealed.
TheRedneck
...that's the only message I seem to keep getting that is loud and clear is C02 very bad, MONEY to fix stuff that has nothing to do with C02, very good. They haven't got a clue which idea is the right one and in the meantime I see just as much compelling data that negates the other data and vice versa. It's enough to make someone nuts
and in order to do that they demonize C02 and that is the only message that's loud and clear.
Exactly the reason I continually question the honesty of those who call for global change. The message being put forward is not a scientific one, but a financial one.
Makes one wanna throw their hands in the air and say, I give up. Let the whole damn world go to hell in a handbasket
I have to wonder if you actually realize just how close that sentence comes to the truth. Are you psychic, by any chance?
Star for that. Keep questioning: the answers may be hidden, but can be revealed.
TheRedneck
Originally posted by TheRedneck
In the article, the mean observation has changed.
Yeah, it actually increased in Knorr's study. The best estimate in the article for % change in AF is actually even more positive than Canadell et al. But the error in the data is also much higher.
OK, I will accept that. However, while I accept that observational data can be in error (as you state in this case), it would typically be more likely that the models were in error.
lol. Another one I can think of is ARGO float ocean temp data - they also conflicted with models, but they also had systematic biases that required correction.
I will have to take your word for this, for the time being anyway. I do not have sufficient knowledge of observed AF values to argue this point.
?
That's what the Knorr article was examining.
Yes they will. But is it really being encouraged?
Yeah.
An Indian civil servant, SM Raju, has come up with a novel way of providing employment to millions of poor in the eastern state of Bihar.
His campaign to encourage people to plant trees effectively addresses two burning issues of the world: global warming and shrinking job opportunities.
Just one example.
There have also been threads right here on ATS which outlined attempts to remove any offsets based on creating or maintaining carbon sinks in the form of plant life.
I will admit that while searching for the above article, I found many more links praising and explaining carbon offsets based on planting/maintaining trees. If this were to be allowed, I would no doubt profit greatly on it overall (90 acres of virgin forest behind my house). But based on my experience with governmental controls, I would gladly forgo that profit just to be left alone.
That's fine. These sort of programs do need to be watched for their integrity. But there is a push towards such approaches in a wider context. They won't save the day, but they're helpful.
But you still miss my point. The overall equations are the same, although there are some efficiency issues between the different types. C3 has a tendency to absorb oxygen, which decreases the viability of the chemical process, for instance (similar to the way inhaling CO reduces our ability to provide oxygen to our bodies). Yet, C3 still exhibits the same basic overall equation as any other type of photosynthesis. And all types obey chemical kinetics.
lol, no, I didn't. Remember, this just came from a comment I made regarding plant responses to climate change, and in explaining the evidence that some plants respond differently I noted one reason why they are suggested to do so. Since then, we've been discussing the relative merits of the simplistic pathway of photosynthesis and the actual detailed pathways.
OK, I'll bite. If you are trying to get me to admit that somewhere there may be a species of plant that reacts negatively to rising CO2 conditions, sure, I'll admit that possibility. But it's a moot point, and you know it. It would be like saying that in this 90-acre forest, there is one sick tree that reacted negatively to rising CO2 levels, and therefore none of the trees are doing any good.
I think it's more than one. Overall, C3 prefer one condition, C4 another. I remember reading of one study that showed C4 plants moving up-slope to maintain ideal conditions (lower CO2).
As for the article you posted, I don't care if it is chiseled in stone on the walls of the Smithsonian. Wrong is wrong. Every commercial greenhouse nursery in existence (99.999% anyway ) uses some sort of acceleration method, based on increasing CO2 levels, humidity, and temperature. They all report vastly accelerated growth and vitality of their plants.
And I'm sure they find and utilise the optimal conditions for each crop. Are you saying the conditions are the same for all? Come on, RD, you must know that isn't the case.
That's exactly what I am saying. I'm a bit surprised that it has taken so many for you to get that.
I mentioned it earlier, in the very post that I mentioned different types of photosynthesis.
"Models even include increased productivity from photosynthesis"
But I am not yet convinced that climate 'science' (referring to the IPCC et.al.) is taking flora activity into consideration. I'm sorry, but all I see are the same old cries of 'using energy will kill the planet' and 'anyone who says different is to be ostracized and punished'.
But if you don't read the IPCC reports then how will you know? If you don't seek out the actual research, how will you know? There's whole research programs (e.g., FACE) trying to answer these questions.
Again, I state what I have stated so many times in these forums: show me real, concrete plans to reduce CO2 levels (as opposed to raising taxes), and I will be more likely to concede that at least those behind the 'science' are sincere.
TheRedneck
But that's the overall aim of the 'taxes'. I have issues with a straight tax myself, but if the monies collected are used to fund clean energy and taxes do help force efficiency and reduction in energy-use, the outcome is reducing emissions of CO2, and subsequently CO2 levels (in time, more stabilising). Planting trees is great, but it only slows the accumulation of CO2 - unless you fancy digging up billions of tonnes of biomass and burying it under the ocean. Large-scale geo-engineering is a possibility, but dumping tonnes of iron into oceans or emitting tonnes of sulphates is likely to have real side-effects. The most effective approach is to stop the behaviour causing the problem.
[edit on 14-11-2009 by melatonin]
reply to post by melatonin
I do believe we have a consensus, my friend. Wait, isn't one of the signs of the apocalypse "melatonin and TheRedneck agree on something"?
Seriously, we are in agreement as to what the study indicates.
Which is why I became involved in this thread. I saw something that I thought would inform me, so I read it.
I do silly things like that sometimes.
I have come to believe that there are actually two groups fueling the 'CO2 is bad' campaign. One group is sincerely concerned about potential hazards, and while I do not agree that slight rises in CO2 are disastrous, that is at least a sincere debate. The other group is concerned with using the debate to enact higher taxation and more control over individuals (Hansen, Gore, et. al.) and it is those with whom I have a vehement argument.
If CO2 is a problem, then the correct and logical response is to find ways to either reduce the emissions or to remove the excess. We have carbon sequestration technology, right now, that more than offsets the average daily contribution made by individuals, even when the individual footprint includes a share of industrial production. But it is being downplayed at best and suppressed at worst.
We can also stop or at least slow deforestation, saving millions upon millions of trees, the most efficient carbon-sinking devices known. But to do that, we must either purchase the land these trees are on, or compensate the owners for the loss of use of that land. We can also encourage people to plant trees, hedges, or even ornamental shrubbery will help.
The problem is that this all requires MONEY, paid to someone who has the audacity to not be deemed important enough to deserve it. The same problem exists with the CO2 scrubber: someone would get paid for developing and marketing this device, and there would be less taxation to those who are deemed important.
In short, according to this latter group, it has nothing do with saving the planet, and everything to do with getting money and power. Is it any wonder that people tend to have knee-jerk reactions to the science, when they are constantly being bombarded with the illogic of deceit? You have publicly denied the likes of Al Gore (although you do seem to be still enamored with Hansen), but you surely realize the result of having his face as the spokesman, official or not, for Global Warming.
But I digress...
Yes, there does need to be careful monitoring of anyone claiming a carbon offset by virtue of flora maintenance/addition. But there needs to be such a program, both to minimize any taxation impact toward individuals who actually contribute toward economic causes, and to help dispel the aura of hypocrisy surrounding the issue.
I'm willing to drop the subject if you are.
I do seek out reports. Why do you think I typically frequent these type of threads? ATS has proven itself to be a good resource to seek out reports I may have missed, if only due to the fact that so many members are also seeking out information and sharing the links. I become involved whenever someone gives the appearance of supporting the latter group I mentioned above.
Unfortunately, that tends to happen quite a lot.
If that is the aim, I suggest some people in power need a course in marksmanship.
Pragmatically, I see no way that the present Cap & Trade schemes will do anything save destroy the ability of people to provide for themselves and their families. It may be good-intentioned, but the road to Hell is paved with such.
TheRedneck
Yeah, it actually increased in Knorr's study. The best estimate in the article for % change in AF is actually even more positive than Canadell et al. But the error in the data is also much higher.
I do believe we have a consensus, my friend. Wait, isn't one of the signs of the apocalypse "melatonin and TheRedneck agree on something"?
Seriously, we are in agreement as to what the study indicates.
That's what the Knorr article was examining.
Which is why I became involved in this thread. I saw something that I thought would inform me, so I read it.
I do silly things like that sometimes.
That's fine. These sort of programs do need to be watched for their integrity. But there is a push towards such approaches in a wider context. They won't save the day, but they're helpful.
I have come to believe that there are actually two groups fueling the 'CO2 is bad' campaign. One group is sincerely concerned about potential hazards, and while I do not agree that slight rises in CO2 are disastrous, that is at least a sincere debate. The other group is concerned with using the debate to enact higher taxation and more control over individuals (Hansen, Gore, et. al.) and it is those with whom I have a vehement argument.
If CO2 is a problem, then the correct and logical response is to find ways to either reduce the emissions or to remove the excess. We have carbon sequestration technology, right now, that more than offsets the average daily contribution made by individuals, even when the individual footprint includes a share of industrial production. But it is being downplayed at best and suppressed at worst.
ENVIRONMENTALISTS OPPOSE NEW CO2 SCRUBBER IDEA (July 23, 2008)
Scientists at Columbia University are developing a carbon dioxide (CO2) scrubber device that removes one ton of CO2 from the air every day, says the Heartland Institute.
While some see the scrubber as an efficient and economical way to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide, many environmentalists oppose the technology because it allows people to use fossil fuels and emit carbon in the first place.
We can also stop or at least slow deforestation, saving millions upon millions of trees, the most efficient carbon-sinking devices known. But to do that, we must either purchase the land these trees are on, or compensate the owners for the loss of use of that land. We can also encourage people to plant trees, hedges, or even ornamental shrubbery will help.
The problem is that this all requires MONEY, paid to someone who has the audacity to not be deemed important enough to deserve it. The same problem exists with the CO2 scrubber: someone would get paid for developing and marketing this device, and there would be less taxation to those who are deemed important.
In short, according to this latter group, it has nothing do with saving the planet, and everything to do with getting money and power. Is it any wonder that people tend to have knee-jerk reactions to the science, when they are constantly being bombarded with the illogic of deceit? You have publicly denied the likes of Al Gore (although you do seem to be still enamored with Hansen), but you surely realize the result of having his face as the spokesman, official or not, for Global Warming.
But I digress...
Yes, there does need to be careful monitoring of anyone claiming a carbon offset by virtue of flora maintenance/addition. But there needs to be such a program, both to minimize any taxation impact toward individuals who actually contribute toward economic causes, and to help dispel the aura of hypocrisy surrounding the issue.
Since then, we've been discussing the relative merits of the simplistic pathway of photosynthesis and the actual detailed pathways.
I'm willing to drop the subject if you are.
But if you don't read the IPCC reports then how will you know? If you don't seek out the actual research, how will you know? There's whole research programs (e.g., FACE) trying to answer these questions.
I do seek out reports. Why do you think I typically frequent these type of threads? ATS has proven itself to be a good resource to seek out reports I may have missed, if only due to the fact that so many members are also seeking out information and sharing the links. I become involved whenever someone gives the appearance of supporting the latter group I mentioned above.
Unfortunately, that tends to happen quite a lot.
But that's the overall aim of the 'taxes'. I have issues with a straight tax myself, but if the monies collected are used to fund clean energy and taxes do help for force efficiency and reduction in energy-use, the outcome is reducing emissions of CO2, and subsequently CO2 levels.
If that is the aim, I suggest some people in power need a course in marksmanship.
Pragmatically, I see no way that the present Cap & Trade schemes will do anything save destroy the ability of people to provide for themselves and their families. It may be good-intentioned, but the road to Hell is paved with such.
TheRedneck
Originally posted by TheRedneck
If CO2 is a problem, then the correct and logical response is to find ways to either reduce the emissions or to remove the excess. We have carbon sequestration technology, right now, that more than offsets the average daily contribution made by individuals, even when the individual footprint includes a share of industrial production. But it is being downplayed at best and suppressed at worst.
There are potential methods to do it, but none to few are tested in any even pilot or large scale. The costs are uncertain but it won't be cheap, the development time is uncertain, the effectiveness is uncertain, the overall consequences and process is uncertain.
It's a similar issue to depending on trees to save the day. So we remove CO2, pretty simple chemistry on the small scale, and then what? The next issue is where does the product go? No good if the carbon is back into the atmosphere within a few years. So it needs to be stored long-term in a reliable way - sounds fun. Then we have to wonder how effective the method is...how long will it take to even start reducing atmospheric CO2? Is it able to remove even our yearly emissions (8 gigatonnes of carbon, lol), and how long will it take to do so? How long will it take to roll out these methods to the scale required to reduce CO2 in any useful quantities? How much are we talking about for an effective method of removing CO2 from the atmosphere and storing the resultant byproduct?
I can only see such methods as a support to reductions in emissions. But I have no issue with them if effective. Indeed, we will likely need them even with C&T type approaches.
If that is the aim, I suggest some people in power need a course in marksmanship.
I sort of agree. I don't think straight taxes are the most effective approach. Unless we compel reductions in emissions, I feel industry and people will just overcome the expense and little really changes. Hence C&T makes more sense.
Pragmatically, I see no way that the present Cap & Trade schemes will do anything save destroy the ability of people to provide for themselves and their families. It may be good-intentioned, but the road to Hell is paved with such.
Even the carbon-sequestration will cost bigtime. In fact, costs have been suggested to be of the order of $20trillion for each 50ppm of CO2. That is Hansen, though. But even the Royal Society suggest that the cost to remove the CO2 with open sequestration will be around the same, or more, as current mitigation proposals. The Royal Society also speak of deployment for centuries for adequate carbon removal...
Taking all that into account, is that better than gradually moving to clean energy, reducing emissions, and reducing destruction of ecosystems? I don't think so. If we could magic a cost-effective deployable method into existence tomorrow, I'm onboard.
royalsociety.org...
[edit on 14-11-2009 by melatonin]
new topics
-
Cold Blooded Killers on Christmas!! GRRRRrrr!!
Pets: 6 hours ago -
Plane Crash Today --Azerbaijanian E190 passenger jet
Mainstream News: 10 hours ago
top topics
-
Orange County Makes Shoplifting a Felony
Other Current Events: 15 hours ago, 17 flags -
It's Offical Now
US Political Madness: 17 hours ago, 15 flags -
Cold Blooded Killers on Christmas!! GRRRRrrr!!
Pets: 6 hours ago, 8 flags -
Plane Crash Today --Azerbaijanian E190 passenger jet
Mainstream News: 10 hours ago, 6 flags
active topics
-
Plane Crash Today --Azerbaijanian E190 passenger jet
Mainstream News • 14 • : Springbok -
Cold Blooded Killers on Christmas!! GRRRRrrr!!
Pets • 9 • : charlest2 -
London Christmas Market BANS Word ‘Christmas’
Social Issues and Civil Unrest • 50 • : Connector -
The clotting is not going away latest
Medical Issues & Conspiracies • 15 • : NoCorruptionAllowed -
Statements of Intent from Incoming Trump Administration Members - 2025 to 2029.
2024 Elections • 54 • : WeMustCare -
DefCon Teetering on Escalation
World War Three • 51 • : WeMustCare -
-@TH3WH17ERABB17- -Q- ---TIME TO SHOW THE WORLD--- -Part- --44--
Dissecting Disinformation • 3813 • : WeMustCare -
1 Billion dollars
General Entertainment • 13 • : ColeYounger2 -
It's Offical Now
US Political Madness • 15 • : Imhere -
Political Warfare & The Resister Special Forces Underground
Political Ideology • 2 • : NoCorruptionAllowed