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:
Sorry - my last post got away before I was finished.
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:
Here's some more unsupported assertions:
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
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.
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
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....
Well, you might want to check on those Amerinds. They saw the value of a meadow in feeding large ungulates which fed them.
You must have gone to other places in the uplands than I. There the combination of latitude and altitude gave a boreal forest. Or peat bogs, which is pretty acid.
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.
On Sun, 3 Jul 2005 23:12:43 -0600, lgb wrote (in article ):
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
Fraud, misreading, hysteria = the Greens.
That's what the Chicken Littles ARE, Mark.
"How can we make our point with so little data to go on? Aha, make the increments so small the data (with which we want to scare folks) is off the charts!" Oh, and "Let's estimate data about 10x longer than we have ANY data for.)
The peers should be reviewed accordingly, wot?
Recommendation for Chicken Littles: Read Michael Crichton's book "State of Fear" for both a great story and an excellent reference work with detailed bibliography for further research. It will give you a whole new perspective, I guarantee!
--- Annoy a politician: Be trustworthy, faithful, and honest! ---
Indeed. But those were small localized fires. Drought is rare in the East. Shade from the canopy kept temperatures on the forest floor humidity high and suppressed understory growth so that dead wood on the ground went from green timber to a sopping wet sponge usually without passing through a stage of ydryness that would promote fire.
An area recently denuded by an ice storm would allow the sun in to dry the fallen wood and allow the understory to grow
Yes, it would take a lot of potash to neutralize a peat bog.
Don't know where the uplands are, but have spent a fair bit of time in New England. The conifers there are mostly at the highest elevations, while down near the lakes decidious trees are more common. Deciduous trees also seem to be faster to colonize open space. Almost of the wooded land East of the Mississippi is second growth dating back to the early 20th century.
Were it not for silviculture, there would be a LOT fewer conifers in the Eastern US.
I'm not clear on where the uplands are.
Have you found anything written about the chart by the persons who (allegedly) created it?
The choice of origin is still as arbitrary as it was when DesCartes introduced (or popularized) x-yplots. E.g. they could have used 0 degrees C as their origin, the inter- pretation would be the same, though John McCain would need stilts or a very long pointer when using the chart.
"Intended to cause alarm?" That implies MOTIVE. Can you show that the shart was drawn that way "to cause alarm" rather than to conform to the data?
How so?
Planning for the future should be based on predictions for the future from Climate models that are validated by close fits to historical data. You can't extrapolate by 'looking at' a plot, for any but the simplest of linear models. I don't think climate models fall into that category so I don't see how the chart in question fits into the scientific debate.
That does't make any sense. How well the data fit the model over the period of observation how one tests validity of a model. Not how noisy it 'looks'. Very seldom can one look at a plot of real world data and see somethign meaningful. The question one needs to ask as a first step to deterimining the predictive value of the model in question is how well it fits the data.
As you know, mathematically valid results may be extracted from data that to the human eye, appear to be randomly distributed, even as the human eye may 'see' trends in data where mathematics tells us there are none.
As you know, whether or not the estimated uncertainties in the data are correct can be objectively tested. So, have they been?
I do not see that the chart extrapolates any deltas anywhere. The charts shows mean temperatures (still undefined) vs time. As you know the standard deviation of a mean is inversely proportionate to the square root of the number of observations The size of the statistically correct error bars on any 'average' can be made arbitrarily small simply by gathering enough data.
Please do not lie about me. I am not playing games with semantics. In Mathematics and Science words are carefully defined so as to facilitate communication. When someone starts thowing them around without regard to those defintions communincation is obstructed.
If you claim the errors are underestimated, what is your basis? Are his chi squares too small? Also consider that we are only GUESSING that those are error bars and even if we are, we do not know for what confidence interval. Still if you show your arithmetic, I'll check it out.
Are you SERIOUSLY objecting to the _tic spacing_ on the vertical axis? If so, you'd better be tough that is just as arbitrary as the choice of origin.
BTW, by 'arbitrary' I mean 'has no effect on interpretation', hence my comment regarding toughness.
None of them do. Please explain what you mean, rather than play games with semantics. Do you accuse the author of understimating the uncertainty in his data? If so, show your evidence.
The chart is not a claim by anyone "that by measuring tree ring size, one can determine the average temperature of an area to within tenths of a degree." THAT is obvious, just by looking at it. We don't even know what each 'point' being plotted actually represents. It is possible that each point on the chart is actually extracted from its own database each with a large number of observations. As you know the variance decreases in inverse proportion to the number of data points. E.g. the chart may represent a so-called 'meta' study, a examination of an ensemble of other persons' resuults, treating their conclusions as data.
Why don't we know these things? Well for starters, we haven't yet found anything written about this chart by the author, have we?
I also don't believe any scientist basing predictions on future climate on THAT chart. That's not the way scientist make pre- dictions, especially about the future. That the chart gets presented a lot, does not mean that anyone who knows a burro from a burrow actually uses it for anything other than illustrative purposes.
Do you claim that the chart is a fake, not supported by data?
If so, what is your evidence?
....
SPLORF! I realize that is not your only criticism but it is hilarious that you would base ANY criticism on the tic spacing on the temeprature axis. If they spaced the tics 10 degrees apart the plot would look the
same, it would just be harder to convert the picture to numbers.
...
Fiction or non-Fiction?
Daring advice! Let us know how that works out for you, unless they take your internet access away ...
Well spotted, George. Maybe the person who posted the table can provide the link so we can read it for ourselves. Maybe it's being misrepresented.
FWIW, if it's a mechanical speedo, you probably crimped the flexi-cable a bit and got a kink in it. BTDT. It's a touchy little mechanism.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Graph range has been used to hide data more than once, bubba. Here they go the opposite direction to support falsehoods and hysteria.
Yes, global warming is real. We're coming out of the Little Ice Age. But I don't expect to see anything like Hell on Earth any time soon, nor do I believe that the other scientists, such as those the movie "The Day After Tomorrow" concept was based on, have a solid data set(read: clue), either. Chances are good that we may see a full ONE DEGREE CENTIGRADE rise in temps this century. I'm more afraid of OJ than I am of Global Warming.
Fiction, but he states up front that ALL the data supplied is real and he supports that with references in the back of the book, including books, websites, published paper references, etc. If you think the world is melting and we're all gonna die, I strongly suggest you read that book tomorrow. Here are a couple links:
Well, they haven't yet, but I have seen a black helicopter. ;)
--- Annoy a politician: Be trustworthy, faithful, and honest! ---
On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 11:05:56 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:
Yeah, I don't go for the arguments that we must stop moving forward- all I'm saying is that sticking one's head in the sand is just about as dangerous as the "strident extreme" of complete denial. There are a lot of things we can and should do as inhabitants of the planet to make sure we leave the place in a decent condition. Most of them are common sense, and we've already got some good ideas floating around. We don't need to all recycle our cars and walk everywhere wearing sandals, but it's not a bad idea to carpool if you can, and get the most efficient vehicle that meets your actual needs. If a guy is hauling truckloads of bricks and lumber on a daily basis, then he probably needs an SUV. If that same person is merely hauling one person around, a compact car makes more sense. If they've got a large family but little cargo, a station wagon or minivan is more sensible than an armored troop transport. Simple stuff. When a local businessman gets nabbed by the DNR for the fifth or sixth time because he's dumping toxic waste into the storm drains, he should be shut down until he fixes the problem- not given a slap on the wrist because he provides a lot of tax revenue.
It's less a problem of what is actually happening with the enviroment than it is a problem of what is actually happening with society, once you cut through some of the BS. When people stop hiding behind insane opinions supported by plays on words and mindless yes-men, most folks tend to behave in a decent manner because they know they have to look their neighbors in the eyes when they get home. For a simplified example- if you own a company that produces widget X, and that process creates 1000 gallons of liquid chlorine waste a week, and you decide that the most cost-effective way to dispose of it is to dump it out into the grass behind your building, no one should tolerate you getting huffy and yelling about how the science is not entirely proven when the neighborhood demands that you stop it. But a slick spin doctor can turn even the most egregious offence into something that sounds reasonable to the average person, and that is the brick wall everyone keeps hitting thier collective head on. If we had a couple of retarded kids with limited vocabularies reporting the daily news, people would gag on on the clarity of the real evil we do to one another on a daily basis. Instead, we have some doofus with an MBA in business and a thousand dollar haircut arguing with wild-eyed one-pony pundits on CNN about what the definition of an obscure term is- while somehow completely ignoring the orginal issues. Every day yields thousands of classic examples of sophistry, but that's just how things are "done", I guess.
Less BS would really help the environment the most- it's getting hard to see anything with all those stinky methane clouds in the way. It's a good arguement for wind power- the hot air all around us could supply all the energy we need.... though the poison it drips in our ears is worse than any black-lung cancers from inefficiently burning coal, or completely sterile oceans. It doesn't destroy the greenery, it destroys our minds, and those are the things we cannot afford to destroy. Everything else can be figured out with a clear head and a little honesty.
I've done some more looking specifically wrt to grain sorghum as feedstock vis a vis corn and discover my perceptions were based on my past knowledge regarding feed value more than current state of ethanol production. In an summary assessment done by a KSU researcher, the difference in grain feedstock is actually nearly immaterial to the overall NEV and only a factor economically based on the actual price--grain sorghum w/ it's historic discount as opposed to corn is actually somewhat of a benefit. The major difference (and what confused me) in NEV between, say, 1995 and present is nearly as much attributable to the feedstock as it is essentially all owing to enhancements in the process itself.
What is apparently a limiting factor for ethanol may well be how to generate sufficient market for the byproducts which are necessary to be sold in order to make the profitability of the producing plants. The distillers grains are feed for livestock but it appears there may become a point at which there can not be sufficient demand for all that would be produced.
HomeOwnersHub website 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.