Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Global warming - fact or conspiracy?
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2892 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 37 of 111 (325298)
06-23-2006 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by johnfolton
06-23-2006 2:55 AM


Re: Dad was right it was always global warming
Now the shifty environmentalists have shifted the blame so greenhouse gases instead of causing global cooling its now the cause for global warming.
The problem with this kind of thinking is motive. What possible motivation would environmentalists have for trying to be deceptive? On the other hand, the global warming skeptics are often financially supported by energy companies, who have a financial incentive to keep the fossil fuel economy going.
On a side note greenhouse gases are simply good for the environment, increases in plant growth, oxygen production.
There are several problems with this approach.
1. This is only true if carbon dioxide is limiting plant growth. In many cases it is nitrogen, water, adequate sunlight or some other factor that is limiting plant growth.
2. Not all plants are able to respond to increased levels of carbon dioxide equally, even if other factors are in abundant supply. For example, C3 metabolism plants respond much less to elevated levels of carbon dioxide than C4 metabolism plants. Why is this important? It the crop plant is a C3 plant and some of the weeds are C4 plants we have a problem. Elevated carbon dioxide may also affect plant responses to herbicides and differentially affect weed seed and crop seed germination.
3. There are other "unintended consequences" of elevated levels of carbon dioxide such as higher levels of pollen production which could be devastating for allergy and asthma patients.
http://www.respiratoryreviews.com/...ov00_globalwarming.html
4. We are just beginning to understand the long term effects of elevated carbon dioxide on agricultural and natural systems. Most of the purported benefits are hypothetical - the actual experiments have not been done. The few controlled experiments that have been done have given more reason for pessimism than optimism about a net positive effect from elevated carbon dioxide on agricultural production. There are almost no experimental results on possible effects on natural systems.
For these reasons we should not "hang our hats" on any hypothetical benefit from elevated levels of carbon dioxide.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by johnfolton, posted 06-23-2006 2:55 AM johnfolton has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by rgb, posted 06-23-2006 1:40 PM deerbreh has replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2892 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 46 of 111 (325384)
06-23-2006 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by rgb
06-23-2006 1:40 PM


Re: Dad was right it was always global warming
Uh... I hate to be a doomsayer, but this really looks like an ad hominem on global warming skeptics.
First of all, it was in response to an ad hominum attack on environmentalists. Second, I did not directly question the motivations of the skeptics. I merely pointed out that they are mostly supported financially by energy companies. This is a true statement. There are a few skeptics who have done competitively funded research but not many. Most have opted for easier to get non competitive grants from energy companies. It is a fact. I merely pointed it out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by rgb, posted 06-23-2006 1:40 PM rgb has not replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2892 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 47 of 111 (325390)
06-23-2006 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by johnfolton
06-23-2006 2:22 PM


Re: Dad was right it was always global warming
I not sure we need any studies how greenhouse gases increases plant production. Its well known that greenhouses use (carbon dioxide) to conserve water and stimulate plant growth.
Ah - the old, "it is well known." argument. But the devil is always in the details and that is why we need research. It is not enough to know the general effect. We need to know how it applies to different kinds of plants and ecosystems and the unknown specific effects. Secondly, the "conserve water" reference is somewhat vague. If you mean that elevated carbon dioxide levels will help plants conserve water you have it exactly backward. The more carbon dioxide taken in by a plant and used, the more water is required. Carbon dioxide plus water yields glucose plus oxygen. Basic photosynthesis equation. Not only that, as plant leaf area increases in response to the elevated carbon dioxide levels there will be an even higher demand for water as transpiration rates increase.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by johnfolton, posted 06-23-2006 2:22 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by johnfolton, posted 06-23-2006 4:35 PM deerbreh has replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2892 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 50 of 111 (325417)
06-23-2006 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by rgb
06-23-2006 3:09 PM


Re: Dad was right it was always global warming
rgb writes:
The original statement in question merely accused the other side of having a biased motivation, which is never fair!
The original statement in question was mine and it did nothing of the sort, as I pointed out in post 46.
Here is the "original statement" with the "relevant quote" it was in response to:
relevant quote writes:
Now the shifty environmentalists have shifted the blame so greenhouse gases instead of causing global cooling its now the cause for global warming.
original statement by deerbreh writes:
The problem with this kind of thinking is motive. What possible motivation would environmentalists have for trying to be deceptive? On the other hand, the global warming skeptics are often financially supported by energy companies, who have a financial incentive to keep the fossil fuel economy going.
Note that I was RESPONDING to a quote which used the term "shifty environmentalists" and asked the question what would motivate them to be shifty (deceptive). I then pointed out that GW skeptics are often financially supported by energy companies who are motivated by profits. That is a fact. It is not saying that the skeptics themselves have a biased motivation. There is nothing unfair about it. It only suggests that energy companies are more likely to fund individuals whose research tends to promote their economic interests. There is nothing wrong with that per se but there is also nothing "unfair" about pointing it out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by rgb, posted 06-23-2006 3:09 PM rgb has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by rgb, posted 06-23-2006 6:44 PM deerbreh has replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2892 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 52 of 111 (325436)
06-23-2006 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by johnfolton
06-23-2006 4:35 PM


Re: Dad was right it was always global warming
But you actually missed one of the main points of the article which is that it is only under conditions of high humidity and water availability that plants are going to be benefit from the extra carbon. If it is dry, the plants are not able to take up the extra carbon. Not only that, but a rainy period followed by a drought will be more of a problem under elevated carbon dioxide because lush growth and large leaf area will be promoted as long as the rain lasts but as soon as it gets dry the large leaf area is going to promote a transpiration rate that is unsustainable under the dry conditions for shallow rooted annual crop plants and the plants are going to suffer more from the drought than they would have otherwise. Note that plants in arid areas minimize their leaf areas by having spines and needles instead of leaves. This is because lower leaf area means less transpiration and greater drought tolerance.
Edited by deerbreh, : typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by johnfolton, posted 06-23-2006 4:35 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by johnfolton, posted 06-23-2006 10:38 PM deerbreh has replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2892 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 54 of 111 (325482)
06-23-2006 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by rgb
06-23-2006 6:44 PM


Re: Dad was right it was always global warming
I was more or less stating the obvious. Corporations do not fund research that is not in their own self interest. Nor would I expect them to. Nor is it unfair to state the obvious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by rgb, posted 06-23-2006 6:44 PM rgb has not replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2892 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 56 of 111 (325499)
06-23-2006 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by kuresu
06-23-2006 10:05 PM


I would not read Crichton's book for information about global warming just as I would not read Tom Clancey's novels for information about terrorism or national security (even though some celebrity butt sniffing senators did once have him at a hearing on missile defense).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by kuresu, posted 06-23-2006 10:05 PM kuresu has not replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2892 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 71 of 111 (325767)
06-24-2006 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by johnfolton
06-23-2006 10:38 PM


Re: Elevated Co2 (greenhouse gases)
The greater surface area naturally would draw more water from the soil, but not excessively due to the closing down of the stoma's.
You are quite wrong about that. The stoma are not going to stay closed all of the time and greater leaf surface area means more stoma. Plants with a lot of leaf surface area suffer more greatly during a drought than plants with less leaf surface area, regardless of carbon dioxide levels. That is a fact. That is why desert plants don't have leaves but instead have spines and needles. Also higher photosynthetic rates associated with greater leaf area will use more water so the plant needs more.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by johnfolton, posted 06-23-2006 10:38 PM johnfolton has not replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2892 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 83 of 111 (326364)
06-26-2006 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by johnfolton
06-25-2006 1:48 AM


Rampant speculation (hot air)
We are all waiting for an explanation of how CO2 differs from nitrogen and oxygen in its influence on the greenhouse effect.
Well, no WE are not all waiting. You might be. The greenhouse effects of various gases has been well worked out. It is basic physical chemistry. From Wikopedia:
Greenhouse effect - Wikipedia
The wavelengths of light that a gas absorbs can be modelled with quantum mechanics based on molecular properties of the different gas molecules. It so happens that heteronuclear diatomic molecules and tri- (and more) atomic gases absorb at infrared wavelengths but homonuclear diatomic molecules do not absorb infrared light. This is why H2O and CO2 are greenhouse gases but the major atmospheric constituents (N2 and O2) are not.
The increases in water vapor to the atmosphere canopy (to me) trumps the increases in Co2, methane, and industrial pollution
This and what followed is speculation and faulty reasoning on your part. How could water vapor "trump" CO2 when it is itself a greenhouse gas? I think it is clear by now that you are no atmospheric scientist so what you think is irrelevant and since the first quote I included here demonstrates that you have not even done the rudimentary research into the processes involved it is all so much hot air. You have done some selective quote mining but in many cases, as I have demonstrated, the gist of the articles you have quoted was completely missed by you. Your comments about carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide are also patently ridiculous. Give it up. You are in over your head here until you go back and do some basic research. And read for understanding this time instead of looking for quotes that seem to support your preconceived idea of how the greenhouse effect works.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by johnfolton, posted 06-25-2006 1:48 AM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by johnfolton, posted 06-27-2006 7:30 PM deerbreh has not replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2892 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 88 of 111 (326809)
06-27-2006 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by EZscience
06-27-2006 7:32 AM


Re: Calling ThingsChange and other members of the Flat Earth Society
There is NO controversy about whether global warming is caused by human activity. That contention is just as contrived as the so-called 'controversy' about evolutionary theory
I think that is a bit strong. I agree that the scientific consensus is beginning to solidify around an anthropomorphic contribution to global warming. However the contrived nature of the evolutionary thoery "controversy" is so great that the global warming "controversy" pales in comparison.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by EZscience, posted 06-27-2006 7:32 AM EZscience has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by EZscience, posted 06-27-2006 1:30 PM deerbreh has replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2892 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 90 of 111 (326863)
06-27-2006 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by EZscience
06-27-2006 1:30 PM


Re: Calling ThingsChange and other members of the Flat Earth Society
I think it is just as contrived.
These so-called 'skeptics' like Richard Lindzen are trying to generate a public perception of scientific controversy where none exists so they can buy time for the oil interests (who pay them handsomely for their 'opinions') to keep on with 'business as usual' for as long as they possibly can.
May be, but so far at least I don't see anything approaching the Institute for Creation Research or the Discovery Institute financed by the energy companies. I think they are fight a rear guard battle. Even Bush admits that Global Warming is a fact, though he still wants to waffle on the causes. I actually think a bigger danger is that the energy companies will "flip" and jump on the alternative energy bandwagon in order to retain corporate control over the process.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by EZscience, posted 06-27-2006 1:30 PM EZscience has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by EZscience, posted 06-27-2006 2:55 PM deerbreh has replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2892 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 92 of 111 (326879)
06-27-2006 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by EZscience
06-27-2006 2:55 PM


Re: Calling ThingsChange and other members of the Flat Earth Society
I think this is already happening with biofuels.
We have to assume they can read the writing on the wall and are already planning their diversification away from petroleum.
I am thinking a big push into nuclear energy and wind energy is likely by the oil companies as well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by EZscience, posted 06-27-2006 2:55 PM EZscience has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by EZscience, posted 06-27-2006 9:27 PM deerbreh has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024