Plant Biology

[Geckat]

There's been more and more talk about global warming recently. Does it exist, who's to blame, what should be done, etc. Even among those who believe that it exists, and that humans are at fault, there's dissent about who's taking the radical approach, and who's being too soft. Last October the NDP (socialist party in Canada) criticized the federal government about their Clean Air Policy, saying it wasn't harsh enough. Now that Jack Layton's got his way, you have the Albertans whining about it being too harsh on the petrol industry. This isn't the only example of the huge number of varying views on this prominent issue today, so let's make it even more confusing by adding our own opinions.

[Thedutchjelle]

Well , I think that if everbody helps just a little in reducing greenhouse- gasses, it would help a lot already.
Like, cycling short distances instead of using a car, turning of computers and televisions when they're on standby , recycle products etc.
Sure, reducing the CO2 emission of industry helps, but it won't work alone.

[ecyor0]

Just to play Devil's Advocate here for a second: what happens if global warming is just left to continue? Sure you have the devastating climate changes, the hurricanes, floods, extinct species, earthquakes and wormholes in the space-time continuum, but in the long term, what will life on earth be like afterwards? Here's my take.

The rise in temperature will cause much more water to evaporate, resulting a thicker layer of cloud cover (maybe even a uniform layer) and higher temperatures overall. This will have several benefits:

1. The polar caps will melt, making Antarctica habitable - and opening up its vast, untouched cache of natural resources (opals, gold, uranium, rubies, you name it, Antarctica's probably got it)
2. Instead of a sharply focused point of light in the sky, you will have a soft, diffuse, ambient light, which will be a lot easier on the eyes when you're driving in the evening.
3. The thicker cloud layer will offer greater protection from UV radiation, resulting in reduced instances of cancer and similar sun-related ailments.
4. They call it the Greenhouse Effect. Answer me this - do plants grow better in, or out of a greenhouse?
5. The Greenhouse effect will also take the extremes out of weather patterns, resulting in a temperate/sub-tropical climate over most of the planets surface (well, what's left of the surface after the oceans rise)

So, there you have it. Just something to think about

[DarkMirror]

Hmmm....

[Icarus]

Ok, ill re-present my evidence.

Global warming is happening, yes. Is it our fault? no. Can we do anything to prevent it? no.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ec/Co2-temperature-plot.png/800px-Co2-temperature-plot.png

Rises in temperature ARE in conjunction with the rise in Co2, but not in a way that temperature is dependent on Co2, but the other way around. Co2 rises lag 500-1000 years behind temperature rises. From this, we can conclude that there is some unknown (at least unknown to me) cause for the beginning rises in temperature, which probably acts as a catalyst for rises in Co2 in the long term as well.

As for greenhouse, Yes that's a factor, but I can't say for sure how large of a factor. It obviously comes AFTER the initial rises, and is determined mainly by the exhaust of Co2. Co2 emissions from man are minuscule compared to the natural exhausts. We, humans, exhaust 26 gt yearly, whereas parts of the ocean exhaust 300-340 gt, and vegetation respiration contributes 220 gt, and rotting animals and microbes contribute another 220 gt. A single volcanic eruption emits more greenhouse gases in the long run than years of human emissions.

Even if we were to cut down our emissions in half it would do nothing at all for our climate, or for overall Co2 emissions.

[ecyor0]

Whoah, hang on: how can vegetation produce CO2? It consumes CO2 and produces oxygen.

[Icarus]

Plant respiration. You should've learned that in like... 7th grade. It's when they actually consume the sugars and energy they gain from photosynthesis. It Involves releasing carbon dioxide.

[bouncl]

Plant respiration. You should've learned that in like... 7th grade. It's when they actually consume the sugars and energy they gain from photosynthesis. It Involves releasing carbon dioxide.

I did, they produce oxygen, they absorbe CO2

[DarkMirror]

Yeah, your wrong there. They totaly dont give off CO2, thats why they are so good to keep around.

Pkus, we humans are pollutoing with way more CO2 than we should be. The amount of CO2 we put out has to have effected somewthing, otherwise there wouldent be this break in the pattern.

[Icarus]

No, your thinking of photosynthesis. I'll find a link and edit it into this post later.

@darkmirror: there has been no break in the pattern. A rise in temperature has been expected at around this time, and these rises in accordance to the natural schedule.

http://hcs.osu.edu/hcs300/respire.htm I think this site does the best job explaining respiration.

[bouncl]

my friend photosynthesis is what produces the oxygen. I'm gonna find the equation later, I dont have my notes right now

[Icarus]

Photosynthesis isn't the only complex feeding cycle a plant goes through. Once it has stored the glucose, it must actually use it. Photosynthesis exhausts Oxygen, and Respiration exhaust CO2. I provided a link that thoroughly explains respiration. It looks like it actually came out of my bio textbook.

[Ragnarox]

whereas parts of the ocean exhaust 300-340 gt

Do you have a diagram that shows where these parts are? Because I find it suspicious that the ocean creates more CO2 and yet marine diatoms absorb 60% of the world's CO2.

[bouncl]

Photosynthesis isn't the only complex feeding cycle a plant goes through. Once it has stored the glucose, it must actually use it. Photosynthesis exhausts Oxygen, and Respiration exhaust CO2. I provided a link that thoroughly explains respiration. It looks like it actually came out of my bio textbook.

so tell me, what produces oxygen?

[Ragnarox]

bouncl, I think you are missing 12's point. We have all acknowledged that photosynthesis consumes CO2 and produces O2. What 12 is saying is that some plants run on aerobic respiration, which consumes O2 and produces CO2, instead of photosynthesis.

[bouncl]

name the plants.......... please?........... Any way never heard of these aerobic plant but I'll take your word for it

[Icarus]

no, no, just about every plant with green leaves requires these two systems. One to gather sugar (energy), and one to consume it.

@Ragnarox: I don't have a diagram, only the statistic. Are you sure it's Co2 they absorb? I remember it being some other substance...

[Ragnarox]

Are you sure it's Co2 they absorb? I remember it being some other substance...

Well according to the university of Berkely they do (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/chromista/bacillariophyta.html). Or at least, Bacillariophyta diatoms do.

[bouncl]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis

here ya go

[ecyor0]

No, your thinking of photosynthesis. I'll find a link and edit it into this post later.

@darkmirror: there has been no break in the pattern. A rise in temperature has been expected at around this time, and these rises in accordance to the natural schedule.

http://hcs.osu.edu/hcs300/respire.htm I think this site does the best job explaining respiration.


Ah yes, of course - respiration at nighttime. Good point. But do they produce more C02 than they consume?

[DarkMirror]

Yes, the rise in CO2 and global temp has increased by about twice. It is most definitly getting hotter, even considering that a natuiral temp rise is occuring, this is unnatural.

[Icarus]

fine, darkmirror, you leave me no choice but to bust out the vostok graph.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/vostok.co2.gif

the earth has been here, done that. This Co2 rise is nothing new, same goes for the temperature rise.

[DarkMirror]

Sure. You have your, baised, untrue opinion, and I have my true, confirmed, opinion.
Whatever. Its getting way to hot, and we are causing it.

[Icarus]

Actually, i'm the only one who presented scientific proof. If you're going to continue to believe in something that i've proven is incorrect, it normally wouldn't matter to me, but people believing we are the cause of global warming simply don't have the data, don't have the facts, and they're trying to impose on the less ignorant. I suggest you realize you aren't always right, especially when you're shown wrong. My "opinion" is based only on what's true, and only on the facts. I have facts, have shown them, and my position has changed accordingly.

[DarkMirror]

Yeah, sure. You being the one who says that the oceans and plants are giving off mnore CO2 than our millions of cars, powerplants, and factoys?

EDIT: Oh, hey lookie, a graph!
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2486/24861403.jpg

[Icarus]

Ok, i found a couple links.

Basic link of compiled Co2 emissions, comparing volcanoes, oceans, and man's emissions. http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html

Also, I will say that water vapor is the largest active chemical in the greenhouse effect by 95 percent, and here's one of hundreds of links saying that. http://www.stuff.co.nz/timaruherald/4064691a6571.html

Also, I just found an EXCELLENT documentary from britain that someone posted in 8 parts on youtube. The information is amazingly accurate, and some new insights made as well. good vid. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8f8v5du5_ag

Ok, first, that graph said "prediction", and NO ONE has enough evidence to even find solid evidence for the actual reason behind periodic global warming, let alone make "predictions". Also, I'd like to know what site that came from.

EDIT: one thing I disagree in the video is the economic conclusions about the WW's in video 2, but that's it.

[bouncl]

true, but I think the real question is not "is there global warming?" but " we know that the earth does this, but did we have any impact?"

[Geckat]

Yes, volcanoes and other natural events emit much more pollution than we do. But that's natural. It's expected. The Earth can obviously cope with it. Can it cope with that little extra bit we're giving off, that is only projected to grow if the petrol industry continues to have its monopoly on energy?

Yes, water vapour contributes greatly to global warming. I remember reading an article that stated that during the few days after 9/11, all the big jets were grounded. Without the vapour trails left behind, the temperatures dropped. Just little trails in the sky dropped it more than a degree Celsius.

Since we all love links and numbers so much, I guess I might as well post a few.

http://www.mng.org.uk/gh/threat/threat6.htm
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000C9535-EF02-1C5A-B882809EC588ED9F
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0219-01.htm

Read them if you've got a minute. I find it indisputable that global warming is occuring, it's occuring very quickly, and it's occuring because of us.

Oh, and ANaerobic respiration occurs in all plants. It's similar to the cellular respiration in animals, except it doesn't have oxygen. Because of this simple lack of oh-two, it is not as efficient as aerobic respiration (which does not generally occur in plants), and does NOT give off carbon dioxide, but rather an acid (since oxygen is not present, no carbon dioxide can be formed and instead bonds with...hydrogen, I believe), as CO2 is absorbed for use in photosynthesis. Bio 20, people. Take it, or whatever the American equivalent is ;) .

And why did someone change the name of my thead to Plant Biology?? I'm not writing an essay on Plant Biology for Social 20, I'm writing it on climate change! I need the goods; it's due today! :P

[Icarus]

The links pointed out that the earth is getting warmer. This is true. None of them gave evidence saying emissions of co2 from man are the cause. Our co2 output is miniscule compared to that of natural causes. And for those who says "but just that small amount we contribute may be the cause of the warming" I'll say this:

a. Co2 makes up a fraction of a fraction of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

b. Natural emissions of CO2 aren't static, there are margins, and those margins are greater than how much we emit yearly.

The correlation between temperature and CO2 has already been destroyed through science. The two simply don't connect. As i've said before, The rises in temperature precede those in CO2, so if there's any connection, it's that CO2 is contingent on temperature, not the other way around.

Nothing we can do will stop this warming. We are not at fault. We simply have to wait for it to happen, and adapt accordingly. There's been periods in the fruckin middle ages when temperatures (as well as CO2 levels) were much higher than they are now, and CO2 emitting industry was nonexistant back then.

Just admit it. Al Gore has fooled everyone.

I find it indisputable that global warming is occuring, it's occuring very quickly, and it's occuring because of us.

I've disputed it successfully, with REAL science, not hollywood science.

[Geckat]

I've looked at your links, and all they say are 'it's not occuring because of these graphs', which somehow contradict other graphs I've seen (and shown through these links) that display a huge annual increase in atmospheric C02 levels, and that the earth's natural rise and fall of temperatures corresponds with the carbon dioxide levels. Yes, CO2 levels have been higher before now, but it's out of correspondance with the predicted rise and fall of these levels.

Also, if you look up the Wikipedia article about this, you'll see that the CO2 levels in the atmosphere are much, much higher in populated areas, like northeastern Asia, Europe, North and South America, rather than the oceans which contain a much higher concentration of animal life - and the plant life which you say is contributing to the CO2 effects.

I have not fallen for Al Gore. I actually think he's doing more to produce skeptics than to dispell them - he's got a lot of faulty and biased data in An Inconvenient Truth, and a lot of the stuff in there can easily be attributed to nature. However, I don't think there's much question that the world is getting warmer at an unnatural rate - five degrees Celsius in some areas. Truly, the rapid heating of the ocean should be proof enough for anyone who doesn't think this is happening because of people. No need for cartoons about polar bears or recordings of glaciers breaking off.

Mr. Numbers, I'm sorry to say that you're a victim of governmental and industrial propoganda meant to keep the economy online and the prevailent energy businesses going.

[Icarus]

Of course CO2 levels will be higher in those areas! but what does that have to do with global warming? My point is that yes, global warming is happening. Will it be catastrophic? maybe. But our emissions have absolutely nothing to do with it, and there's nothing we can do about it, unless we had control over our oceans and our sun, and we don't have that.

I just tend to dig deeper into the facts than most people. All the data that has been shown by the others in this thread is that the world is getting warmer. There is yet to be evidence of man's involvement.

[DarkMirror]

The evidence shows thats its been getting cooler, then warmer, then repaeting for some time, but now its just getting warmer, and much warmer than ever before mass industrialization.

[Icarus]

that statement is simply untrue. There are numerous sources showing eras of higher temperature and atmospheric CO2 content as recent as the middle ages, as well as prehistoric ages before that. Industrialization has nothing to do with it.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ca/Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

[sdbolts11]

true, but I think the real question is not "is there global warming?" but " we know that the earth does this, but did we have any impact?"

Yes. Although most of man's modern conveniences, like automobiles, grills, etc., are adding to man's part in global warming. However, it is but a small fraction. If you look at all the industry and fossil fuel power plants throughout the world, you will see this as the vast majority of man's involvement. And then more specifically, industry is the majority. There is a solution. There are chemicals to be put in the exhaust that dissipates all of the Carbon Dioxide. Why we don't do it? Too expensive and the govt. doesn't care all that much. There have been some projects, mainly by gas companies, but have had little success in moving the government to ultimately make it law. If we can take out the co2 emissions from all the fossil fuel power plants and industry, we are really on the path to redemption. Even if we are the only country in the world that does it, it will be huge. Then when you tie in other huge industrial giants, like China and Russia, which actually are the only ones up there with the us, and others at the next level like England, Germany, etc., then you are really going good. Automobiles and whatnot can be fixed later, but they are not the huge threat. If we have the technology to save the environment, they hell, I'm all the way for using it.

[Ragnarox]

There are numerous sources showing eras of higher temperature and atmospheric CO2 content as recent as the middle ages, as well as prehistoric ages before that.

True that there have been recorded cases of earth having temporary rises in CO2 levels. However, now the CO2 levels are reaching uncharted territory and continue to rise with no end in sight.
Greenhouse Gas Concentrations over the past 400,000 years (http://www.gci.org.uk/images/CO2_CH4_Temp_440KyrBP.jpg)

Source: Climate Change Science (http://www.gci.org.uk/images01.html)


However, it seems that it is electrical utilities and transportation (http://images.wri.org/chart_scan_cni_f02b.gif) that are to blame for the majority of our emissions, not industry.


Source: World Resources Institute (http://www.wri.org/climate/pubs_content_text.cfm?cid=2162)

[Thedutchjelle]

To finally get rid of those Plants-and-carbondioxide related comments:
Taken straight from my biology notes.
Photosynthese
6 CO2 + 6 H20 + the energy from the light -> C6H12O6 (glucose) + 6 O2
Respiration. Plant always does this to burn the glucose, as stated in the previous comments.
C6H12O6 + 6 O2 -> 6 CO2 + 6 H2O
So yes, plants do make carbondioxide.

Anyway, it would be smarter not to emit that much CO2, because you're disturbing the balance of the Earth, no matter how small.
Also, I would like big countries like America to stop emitting that much CO2. It's kinda stupid not to do it. If CO2 doesnt atribute to global warming, you lose nothing if you stopped emitting huge amounts of it. If it does attribute to global warming and you didn't stop , we could all drown. The stakes are just to high.

[Icarus]

If CO2 doesnt atribute to global warming, you lose nothing if you stopped emitting huge amounts of it

Of course, we lose only the entire oil industry as well as obligating automotive companies to pay impossible amounts to research new technology for fuels, as well as forcing the consumer to pay that much extra for a car that runs on hydrogen and not oil. If this happened, even in america, the economic impacts would be devastating.

!!! i've already shown almost 4 times now that greenhouse gasses are NOT responsible for global warming! even if it was, water vapor makes up 95% of active greenhouse gases, and i don't think it's at all wise to try to drain our oceans and keep our water from evaporating.

@ragnarox: again, i've already shown that CO2 is irrelevant to the causes of global warming. It's only a sign that it's happening.

[bouncl]

Still, we are running out of oil, and even if we are not now, we will, so it is wise to create alternative fuel sources now. Also however unlikely, a car running on anitmatter would be fun.

[Geckat]

@ Dutch: You just cited aerobic respiration, which plants do not utilize as they do not absorb oxygen. They use anaerobic respiration, which as already stated does not utilize oxygen and therefore does not produce carbon dioxide.

@ Numbers: Water in the air is because of global warming. As several people have made references to before now, there are probably a hundred graphs compiled by specialists in the area that show that surface temperature is directly related to the amount of carbon dioxide in the air. We have also given data that suggests that industrialization is likely responsible for the recent (in historical terms) climb in carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere. Could you just stop saying all the data is irrelevant and LOOK at the links?

You have to realize that many governments, including (especially) that of the United States have been undermining the effects of global warming for the same reason you yourself just stated - compensating for these effects would be very detrimental to the economy. Sometimes we have to look past it, though. Canada is the 8th most livable country in the world. The States is something like twenty-sixth. Don't you think that all these developed countries can afford to put more funding into research for alternative fuels rather that continuing to rely on fossil fuels? Hell, America puts billions of dollars annually into blowing up other countries (ironically in many cases to get MORE petroleum). How about putting that dough into trying to keep the world livable for humanity, rather than trying to break it apart? Naw, we're rich and lovin' it. Let's just delude the nation into thinking that global warming is just a huge hoax so we can continue widening the prosperity gap of the world. One of the smartest things Dubya ever did, and it happens to be the most potentially harmful. Because even if you continue to believe that climate change isn't taking place, it's still shaking the country's political foundation to its roots. And unfortunately, the conspiracy theory catches a lot of attention, and so we get issues like these where despite all the evidence given there's still one or two that can't accept that they are contributing to a future worthy of H.G. Wells.

[Icarus]

Linking the rise in carbon dioxide with the rise in temperature is faulty science. The people obviously haven't seen the historic record. I've repeated myself so many times in this thread i'm about to give up. I keep showing you people that CO2 and Temperature are completely unrelated, and I do so with actual facts and not silly speculation. Manmade global warming isn't a conspiracy, and hasn't been for many years. It's a popular, socially accepted "truth", even though it isn't true.

the temperature rise the earth is experiencing is due to what every single large climate change is due to: the sun.

no one has given any data that successfully links CO2 to temperature rise.

Water in the air BECAUSE of global warming? water vapor is in the air because there is water on the surface (see: oceans). I'm not going to explain the entire water cycle again because the repetitivity i've had to use in this thread is getting ridiculous. All you have to do is look at the facts. ALL the facts.

[sdbolts11]

TO Geckat
Any country is livable, but I don't think I would wanna freeze my ass half the year anywhere in the country like canada. Concerning the social status of countries, then our country is the best to live in. That's fact. No country's society is better than ours. Also, only we and Russia are trying to find alternative fuels, although experiments with ethyl alcohol have lasted for a long time and have been all failures.

TO bouncl
Believe it or not, all resources underneath the ground are all formed in the core of the Earth. although it takes metals a long time to move through the mantle, and the majority of the crust to where the mines are, they are solids and very difficult to transport. Oil is liquid and travels very fast, obviously wont reach oil wells right away, but comes up pretty fast. It's virtually unlimited. If we dug our wells all the way done to the soft mantle, then yes, it would do this especially.

TO All
Listen to 124167. He's making some really good points.

[Protogod]

Also, only we and Russia are trying to find alternative fuels, although experiments with ethyl alcohol have lasted for a long time and have been all failures.

Not even true. Why do we bother even reading your posts anymore. Brazil has had massive success in ethyl alchohol since the 80's I believe. They make it out of sugarcane, which is plentiful in their climate. Granted the price there isnt much of an improvement, but it's progress in the use of alternative fuels that's been around for years.

[bouncl]

@ Dutch: You just cited aerobic respiration, which plants do not utilize as they do not absorb oxygen. They use anaerobic respiration, which as already stated does not utilize oxygen and therefore does not produce carbon dioxide.



yeah I was, wondering about that

[DarkMirror]

Good god! Why do you insist that your graphs are true and ours are not? Co2 is the cause of greenhouse gasses, and thgis resaults in more being relaesed. We, in releaseing the ammount we do, we have upset the ballanbce and resulted in a domino effect of increasing greenhouse gasses.

[Icarus]

You had NO graphs linking CO2 to temperature rise.

CO2 doesn't cause greenhouse gas, it IS a greenhouse gas. Are you even familiar with the process?

The balance of greenhouse gasses has such a large margin that natural sources are the only ones who could upset it, as i've shown like 8 times.

Edit: repeating the same thing over and over again as I repeatedly disprove it with scientific evidence over and over again isn't going to make you any less wrong.

[DarkMirror]

I can keep saying your wrong until you admit it. And I did link a graph. Why do youy assume that we cant do anything to change our world? If we are not destroying our atmosphere, then why6 do we have the holes in the ozone layer?

[bouncl]

TO bouncl
Believe it or not, all resources underneath the ground are all formed in the core of the Earth. although it takes metals a long time to move through the mantle, and the majority of the crust to where the mines are, they are solids and very difficult to transport. Oil is liquid and travels very fast, obviously wont reach oil wells right away, but comes up pretty fast. It's virtually unlimited. If we dug our wells all the way done to the soft mantle, then yes, it would do this especially.


No really, Oil and minerals are formed in the center of the earth? well I never knew that! the point is not that we can get more oil, it is that oil is non-renewable. Once it's gone, It's gone. Unless you want to wait a coupla million years. But somehow, I doubt that.

[sdbolts11]

I'm going with Dark Mirror. It's proven that higher carbon dioxide in the air = higher temperature. That's a fact. The case that co2 is rising by "natural causes" is most likely false. Maybe very little of it, but the vast majority is Man's doing. What we need: use chemicals to disintegrate the co2 in the exhaust of industrial plants and fossil fuel power plants. That alone will really clean up things. Vegetation is also very important. Vegetation breathes in carbon dioxide. As we are constantly killing vegetation, there is less carbon dioxide being converted into oxygen. This is most likely the "natural cause," however, even this is completely a result of man's deeds, not nature's.

[bouncl]

Don't change sides.

[sdbolts11]

I have always been with Man as the causation of global warming/increased co2 emissions. When have I changed sides?

[bouncl]

TO All
Listen to 124167. He's making some really good points.

there ya go.

[sdbolts11]

Oops. must have forgotten. Anyway, anyone who says that co2 is directly varied with temperature rise and that man is the cause of the co2 rise, then I agree with him.

[chibi]

We won't ever fully understand the causes of climate change. Another source could very well be dimethylsulfoniopropionate (DMSP) which is produced by phytoplankton. The DMSP is then cleaved by marine microbiota into DMS which then vapourizes and is collected in clouds. The condensed DMS causes and increase in cloud albedo causing a larger reflection off the Earth. This reflection is trapped by the o-zone layer causing an increase in land temperature.

It isn't just carbon emissions causing temperature increases.

[Icarus]

http://www.venganza.org/images/spreadword/pchart1.jpg

It might as well be lack of pirates that cause global warming.

This is getting fuckin ridiculous. I've already proved CO2 levels come AFTER temperature rise. sdbolts is totally making up his data as he goes.

Maybe very little of it, but the vast majority is Man's doing

Could you give us ANY actual data and not sound like your pulling that statement out of your ass?

It's proven that higher carbon dioxide in the air = higher temperature. That's a fact

I've already established the opposite a few pages ago. WITH ACTUAL EVIDENCE.

Vegetation breathes in carbon dioxide. As we are constantly killing vegetation, there is less carbon dioxide being converted into oxygen.

Again, it's already been established that plants give off more CO2 than they intake.

This is most likely the "natural cause," however, even this is completely a result of man's deeds, not nature's.

Again, where the hell is the data?

I feel like i'm the only one with any sense. I've shown you the statistics, i've shown you the temperature and CO2 record, I've given the numbers of man's emissions versus natures, i've shown you the fuckin respiration cycle for christ's sake! Yet you still delve in your fantasies "oh let's save the world, we're killing it" and save the melodrama for an idiotic roundtable , not an intellectual. Here, you kids don't seem to understand, conclusions have to be based off of EVIDENCE.

@darkmirror: your graph proved nothing but extremely high CO2 levels.

[sdbolts11]

Anyways, you, Dark Mirror, and Ragnarox have posted graphs. You and Dark Mirror are both arguing with each other on separate viewpoints. He has his evidence and you have yours. Who is right then if both your conclusions are based off of EVIDENCE?

[Icarus]

Yes, he's provided graphs, but they don't prove anything besides what they prove, and what they prove is of no relevance to global warming, and I have proven so. CO2 rising? hell yeah. Temperature rising? hell yeah. Are the two related? hell no.

[sdbolts11]

Okay then. You are doing a good job at proving your point, I must agree.

[DarkMirror]

Again, it's already been established that plants give off more CO2 than they intake.
Thats bullshit. If that were true, what with most of the planet having fotrsets and the fricking ocean being full of algea, we wouldnt be able to breath. Its simply not true that they give off more Co2 thatn they supposedly "Make".

[Thedutchjelle]

@ Dutch: You just cited aerobic respiration, which plants do not utilize as they do not absorb oxygen. They use anaerobic respiration, which as already stated does not utilize oxygen and therefore does not produce carbon dioxide.
Argh, then either my biology teacher has no fcking idea what he's talking about or you are wrong. I think you're wrong.
(From wikipedia)
'For the majority of plants to grow successfully they also require oxygen in the atmosphere (for respiration in the dark) and oxygen around their roots. However, a few specialized vascular plants, such as Mangroves, can grow with their roots in anoxic conditions.'
'Plants also emit CO2 during respiration, so it is only during growth stages that plants are net absorbers. For example a growing forest will absorb many tonnes of CO2 each year, however a mature forest will produce as much CO2 from respiration and decomposition of dead specimens (e.g. fallen branches) as used in biosynthesis in growing plants.'

also, this source.. ( http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookPS.html ) 'cellular respiration The transfer of energy from various molecules to produce ATP; occurs in the mitochondria of eukaryotes, the cytoplasm of prokaryotes. In the process, oxygen is consumed and carbon dioxide is generated.'
Plants DO absorb oxygen.

Of course, we lose only the entire oil industry as well as obligating automotive companies to pay impossible amounts to research new technology for fuels, as well as forcing the consumer to pay that much extra for a car that runs on hydrogen and not oil. If this happened, even in america, the economic impacts would be devastating.
The enviroment will be cleaner (considering CO2 isn't the only thing industry emits - i can imagine that if you place strong filters to block CO2 you will also block other chemicals but i can be wrong here) , and like bouncl said, we are running out of fossil fuels so we'll have to look for an alternetive anyway.

Again, it's already been established that plants give off more CO2 than they intake.

Bullshit, for the reasons Darkmirror said.

TO bouncl
Believe it or not, all resources underneath the ground are all formed in the core of the Earth. although it takes metals a long time to move through the mantle, and the majority of the crust to where the mines are, they are solids and very difficult to transport. Oil is liquid and travels very fast, obviously wont reach oil wells right away, but comes up pretty fast. It's virtually unlimited. If we dug our wells all the way done to the soft mantle, then yes, it would do this especially.


Not true, Gas and oil and similair products are remains of long-gone trees and other biological remains. And it's certaintly not virtually unlimited.

[Icarus]

Concerning alternative fuels, I agree we should look for them, but not in this manner, and not for this reason.

The amount of carbon dioxide used in photosynthesis is the same as the amount released in respiration. In light-independent plants, they exhaust twice as much as they use in photosynthesis. So overall, more CO2 is being exhausted than is being consumed.

Simplified photosynthesis in Light-dependent plants:

6 CO2 + 12 H2O → C6H12O6 + 6 O2 + 6 H20

Simplified photosynthesis in Light-Independent plants:

3 CO2 + 9 ATP + 6 NADPH + 6 H+ → C3H6O3-phosphate + 9 ADP + 8 Pi + 6 NADP+ + 3 H2O

Simplified Respiration:
C6H12O6 (aq) + 6O2 (g) → 6CO2 (g) + 6H2O (l) ΔHc -2880KJ

So while in light dependent plants, the CO2 consumption cancels each other out, the light independent plants uneven the balance and exhaust more CO2 than they use.

Therefore, In forests or other areas of large amounts of vegetation, More CO2 is released than CO2 being absorbed.

[DarkMirror]

Then, as Thats been goiung on supposedly for millions of years, we shouldnt be able to breath.

[Icarus]

Carbon dioxide gets absorbed in the upper atmosphere. Plus, we need it in our air to fulfill our bodily requirements. Can you please explain why we shouldn't be able to breathe?

[DarkMirror]

We need Co2 to breath? Your wrong. We need oxygen, Co2 is a byproduct of our breathing. If the levels of Co2 were constantly rising and it got ot be more Co2 than Oxygen, we couldnt breathe. And obviusly somethings putting out more Co2 than the atmosphere can absorb, cause temp is rising higher than ever before.

[sdbolts11]

Again, it's already been established that plants give off more CO2 than they intake.
I have never heard of plants giving off any more than very little Carbon Dioxide. Through photosynthesis, they absorb sunlight, carbon dioxide, and water/minerals in the soil to produce oxygen and water. Plant produce O2, and animals, through the process of respiration, produce CO2. This site here with this information also says nothing about plants giving off CO2 anyways.
http://www.blueplanetbiomes.org/plants.htm

[bouncl]

OK just to get read of any confusion we might be having, O2 = oxygen, Co2 = carbon dioxide

[sdbolts11]

Yes, oxygen is a diatomic and cannot exist in nature as a single atom. The ionic charge of carbon in CO2 is +4, as the oxygen's charge is -2. Two oxygen atoms make the molecule stable. Also, the word "di," Greek for two, gives that away. Sorry, just putting it in chemical context.

[bouncl]

I was more worried that 124167 was confused about the names

[sdbolts11]

Hehe. It's very obvious. People who know nothing about chemistry know wat CO2 and O2 are. Well, at least it's clear to everyone now.

[Icarus]

We need Co2 to breath? Your wrong. We need oxygen, Co2 is a byproduct of our breathing. If the levels of Co2 were constantly rising and it got ot be more Co2 than Oxygen, we couldnt breathe. And obviusly somethings putting out more Co2 than the atmosphere can absorb, cause temp is rising higher than ever before.

Are you fucking kidding me?

Temperatures have been higher before. I'm not going to post the fucking link AGAIN. You never gave a piece of data which proved the current temperature is the highest it's ever been.

CO2 doesn't cancel out oxygen. They live together quite peacefully in the air which we breathe.

Just look at the fucking simplified plant cycles! in large forests, the Light-independent plants intake half as much CO2 as they exhaust, creating the imbalance which is absorbed by the atmosphere, keeping the earth warm from freezing temperatures. Overall, More CO2 is exhausted than they intake, causing plants to tribute to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere! It's basic logistics! connect point A to point B for christs sake!

sdbolts, what were you trying to say with that link? the most it said about carbon dioxide was that it was taken in in photosynthesis and exhausted in respiration.

This thread is a joke.

[sdbolts11]

Well, someone was saying something about plants giving off much more CO2 than it takes in, and I was proving that plants mostly, if not completely (well atleast according to that site), produce oxygen. I then said that it is animals that exhaust CO2. I can't see how plants take in CO2 just to release a greater amount, without possibly releasing oxygen. That was a stupid thing whoever said it (got the quote from another quote, and it had no name). Intake- Plants=CO2, animals=O2. Product- Plants=O2, Animals=CO2. Just was clearing up the function of plants through that link. What Dark Mirror said was out there. If there's oxygen, we can breathe. Also, it is impossible for there ever to be more CO2 than oxygen in the atmosphere. Carbon Dioxide is only 0.038% of the atmosphere. Oxygen is 20.946%. DOY!!! There is so much more CO2 than Oxygen. Wow! (sarcasm)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Earth's_atmosphere
It's like he says whatever gas is greater, it will kill the other. Hmm... the greatest gas is Nitrogen, at 78.084% of the atmosphere. According to Dark's theory, the Nitrogen will destroy all of the other gases, and there would never have been any life on Earth to start with. I am going with 124167 because he doesn't make a statement like what 124 quoted of Dark Mirror. If there was more CO2 than oxygen, never mind being within like 20 percent, the whole environment would be haywired. Really, that's a huge thing Dark. You should check the percentage of gases in the atmosphere before saying which is greater than which.

[Battlecruiser]

The amount of carbon dioxide used in photosynthesis is the same as the amount released in respiration. In light-independent plants, they exhaust twice as much as they use in photosynthesis. So overall, more CO2 is being exhausted than is being consumed.

What are you talking about? There is no such thing as a light independent plant. Every plant uses photosynthesis to produce glucose. By that definition, light is NECESSARY for them to function.

I think you are confusing the light independent REACTION, also known as the Calvin Cycle or Carbon fixation, with plants (No such plants exist without light). The light independent reaction, as the name suggests, needs no light, but it is dependent on the Light dependent reaction for the ATP and NADPH. Both the light independent reactions and the light dependent reactions take place within the same plant, and within all plants.

As to your other point that more CO2 is being emitted than absorbed, that is probably wrong as well (I going with plain common sense here, so I may be wrong, but if so, point out an article that contradicts this). Plants do more photosynthesis than respiration, even though they do both. This can be seen in the fact that there is always some level of sugar stored in a plant, in the form of starch. If they equaled each other, wouldn't all the glucose produced by photosynthesis by used by respiration, thus leaving a bottom line of no stored glucose?

[sdbolts11]

Ooo wow. Didn't look at that older stuff from 124167. However, his newer posts make sense. Battlecruiser, plants consume a lot of CO2. See my last post and examine how little CO2 there is in the atmosphere, especially compared to oxygen.

*off topic*
Good sig message. However, you're missing a lot of soldiers. In how our and most military casualty systems work around the world, only confirmed (by dog tag, not even identfication by some license or a friend will count), usually non-Friendly Fire, Killed in Action soldiers. If you get shot and die within a few seconds, you fall into the casualty system. However, most casualties come from getting shot, then dying later from blood loss, too long without an organ or something that had been pierced with the bullet you would not die from instantly, infection, or really any way where you are alive when you are taken from the battlefield and die. Diseases don't count as casualties either. There haven't been really any MIA's, but those don't count. But think about it, this isn't a huge scale war, just against guerilla terrorists in small groups, so every wounded soldier is taken away from the action when there is an ambush. So it's not like they're writhing on the ground in the battlefield for like 5 minutes before they day, and considering that they are still in "action," they are counted as KIA's. So in your sig, don't just count the casualties that fall under the system, dedicate it to the many more who are not counted as well. Very good of you to do that anyways.

[Battlecruiser]

Ooo wow. Didn't look at that older stuff from 124167. However, his newer posts make sense. Battlecruiser, plants consume a lot of CO2.

Uhh... That's exactly what I said. I'm asking 124167 to disprove me, since he obviously does not believe that plants absorb more CO2 than they emit. And he posted this only two pages back. So it's pretty recent.

By the way, for your off topic message, can we please take it to PMs. I don't want to clutter this thread, and it would be inappropriate to do so, especially in the IR.

There's been periods in the fruckin middle ages when temperatures (as well as CO2 levels) were much higher than they are now, and CO2 emitting industry was nonexistant back then.

You're incorrect about the part that CO2 levels were much higher than before. This article directly contradicts that- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4467420.stm

Current levels of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere are higher now than at any time in the past 650,000 years.


My stance on global warming is that there is no absolute way for us to know who or what is causing it. At least, not right now, as we are no where near close to making an accurate model of the Earth. Without a model, there can be no control, since there is only one Earth, and we would need at least one more, and one that would have a change of EXACTLY one variable. That one variable would be human emissions. Until we create a supercomputer with enough processing power so that it can take in the nearly 5 million variables required for an accurate scientific experiment on Global Warming, no one can state that, without a doubt, humans are or are not causing Global Warming.

But since the implications of Global Warming are clear, I feel that we should take steps to lower our footprint on the Earth (We should be doing it anyway, even if Global Warming wasn't going to happen). We are currently living a very high impact lifestyle which certainly is affecting all the ecosystems. The changes required of us are nothing large. It is actually pretty simple from changing a lightbulb to turning off electronics if they are not being used. Our technology is improving rapidly and clean solutions to everyday processes are being found out daily. Also, I doubt the economy will be destroyed. Rather I expect the opposite, even with regulations on carbon dioxide. The innovative companies will thrive in such an economy (Think Toyota with its Prius. Not a great example but it works), while dirty industries, such as the oil industry will fall. And we will have no use for the oil industry once cleaner fuels and materials are invented.

[sdbolts11]

I think it has already been concluded that CO2 levels are highest now than in any time. That quote from the article was not very necessary.

[Thedutchjelle]

As to your other point that more CO2 is being emitted than absorbed, that is probably wrong as well (I going with plain common sense here, so I may be wrong, but if so, point out an article that contradicts this). Plants do more photosynthesis than respiration, even though they do both. This can be seen in the fact that there is always some level of sugar stored in a plant, in the form of starch. If they equaled each other, wouldn't all the glucose produced by photosynthesis by used by respiration, thus leaving a bottom line of no stored glucose?

Good point, i forgot about this.
And battlecruisers post above this one (not going to quote it all -.-' ) makes a good point to.

[Icarus]

My vostok graph showed the actual data from the dig in antarctica. I'm NOT going to post it again.

Yes, I did make a mistake in terminology. Thanks for clearing that up.

Concerning the plants, keeping a surplus of unused glucose is useless. Plants acquire the glucose, TO USE IT. However much energy is gained from photosynthesis is used up through respiration, or else you'll have that surplus, which is useless. Plant's don't keep useless surpluses. The amount of photosynthesis taking place would = the amount of respiration. During light independent reactions, double CO2 is exhausted than used.

Concerning the industrial aspect of emitting less CO2, you have to understand the kind of things they will be bracing for, and how expensive it is. Once all that money has been invested, and nothing is changed, and global warming continues it's course, everyone will abandon the firmly placed market, and no more investments will be made. The insurance industry would go crazy. Most people would likely think that because we are stopping natural disasters from happening, they wouldn't need as much coverage, then the disasters would happen (as I have shown) and the insurance companies would lose a great deal of money as well as consumers.

No, the causes of global warming are unknown, at least as a whole. We only know what we know. One thing we DO know is that CO2 emissions, especially emissions from man, are irrelevant. We have good hunches too. For example, the erratic behavior of the earth's magnetic field in recent times, coinciding with strange sunspot behavior. If i had to guess, I would guess that just like every climatic change on earth is ultimately caused by the sun, that global warming is as well.

[DarkMirror]

I'm sick of this. You refuse to see reason, and all in all, your just hardheaded.
I suggest that this thread be closed, as its just going around in circles and numbers is getting on everyones nerves.

[Battlecruiser]

My vostok graph showed the actual data from the dig in antarctica. I'm NOT going to post it again.

So are you questioning the credibility of BBC or the experiment they reported on?
Honestly, I don't understand how there are totally different results by similar experiments. How do we know which one is right? And yes, I've seen your Vostok graph several times already.

Concerning the plants, keeping a surplus of unused glucose is useless. Plants acquire the glucose, TO USE IT. However much energy is gained from photosynthesis is used up through respiration, or else you'll have that surplus, which is useless. Plant's don't keep useless surpluses. The amount of photosynthesis taking place would = the amount of respiration. During light independent reactions, double CO2 is exhausted than used.
Plants make glucose, with an intention to use it. But not all of the glucose produced is, in fact, used. Excess glucose is stored in the form of starch. Going by your logic, there should be NO sugar at all when we eat a plant. If that is the case, where are we getting our energy from?

Think about it this way. When we eat food, we break down the food ultimately by respiration to get our ATP. The glucose that isn't broken down is converted into glycogen or fat for storage. Similarly, plants do the same, except they produce their own glucose through photosynthesis, and then they store the excess in the form of starch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starch). Thus, the rate of photosynthesis DOES NOT equal rate of respiration in a plant.

[bouncl]

I'm sick of this. You refuse to see reason, and all in all, your just hardheaded.
I suggest that this thread be closed, as its just going around in circles and numbers is getting on everyones nerves.

I wish, I wonder if he just happens to be getting the abbreviations of Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide confused.

[sdbolts11]

Bouncl, me and you already cleared that up in like 4 posts. If anyone's still making that mistake, then they should read back a couple pages.

[bouncl]

yeah I know, but it was worth a sh

[Thedutchjelle]

The points is that whatever oppertunity we may have to halt global warming must be done.

Otherwise my whole country and lots of others will drown. I don't really want my home under 9 meters of water anytime soon.

[Oblongato]

No, the causes of global warming are unknown, at least as a whole. We only know what we know. One thing we DO know is that CO2 emissions, especially emissions from man, are irrelevant. We have good hunches too. For example, the erratic behavior of the earth's magnetic field in recent times, coinciding with strange sunspot behavior. If i had to guess, I would guess that just like every climatic change on earth is ultimately caused by the sun, that global warming is as well.


It is true that there is still debate on the causes of global warming. However, the position you are putting forth here does not represent the scientific consensus. If humans can eradicate species, pollute rivers to the extent that they can catch fire, pollute the oceans to the extent that pollutants can be found everywhere, destroy the ozone layer, it is not inconceivable that humans are also capable of influencing the factors that control temperature on the planet.

The link below is to an article on scientific consensus on global warming.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

This paragraph gives the gist of it:

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature. In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations".
Naomi Oreskes
Science 3 December 2004:
Vol. 306. no. 5702, p. 1686
DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618

[Icarus]

I posted a video about this. Many of the scientists on the IPCC list didn't agree with their conclusions, but their names were published with it anyway. The video also gave a clear alternate conclusion from scientists, so no there is no large scientific consensus.

[Oblongato]

I posted a video about this. Many of the scientists on the IPCC list didn't agree with their conclusions, but their names were published with it anyway. The video also gave a clear alternate conclusion from scientists, so no there is no large scientific consensus.

I've seen the video, and it's interesting, but the number of scientists protesting is not sufficient to argue that there is no scientific consensus. Nevertheless, I would agree that there is more debate than most governments seem to acknowledge.

Among scientists, opinion is not unanimous, but there is indeed scientific consensus that it is likely that humans have caused the warming of the past 50 years through the production of greenhouse gases.

I'm not saying that the counter arguments have no merit at all, but I also don't believe it's my place as a lay person to challenge the scientific consensus. In a debate with a climatologist I'm afraid I would come across as pretty naive on the topic.

There is plenty of politically motivated disagreement with the consensus, but the scientific credibility of these organizations is questionable at best.

There's a good discussion of the controversy surrounding the film "The Great Global Warming Swindle" here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle

[Icarus]

Wow. so because a lot of scientists tell you so, you'll believe it? don't you think that maybe the scientific community that is being promoted by the media may be the same as the scientific community that would benefit from the government, and the one which the government is willing to pay?

Their science, as I have shown time and time again, is wrong. Their facts don't match the conclusion.

[Oblongato]

Wow. so because a lot of scientists tell you so, you'll believe it? don't you think that maybe the scientific community that is being promoted by the media may be the same as the scientific community that would benefit from the government, and the one which the government is willing to pay?

Their science, as I have shown time and time again, is wrong. Their facts don't match the conclusion.

On matters of scientific fact, the scientists are the only ones who have the facts. So yes, lacking the facts and scientific background myself, I think the scientific consensus is the most solid basis for my own belief.

The scientists being paid by government and industry are the ones opposing the idea of man's influencing global warming. Your suggestion supports my point better than yours.

It seems to me that you personally have done nothing but link, quote and / or paraphrase the opinions of people who, although in the minority, are in a position to know something about the topic. Have you supplied any arguments or information you didn't get from "The Great Global Warming Swindle"?

You will have to provide far more evidence than you have before I will believe you over the majority of scientists studying climate change.

[Icarus]

I've provided all the scientific evidence necessary. And if you're going to base your belief solely on the conclusion of others, there is no point to debate. Your only argument is that "the scientists said this" unlike you, i look for the facts. Whether it be on the internet, at my library, at the scientific institute, or at the university's lab. All the evidence I have posted has proven that CO2 emissions, especially those of man, do not cause global warming, at least on the scale we are witnessing.

EDIT: since global warming has become popular, everyone associated with "green" ideas is more funded

Much of the scientific data i found, I found BEFORE i found the video. Whether you believe this or not is irrelevant. The facts don't change either way.

I have linked much more than opinion.

[Oblongato]

I've provided all the scientific evidence necessary. And if you're going to base your belief solely on the conclusion of others, there is no point to debate. Your only argument is that "the scientists said this" unlike you, i look for the facts. Whether it be on the internet, at my library, at the scientific institute, or at the university's lab. All the evidence I have posted has proven that CO2 emissions, especially those of man, do not cause global warming, at least on the scale we are witnessing.

EDIT: since global warming has become popular, everyone associated with "green" ideas is more funded

Much of the scientific data i found, I found BEFORE i found the video. Whether you believe this or not is irrelevant. The facts don't change either way.

I have linked much more than opinion.

Your arguments are the arguments of a lay person, and as such have little credibility. I cannot debate the actual facts because I am not qualified (i.e. don't have a scientific background in climatology). Are you qualified? You'd probably debate Einstein on relativity.

I base my belief first on the fact that science is the only source of information we have on scientific topics.

Second, your sources are in the scientific minority.

Third, the likelihood is high that your sources are not objective since most receive funds from industries with a clear interest in preventing measures designed to stop global warming. The funding from industry is massive compared to that from private organizations etc. that want to fund action against global warming.

"I've provided all the scientific evidence necessary." For yourself, maybe. But don't insult my intelligence. It is ridiculous for lay persons to debate complex scientific topics as if they have it in their grasp to prove anything. The most we can do is try to expand our understanding of the scientific positions. But to listen to some lay person claim with certainty that one side is correct based on - what? his superior understanding of science? - is like listening to some TV preacher saying that hurricanes are god's wrath against tolerance of homosexuality.

This is an interesting topic, but your frustration that people are not convinced by the selection of minority opinion you have provided here is not justified. To claim on top of that that you had come to your conclusions based on your own research before even having read some of the minority opinion, borders on the absurd. You would then be arguing that you are as good a scientist as the climatologists. Is this really a claim you want to make?

[Icarus]

So because I don't have a degree, because I am not an established scientist, means I can't argue the facts?

Qualification means nothing in debate. You have your facts, you make sense of them, and you rebuke all contradicting positions. That's how you prove yourself right. Not if you wave some degree around and prove your employment with a lab. If you can't see how that is rational, I'm not going to debate with you.

My sources are fact just like any other. Minority? minorital fact? what is that?

Do you watch the news? at all? The vast majority of american citizens believe global warming is happening, and that it is our fault. Do you see all the candidates, on both sides of the aisle, claiming to be "green"? do you realize all the political hype behind this? How much money will be funded simply so politicans will become popular? Look at arnold schwarzennegar. Look at the kind of legislation he writes. Even bush now has announced green tendencies.

It's popular. And it's legislated. When you put the two together, you get lots of money.

Again, the percentage of opinion is irrelevant. I remember GA once gave me an analogy about medieval understanding of the geometry of the world. The vast majority believed it to be flat. The minority believed it to be round. Who had the facts? Who was right?

The only people you are going to convince otherwise of my argument by attacking my "credibility" are ignoramus idiots. Attack my data, attack the facts, make a real argument. This is the IR.

[Oblongato]

So because I don't have a degree, because I am not an established scientist, means I can't argue the facts?

Qualification means nothing in debate. You have your facts, you make sense of them, and you rebuke all contradicting positions. That's how you prove yourself right. Not if you wave some degree around and prove your employment with a lab. If you can't see how that is rational, I'm not going to debate with you.

You can't credibly argue the facts. Consider again the analogy of debating Einstein on relativity. The number of people who really understand what relativity is, i.e. understand the math, is tiny. I don't understand it. I doubt you are among those who understand it. Your arguments would not be credible.

The case with global warming is similar. It is a fantastically complex topic that the climatologists themselves do not understand fully. They tend to speak using language such as "likely," "probable," "it appears".

For a lay person to claim with certitude that based on the information collected from a few books and the internet that he is right where the experts who have studied the issue for years are wrong is similar to the example above.

If one were to take such a lay position and submit it to a scientific journal, it would be rejected for the very reason that it is not a qualified position.

The best a lay person can do is quote people who are qualified.

When debating other matters not dependent on huge amounts of statistical data and scientific analysis - let's say ideology or philosophy - a lay person may indeed be able to develop a reasonable argument.

My suggestion: present information that you've discovered and find interesting with the suggestion - not an emphatic claim - that it could make a point. See if anyone can come up with information that counters it. That way everybody learns something and no one feels threatened. But to place oneself on the level - or above the level - of the experts is not reasonable.

I attacked your data indirectly by suggesting that more qualified scientists disagree with your position than agree. This is not to suggest that the information you presented is completely nutty. Personally, I don't believe that the research on the topic is conclusive enough for anyone to be certain. The scientists (with some exceptions) seem to be far more tentative with their conclusions that the average guy on the street who has an absolute opinion about everything. Who's more believable?

[GenocideAlive]

So because I don't have a degree, because I am not an established scientist, means I can't argue the facts?

Qualification means nothing in debate. You have your facts, you make sense of them, and you rebuke all contradicting positions. That's how you prove yourself right. Not if you wave some degree around and prove your employment with a lab. If you can't see how that is rational, I'm not going to debate with you.

The only people you are going to convince otherwise of my argument by attacking my "credibility" are ignoramus idiots. Attack my data, attack the facts, make a real argument. This is the IR.
The impact of qualifications on debate is a difficult line to draw, but for purposes of our debate, it's rather simple. A more qualified candidate's analysis of data is considered probably more accurate. Just like you would be more likely to believe a surgeon over a 1st year residency doctor, a PhD in climatology with 25 years of experience is more likely to be correct than a postdoc student.

However, that said, one cannot base argument on qualifications alone. Unless you're Alan Greenspan talking about the economy that you practically raised, it'd be almost impossible to make any assertions without sensible data. Alan Greenspan is a good example of credentials making the man--our entire economy was judged on his sayso over the course of 10 years due to his incredible skills. However, he provided reliable data for 10 years, odds were stacked that he would provide good data for the next forecast.

Taking all of this into consideration, a debator with a science background in education is better poised to comment on the state of science. He has a more complete understanding due to his training and education, and thus he would have considered factors that perhaps his opponent had not yet been exposed.

The only true facts we have about global warming currently:

The earth's temperature is rising at a unusual rate.
We are contributing to its rise in some fashion.

The rest is heavily debated in science, with the majority leaning towards human interference almost solely responsible for the rise. Either way, it would be foolish to ignore.

[Icarus]

We are contributing to its rise in some fashion.


Where is the data to prove this? What connection can be made with any data to conclude that we are contributing? Simply having the statement said isn't going to prove it to me, or anyone else who honestly wants to explore the topic. There simply isn't proof. And proof I have brought concludes that man's CO2 emissions definitely don't have anything to do with it.

On the credibility thing, wouldn't it be much more rational to simply debate with the facts given? If I claimed 2+2=4, but stephen hawking claimed 2+2=8, would stephen hawking's oustanding "credibility" overrule my simple logic? Arguing on account of credibility will only delude the presented facts.

@oblongato: I never claimed to be an established scientist. All I have done is show real data, not quoted claims, and draw rational conclusions from them.

[Oblongato]

@oblongato: I never claimed to be an established scientist. All I have done is show real data, not quoted claims, and draw rational conclusions from them.

What makes me hesitant to accept your reasoning is that the majority of experts disagree. You've argued that they are politically motivated, but I would argue that the political motivation tends to be at least as strong in the opposite direction. As I mentioned before, climatologists are not very conclusive in their statements. Most now say that man is "very probably" responsible for the global warming of the past 50 years. As a lay person, I must defer to the judgment of the people who have been studying climate for years. I would not feel comfortable - to say the least - trying to defend a position contrary to that of people who I acknowledge have a knowledge of the subject far superior to my own.

On a side note, there are some interesting (and apparently quite objective) articles on the subject here:

http://www.realclimate.org/

The FAQ is very nice:

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_FAQs.pdf

[GenocideAlive]

Simply having the statement said isn't going to prove it to me, or anyone else who honestly wants to explore the topic. There simply isn't proof.
That you openly admit that there is no proof that will satisfy you multiple times in different posts is somewhat annoying. If such is the case, you aren't "honestly exploring the topic". You're just using a debate as a platform to push your agenda. Saying "point to the proof" then following it immediately with "there is no proof" basically translates to "I don't care what you say, there's nothing that will convince me." I think you need to back away and give some thought to what constitutes proof to you and what others could produce that you would find convincing.
On the credibility thing, wouldn't it be much more rational to simply debate with the facts given? If I claimed 2+2=4, but stephen hawking claimed 2+2=8, would stephen hawking's oustanding "credibility" overrule my simple logic? Arguing on account of credibility will only delude the presented facts.
Climatology and meteorology of an ecosphere combined with historical accounts are orders of magnitude more difficult than 1st grade addition. One probably takes a Ph.D. to gain a foothold in the understanding and meaning, the other takes a five year old. If you choose to argue via analogy, do so with something more appropriate.

If you were to accuse Alan Greenspan of being a deluded fuddy-duddy during his latest economic forecast, that would be an appropriate analogy to our current debate. You have people that are established, respected members of a scientific field stating that we are having something of a global crisis in climate. Is this so easily shot down with a few snippets of data spread neatly onto one sheet expressly for that purpose?

Be careful when you find yourself pointing to "bandwagons" for support of your various theories. Simplified data combined with dramatic presentations spells "someone is trying to brainwash you". Farenheit 9/11 was a great movie for making money, but at the time of its release, many people were sourcing it for purposes of "proof" of a conspiracy. Now after having been exposed, people can see it for what it is: propaganda pushing.

[Giantfish]

Okay, I'm not very well informed on stuff about global warming. I've looked at those charts of yours 124167, and I must say it makes no sense to me as to how it supports your claim. First off, one of your charts, which is about carbon dioxide and temperature records, shows time and the standard deviation. These are my questions about that chart:

1)Assuming this is the standard deviation from the mean temperature, what is the mean temperature? What are the units?

2) What or where is "EPICA DomeC?" Assuming this is the place, what source says it is representative of the planet as a whole?

3) What exactly is it that disproves carbon dioxide causes a temperature increase and proves that it is the other way around? You say those charts are your evidence. Tell me how you interpreted those chart or from where you got an interpretation.

If you've explained all of this already and I've missed it, my apologies. Until then, I find your argument to be very unconvincing.

[Borgorb]

the temprature is rising and we are contributing somewhat but all this propaganda about the sea level rising is a load of tripe
a teacher at Manakau Institute of Technology dod a simple experiment tho show the sea level wont rise
he filled a cup with water thn put a piece o ice in the water and marked the level
then when the ice had melted he checked the level in comparison to the mark he had made
there was no change in the water level
this is a real life simulation and works again and again

so think twice before u start talking about sea levels rising

[Icarus]

There are no units on the graph, because it's in ratio. The mean temperature would be whatever the average temperature was for all the data taken from the site.

EPICA stands for "[the] European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica", which is the organization that took samples in dome c, which is a region in antarctica used for taking samples from the ice core which can give you temperature and CO2 information stretching hundreds of thousands of years back.

CO2 in the atmospheres determines the amount of isotopic distribution which is trapped in air bubbles under the ice.

Mainly, the few hundred years of lag in which the temperature rises before CO2, as well as the natural emission margin which is much greater than human emissions. Pair that with the tiny influence CO2 actually makes in the greenhouse effect(water vapor making up 95% of all greenhouse gases), and it's likes like trying to break down a wall with a stick of butter.

[Oblongato]

the temprature is rising and we are contributing somewhat but all this propaganda about the sea level rising is a load of tripe
a teacher at Manakau Institute of Technology dod a simple experiment tho show the sea level wont rise
he filled a cup with water thn put a piece o ice in the water and marked the level
then when the ice had melted he checked the level in comparison to the mark he had made
there was no change in the water level
this is a real life simulation and works again and again

so think twice before u start talking about sea levels rising

I think the ice we are talking about here is not in the water; it's on land (Greenland, Antarctica etc.) If he had pushed the ice off the rim of the cup into the water, the result might have been different.

And an experiment using a cup and an ice cube is enough to convince you that most of the experts are wrong?

[Thedutchjelle]

IIRC, i saw a news article somewhere, stating that the sealevels WILL rise if the ice floating in the sea melt. It has to do with the water in the ice having a different volume.

-Though i doubt that now, i've been trying to find the article on the Net but everywhere it says floating ice melting doesn't matter. Whatever.

But like Oblongato said, I think we are talking about the ice on the land.

[ecyor0]

IIRC, i saw a news article somewhere, stating that the sealevels WILL rise if the ice floating in the sea melt. It has to do with the water in the ice having a different volume.

-Though i doubt that now, i've been trying to find the article on the Net but everywhere it says floating ice melting doesn't matter. Whatever.

But like Oblongato said, I think we are talking about the ice on the land.

Especially in Antarctica. The land is under 2-3 miles of ice in some places

Actually melting the ice sitting in the water wouldn't affect anything - anything floating in water displaces its equivalent volume of water - if its weight is greater than the amount of water displaced when it is completely submerged, then the object will sink. If it's weight is less than the weight of the water it can displace, then it will float. Since ice is water, it will displace an amount of water equal to itself (i.e, a 1 ton iceberg will displace 1 ton of water). When the ice melts, No change take place because the melted water takes up the same amount of space as the water that it displaced when it was ice (so instead of displacing a ton of water, the melted iceberg has effectively added a ton of water to the ocean, which brings the level up to exactly what it was before).

[Thedutchjelle]

Just wondering here (excuse me if someone said it already)..

A volume of ice will not exactly 'refill' the same volume when it melts. According to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice), water in the ice is less dense - like, less water per volume. So when the North Pole melts, the sealevel should be going down instead of up.

I could be wrong though but..

[Protogod]

the ice on top of the land will increase the sea level. The floating ice means jack shit.

[ecyor0]

Just wondering here (excuse me if someone said it already)..

A volume of ice will not exactly 'refill' the same volume when it melts. According to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice), water in the ice is less dense - like, less water per volume. So when the North Pole melts, the sealevel should be going down instead of up.

I could be wrong though but..

However, ice floats with a portion of it above water

[Oblongato]

Just wondering here (excuse me if someone said it already)..

A volume of ice will not exactly 'refill' the same volume when it melts. According to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice), water in the ice is less dense - like, less water per volume. So when the North Pole melts, the sealevel should be going down instead of up.

I could be wrong though but..

I would assume that since when water freezes it increases slightly in volume (i.e. becomes less dense), and being less dense sticks up slightly above the surface of the water (e.g. "the tip of the iceberg"), the same mass of water will always displace the same mass whether it is frozen or liquid. So it would not affect sea level whether frozen or liquid.

[ecyor0]

I would assume that since when water freezes it increases slightly in volume (i.e. becomes less dense), and being less dense sticks up slightly above the surface of the water (e.g. "the tip of the iceberg"), the same mass of water will always displace the same mass whether it is frozen or liquid. So it would not affect sea level whether frozen or liquid.

Yeah, you explained it a lot better than me

[Thedutchjelle]

I would assume that since when water freezes it increases slightly in volume (i.e. becomes less dense), and being less dense sticks up slightly above the surface of the water (e.g. "the tip of the iceberg"), the same mass of water will always displace the same mass whether it is frozen or liquid. So it would not affect sea level whether frozen or liquid.

Okay i guess. Thanks for clearing that up.