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.

 

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

page: 10
48
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join
share:
(post by rxh0272 removed for political trolling and baiting)

posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 08:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: rxh0272
a reply to: Phage

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

I suppose there's no hydrologic cycle either?


(post by rxh0272 removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 08:34 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 


(post by rxh0272 removed for a manners violation)

posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 08:38 PM
link   
a reply to: rxh0272


Sequestration is a man-made concept in order to try and understand what we perceive happening.

I don't think you get it, most all of the fossil fuels we burn would not see the light of day if humans didn't dig them up. It's a simple concept.


(post by rxh0272 removed for a manners violation)

posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 08:47 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

You are begging the question



posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 08:51 PM
link   
With Regards to Professor Dr. Judith Curry, will we be seeing more of her? Will she turn up as an special advisor to the new administrations climate panel?



posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 08:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage


Respiration has no net effect on atmospheric CO2 levels. The combustion of fossil fuels does.

There is where you go completely off the rails in your reasoning, Phage. There is no difference between a carbon dioxide molecule produced by respiration and one produced by combustion. Both can contribute to photosynthesis in the exact same way. To attempt to differentiate based on source is to state that there is a difference between the two that causes one to be effective in the photosynthesis reaction while the other is not.

That is patently false. Carbon dioxide is a compound that contains one atom of carbon bonded covalently to two atoms of oxygen, located opposed to each other, making the resultant molecule non-polar. It is the lowest common energy state of the atoms given relative abundance of chemicals on earth, and thus is the primary resultant form of any recombination of carbon in the presence of oxygen.

That includes both respiration and combustion. Respiration can actually be considered combustion under tightly controlled conditions, as combustion is simply a common term for reduction with oxygen.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 08:57 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

So, to what do you attribute the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels if not a loss of equilibrium in the carbon cycle due to the billions of tons of CO2 emitted by the combustion of fossil fuels? More people exhaling CO2, which was the claim which started this train?

edit on 1/16/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 09:09 PM
link   

edit on 16-1-2017 by DrumsRfun because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 09:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Ah, now there you have a point. Additional carbon dioxide beyond that produced by respiration can unbalance the system. But it does not matter if that extra comes from fossil fuel combustion or respiration or cow burps. It is still carbon dioxide. Too much respiration would unbalance the system just as much.

That's why your statement that "respiration is carbon neutral" is so wrong. Respiration only covers the creation of carbon dioxide and water from oxidation/reduction of sugar. Fossil fuel combustion only covers creation of carbon dioxide and water from hydrocarbon chains. Photosynthesis only covers creation of oxygen and sugars from carbon dioxide, water, and sunlight. The three may operate symbiotically, but they are not a single process. They are only connected in the respect that they all use similar chemicals.

I recognize the attraction of implying that respiration is good carbon dioxide and combustion is bad carbon dioxide, but it is not true.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 09:40 PM
link   

edit on 16-1-2017 by D8Tee because: wrong thread



posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 09:45 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

I am waiting for someone to bring up fermentation....



posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 10:07 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

Interesting technology.

One potential problem is that Fischer-Tropsch requires carbon monoxide and hydrogen gas, obtainable from gases such as methane. I'm not sure the efficiency would hold for getting the reagents from heavier chains.

Then again, I will admit I am not up to date on this particular technology.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Fischer-Tropsch been around for a long time. Most any hydrocarbon can be an input. Germany used coal in WW2 to make synthetic fuels.



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

Maybe it's something I need to look into more then.


TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 07:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Phage

Ah, now there you have a point. Additional carbon dioxide beyond that produced by respiration can unbalance the system. But it does not matter if that extra comes from fossil fuel combustion or respiration or cow burps.


Yes it does matter, until cows eat petroleum. You can't have additional respiration to unbalance the system, because respiration comes from animals which eat food, and growing food consumes carbon and solar energy.


That's why your statement that "respiration is carbon neutral" is so wrong. Respiration only covers the creation of carbon dioxide and water from oxidation/reduction of sugar. Fossil fuel combustion only covers creation of carbon dioxide and water from hydrocarbon chains. Photosynthesis only covers creation of oxygen and sugars from carbon dioxide, water, and sunlight. The three may operate symbiotically, but they are not a single process. They are only connected in the respect that they all use similar chemicals.


I recognize the attraction of implying that respiration is good carbon dioxide and combustion is bad carbon dioxide, but it is not true.


It is true. Making cow food and human food takes carbon out from the air, which is returned by respiration, poop, and bodily decay. (Tractors using diesel is fossil fuel consumption of course).

It is the mining and burning of fossil fuels in much higher quantity, carbon which has not been in the biosphere for aeons which is the problem.


edit on 21-1-2017 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-1-2017 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 08:28 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

Where, may I ask, do you think all that carbon in fossil fuels comes from?

The critical error in your analysis is that you are trying to consider the system as closed, when it is clearly not. The only constant in the system is the total amount of carbon on the planet. The amount in the atmosphere is variable, as is the amount of carbon dioxide converted to oxygen during photosynthesis and the amount of carbon dioxide produced during respiration. Any variable amount is, well, variable.

Your explanation ignores how much carbon is contained in rock, like calcium carbonate (limestone). It ignores the fact that we ourselves are primarily made of carbon; everything we eat is not respirated. When we bury our dead, we are burying carbon. The great Pacific plastic island is made of... carbon! Now consider that the thing that links the amount of flora to fauna is carbon dioxide levels and the thing that links the amount of fauna to flora is oxygen levels.

The system self adjusts. The more carbon dioxide, the more plants grow and convert it to oxygen. The less carbon dioxide, the less plants grow and convert it to oxygen. If we increase carbon dioxide, plant life will grow faster, just like in a greenhouse. If carbon dioxide increases temperature, that too will increase plant growth. It does not matter where the carbon dioxide comes from. Plants don't care.

If you want to continue on this failed argument to somehow differentiate carbon dioxide based on source, all you have to do is show me a difference between that produced by respiration and that produced by combustion. Just show me the difference between them. Show me how plants know one from the other. Do that and I will agree with your argument.

And I'll even throw in a Nobel Prize.

TheRedneck



new topics

top topics



 
48
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join