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

a reply to: Phage

OK. This is like talking to a brick. There is no such thing as carbon neutrality. It is an economic idea, conjured up by governments and others who want grant money and to control the population by doing stupid things like taxing farmers for cow farts.

I already said that respiration and breathing are not the same thing. If you exhale CO2, and there is nothing there to convert it back to oxygen, and there is no input of oxygen back into the system, what happens to you?

You die. And, actually would die without suffer.

Now, it is fallacious to take that reasoning and apply in on a global scale to determine that we all will die, if CO2 continues to rise. And, we know for sure that this was not the case in the past when CO2 levels were 5 times higher; although, dinosaurs, etc.

Applying that concept on a global scale would require formal scientific and research training and one proving he/she has the ability to do that. The fact that most of the government "Officials" on environmental changes have no scientific background whatsoever highlights the stupidity involved with believing such nonsensical garbage.

Respiration is a chemical process; breathing is one physically moving air in and out, i.e., an air pump, like a car engine. One can't have respiration without breathing and vice versa.

a reply to: snchrnct

Funny, I did read that, but I have not commented herein. You are correct. Simple fact that was missed by some.

a reply to: TheRedneck

I agree with all of your points.

I am in healthcare. We don't exactly use math on a daily basis, beyond simple calculations and conversions, however. But, we at the Master's and doctorate level, whether Ph.D. or a practice doctorate, e.g., pharm., nursing, PT, having statistical abilities that are obviously required for research purposes.

With that, I agree that our education systems are quite obviously failing our children.

a reply to: rxh0272

Now, it is fallacious to take that reasoning and apply in on a global scale to determine that we all will die, if CO2 continues to rise.

Please show where climatologists say that we all will die. That is a strawman argument. A strawman argument is fallacious.

Respiration is a chemical process;

Yes. The conversion of organic matter into energy is a chemical process with CO2 as a byproduct. Organic matter which obtains its carbon via photosynthesis. Carbon from the atmosphere.

The carbon you exhale came from the atmosphere. It did not come from coal (unless, of course, you eat coal). Respiration has no net effect on atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

a reply to: Dwoodward85

Respectfully, I disagree. How can any pupil move on to higher math without algebra? I mean come on.

Even nurses need basic algebra for crying out loud. I mean, if someone wants to be a cashier at Walmart, than maybe one doesn't need algebra. But, realistically, we have a population that has such a basic, watered-down education that most high school grads can't even hold a full conversation, write even a one-page document correctly, balance a check book, or even hold any intelligent conversation about any intellectual topic whatsoever.

a reply to: Phage

You still are not making sense because of a lack of common scientific principles.

The carbon on Earth was set, for the most part, after the Big Bang. When celestial objects fall into/onto Earth, it changes the total makeup by a certain percentage.

What you are not seeing is the unstated common scientific principles on entropy, closed versus open systems, and the known relationship between Earth and the Sun.

You can cry all day; you simply fail to know the concepts. You need formal, grad school training.

a reply to: Phage

Without photosynthesis there would be no plants, no food, no respiration.

There are no plants in my living room right now. Am I respirating?

We are talking about the carbon cycle. You know, the real world and the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. About how the combustion of fossil fuels is fundamentally different in that regard.

No, you were not. You said:

Respiration is carbon neutral.

Respiration is one component of the carbon cycle, which when balanced is carbon neutral. Photosynthesis is another component. Combustion is yet another component. If all the components of the carbon cycle sum to zero, the carbon cycle is balanced and therefore carbon-neutral.

Since the amount of respiration at any one time is not a constant, and the quantity of plant life is not a constant, and since the planet has held an atmosphere conducive to life for eons, it is logical to assume the system is self-balancing. Also, since there is no known chemical difference between a carbon dioxide molecule produced from respiration and one produced by combustion, it is completely illogical to believe the same controls that balance respiration would not also work to balance combustion.

You can argue that the amount of combustion exceeds the capability of the controls to balance; you can even argue that there is some reason combustive carbon dioxide is different than respirated carbon dioxide (I don't recommend that, but you could try). But you cannot successfully argue that respiration is a carbon neutral process short of major research that shows life doesn't work the way we have known it works for hundreds of years.

I'd get on that research if I were you.

TheRedneck

a reply to: rxh0272

The carbon on Earth was set, for the most part, after the Big Bang. When celestial objects fall into/onto Earth, it changes the total makeup by a certain percentage.

Yes, quite a long time after the "Big Bang." The carbon content of Earth was "set" during the formation of the Solar System when the planets, planetoids, and comets formed.

What you are not seeing is the unstated common scientific principles on entropy, closed versus open systems, and the known relationship between Earth and the Sun.

What you seem to not understand is that respiration is fundamentally different from the combustion of fossil fuels because the former recycles carbon which is existant in the atmosphere and the latter adds carbon which was sequestered millions of years ago. The former has no net effect on atmospheric CO2 concentrations and the latter does.

originally posted by: rxh0272
a reply to: Phage
Now, it is fallacious to take that reasoning and apply in on a global scale to determine that we all will die, if CO2 continues to rise. And, we know for sure that this was not the case in the past when CO2 levels were 5 times higher; although, dinosaurs, etc.

You know what's really fallacious?

Acting like everything else was the same at that time. Tell me, what was the sun's output when atmospheric CO2 levels were 5 times higher?

You're claiming a rise in CO2 ain't going to cause a problem, so you best back this up.

a reply to: Phage

An increase in atmospheric C02 is in turn leading to an increase in the biomass of planet earth, this indicates that a certain percentage of the fossil fuel C02 is also carbon neutral? I don't think Global Greening will have a net negative impact on humanity, in fact, quite the opposite. But then again, I'm a Climate Change Optimist, not a Pessimist.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Correct! And, I agree.

CO2 is OC2, which is a tautology, I know, but ....

If one says CO2 is pollution, then it doesn't matter how, where, when it was produced.

The problem arises when one fails to recognize that simple tautology, as stated.

So, in that regard, I agree with you 100% with the fact that CO2 is CO2 and the balancing is done on a global, system-wide scale, and, if we remove balancing factors, e.g., trees converting CO2 back to oxygen, then things could get out of balance.

The fallacious reasoning comes in when people fail to understand that rising CO2 could be because we keep killing trees. At some point, the balance will be offset, and, at which point, humans and other oxygen breathing animals/creatures will have no choice but to get weak, sick, and die, until there are only enough creatures left which that current ecosystem could sustain.

However, the CO2 levels themselves, in and of themselves, are not sufficient.

i agree

a reply to: Greven

Are you going to tell NASA that they are wrong?

No, because NASA didn't write the post I replied to. You did. I'm telling you that you are wrong in your attempts to perform mathematical analysis.

I even gave you links. Khan Academy is a wonderful place to learn basic concepts. You really should take a look. It's free.

TheRedneck

a reply to: D8Tee

Come on. The total resources on Earth are set, except for the rare episode of something crashing into Earth.

a reply to: Phage

Don't be silly. If you burn fossil fuels, my tree out front will convert that CO2 to oxygen. The problem arises when the entire planet gets offset by too much of one ... or even the other. For example, why do we never here about the lack of Oxygen on Earth?

Sequestration: This is a concept, theory. The total resources are finite. It doesn't matter what one is converted to the other, for the most part, as the total entropy remains. It can rise and fall, but for the most part, it stays relative.

a reply to: rxh0272

And that, good sir, is precisely why I oppose the continued destruction of rain forests (particularly in the Amazon Basin) and support recent proposals to seed the oceans with additional plankton. Both utilize existing known controls. Of course, neither makes Al Gore rich, so...

Both plans have additional positive results as well, from preservation of yet-unknown species to increased seafood production.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: rxh0272
a reply to: Phage

Well, you are the one who mentioned the 70 year period. Most of the arguments I come across tend to try and show that, since the industrial revolution, CO2 levels have spiked and Earth's temperature has shot up, and because of that we are all going to die. I mean come on. Where did you get 70 years from?

Good God. Look, if you really want to know something, go and look it up. I am not here to teach you. If you want to be taught, sign up at a university.

Some of the topics being discussed are too lengthy to discuss. And, because you obviously lack any scientific training or understanding, this discussion is limited.

We fk'd up a 4 bil yo planet in 70 yrs, by burning stuff.

Ok.

Well! Ain't that a kick in the nuts!

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Greven

Are you going to tell NASA that they are wrong?

No, because NASA didn't write the post I replied to. You did. I'm telling you that you are wrong in your attempts to perform mathematical analysis.

I even gave you links. Khan Academy is a wonderful place to learn basic concepts. You really should take a look. It's free.

So, if I have this right...
I said this:

You might note that graph I posted somewhat exaggerates things, because the changes in TSI are so small - note the range of numbers on the left, which is TWO WATTS PER SQUARE METER; this is annual TSI rather than monthly like CERES. This isn't even what the Earth receives; to calculate that, you have to apply a bit of geometry. TSI ~1361 W/m^2 is striking Earth's disk with an area of πr^2. However, the Earth is not a circle, but spherical (an ellipsoid if you want to be pedantic). The area of a sphere is 4πr^2, which meas that ~1361 W/m^2 becomes ~340 W/m^2 and the fluctuation in that graph becomes 0.5 W/m^2 when translated to Earth.

NASA says this:

The total solar irradiance is the maximum possible power that the Sun can deliver to a planet at Earth’s average distance from the Sun; basic geometry limits the actual solar energy intercepted by Earth. Only half the Earth is ever lit by the Sun at one time, which halves the total solar irradiance.
...
In addition, the total solar irradiance is the maximum power the Sun can deliver to a surface that is perpendicular to the path of incoming light. Because the Earth is a sphere, only areas near the equator at midday come close to being perpendicular to the path of incoming light. Everywhere else, the light comes in at an angle. The progressive decrease in the angle of solar illumination with increasing latitude reduces the average solar irradiance by an additional one-half.
...
Averaged over the entire planet, the amount of sunlight arriving at the top of Earth’s atmosphere is only one-fourth of the total solar irradiance, or approximately 340 watts per square meter.

Yet, I'm for some reason?

a reply to: TheRedneck

Hahaha. Al Gore.... You obviously are wise to the truth.

The latter is true, as well.

Of course, we don't know the conversion standard, if one will, for plant life to human/oxygen breathing life that the Earth requires to maintain stability. I do, however, have a hunch, if you will, that the total human population has or is approaching the total population Earth can sustain, but it is not because of CO2, etc., but rather due to resources available and the ability to convert them to what we need to survive.

I would say, based on my training in healthcare and in grad school, that 10 billion will likely be the number after which we start to see wide-spread disease and death, like a cancer.

It would make more sense to me that we focus on less paper and ink usage and letting the rain forests live, rather than taxing cow farts, but then, again, our government is full of nincompoops.

originally posted by: rxh0272
a reply to: Phage

Don't be silly. If you burn fossil fuels, my tree out front will convert that CO2 to oxygen. The problem arises when the entire planet gets offset by too much of one ... or even the other. For example, why do we never here about the lack of Oxygen on Earth?

Sequestration: This is a concept, theory. The total resources are finite. It doesn't matter what one is converted to the other, for the most part, as the total entropy remains. It can rise and fall, but for the most part, it stays relative.

Yeah, uh this isn't actually how photosynthesis works.

The emitted O2 does not come from the input CO2, but the input H2O. Also, I've read plants can get more water-efficient in the presence of higher CO2 levels, which means less water is needed - and less O2 is emitted. Incidentally, plants do need a bit of O2 - they just produce more than they need.

Indeed, total resources are finite. That's why, coupled with the above, O2 levels are declining as carbon is burned into CO2:

a reply to: Greven

You're joking, right?

You took a bit of useless trivia and tried to use it to advance an argument about solar irradiance?

Try to understand... that value of ~340 W/m^2 is just an attempt to explain how unreliable the normal value of ~1360 W/m^2 is. One would only get that maximum normal amount when the sun is directly normal to the receptor, and that only happens in any one location once per year.

It is not an argument about the amount of solar irradiation.

I blame the public mis-education system... *sigh*

TheRedneck