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.

 

Al Gore and His Profane Rant at Aspen Institute

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Obviously, they do not break down the sugars they produce; they use them for growth.


...Wow. That must be what the Pan-galactic gargleblaster feels like. Woo. i'm kinda dizzy now.

Yes. Plants use sugars for growth... by breaking them down for energy, in the exact same way that very nearly every other form of life on earth does. They use oxygen as a catalyzing agent to do so - aerobic frikkin' respiration. The by-product of this process is Carbon dioxide gas - just as it is in every single other aerobic organism on the face of the earth.


Fauna break down those sugars (food) using aerobic metabolism in order to produce proteins and acquire energy for movement.


So does every other organism that uses aerobic respiration. From e. coli bacteria, to mushrooms, to a cedar, to an elephant to a malaria plasmodium, they all consume oxygen and release carbon dioxide during the course of cellular respiration.


Any aerobic reactions inside the plant (and there are a few) are so small compared to the photosynthetic process as to be... you called it earlier.... 'irrelevant'!


Actually it's not few - and even by allowing "a few" you are shooting yourself in the foot, since you are so adamantly certain that it nevereverever happens, ever.

It's irrelevant to the discussion of climate change and the increase of CO2 in the air because plants consume and sequester more carbon than they release in respiration.Essentially the net impact of plants on atmospheric carbon is neutral to negative, depending on the plant in question (grass outputs nearly as much as it consumes, while large plants store an awful lot of carbon). However, it's still worth mention for the sake of completeness, and to prevent some knucklehead from coming away saying "HURF DURF TREES MAKE CARBON DIOXIDE MY CAR ISN'T A PROBLEM"


Seems like an easy experiment to perform. Let me know your set-up and results (although I predict the plant would grow at several times its 'normal' rate).

I guess all those commercial greenhouses have been killing plants off all those years... the fiends! Then they sell them to us and tell us they're alive just because they are green and growing! Charlatans!


Greenhouses do not exclude oxygen. Commercial greenhouses add CO2 to the atmosphere in the greenhouse, but this does not remove oxygen. Again, oxygen is a mandatory component of aerobic respiration. And plants perform aerobic respiration.


Yeah, I guess I am uneducated. Thank goodness you're here to correct me that plants now use oxygen to produce carbon dioxide and break down the sugars made by photosynthesis. I wonder, since you're so obviously well-educated... where do the sugars in the food we eat come from if not from plants?


Plants utilize photosynthesis to produce sugars, so they can then break those sugars down to use in their own growth and reproduction. Like most organisms, they also store sugars in their bodies for "lean times." When these plants are consumed, their stored sugars are transferred to the body of whatever is eating them - which could be anything, not just animals (there are plants that parasitize - eat, effectively - other plants; dodder, for example). That organism then uses the sugars gained from the plant in its own cellular respiration.


(Let me help you out... plants absorb carbon dioxide from the air, obtain water from their root systems, and use sunlight to create simple sugars that form the structure of the plant itself. In the process they give off oxygen. When we eat plants for food, we use oxygen from the air to reduce those sugars, producing energy and carbon dioxide in the process.)


Congratulations, you do understand aerobic respiration. The only problem is, you utterly fail to realize that it is this very process that allows plants to "form structures." Seriously, they use the energy gained from breaking down sugars for the very growth processes you are talking about. Why do you still insist that htye do not?


(Oh, and I assume you know that when I say 'simple sugars' I am speaking of various hydrocarbon chains, not the powdery white stuff you buy in the supermarket.)

TheRedneck


You really shouldn't attempt to be patronizing after this discussion, Redneck.
edit on 11/8/2011 by TheWalkingFox because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Seems like an easy experiment to perform. Let me know your set-up and results (although I predict the plant would grow at several times its 'normal' rate).

I guess all those commercial greenhouses have been killing plants off all those years... the fiends! Then they sell them to us and tell us they're alive just because they are green and growing! Charlatans!


Like I said before, I am no botanist but I am a gardener. It is a really easy experiment to perform and one you can do with a ziploc bag in your kitchen. When it comes to indoor gardening, adding CO2 can be just great but like with all good things, there is a limit. Not only would you starve the atmosphere of O2 but too much CO2 has adverse effects on a plants ability to absorb any gasses. There is a good reason no one grows plants in 100% CO2 environment.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 01:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Kitilani
 


You god dang hippies

CO2 at bad

you get 2 of them for the price of one, or is multiplicaplied???

Either way, more is better



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 02:37 AM
link   
Everyone stop breathing you are global warming!

So how are we going to account for the other 85% at least of Co2 that doesn't come from homosapians?
What about the other 70% of the green house effect? Should we all stop drinking H2O also?
How about the global warming that comes from the sun?
Cosmic /galactic winds?

And don't even give me this average global temp is a good measure because it is not. The temp and climate varies so drastically from one place to another that measuring it as a global average is asinine.

Too many factors for them to calculate. Especially since their "best" evidence for man made global warming came from studies specifically design to prove man made global warming (unscientific in the first place as science can only prove a theory false. Like man made global warming killing the planet.... LoL), and were done after the grand claims had been made.

But still I thought we were supposed to be heading into an Ice age. Was it China, Russia, Brazil, or India that ruined that trend? Or was it religious zealots driven by their slave master spaghetti monster of a god driving their trailers to church every sunday?

As it turns out all the hot air Al Gore has been blowing is the true cause of global warming.
edit on 11-8-2011 by MasterGemini because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 03:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by MasterGemini
Everyone stop breathing you are global warming!


I love climate change threads. it's so easy to separate the wheat from the idiots. I mean, the chaff.


So how are we going to account for the other 85% at least of Co2 that doesn't come from homosapians?


A fine example of a "chaff" argument - "HURF HURF HUMANS ONLY PRODUCE 15% OF ATMOSPHERIC CARBON!"

Yes and if we were to stop doing so, there would be a reduction of carbon emissions by 15%. Which is the thing here. There's really no reason at all we need to be dumping that much into the atmosphere. it clearly doesn't help us any. And it's within our ability to lower that amount. So why not do so?

It's like arguing that whales and fish put way more poop into the oceans than humans do, so there should be no problem with using oceans as our open sewers.


What about the other 70% of the green house effect? Should we all stop drinking H2O also?


Another typical chaff argument; paired with hyperbole, no less.

The amount of water on the earth is pretty constant, and what goes into the atmosphere returns to the surface quite quickly. it's known as the water cycle. You may know it as "rain."

On the other hand, we are putting "new" carbon into the atmosphere by burning sources of sequestered carbon (wood, petroleum, coal, etc). Without our burning it would remain where it is, only very slowly being released, at a pace that could be handled by the various methods of removing carbon from the atmosphere. Unlike water, it does not precipitate quickly; whereas water just needs more water to precipitate, carbon needs a few other elements (such as calcium) to pull that off.


How about the global warming that comes from the sun?
Cosmic /galactic winds?


Credit where credit is due; even the chaff of the argument tend to avoid the really dumb arguments. Apparently this is not a universal rule.

We receive a very tiny fraction of the sun's energy. in order for it to have such an eminently detectable impact on our global temperatures, it would have to exponentially increase its energy output.

Cosmic winds... someone's just grabbing for invisible straws now. Martian farts are not warming us up, sorry.


And don't even give me this average global temp is a good measure because it is not. The temp and climate varies so drastically from one place to another that measuring it as a global average is asinine.


Woooo. Dizzy again. I swear, you guys must practice saying this sort of stuff, so that you don't break into giggles when you try to type it.

You just described precisely why it is a good idea to collect a global average.


Too many factors for them to calculate.


Actually, it's not. We've moved beyond fingers and toes being our sole calculating apparatus.


Especially since their "best" evidence for man made global warming came from studies specifically design to prove man made global warming (unscientific in the first place as science can only prove a theory false. Like man made global warming killing the planet.... LoL), and were done after the grand claims had been made.


Well, actually, scientific evidence, collected by scientists, using scientific methods, presented to other scientists who all have a vested interest in proving their competition to be utterly wrong, all points towards a strong warming trend that matches the upward amount of atmospheric carbon, a known "greenhouse gas." Fields outside climatology have corroborated this in their own studies of their own subjects.

Meanwhile, all your "team" is able to come up with is "lol" and hyperbolic nonsense.

I'm going to take the findings of people who know what the hell they're doing, over some schmucks on the internet who don't believe plants have mitochondria.


But still I thought we were supposed to be heading into an Ice age. Was it China, Russia, Brazil, or India that ruined that trend? Or was it religious zealots driven by their slave master spaghetti monster of a god driving their trailers to church every sunday?


I very much doubt that you thought anything at all.


As it turns out all the hot air Al Gore has been blowing is the true cause of global warming.
edit on 11-8-2011 by MasterGemini because: (no reason given)


Except he's right, and you're... well, I would be insulting chronically wrong people to group you with them, but you're not correct.
edit on 11/8/2011 by TheWalkingFox because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 03:49 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


And yet you offer no answers. Only "chaff" of your own.

Time Magazine
www.time.com...
Yeah real consensus about global warming since the 1970's right? Did you forget about this?

And here you said this
Well, actually, scientific evidence, collected by scientists, using scientific methods, presented to other scientists who all have a vested interest in proving their competition to be utterly wrong, all points towards a strong warming trend that matches the upward amount of atmospheric carbon, a known "greenhouse gas." Fields outside climatology have corroborated this in their own studies of their own subjects.

I see a contradiction from their previous findings presented in TIME magazine.
Shouldn't they be trying to make sure none of their own arguments are false? The truth speaks for itself no need to have some nerds of awe inspiring brainpower on ego trips throwing a fit.

Need I remind you that not one of their models has accurately predicted the climate yet?

All that carbon was once above ground likely in some carbon based life at ONE point in time. And the amount of 15% of CO2 is the extreme highs. The reality is it somewhere around 6-10% max.

I never argued against developing a better system for energy production so try again.

Did you really just try to say the sun has a very little effect on the earth's climate? Get real please.
How much do we really know about the heliosphere's (en.wikipedia.org...) effect on solar conditions? A complete climate model would take in all factors so you need to reassess your attack on this point. Its all relative so at what point to draw the line?

When the earth has such varied climates at all times that makes the average temperature of the entire globe a highly inaccurate tool for measuring the effect of changes in specific areas under a certain (very large) size.
Would you use the average temperature of a solar system to measure the average temperature of a planet? No because the scales are just too far apart to be useful.

Oh and what about this guy's professionalism in the field?
[yvid]



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 05:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by MasterGemini
When the earth has such varied climates at all times that makes the average temperature of the entire globe a highly inaccurate tool for measuring the effect of changes in specific areas under a certain (very large) size.
Would you use the average temperature of a solar system to measure the average temperature of a planet? No because the scales are just too far apart to be useful.


Now I am dizzy. Are you saying that the global average temperatures are used to measure the temperature in specific locations? Isn't that how the average is obtained to begin with? It is specific data from specific places all over.
I do not understand this comparison to the solar system/planet thing. If your analogy were to make sense, one of the numbers used to gain that solar system average would be that planets average temp.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox

Ignorance and arrogance is a poor combination.


Yes. Plants use sugars for growth... by breaking them down for energy, in the exact same way that very nearly every other form of life on earth does. They use oxygen as a catalyzing agent to do so - aerobic frikkin' respiration. The by-product of this process is Carbon dioxide gas - just as it is in every single other aerobic organism on the face of the earth.

So exactly where does oxygen come from? Here all these textbooks tell me that oxygen is produced by plants from carbon dioxide through photosynthesis, converted into carbon dioxide by animals, which is then converted back to oxygen by plant life in a never-ending cycle. Now you tell me plants use oxygen and produce carbon dioxide.

Interesting.... are you concerned that we will run out of oxygen? After all, if all those plants are using it, animals are using it, and we're burning it for energy, there is only so much. This is exactly the kind of misinformation Gore promotes. He never said during the fake-umentary that plants use oxygen to produce carbon dioxide; he insinuated that they didn't convert either way over time.

The equation for photosynthesis is:

6 CO2 + 6 H2O + Energy ---> C6H12O6 + 6 O2


The equation for respiration is:

6 O2 + C6H12O6 ---> Energy + 6 CO2 + 6 H2O


C6H12O6 is glucose, the building block sugar that life depends on. The equations above show that the amount of glucose available in a plant is the direct result of the amount of carbon dioxide and water that were absorbed in photosynthesis. If plants breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide in cellular respiration, that means they are burning more glucose than they are producing.

And that means that the plants contain no excess of glucose.

What we have, Fox, is a nicely-balanced chemical system that keeps us supplied with oxygen and plant life supplied with carbon dioxide in a never-ending cycle. The only debate about global warming is whether or not mankind is producing enough carbon dioxide via combustion of fuels to cause it to substantially raise the average amount of energy retained by the planet. Never, in all my years of debating, have I come across anyone who is so adamant that plants breathe oxygen!

I learned the basics of photosynthesis back in the third grade. Since then I have been fascinated by the subject and tried to understand the inner mechanics of the process. I have actually used higher carbon dioxide levels to grow test plants. An interesting point is that in order to maintain the higher carbon dioxide levels, I had to add carbon dioxide along and in the process remove oxygen. That is the exact opposite of what you are now proposing.

Should I believe TheWalkingFox on ATS, or literally hundreds of textbooks and articles on the subject spanning 50 years and personal observation? Hmmmm, tough decision... you'll forgive me if I don't immediately jump on your bandwagon.


Actually it's not few - and even by allowing "a few" you are shooting yourself in the foot, since you are so adamantly certain that it nevereverever happens, ever.

It nevereverever happens in the sense that any oxygen intake by plant life is so minuscule so as to not require oxygen from outside sources and make no real change to the overall equations. That's not me shooting myself in the foot, Fox, it is you trying to confuse the issue. As an analogy, every battery has two different types of reactions taking place inside it: most producing an electric potential at the terminals and a few trying to counter that electric potential. The ones trying to counter are held so low that we get electric power from those potentials. When a battery 'dies', the equations become balanced and the battery is no longer useful. So we do not normally speak of the countering reactions inside the battery; we speak of the potential-producing reactions, as they are by far the most vibrant and useful.

Statements like this make me believe that either you have no earthly idea what carbon dioxide even is or you are intentionally trying to confuse others. Remember we have debated issues before, and based on that I highly doubt the former. I believe it is more likely you are simply trying to promote ignorance in others.

For shame...


You really shouldn't attempt to be patronizing after this discussion, Redneck.

My apologies; call it a bad habit. I tend to call bull-hockey bull-hockey whenever I see said bull-hockey.

Gotta work on that...

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Kitilani

What he is saying:
  • The area of the surface of the earth is approximately 198,000,000 square miles.
  • The temperature of the planet's surface can at any time range from -60°F to 140°F.
  • The temperature can change drastically even over small distances. 30°F within a half-mile is not unheard-of.
  • The temperature is always changing, and sometimes changing quite rapidly. I have seen 20°F changes within 15 minutes.
Given this extremely volatile nature of surface temperatures combined with the massive amount of area involved and the range of potential variation, it is practically impossible to measure the average temperature of the planet directly. As an analogy, tell me what the average height of a blade of grass is in your yard right now this instant.

Earth's temperature is inferred by measuring blackbody radiation emitted into space and calculating from that. Interestingly enough, that is what the confusion is all about: the measured radiation indicates a significantly cooler temperature than what we appear to observe directly, meaning that either:
  • the indirect measurements are way off,
  • The radiation measurements are way off,
  • The data is incomplete (and therefore meaningless),
  • The planet is holding in heat instead of radiating it (the choice AGW believers believe), or
  • Our understanding of the physics behind the observations is incomplete.


Now I am dizzy.

Take two physics courses and avoid Al Gore movies.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by MasterGemini
When the earth has such varied climates at all times that makes the average temperature of the entire globe a highly inaccurate tool for measuring the effect of changes in specific areas under a certain (very large) size.
Would you use the average temperature of a solar system to measure the average temperature of a planet? No because the scales are just too far apart to be useful.


Now I am dizzy. Are you saying that the global average temperatures are used to measure the temperature in specific locations? Isn't that how the average is obtained to begin with? It is specific data from specific places all over.
I do not understand this comparison to the solar system/planet thing. If your analogy were to make sense, one of the numbers used to gain that solar system average would be that planets average temp.


Since your so dizzy how about you sit down and read that TIME magazine article I linked to about the coming global ice age.

Here is a nice little quote from the article:



Telltale signs are everywhere — from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest.Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F. Although that figure is at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data. When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round.


www.time.com...

Let me give you hint. If you want to appear at least the slightest bit witty you should not repeat someone elses insult directly after they did to the same person. It gives people the impression you are a lemming or at the very least an uncreative troll.
edit on 11-8-2011 by MasterGemini because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 


Can't argue with that I guess.




top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join