Too good to be true?

Page 5 of 11  

Todd Fatheree wrote:

One supposes that if the online article was based on published papers the error you wonder about will be estimated therein.
I think the longest running record of direct measurement of atmospheric
CO2 is from teh Mauna Loa observatory. Here is one paper addressing it:
Thoning, K.W., P.P. Tans and W.D. Komhyr. 1989. Atmospheric carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa Observatory, 2, Analysis of the NOAA/GMCC data, 1974 - 1985, J. Geophys. Res., 94, 8549-8565.
--

FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
says...

That's a common misconception. Plants "inhale" CO2 and "exhale" O when light is falling on their leaves. When it is dark, the process is reversed. O in and CO2 out. That's why aquarium keepers like me, with heavily planted tanks, install an air bubbler that comes on when the lights go out and off when the lights go on.
It is true that deciduous trees have their leaves in seasons where daylight hours exceed night hours, so they do produce a net increase in O, but this does go down somewhat on cloudy days.
Since evergreens have "leaves" the whole year, their O vs CO2 tends to be pretty much a wash.
--
BNSF = Build Now, Seep Forever

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

something
What this proves is that your aquarium is a poor model of the earth. On the earth, there are more plants available during the summer months and at latitudes closer to the equator. Therefore, there is a small net effect of positive O2 creation.

So, according to your analysis, we can take the evergreens out of the equation, which leaves a net positive effect on O2 from deciduous trees.
todd
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/4/2005 4:28 AM Todd Fatheree mumbled something about the following:

Not only that, he's dead wrong about the process.
There are two parts to photosynthesis:
The Light Reaction happens in the thylakoid membrane and converts light energy to chemical energy. This chemical reaction must, therefore, take place in the light. Chlorophyll and several other pigments such as beta-carotene are organized in clusters in the thylakoid membrane and are involved in the light reaction. Each of these differently-colored pigments can absorb a slightly different color of light and pass its energy to the central chlorphyll molecule to do photosynthesis. The central part of the chemical structure of a chlorophyll molecule is a porphyrin ring, which consists of several fused rings of carbon and nitrogen with a magnesium ion in the center.
The energy harvested via the light reaction is stored by forming a chemical called ATP (adenosine triphosphate), a compound used by cells for energy storage. This chemical is made of the nucleotide adenine bonded to a ribose sugar, and that is bonded to three phosphate groups. This molecule is very similar to the building blocks for our DNA.
The Dark Reaction takes place in the stroma within the chloroplast, and converts CO2 to sugar. This reaction doesn't directly need light in order to occur, but it does need the products of the light reaction (ATP and another chemical called NADPH). The dark reaction involves a cycle called the Calvin cycle in which CO2 and energy from ATP are used to form sugar. Actually, notice that the first product of photosynthesis is a three-carbon compound called glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate. Almost immediately, two of these join to form a glucose molecule.
--
Odinn
RCOS #7
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

something
You a _woodworker_? What the hell do you think wood is made of?
Make something out of a rainforest tree and pull it out of the carbon cycle. Boycott it and let it burn....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
says...

Sorry, I should have said that a Google search on CO2 increase in the atmosphere got almost a million hits. A lot of them are junk, but if you think I'm going to examine each one you're nuts. However, look for yourself. If you're too lazy, here's a few:
--
BNSF = Build Now, Seep Forever

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 3 Jul 2005 23:12:43 -0600, lgb wrote

Dang, just think if the world switched completely over to Hydrogen powered autos. The emissions from their tailpipes is a far more potent "green house" gas than CO2 is....
-Bruce
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
    Greetings and Salutations...

    The good news is that you would not be ABLE to "examine each one". Google limits you to the first 1000 URLS (or, roughly, the first 100 pages) it returns, even if it DOES claim to have found thousands of them.     To add to the annoyance, they also return the pages according to their "ranking" system...which gives you the pages with the most other links TO them first. As a researcher, I find this REALLY annoying, because the real treasures are not found on the paths that EVERYONE has plodded down. Rather they are found in the dusty back shelves where no one has been for years.     However, Google's respose to this is "if you are getting that many hits you are doing a bad search and should improve it".     Regards     Dave Mundt
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Sorry - my last post got away before I was finished.
says...

Sorry, I should have said that a Google search on CO2 increase in the atmosphere got almost a million hits. A least half of them are junk, but if you think I'm going to examine each one you're nuts. However, look for yourself. If you're too lazy, here's a few:
http://www.strom.clemson.edu/becker/prtm320/commons/carbon3.html http://www.biology.duke.edu/bio265/sga/atmosphere.html http://www.columbia.edu/cu/newrec/2421/tmpl/story.10.html http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/preslectures/schnoor96/page3.html
And that's the last time I'm going to respond to a demand that I give references to a widely known fact. Next time, you give me references that prove I'm wrong.
Here's some more unsupported assertions:
1. The earth is round (OK, more pear shaped), not flat. 2. The earth circles the sun, not the other way around. 3. We really did land on the moon, it wasn't a Hollywood set. 4. There really are people deluded enough to argue against the above.
--
BNSF = Build Now, Seep Forever

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

In your own words, you "couldn't find the report on oxygen levels I'd read on this".
Actually, I was more interested in the assertion that atmospheric O2 was falling. As it turns out, although you won't find this cited in any of the links above, O2 is falling at a rate of about 2ppm/year. (http://www.columbia.edu/cu/21stC/issue-2.1/broecker.htm ). [see how easy it is to provide cites?]. I don't think that it's a "widely known fact" that O2 levels are decreasing. I'd say that many people probably know that atmospheric CO2 is increasing, but that doesn't automatically mean to the average person that O2 goes down. And by the way, according to the author of the artlicle I referenced, decreasing O2 is never going to be a problem.
And just so we're clear, I don't dispute that CO2 is rising. I've just never heard that there was the same level of concern with atmospheric O2.
Here's some more unsupported assertions:

Technically, the earth is shaped like an oblate spheroid.
todd
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's OK, you made sense there for a minute.

Bullshit. You said O2 levels were going _DOWN_, and claimed that was a widely known fact. You made a connected 2-part statement, which is what I asked for the cite on. Pretending that the CO2 question was why the cite was asked for is a cheap, ineffective diversionary tactic.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Oh, good. Here I thought I was just getting out of breath easy due to age and being not in such good shape. Turns out Larry was actually right after all.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


Perhaps you could do your own homework? It was your assertion, not mine.


You're being intentionally dense, aren't you. Did I _say_ from pollution?

Well then.

Yes. What is not accepted by "almost everyone" (as if popularity decides science), is _why_ that's happening.

Word games. I thought you were better than that. How about you go find out what's going up and what's going down and come back to us once you have a coherent point, Sparky.

What do you _think_ is destroying it? Molecules of very heavy freon? Why is it that ozone down here (where, you know, the evil R-12 can get to it) is a pollutant (Ozone Action Days, anyone? Hello?)?
Can you show me the long term data on the ozone layer, going back say, 1000 years? Is it cyclical?

You said "nobody's quite sure what's happening", so I'll be one of the "nobody's quite sure" what to do. Your statement is laughably ambiguous.

Has it? Or, is it being diagnosed more?

I'm still trying to figure out what the hell your points are.

Why in the world would you ascribe an idiotic view like that to me? You do this with everyone you disagree with, assume that you disagree on every topic there is? That's an odd failing, if so.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dave Hinz wrote:

Yes, the places where those fish live. The stocks of tuna, for example, remeain undiminished in parts of the ocieans where tuna do not live.

Google is your friend.

Google re: clorinated hydrocarbon.

Not likely any of the above will shorten your life. I assume you don't care about anything beyond your demise.
--

FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Ah, a Rush Limbagh fan. Can we destroy the planet? Probably not- but I've no doubt that we can make it a rather unpleasant place to live. I used to buy the line about global warming being junk science, but it's a little late in the game to keep pretending it isn't there- go watch the weather channel for a bit- the climate has changed quite a bit already. There are very few places on the Earth that aren't directly altered by human beings, and while one person using an aerosol can isn't going to a darn thing to the ecology, 6 billion of us doing it sure can.
While we may not destroy the planet, or render it absolutely sterile, it's certainly possible that we can make it a worse place to live. That's reason enough to think about using resources sensibly. It may not take that much dramatic change on the part of every person to make a huge difference to the whole. We're still going to need oil, we're still going to have to cut down trees- it's not like we should all go back to living in caves and riding on horseback or any of that nonsense, but there is certainly room for admitting that something is happening and working towards a reasonable solution.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I agree with everything you've said except it's going to be a real problem changing the global consciousness. There's far too many people with the selfish attitude that they're not going to be here when the world turns into an unsalvageable garbage dump so why should they care? Then you have the people at the top of the economic food chain who are not going to relinquish their wealth without a great deal of kicking and screaming.
At the same time, you've got the have-not population of the planet (and there's an overwhelming lot of them) who are aspiring to the lifestyle of the haves. If the have-nots ever come to approach even partially the economic status of the haves, the current destruction rate of the planet will increase exponentially.
And lastly, there's the large segment of our population who believe science will find a way out.
Me, I believe friendly aliens will visit earth and freely offer their advanced science to fix all our woes.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

More a Steve Malloy fan <www.junkscience.com>

Steve Malloy presents some pretty objective evidence that while global climate change may be occurring (as it always has, the global climate has never been in steady state); it is highly questionable that the change is due to human causes.

Evidence that if enough people say the same thing often enough and loud enough, people will buy into it, even if the evidence is shaky at best.
The global warming hysteria is a prime example. The idea that by measuring tree ring size, one can determine the average temperature of an area to within tenths of a degree is ludicrous, yet this is one of the bits of evidence being used to show how average temperature is increasing compared to several centuries in the past.

I don't disagree with taking care of things, particularly if for no other reason than to keep our local environment pleasant. However, the strident extreme is what is being heard, and often acted upon -- that side will settle for nothing less than an absolute halt to future development and desires reversal of a significant portion of our current way of life (for everybody but themselves of course -- the "enlightened ones" must maintain their standard of living to assure that the rest of us peons are behaving appropriately).
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark & Juanita wrote:

Splorf! I 'discoverd' Malloy back when I was working support for one of the TOMS missions. At the time he was 'debunking' ozone studies published in peer-reviewed journals citing letters to the editors from newspapers.
'Just scientist' he is, no doubt of that.
...

This is the sort of nonsense one reads from junk scientists. There is no doubt that humans have an effect on Global Climate. The issue in controversy is the magnitude and direction.
Typical of the junk scientist is a tendency to try to reduce all questions as a dichotomy and to claim (contary to fact) that statistics can determine which answer is correct.
...

In general I tend to doubt stories presented without references. In the instant case this sounds like it might be a misrepresentation of some published work by a junk scientist (like Malloy) who most likely didn't understand it in the first place.
--

FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2 Jul 2005 21:57:11 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@spamcop.net wrote:

... snip

... alright fred, present a credible source for how global temperature change in tenths of a degree (which is the amount and rate being cited for global warming evidence) can be identified for periods before accurate weather records were kept. Deconvolve any other potential causes for the evidence so cited such as cyclical rain cycles and other climate phenomena. Unfortunately peer reviewed journals aren't what they once were. In the past, peer reviewed journals meant that the peer reviewers questioned assumptions, required substantiating experiments and repeatability in measurements. This does not seem to be true today; statistical correlation techniques are often substituted for root-cause phenomenological analysis. Finally, the other thing missing is identifying causality; even when long term trends are identified, showing that human activity is the cause for said phenomena has thus far been highly speculative. To derail an entire culture on such speculative evidence should make people question the underlying motives of those demanding such actions. Again, note that I am not saying that human activity cannot mess up local environments; ample evidence for this exists. However, scaling that evidence to a global scale is far from a proven fact.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark & Juanita wrote:

Why should I? You haven't presented any credible source indicating that anyone claims to be able to do so.

Regardless, letters to the editor for the Washinton Post remain pretty much what they always were, eh?

You can show this some way?

Non sequitor.
Any local effect IS part of a global effect. As tricial example, if you raise the temperature of a city by one degree, that has an effect on a 'global average temperature.' The issue is the magnitude and direction of the cumulative global effects.
--

FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.