The Politically Motivated Science of Climatology and the Demonization of Carbon

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Phage

What else was provided for those plants, besides an abundance of CO2? All the water and nutrients they required?

You might as well go with Brawndo.

Well of course. Brawndo. It's got what plants crave... Its got electrolytes...

-dex

a reply to: pravdaseeker

Another Global Warming thread! About time; I was getting tired of reading the same old same old political repetitions.

A minor point: the term "plant food" is technically inaccurate. Carbon dioxide is to plants as oxygen is to humans.

Beyond that, an interesting article which I am sure will be further ripped apart before I hit reply.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: amazing
This ties in with pollution though. To much in the air and we get smog and can't breathe properly. The plants love it, of course. But us humans have a hard time with too much.

So , carbon dioxide is smog ? A pollutant ? Lets get rid of that stuff . Ban it.
What about that dihydride monoxide . So much of that pollutant in the air , it actually falls to earth as a liquid . Responsible for killing millions. Ban that too

Talking about pollution as a lot of green house gasses are pollution and then you take it wanting to ban water? Weird stance but okay. To each his own.

a reply to: amazing

In his defense, carbon dioxide is a component of the atmosphere as much as water vapor is, and in much lower quantity on average. Water vapor also is a much more effective "greenhouse gas."

Both are produced from the combustion of a pure hydrocarbon in an oxygen atmosphere as well and in relatively similar quantities.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: amazing

In his defense, carbon dioxide is a component of the atmosphere as much as water vapor is, and in much lower quantity on average. Water vapor also is a much more effective "greenhouse gas."

Both are produced from the combustion of a pure hydrocarbon in an oxygen atmosphere as well and in relatively similar quantities.

TheRedneck

I think I was just trying to say that we should be focusing on what's good for humans rather than plants and the earth in general. The Earth will probably still be here a billion years from now and probably some kind of life. It's the human life I'm concerned about.

a reply to: amazing

That's a fair enough assessment. However, I would mention that it seems that whatever is good for the biosphere is ultimately good for humans. Within reason of course.

More carbon dioxide and more heat mean more plants growing faster. More plants mean more food. I like food.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: amazing

That's a fair enough assessment. However, I would mention that it seems that whatever is good for the biosphere is ultimately good for humans. Within reason of course.

More carbon dioxide and more heat mean more plants growing faster. More plants mean more food. I like food.

TheRedneck

I would say it's 50/50 or half bad half good. With warmer temperatures we're going to have some areas that will experience Famine and Drought. that's bad. Generally those will be developing countries in Asia or Africa or South America that will require help or...they will experience or cause mass migration/immigration. We know that can be bad. That will cause immigration issues like we're having now except worse and require lot's of resources to help.

Secondly. Try living in a desert environment and you'll see problem number 2, it's really hard to live in a hot climate. I've probably got one more year left and i"m out. Moving up north, to cooler more temperate climate.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: amazing

That's a fair enough assessment. However, I would mention that it seems that whatever is good for the biosphere is ultimately good for humans. Within reason of course.

More carbon dioxide and more heat mean more plants growing faster. More plants mean more food. I like food.

TheRedneck

Yes, but that balances out in the end as more CO2 means more heat, smaller ice caps, higher sea levels, more coastal erosion and less land. It also means more desertification. It's not going to destroy the planet, Earth's too big, it's just going to make it harder for mankind to keep surviving on a long-term basis.

Dear STA Readers, Writers,

a reply to: TheRedneck

Thanks redneck, I think..Ha!

I agree with you on the plant food comment; it is a stretch to a point.. but still essential for life of a plant.

I was just posting an article that I thought brought some balancing elements into the CO2 issue thing..

Anything I post is for information purposes, for folks to take out what they can for themselves.

A lot of times people will think because you post something means you are 100% behind it, and believe every word; or you are "pushing" a certain belief, or political position. It seems to just be a side effect of todays really screwed up society.

I am not saying you did.. it is just a response to your further ripped apart comment..and yeah, it seems to happen too often.

I have found that modern society, at least the society I have seen over my 60+ years on Earth is that people are becoming more polarised, and more violent in thoughts, and way more abusive in language used to others.

This has been highly fostered by the anonymous nature of the internet. I believe it has also been demonstrated by people behaviour at "supposedly peaceful marches" too these last few years.

It seems everything is bound up in black and white, there are no grey zones. And we all know most of the real world revolves in the shades of grey.

Modern issues are much like a clocks pendulum. It swings from one extreme to the other, left, right, left, right... but NEVER stops in the middle which would be the politically unbiased zone... which is where we all could be happy ...

Society mirrors a pendulum that when it is swinging away, it passes through the goldilocks zone of politics in society at its fastest speed. Ha!

Ah well, I reckon you probably figured that out a long time ago though..

Pravdseeker

They don't want to eliminate CO2, they want to stop humans from creating CO2, there is a difference.

a reply to: amazing

With warmer temperatures we're going to have some areas that will experience Famine and Drought.

I hear this all the time, but I can find no scientific basis for an established link between a slight adjustment upward in temperature and famine/drought. On this planet we have dry cold areas, wet cold areas, dry hot areas, and wet hot areas.

It seems to just be a talking point that has somehow established itself without any real basis.

Try living in a desert environment and you'll see problem number 2, it's really hard to live in a hot climate.

Ummmm... look at my location. Alabama is not exactly known for it's snow-covered peaks.

There are a few tricks to living in hot climates just as there are to living in cold climates. First, you slow down a bit and work smarter instead of harder. Second, you learn to work outside during the less extreme parts of the day. Third, you make sure you stay hydrated. I can be comfortable at 90 degrees, and I can still perform in the lower triple digits.

It is a biological fact that humans are better adapted to warm climates as opposed to cold. To combat cold, the body essentially has three mechanisms:

• Hard work creates internal heat... of course, this means one must work constantly in order to maintain body temperature.
  
• Blood can be shunted from extremities to conserve core temperature... of course, this places those extremities at an increased danger of frostbite (freezing of tissues).
  
• Shivering is a final mechanism to maintain core temperature, by the same mechanism as hard work above... of course, that requires energy and makes it more difficult to function at the same time.

On the other hand, the body has a very efficient method of cooling: evaporational cooling via perspiration. Of course, this has a downside as well, as it requires additional water intake. Water is much cheaper and typically more available than food, especially high-energy foods.

Beyond the biological mechanisms, heat can be produced by combustion or by electric energy. Of course, this places an extra financial load on those humans dependent on external heat, which directly affects the poor and infirm. We can also insulate ourselves with clothing, but that also places an extra burden on the poor since clothing costs money. To combat heat, we can find shade, increase the efficiency of evaporational cooling through moving air, or cool the air via energetic mechanisms. Fans are inexpensive and efficient; we used fans in lieu of air conditioning for several years and made it just fine.

Also, the daily cycle tends to favor survival in hotter climates over colder ones. At night, temperature typically drops. In cold climates, this leads to many deaths by freezing each year, as the first and third methods of dealing with cold mentioned above do not work well during sleep. In warmer climates, it is very unusual for someone to die of heat exhaustion/stroke in their sleep; the lack of energy usage in the body during sleep makes such very unlikely, and even perspiration systems will operate during sleep.

What you are discussing is comfort, not danger from climate. By all means, if you have the means and desire to do so, move to a cooler climate. But don't try to use that as an excuse to support Global Warming theory.

TheRedneck

a reply to: pravdaseeker

Modern issues are much like a clocks pendulum. It swings from one extreme to the other, left, right, left, right... but NEVER stops in the middle which would be the politically unbiased zone... which is where we all could be happy ...

You are exactly right. Global Warming theory is supported quite often qualitatively instead of quantitatively. I hear it all the time: "Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas! OMG! OMG!" What that does not convey is that every gas is somewhat of a greenhouse gas. Every substance in the universe is made up of protons, neutrons, and electrons, and those electrons have the ability to change states. When an electron changes state, it either absorbs or emits a photon equal to the energy level between those states. That's a greenhouse gas.

Some materials, like water vapor, are extremely varied in their electrons' ability to jump to a myriad of different energy states, and can absorb/emit photons over wide bands of frequency. Others, like carbon dioxide, have very few possible energy levels for their electrons and thus only absorb over narrow bands of radiation. But the statement I referenced above does not state (or even insinuate) this fact. It simply serves to panic those who do not understand anything about climate other than their favorite climatologist said something.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Also, the daily cycle tends to favor survival in hotter climates over colder ones. At night, temperature typically drops. In cold climates, this leads to many deaths by freezing each year, as the first and third methods of dealing with cold mentioned above do not work well during sleep. In warmer climates, it is very unusual for someone to die of heat exhaustion/stroke in their sleep; the lack of energy usage in the body during sleep makes such very unlikely, and even perspiration systems will operate during sleep.

In warmer climates, it is extremely common for people to die from high heat. There is plenty of evidence that heatwaves kill. For example:

Health authorities believe Victoria's record-breaking heatwave might have contributed to the deaths of about 374 people.

www.theage.com.au...

If temperatures are high enough then it is simply not possible to cool down, especially with a heat index of 41°C and a certainty above a heat index of 54°C. This has nothing to do with comfort, it is a fact that at high temperatures and high humidity your body cannot get rid of the heat. Sweating doesn't do anything if it's not evaporating. Air conditioning then, becomes a requirement rather than something that's nice for comfort. This places an extra financial load on those humans dependent on external cooling, which directly affects the poor and infirm.

Living in Alabama you should know this, and pardon the speculation here, but given your home uses 3.6 kW average I am going to assume you use copious amounts of air conditioning. Mind you, air conditioning heats up outside areas even further due to the heat island effect.

Lastly I need to point out that the median latitude which humans live at is about 25°N. For these people, I find it doubtful that extreme cold is more of a concern than extreme heat. In other words, humans have adapted to live in warmer climates because they are living in warmer climates. If they keep getting warmer, then I don't see how it isn't an issue, or how it is relevant that some people have decided to live in colder areas which are now getting warmer. Congratulations to them I guess?

I prefer warmer climates, here in Melbourne it's usually too cold. But even on the hottest day (46.2°C) I can cope fine without air conditioning because, for some reason, whichever house I live in tends to have substantial thermal mass and therefore heats up slowly, and I can find cooling rather easily. However, I am not going to pretend that it is I who matters the most here. After all heat-waves have killed hundreds of people here, mainly elderly, even though I have been fine. With this in mind, I don't think we should be particularly concerned if you have learned to cope with high temperatures.

You are exactly right. Global Warming theory is supported quite often qualitatively instead of quantitatively. I hear it all the time: "Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas! OMG! OMG!" What that does not convey is that every gas is somewhat of a greenhouse gas. Every substance in the universe is made up of protons, neutrons, and electrons, and those electrons have the ability to change states. When an electron changes state, it either absorbs or emits a photon equal to the energy level between those states. That's a greenhouse gas.

Some materials, like water vapor, are extremely varied in their electrons' ability to jump to a myriad of different energy states, and can absorb/emit photons over wide bands of frequency. Others, like carbon dioxide, have very few possible energy levels for their electrons and thus only absorb over narrow bands of radiation. But the statement I referenced above does not state (or even insinuate) this fact. It simply serves to panic those who do not understand anything about climate other than their favorite climatologist said something.

First, who are you listening to who is saying:

"Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas! OMG! OMG!"

Also you reference this statement later on in this post, but let's not forget this is a statement that you made, not something you actually referenced from someone else. I believe there's a word for these sorts of arguments.

And, I don't understand the issue here. Carbon Dioxide is thought by some to quantitatively and qualitatively effect the climate via the greenhouse effect. Meaning that it is thought by some to be a powerful enough greenhouse gas and in sufficient quantities to effect the climate, specifically since it absorbs up-going thermal radiation from the earth. Other gases, such as Nitrogen, do not have this behavior, therefore it's not typically referred to as a greenhouse gas.

So how does calling a greenhouse gas thought the effect the climate, a greenhouse gas, create panic?

You would make a great politician or lobbyist. Stating that any gas has electron rings which can change state and is therefore a GHG like CO2 is extremely misleading.

a reply to: C0bzz

First of all, I am well aware of heat stroke/heat exhaustion. I also know very well how to avoid it. You seem to have missed a phrase in my statement, even though you bothered to bold it: "in their sleep."

Anyone who lives in a warm climate is aware of the symptoms of heat exhaustion, and hopefully will take precautions against it if they feel it coming on. The difference between heat exhaustion/stroke and hypothermia that I am emphasizing is two fold: Firstly, hypothermia can easily occur at night, while heat exhaustion/stroke is very rare at night... meaning a sleeping person can die easily in their sleep from hypothermia, but not so easily from heat stroke. Secondly, those precautions are to stop working and rest, whereas the precaution for hypothermia is to work harder. It is much easier to stop working than to work harder.

Perhaps you might want to read a little more carefully.

First, who are you listening to who is saying:

"Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas! OMG! OMG!"

At least one thread every week on this very site. I will assume your reading handicap demonstrated above is the reason you have not noticed; the only other explanation would be something I would consider very rude.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: amazing

That's a fair enough assessment. However, I would mention that it seems that whatever is good for the biosphere is ultimately good for humans. Within reason of course.

More carbon dioxide and more heat mean more plants growing faster. More plants mean more food. I like food.

TheRedneck

CO2 is causing the planet to warm-up, which also leads to ocean acidification (carbonic acid) --- with both factors leading too making our coral reefs endangered to the point of probable extinction.
Where's your fishing hole gonna be now or in the future?

Aqueous carbon dioxide CO2(aq) reacts with water forming carbonic acid, H2CO3(aq)

a reply to: Erno86

CO2 is causing the planet to warm-up

Thank God! I really don't think I would be comfortable under a sheet of ice.

which also leads to ocean acidification (carbonic acid)

Yep. That's why we have oceanic flora, which feeds the oceanic fauna (aka fish). I like fish. Maybe you don't?

with both factors leading too making our coral reefs endangered to the point of probable extinction.

What acid is responsible for the decrease in oceanic pH? My estimation is that very little of the acidification could be traced to carbonic acid; sulfuric acid would be my expectation. I'm all for removing that, and in fact we already are removing that... by regulating sulfur content in international fuels. It wasn't that long ago ships in international waters could still use fuels with up to 15% sulfur content.

Sorry to break that sentence down so far, but there was just so much wrong in it, and I'm not smart enough to debunk a dozen mistakes at once. I'm just a redneck, so I have to take them one or two at a time.

Where's your fishing hole gonna be now or in the future?

Depends on where the fishies are.

Aqueous carbon dioxide CO2(aq) reacts with water forming carbonic acid, H2CO3(aq)

Sulfur (dioxide) reacts with water to form H2SO4(aq), too.

I'm drinking concentrated H2CO3 here right now... we humans call it "Mountain Dew" and sell it for oral consumption. I'm not going to drink any H2SO4... that's what we call "battery acid" and we put warning labels all over it as well as regulate the Hades out of it. I like the fact we do that... it's pretty nasty stuff, unlike my Dew-water.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: pravdaseeker

Thanks FyreByrd... I respect your opinions, but there is no denying plants do much better in a CO2 enriched atmosphere.

example

Your kidding right? That website is the polluters equivalent of the Tobacco Institute that used to claim smoking had health benefits. It is funded by you guessed it the US's biggest coal company. www.theguardian.com...

I am not advocating it, or wanting it, it is what it is... plants do better with higher concentrations of CO2, is it then a "food"?
Pretty vital part of photosynthesis if I recall Biology classes.

Yes but not in those concentrations. The vast majority of plants DO not do as well in high Co2 environments as thoughts.

Here is some actual research from a legit university

news.stanford.edu...

a reply to: FredT

There is definitely a point of diminishing returns w.r.t. plant growth due to increasing concentrations of CO2...the bigger issue is sequestration — trees are the best sequesters of CO2. So it’s a “it depends” discussion.

A couple links that add to your post (the first is an FAQ regarding C&T but the latter, offset, info is the point):

How CO2 Offsets Work

Policy Brief On Forest Carbon Economics

Both of the above are from Duke University’s Nicholas Institute. Just saying.

a reply to: pravdaseeker

A well written OP.

If we could take the true greenhouse gas of water out, like they would do the one of the plants most import food chain items of CO2, we would be in blistering heat. Oh, the irony!