 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Science under attack.
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack. From: Jack the Sailor Date: 30 Jun 11 - 08:04 PM There is always a market for people to shill for vested interests. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack. From: Stringsinger Date: 30 Jun 11 - 07:34 PM http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/06/28-12 Willy gives me the willies. It's easy to bribe some scientists to deny global warming or climate change. New physics by the Koch Brothers. Creationism on clay tablets delivered by the descending emissary of Mount Texas. (Endorsed by Bachmann and Perry) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack. From: Jack the Sailor Date: 30 Jun 11 - 10:29 AM A bit like attributing global warming solely to CO2, in fact. Yeah who would have thought a green house gas would ad heat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack. From: Ringer Date: 30 Jun 11 - 09:53 AM "...the "fallacy of exclusion" in which a *single* cause and effect relationship is presented as the only cause and effect relationship amongst *many* that may be at work in a system. This is a rhetorical trick, not a scientific argument." A bit like attributing global warming solely to CO2, in fact. "All the sub-systems within the planet-wide ecosystem are interconnected; change one and they all change. Problem is, we don't know to what degree and how." Agreed; but one consequence of that logic is that it is dangerous to reduce (as if we could!) atmospheric CO2. Since "we don't know to what degree and how" that change will affect all other variables we could be doing more harm than good. It is the nature of a chaotic system (such as the planetary atmospheric-system) to be unpredictable; but all you warmistas seem so confident in your predictions of doom. Shome mishtake, surely. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack. From: Jack the Sailor Date: 29 Jun 11 - 09:12 PM Bobad, PDQ, I am glad we have all reached the same conclusion. Water cooling a Nuclear Reactor: Good Water breaching a Nuclear Reactor: Bad CO2 in the carbon cycle: Nurishment and Good CO2 increasing beyond the carbon cycle's capacity to absorb it: Pollution and Bad |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack. From: pdq Date: 29 Jun 11 - 08:20 PM People drown in water. BAN WATER!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack. From: bobad Date: 29 Jun 11 - 08:14 PM Biologically speaking any substance given in high enough doses can be poisonous. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack. From: Jack the Sailor Date: 29 Jun 11 - 08:01 PM Potassium is not a poison. It is absolutely essential to brain and heart function. Yet they use it to kill people on death row. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack. From: pdq Date: 29 Jun 11 - 07:38 PM People can't be expected to rid themselves of all misconceptions about a complex subject in a single day. Perhaps we can settle for replacing one misconception each day until they are all gone. Here is the one for today: "carbon dioxide is a pollutant" and was declared so by the totally politicized director of the EPA. Fact is CO2 is the key ingrediant in all life on Earth. It is made into carbohydrates by plant. Animals cannot produce their own food so they are dependant on plants for food, or on animals that have eaten plants. Yes, carbon dioxide is the key ingrediant in all life, not just plants. When you here someone state that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, please correct the mistake. It's the least you can do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack. From: GUEST,TIA Date: 29 Jun 11 - 07:36 PM And, it is not just bugs. Perhaps you could take the time to read this one also... http://www.sciencemag.org/content/298/5600/1987.short Here's the abstract if you can't get to the full article: "Simulated global changes, including warming, increased precipitation, and nitrogen deposition, alone and in concert, increased net primary production (NPP) in the third year of ecosystem-scale manipulations in a California annual grassland. Elevated carbon dioxide also increased NPP, **but only as a single-factor treatment**. Across all multifactor manipulations, elevated carbon dioxide suppressed root allocation, decreasing the positive effects of increased temperature, precipitation, and nitrogen deposition on NPP. The NPP responses to interacting global changes differed greatly from simple combinations of single-factor responses. These findings indicate the importance of a **multifactor** experimental approach to understanding ecosystem responses to global change." (emphasis by TIA) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack. From: GUEST,TIA Date: 29 Jun 11 - 07:26 PM A small, closed greenhouse is a lot simpler than the entire Earth. Did you read the science? What if we add bugs to the greenhouse? Increasing the CO2 increases the carbon/nitrogen ratio in the plant matter, making it less nutritious for herbivorous predators, which then must eat more, and it is detrimental to the plants. The record for the PETM is very clear. Your "CO2 is plant food argument is a nice example of the "fallacy of exclusion" in which a *single* cause and effect relationship is presented as the only cause and effect relationship amongst *many* that may be at work in a system. This is a rhetorical trick, not a scientific argument. If you want to talk science above a comic book level, please read the original sources. One is posted above. A person with your obvious education and intelligence (and as attested by others) should be perfectly capable of reading and understanding this. Then we can discuss the original sources as skeptic to skeptic. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack. From: Jack the Sailor Date: 29 Jun 11 - 06:57 PM I get it now PDQ, You think that since CO2 in the atmosphere causes a "greenhouse effect" that it would be like pumping more CO2, into the greenhouse. Two words "closed system." A green house is, from the point of view of individual plants. The whole outdoors is not. The limitations on plant growth and agriculture OUTDOORS are nutrients and water. I have no doubt that increasing CO2, where water and nutrients are optimized will increase plant production. But assuming that in entire Earth's ecosystem, water and nutrients ARE optimized, it frankly, ignorant and not worthy of a man of your obvious educational attainment. Here is something to consider. Clearly your interpretation of "the carbon cycle" is not working because the amount of atmospheric CO2 is increasing. If what you are saying was true, wouldn't we have the same amount of atmospheric CO2 and more plants? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack. From: pdq Date: 29 Jun 11 - 06:42 PM People who have been around agriculture known about carbon dioxide augmentation in greenhouses. Since others seen not to have heard of it, I said we must get "back to basisc" in a previous post. Here is a fine article from our Canadian friends, courtesy of the... Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack. From: pdq Date: 29 Jun 11 - 06:29 PM Increasing the level of carbon dioxide in greenhouses produces a perdictable increase in yield, up to 40% more depending on the crop and other coditions. This technique has been used in practice for decades. Here, get a system for your... greenhouse |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack. From: GUEST,TIA Date: 29 Jun 11 - 05:47 PM Sorry...clicky |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack. From: GUEST,TIA Date: 29 Jun 11 - 05:44 PM Again, the encyclopedia. There is so much peer-reviewed science that goes so far beyond the encyclopedia, that it is plain silly to be arguing using that. It's like trying to build your own spaceship from plans you got from a comic book. The information may not be incorrect, but it is so simplistic and non-comprehensive of other critical factors that it is just not meaningful. The "if some is good, more is better" argument is unscientific. If we were to argue in aphorisms, I would reply with "Too much of a good thing can be harmful". If you are sick and taking medicine to make you well, will you get better three times faster by taking three times the medicine? Yes, it is possible to increase plant growth with increased CO2 under controlled conditions. It also requires increased water and increased nutrients, and increased organic matter, and protection from invasive insect or other predators and parasites. Where will the extra water come from? Where will the extra nutrients and organic matter come from? Might a slight change in climate invite migration of new predators and diseases? There is solid historical evidence of a sudden rise in CO2 causing widespread significant plant damage. Read here: http://www.pnas.org/content/105/6/1960.full.pdf+html There are many many more examples of humans altering ecosystems to "improve" them (based on an encyclopedia level understanding of complex interactions) that result in ecosystem collapse. Plenty more original sources where that came from. So, are you a skeptic or a denier? We shall see. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack. From: pdq Date: 29 Jun 11 - 04:28 PM Here is a good place to learn about the... Carbon Cycle |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack. From: GUEST,999 Date: 29 Jun 11 - 03:58 PM Carbon cycle |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack. From: Jack the Sailor Date: 29 Jun 11 - 03:21 PM I think what needs to be questioned is this... We actually live in CO2-starved condition right now. Doubling or trippling the amout of atmospheric CO2 would lead to an increase in plant growth and a greater abundance of food." pdq It is the first time on my life I have ever seen this claim. It is my understanding that plant thrive with enough water and nutrients in the soil. That is certainly true for our garden. I see farmers fertilizing and irrigating. When was the last time you saw one dumping dry ice on a garden? I drive by fossil fuel power plants several times a year, I don't notice the vegetation near the plants as being more abundant. I do notice more plants where there is more water. Have you ever driven from San Antonio to New Orleans? If you did you would know what I mean. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack. From: Ebbie Date: 29 Jun 11 - 03:11 PM "07:31 PM We actually live in CO2-starved condition right now. Doubling or trippling the amout of atmospheric CO2 would lead to an increase in plant growth and a greater abundance of food." pdq "03:25 PM Actually, with regard to CO2, increasing the ratio in the atmosphere will not benefit plants, which have evolved to exist in the current situation." Penny S "Actually, with regard to CO2, increasing the ratio in the atmosphere will not benefit plants, which have evolved to exist in the current situation. Where did that claim come from?" pdq I'm confused. Is that exchange what I read it to be? Eb |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack. From: Jack the Sailor Date: 29 Jun 11 - 02:46 PM I'm not saying that he is not well educated. I'm saying that there is no evidence of that education in his recent posts on this thread. Bruce, come on, isn't invoking high school biology about the carbon cycle and then saying that man made global warming does not exist because plants process carbon dioxide nothing more than BullShit? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack. From: GUEST,TIA Date: 29 Jun 11 - 02:42 PM If you are calling me insecure, you surely don't know me at all. Did your college courses teach you about the Dunning-Kroger Effect? http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.64.2655&rep=rep1&type=pdf Original Source |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack. From: pdq Date: 29 Jun 11 - 02:16 PM Thanks, Bruce. You are one of the few Lefties here who makes an attempt to stand on principle. Most come here to inflict pain on their enemies, real or imagined. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack. From: GUEST,999 Date: 29 Jun 11 - 02:11 PM I'd mention here that PDQ is a well-educated individual. The fact our political views differ just means our political views differ. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack. From: Jack the Sailor Date: 29 Jun 11 - 01:29 PM PDQ, the only evidence of college in your side of this discussion is your apparent EIBS degree. Energy Industry Bull Shit |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack. From: pdq Date: 29 Jun 11 - 01:22 PM I will not be dragged into a name-calling contest with insecure people who want basic scientific concepts twisted to conform to their political agendas. I studied all this in college, at lenght, and just because Al Gore says that it is hot two miles below the Earth's surface "maybe two million degrees" does not make it true. Journalism majors lecturing me on Kreb's Cycle, which they think is something Maynard G. Krebs rode, will be ignored. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack. From: GUEST,TIA Date: 29 Jun 11 - 01:10 PM JtS's link above nails it. Thanks. PDQ: "Back to basics. If someone wants complex formulas or the names of other chemical involved in these processes, they are easily found on the web..." A) We are way beyond the basics. You cannot begin to understand modern Earth Science if you are discussing it based on Encyclopedia definitions. That indicates a very very shallow understanding (perhaps purposefully so). B) "..easily found on the web..." is not where the science is being discussed. That is where you can find good political talking points. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack. From: Jack the Sailor Date: 29 Jun 11 - 12:55 PM Also, a key word is "Seeking" inherent is the potential upheaval before "equilibrium" is attained and the potential that the new equilibrium will probably not be as beneficial to us as the one we are upsetting. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack. From: pdq Date: 29 Jun 11 - 12:50 PM "A fair number of quite simple biological relationships are known to be inherently chaotic..." ~ DMcG Marriage? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack. From: DMcG Date: 29 Jun 11 - 12:29 PM As for the biosphere being a system constantly seeking equilibrium though various mechanisms that might be true And of course that might not be true. That every change in the biosphere induces additional reacting changes is - as far as we know - true, but there's no reason to assume that will lead to an equilibrium. A fair number of quite simple biological relationships are known to be inherently chaotic |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack. From: Stu Date: 29 Jun 11 - 12:05 PM "Animals do roughly the opposite which make the system work." Crikey - is it really that simple? Actually, no. PDQ's oversimplification of the ecology and ecosystems of the planet and how they've been affected by anthropogenic climate change is typical of how deniers work. In part I blame this communication failure on scientists who need to understand the opposition has been in the business of sourcing, processing, selling and marketing for years; scientists are not known for their marketing prowess. To the more gullible members of society conditioned to see the claims of businesses and their cohorts as being indisputable fact and unlikely to question what they're told, it comes as natural to be distrustful of people who are not trying to sell them anything, or telling them things which threaten to burst their cosy consumerist bubble (made of straw). In truth it's far more complicated (but understandable) than the deniers make out. PDQ's cut-n-paste explanations of respiration and photosynthesis are largely irrelevant out of content, which they are in this case. Saying something like "An increase in carbon dioxide causes an increase in plant growth" is utterly ridiculous. An increase in 'Tomogrow' liquid fertiliser will result in an increase in plant growth too. As for the biosphere being a system constantly seeking equilibrium though various mechanisms that might be true, but human activity has altered the variables within that system and the effects are at best unknown and at worst positively disastrous. All the sub-systems within the planet-wide ecosystem are interconnected; change one and they all change. Problem is, we don't know to what degree and how. These systems are incredibly finely balanced and we don't fully understand how declines in species diversity and evolution will effect the biosphere. We know one thing though that the fossil record is unambiguous about: climate change radically alters ecosystems sometimes in very short spaces of time and this will effect all life living in that ecosystem in one way or another. So the choice is to do feck all and hope we're wrong, or change the way we are doing things and if we're wrong the worse that will happen is the loss of rich people's toys, some lifestyle changes for all of us and the fact we will be living more harmoniously within the ecosystems and ecologies we are part of and if we're wrong, no harm done after a period of re-adjustment. Not a choice really, is it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack. From: Jack the Sailor Date: 29 Jun 11 - 11:31 AM It is obvious that PDQ is not a scientist, but do you recognize him in this article? Blues jam |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack. From: pdq Date: 29 Jun 11 - 10:40 AM Back to basics. If someone wants complex formulas or the names of other chemical involved in these processes, they are easily found on the web... Photosynthesis Carbon exists in the atmosphere as the compound carbon dioxide. It first enters the ecological food web (the connected network of producers and consumers) when photosynthetic organisms, such as plants and certain algae, absorb carbon dioxide through tiny pores in their leaves. The plants then "fix" or capture the carbon dioxide and are able to convert it into simple sugars like glucose through the biochemical process known as photosynthesis. Plants store and use this sugar to grow and to reproduce. Thus, by their very nature as makers of their own food, plants remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. When plants are eaten by animals, their carbon is passed on to those animals. Since animals cannot make their own food, they must get their carbon either directly by eating plants or indirectly by eating animals that have eaten plants. Respiration Respiration is the next step in the cycle, and unlike photosynthesis, it occurs in plants, animals, and even decomposers. Although we usually think only of breathing oxygen when we hear the word "respiration," it has a broader meaning that involves oxygen. To a biologist, respiration is the process in which oxygen is used to break down organic compounds into carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H2O). For an animal then, respiration is both taking in oxygen (and releasing carbon dioxide) and oxidizing its food (or burning it with oxygen) in order to release the energy the food contains. In both cases, carbon is returned to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. Carbon atoms that started out as components of carbon dioxide molecules have passed through the body of living organisms and been returned to the atmosphere, ready to be recycled again. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack. From: GUEST,TIA Date: 29 Jun 11 - 08:29 AM PDQ does not have scientifc sources. He has political talking points. Am I wrong? If yes, please provide the links to peer-reviewed scientific journal articles that support your claims. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack. From: Penny S. Date: 29 Jun 11 - 04:56 AM I gave links, didn't I? And the Wikipedia articles have references. Temperature was included. You appear to be responding only to my posting. I was made aware of these issues by a scientist working in the field of planetary habitability. Wilting is an example of what happens with greater temperature and plants which do not have the capacity to close stomata. Penny |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack. From: Jack the Sailor Date: 28 Jun 11 - 06:23 PM PDQ, Where are you getting YOUR claims? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack. From: pdq Date: 28 Jun 11 - 04:31 PM Actually, with regard to CO2, increasing the ratio in the atmosphere will not benefit plants, which have evolved to exist in the current situation. Where did that claim come from? Then there's CAM photosynthesis, also adapted for arid conditions. Global Warming is about temperatue and "arid" is about rainfall. Not related. Enzymes need a particular range of temperature to work well, and plants will not be able to use the increased CO2 if it goes with increased temperature. The 0.6 C increase in atmospheric temperature since 1848 is trivial. Not realy woth mentioning much less worrying about. And that's leaving aside the other effects of heat - I've had wilting potatoes and radishes this last couple of days. Open stomata, high temperatures, water loss. Anicdotal evidence, plus it probably involve a hot day. Cold to hot days can have 20-30 degree F changes. Nothing to do with a discussion photosynthesis. Photosynthesis, including both and vegetation oceanic phytoplankton takes light, Carbon dioxide and water and produces plant energy molecules (as sugar) and releases oxygen. Animals do roughly the opposite which make the system work. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack. From: Penny S. Date: 28 Jun 11 - 03:25 PM Actually, with regard to CO2, increasing the ratio in the atmosphere will not benefit plants, which have evolved to exist in the current situation. Depending on the chemistry which they use for photosynthesis, which varies in detail, some will be able to attain better growth, but not all. See C3 plants, which close down stomata and change chemistry in hot conditions, and comprise most of plants. C3 plants C4 plants do better in hotter conditions, but are only about 3% of all plants. C4 plants Then there's CAM photosynthesis, also adapted for arid conditions. CAM photosynthesis Enzymes need a particular range of temperature to work well, and plants will not be able to use the increased CO2 if it goes with increased temperature. And that's leaving aside the other effects of heat - I've had wilting potatoes and radishes this last couple of days. Open stomata, high temperatures, water loss. Not good. Penny |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack. From: GUEST,999 Date: 28 Jun 11 - 02:40 PM If we allowed dogs to do to our yards what some industries do to this planet, we`d be shooting the dogs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack. From: Jack the Sailor Date: 28 Jun 11 - 07:56 AM >>The system also corrects problems like pollution as best it can. About 35% of atmosphereic pollution is removed each year by natural causes such as rain. If we reduce our pollution, things would return to "normal" in a few years. Some folks try to scare people into thinkng that air pollution is permanent and that what went up since the start of the Industrial Revolution is still there. Probably not much. << I like this closed loop mobius logic which simply which ignores the long term damage we are doing to the biosphere because it is technically not pollution. Rising CO2, temperature rise, deforestation, depleted ozone, melting ice pack and melting permafrost are not pollution but they make life on the planet more difficult. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack. From: Stu Date: 28 Jun 11 - 06:50 AM "Balance prosperity with responsibe stewardship of the planet."(sic) Given the vast majority of the world's ever increasing population lives below the poverty line it seems we're a long way from even knowing what "responsible stewardship of the planet" actually is. Try explaining trophic cascades and ecology to the rich and wealthy of the 'civilised world' and they'll start bleating about their rights and freedoms etc. No, we're fucked as we're too greedy, too myopic and self-interested and we can't keep our dicks in our pants. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack. From: Jack the Sailor Date: 27 Jun 11 - 08:37 PM Potassium is not a poison. It is absolutely essential to brain and heart function. Yet they use it to kill people on death row. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack. From: pdq Date: 27 Jun 11 - 07:56 PM ...Earth is a closed system for the most part. True, but it is also a dynamic system and continually adjusts itself through various feedback mechanisms. An increase in carbon dioxide causes an increase in plant growth which, in turn, cause on increase in atmospheric oxygen which is returned to carbon dioxide by animals. Around and around it goes. An ever-changing system. The system also corrects problems like pollution as best it can. About 35% of atmosphereic pollution is removed each year by natural causes such as rain. If we reduce our pollution, things would return to "normal" in a few years. Some folks try to scare people into thinkng that air pollution is permanent and that what went up since the start of the Industrial Revolution is still there. Probably not much. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack. From: GUEST,999 Date: 27 Jun 11 - 07:37 PM Too true, PDQ. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack. From: pdq Date: 27 Jun 11 - 07:31 PM Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is an absolutely essential part of plant and animal life. We actually live in CO2-starved condition right now. Doubling or trippling the amout of atmospheric CO2 would lead to an increase in plant growth and a greater abundance of food. It is a fact the people use too much of the Earth's resources, pollute many things, produce too much burried waste, etc. That is something that people have tried to address for at least the last 50 years. Balance prosperity with responsibe stewardship of the planet. We are rapidly paving-over the farm land of California with houses and making food-growing more difficult by driving farmer out to coulder and drier rural states when yields are smaller and crop variety is limited. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack. From: Jack the Sailor Date: 27 Jun 11 - 06:52 PM Stringsinger I did not say these things had no effect at all. I did not say that they were not dangerous. I said they have negligible effect on climate change. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack. From: GUEST,999 Date: 27 Jun 11 - 05:34 PM We tend to forget that Earth is a closed system for the most part. We keep doing what we're doing, and we ain't gonna be leaving our children and theirs much of a planet. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack. From: Stringsinger Date: 27 Jun 11 - 12:44 PM Jack, the effect of nuclear meltdowns is not negligible. The radioactive chemicals are in the land and ocean. They are dangerous. There are dead spots in the water areas near nuclear plants. A by-product, Cancer is a ticking time bomb. Apparently you don't live in Pennsylvania where if you turn on the tap, you get flames. How can you reasonably double down on this viewpoint? What about Chernobyl? Did not that affect its residents? Where do you get the information that a nuclear meltdown's effect is negligible? Your "no's" don't add up. Here's what we are learning about the brain. Scientific facts may not matter. Verifiable factual information may not matter because the mind is controlled by belief systems that tend to be reinforced when alternative conclusions are presented. In short, deniability is built into the brain and reinforced by mental behavior. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack. From: Jack the Sailor Date: 27 Jun 11 - 12:24 PM Anyone gonna' state that coal burning plants, (YES When they are burning coal) nuclear meltdowns,(NO the effect is negligible) fracking in the earth,(NO NOT AS SUCH But using the gas or letting it escape might) deposits of nuclear chemicals into the ocean or land doesn't have an effect on climate change? (NO All chemicals are nuclear, since all elements have nuclei. Do you mean radioactive chemicals. If that is the case the answer is still "NO") |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack. From: Stringsinger Date: 27 Jun 11 - 12:15 PM Anyone gonna' state that coal burning plants, nuclear meltdowns, fracking in the earth, deposits of nuclear chemicals into the ocean or land doesn't have an effect on climate change? |
