the REAL issue with regard to climate change today

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(McShemp @ Mar 20 2007, 12:34 AM) [snapback]408666[/snapback]</div>

Hang on, that's not a net increase, as all the carbon we take in ultimately came from plants that absorbed CO2 from the air. Animals themselves don't cause a net CO2 injection into the atmosphere.

Although they can cause a net CH4 (methane) injection - apparently quite a problem due to how much cows fart. And CH4 is a worse greenhouse gas than CO2.

Our net CO2 emissions are almost entirely down to fossil fuel use. Although there are other effects, like deforestation.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(adam1991 @ Mar 20 2007, 12:34 AM) [snapback]408667[/snapback]</div>

Please try to stick to the facts, rather than "spewing hate speech". If you disagree with my statement, explain my error.

So when do you accept anything as fact? Do you apply this logic to all your life transactions, or is it reserved for climate science?

Here are some things that are obvious.

1) We're burning oil.
2) Burning oil produces carbon dioxide and water.
3) We're not confining the carbon dioxide, so it goes into the atmosphere.

All three of those are obvious. If you won't even accept those 3 points, then there's no point even starting the discussion and going onto the things that are less obvious. How can one discuss facts if every fact is denied?

I can't see how your approach is even remotely consistent with your opening statement:

You don't accept any facts!

So you're just trolling and going round in logical circles for the sake of it.

 

So you question my symantics. Whatever.

It is obvious that we [as in Homo sapiens as a whole] produce more CO2 than ever because we are using more electronics [therefore more electricity], driving more and bigger vehicles than ever before, etc.

I don't have the statistics to back that up; I'm going by common sense. Perhaps if I didn't have to go finish an essay about genetic screening [oh, what fun ] I'd go hunt something down.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(adam1991 @ Mar 20 2007, 01:12 AM) [snapback]408688[/snapback]</div>

You're changing the subject again.

But I am genuinely intrigued as to what you think a business improvement methodology has to do with climate science, or proving that burning oil doesn't in fact produce CO2... What do you mean?

Do feel free to ignore that question too, of course.

Please state my incorrect assumptions. What is the specific error in those 3 "obvious facts"? I move that there is no error, hence your inability to identify one.

And saying something isn't obvious doesn't make it so. :lol:

Would you settle for saying those 3 facts are true but non-obvious?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(adam1991 @ Mar 19 2007, 04:50 PM) [snapback]408575[/snapback]</div>

YOU forgot the first part. and some of the later parts.

they spend months doing background research on previously published data to back up the feasibility of their ideas, then WRITE a whole lot of grants (a LOT of writing, i can tell you about that) in hopes of getting one or two funded, they LOSE competitive renewals of grants and have to downsize their labs, finally get some funding, THEN run experiments, get results, draw conclusions, submit papers, spend 3 months or more in the review process, finally get a paper accepted, use the paper to add to their progress report to hopefully bolster their chances of getting funding next time, until the next time comes around and GEE LOOK funding has been held at the same level for three years and after accounting for inflation the whole budget has actually decreased... start back at the beginning.

at least that's the NIH for ya.

my boss has pounded it all in our heads: the data is the data. you can f**k with it a little, and tarnish your career/sell your soul for a couple extra papers with shaky conclusions, but nobody will ever look at you the same again. that's long term loss for short term gain. people take that route but they're well known and nobody takes their publications seriously.

i'd stick around to discuss this, but i have to do a little writing on my own grant now. oh, sorry, i mean i have to go make some stuff up to support a whole lotta BS to get some money...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(adam1991 @ Mar 19 2007, 08:12 PM) [snapback]408688[/snapback]</div>

Look up lean six sigma!?!?!? I am a scientist at a company that "practices" six sigma. Six sigma is to statistics what bigfoot is to zoology.

Again to everyone that is arguing whether CO2 concentration is increasing in the atmosphere. Use your eyeballs and look at the graphs posted already in this thread.

This is not an argument, an opinion or something obvious; its a MEASUREMENT.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Mar 20 2007, 01:55 AM) [snapback]408701[/snapback]</div>

Absolutely. Our host on this thread has at least drawn the line (so far) on denying the measurement. But I suspect he'd deny any suggestion of historical CO2 levels being lower. On grounds of not having sent an actual CO2 probe back in a time machine, instead of mucking around with geological proxies.

And he's denying that we emit CO2. Or at least he's refusing to admit that we do. Funny semantic games going on.

Actually, what the hell. Question everything. I believe your statement about 380ppm CO2 is a fabrication due to scientists' self-interest in appeasing their paymasters. I don't see why I should accept your "measurement". :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(McShemp @ Mar 19 2007, 05:34 PM) [snapback]408666[/snapback]</div>

China produced 23% of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions and was 2nd only to the U.S.A. at 28%, which was #1, despite having nearly 1 billion less people. China ranks 14th per/capita for CO2 emissions. This was from a couple years ago and may be slightly different now.

I wish more of you would study the other effects of CO2 and the host of other pollution gases and aerosols that are a part of CO2 production. The effects are far reaching and personal at the same time. Those other reasons make the case for curbing GHG emissions even if there was no such thing as global warming.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(adam1991 @ Mar 19 2007, 05:50 PM) [snapback]408575[/snapback]</div>

If you understand that it is a system that encourages others to find fault with experimentation and results then why do you keep questioning the results of the research communtiy??? Vast conspiracy?

You say question everything....that is what the scientific research community has been doing for 30 years, and the concensus is in.

Every morning do you question gravitation forces....or do you tie yourself to the bed?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(adammc @ Mar 19 2007, 07:34 PM) [snapback]408724[/snapback]</div>

Lets stick to science and leave his sex life out of this. TMI!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(rainydysandmondys @ Mar 19 2007, 07:48 PM) [snapback]408652[/snapback]</div>

I agree

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(adam1991 @ Mar 19 2007, 09:12 PM) [snapback]408688[/snapback]</div>

I work at a lab that practices Lean Six Sigma. I am amazed that this nonsense was invented by Toyota- perhaps with the intention that their competitors would adopt it and become less competitive. I had to spend a week participating in a "lean event"- biggest waste of time ever.

 

Come on then. Or are you all talk and no action? Go and get your team together and find an explanation of how:

1) We're not burning oil; or
2) Burning oil doesn't produce CO2 and water; or
3) The CO2 doesn't enter the atmosphere.

This is how science works, lad. It's no good just saying "I don't believe X", or "question everything". (We've got a whole other thread for that you know, you'd probably enjoy it). Before you can even start, you've got to construct an alternative hypothesis, or find a new observation. Which one do you dispute?

The first is a straightforward observation. Hell, I do it myself. The second is GCSE chemistry, and has been understood for a couple of hundred years, after we dismissed the phlogiston theory. And the third is observation - very few cars have gas collection systems fitted to their tailpipes.

Stupid, non-scientific fallacy. Just because you say X and I say Y, doesn't mean the truth lies in between.

If you say 2+2=4, and I pop up and claim 2+2=5, you don't compromise on 2+2=4.5... This is hard science, not economics. :lol:

You do cut to the chase of the perception problem of the general public though. As long as the TV channels can find a talking head on each side of the debate, most people will say to themselves "the truth is somewhere in the middle, no doubt."

 

Come on, do try to at least address the subject under discussion. Or just go and join in the "question everything" thread.

But for what it's worth, science does involve rather a lot of "it's obvious". One quick dictionary definition "easily perceived by the senses or grasped by the mind". Two of my 3 facts fall under the first clause, the other falls under the second with a simple bit of GCSE-level chemistry.

As for "I just know it"; who's saying that apart from you?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Mar 19 2007, 06:05 PM) [snapback]408594[/snapback]</div>

Yep, third rock from the sun will almost certainly 'weather' the storm. But it may do so without me and you...
Jim

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jimnjo @ Mar 20 2007, 08:07 AM) [snapback]408856[/snapback]</div>

seems mediaevil warming is not accounted for on your graph. still waiting to here about the co2 peaks pre-human. still waiting to hear that co2 is responsible for gw. still waiting to hear - is the atmosphere warming too - rumor has that only surface temp is and the atmosphere is not - if true - does this not go against your current models? could solar activity be important here - and if so , do your models provide for it? how about the innaccuracies of precipiation calculations?

and say you are correct, if the US does do everything in its power to completely stop co2 production tomorrow what will the effect be given that china, india, brazil and the rest of the third world wont?

also, is the eu decreasing co2 production to meet its goals - and if not how do you propose they do it?

and what are your suggestions to correct your supposed evil of co2 production - a carbon tax? whatever your method please explain the structure of such and how you plan to implement it world-wide.

this is the biggest attempted grab at power in recent memory - voodoo science. even the media is becoming skeptical.

and what about immediate concerns like hunger, disease, poverty, education - you are going to be taking finite resources and allocating them to what, lowering temp by .5 C over 100 years - hold me back while I get my battery driven hand fan. how do you watch more and more children die of starvation while you use billions of dollars for some possible future problem while they are dying today????

this whole things wreeeeeeeks - like algore - just hot air - all fluff -

we should just behave responsbily as humans and do what is right for the environment and the climate. i would prefer tax incentives rather than taxes - almost like what they did with hybrids......

 

Yep, it's the politics:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/washingt...tml?ref=science
Material Shows Weakening of Climate Reports
A House committee released documents Monday that showed hundreds of instances in which a White House official who was previously an oil industry lobbyist edited government climate reports to play up uncertainty of a human role in global warming or play down evidence of such a role.

Before joining the White House, Cooney was the “climate team leader†for the American Petroleum Institute, the main industry lobby.

He was hired by Exxon Mobil after resigning in 2005 following reports on the editing in The New York Times. The White House said his resignation was not related to the disclosures.

Mr. Cooney said his past work opposing restrictions on heat-trapping gases for the oil industry had had no bearing on his actions once he joined the White House. “When I came to the White House,†he testified, “my sole loyalties were to the president and his administration.â€

Mr. Cooney, who has no scientific background, said he had based his editing and recommendations on what he had seen in good faith as the “most authoritative and current views of the state of scientific knowledge.â€

 

Question everything - surely the US government is massively in favour of promoting global warming, and the scientists are falsifying data to satisfy them. adam1991 tells us this is so... So how can this story be true?