two plants in two diff c02 %

[ref1ect1ons]

 

[MindExpansion]

thanks for posting reflections.

[Micromegas]

Cool. Interesting the root was by far the most increased.

Anyway, I'm off now to drive my car round and around in my garden.

[MORG]

"Pollutant" is a strategic word choice.

CO2 is a natural component of the Earth's atmosphere and has never been called a "pollutant".

N = ?

What was the sample size? Two seedlings?

[ThunderIdeal]

it's no secret that carbon dioxide increases plant growth anyway. this is just the first time somebody was stupid enough to try using that fact to make this argument.

[naja naja]

It's the bear I tell ya

[tripsis]

Proves very little, other than two seedlings did better than another two, possibly due to higher CO₂, possibly due to some other unknown variable. Hardly even remotely conclusive.

People like yourself reflections will always believe what you want, no matter what the facts are. You should realise though, that increased levels of CO₂, while often good for plants, leads to other problems. If the climate were to change, as it undoubtedly will, and drought were to set in in areas such as the Amazon, the carbon sink that it is at present would slow down or even reverse, furthering the problems caused by increased levels of atmospheric CO₂. Of course, you've probably heard this all before and don't believe a word of it, because you have wonderful little propaganda videos on Youtube to allay your fears and support backwards theories that allow fools to keep living in their paradise and not lift a finger to change their ways.

[ref1ect1ons]

Actually i did not express an opinion either way tripsis and was more interested in the plants in this video.

You have made way to many assumptions about the basis of my opinion and even the direction of my opinion, you even go so far as to infer some of my behaviours and attitudes.

As I have asked a million times if you want to have a climate change debate with me, then simply provide me some support for the positive feedback theory which is the unfounded cornerstone and last remaining leg that global warming has to stand on. Then there are the numerous 'gates' the most recent being that the country of bangladesh contradicting the IPCC report for the zillionth time. Or you could give me a c02 effect on temp calculation that disputes the one I have already provided in the 'calculate climate change for yourself' thread.

climate change science is just bullshit propaganda and you have yet to realise this.

Since these post (quoted below) i have also provided info on the flaws with the positive feedback theory in the sustainable living thread, which forms the foundation of your beliefs. I would also question the over-reliance on projections, computer models fed tainted data, as well as the programme itself skewing static(non-directional)data to form the typical hockey stick graph. There is also the problem that no hot-spots have been found.

There is also the harry readme files to show this. There is the recent decline which is somehow part of a 'sine wave' as torsten stupidly calls it.

So to re-iterate, for you to have any chance, you need to understand the positive feedback theory and why it is correct.

You need to have an explanation for why no hot-spots were discovered.

Explain why the Medieval warm period, and tree ring evidence proving it, never happened and does not exist

Explain recent sun activity and it;s relationship with the rest of the solar system and climate on earth

Explain why historically c02 has found to increase following temperature but that today we are apparently observing the opposite effect.

I transcribed this from a fading pamphlet given to me at uni.

One drop of food colouring in 60 litres of water is one part per million. The volume of a glass marble is: 1.525 cubic centremetres.

According to those who believe man-made global climate change, CO2 is one source of global warming (water vapour is the other main factor). The total CO2 level in the atmosphere has increased from 317ppm to 387 ppm over the last 50 years.

The accepted figure for the annual manmade contribution to global CO2 emissions is 3.2% of the 387ppm or 12.4ppm compared to the 375ppm emitted by the oceans and other natural sources.

Australia allegedly emits around 1% of the worlds manmade CO2, that is 1% of 3.2% manmade CO2 going into the atmosphere. The australian government wants to stop 20% of this figure with expensive mitigation by 2020.

Putting this into perspective, if the global atmosphere was contained in a room 2.25m X 2.25m X 2.0 heigh (a small bedroom), a marble on the floor would represent CO2 in the atmosphere, 12.4% of the marbles volume would be man-made CO2 and 1% of this volume would be Australia's contribution.

The Australian Governments proposed 20% reduction over the next ten years, 2% per an annum would amount to 25 thousandths of one marble.

This is a minuscule amount and even with the UN's sevenfold exageration on carbons effect on temperature it is still a negligible effect on temperature for a HUGE tax increase.

I do not think of myself as intelligent, I am intelligent, big difference. I understand that this was not meant to be a debate...

‘There is little argument in the scientific community that a direct effect of doubling the CO2 concentration will be a small increase of the earth's temperature -- on the order of one degree. Additional increments of CO2 will cause relatively less direct warming because we already have so much CO2 in the atmosphere that it has blocked most of the infrared radiation that it can. It is like putting an additional ski hat on your head when you already have a nice warm one below it, but your are only wearing a windbreaker. To really get warmer, you need to add a warmer jacket. The IPCC thinks that this extra jacket is water vapor and clouds.’ Will Happer a Princeton physicist.

There is no consensus in the scientific community, there never is on anything other than scientific laws obviously. The ‘consensus' amounts to a politicised agenda, ie. there is only consensus within the UN, which is headed by a railroad engineer; to reiterate the head of the IPCC is a railroad engineer.

If you look at the UN climate change report from 1995 there is a Medieval Warm Period, that is hotter than today and the consensus is that it existed, even within the UN. Then in 2001 the UN ‘modified’ all there data until eventually the MWP disappeared. There are research papers available for this if you have access to your local uni, I assume this to be the case because you are a scientist as demonstrated with your impressive sine curve argument.

Below is the UN’s calculations, although they use an incorrect model for radiative transfer, ie. all the UN and UN sponsored models assume that as the planet warms then radiative transfer decreases when in fact it increases, meaning that as the planet warms more heat is radiated off the face of the planet, just common sense really. This means the planet is less ‘climate sensitive’ then the UN would have you believe, a self equalising, balancing property of the earth as with all-nature. Prof Lindzen is a respected scientist who has researched the effect of radiation and temperature, he is an atmospheric physicist of 40 years, maybe you should give him a chance prof. torsten.

But none the less here is a demonstration on how much warming we can expect per an amount of C02 based on your data, which is no longer available as raw data because it was ‘lost’ by the university of East Anglia; this was discovered during the ‘climategate’ scandal- look into this.

Quote: ‘To conclude, let us assume that the UN's central climate sensitivity estimate is right. In that event, warming (at climatic equilibrium) of 4.7 times the Naperian logarithm of the proportionate increase in CO2 concentration is fancifully predicted to occur. Let us also assume that all of the 2 ppmv/year increase in CO2 concentration that has occurred at a linear rate over the past decade is attributable to the enterprises and industries of humankind. Armed with this information, plus the news that today's concentration of CO2 is approximately 388 ppmv, let us calculate just how much of a global temperature increase we can forestall if we shut down the entire world economy, overnight, sweeping all cars, trains, and planes off the planet, and flinging the entire working population out of a job, reducing the economy to the Stone Age but without the right even to light a carbon-emitting fire in our caves. How much warming would a whole year of this economic self-immolation forestall? Here is the answer –

ΔTglobal = 4.7 ln(390/388) = 0.024 C/year.

Yes, for each year that we shut down the entire economy, we shall prevent less than one-fortieth of a Celsius degree. We'd need to run a pre-Stone-Age economy, with incalculable loss of life and horrendous consequential environmental damage, for 41 years just to prevent 1 C of "global warming". And that's if the UN is right about the warming effect of CO2. But suppose – as most learned papers on climate sensitivity now conclude – that the UN has exaggerated around fivefold. Make that 200 years of zero carbon emissions, and all just to prevent 1 C of warming. Once you understand that this calculation is robust, you will realize how extravagantly pointless the present Copenhagen conference is. It would be orders of magnitude cheaper and more cost-effective to adapt to climate change (in whatever direction it occurs, and regardless of the very limited extent to which humanity is responsible) than to attempt to mitigate it by allowing an unelected, Communistic world government to control all formerly-free markets, to tax the West to extinction, and to interfere directly in the economic as well as environmental affairs of all nations. This is not mere rodomontade.’ Lord Monckton.

It is also notable that there is no figure gievn in the latest UN climate change report on how much warming we can expect per an amount of C02 increase, this is rather unusual because this is what the whole alarmist view hinges on, that is, an extremely exagerated figure. One only needs to look at the predictions for how much the ocean will rise to see that this is the case, some had it at over 20m while Al Gore bought a house on the shore.

If you provide an alternative estimate of this figure; warming per C02 increase, your arguments might have some merit.

Finally you yourself accepted that there has been cooling, which as you stated, will be followed by a rising temp that you predict will be twice as fast. This is just an old 'end-of-the-world' fear and has no scientific basis, and is not supported by any sine curve. It is true that the world temps have been equalising and then decreasing in the last decade, this is also the case with ocean levels, which seems to provide support for Will Happers view.

The climate may be changing but it is constantly doing so, and no man can seek to control it, because to do so would require the intelligence of great nature, which man does not possess at this point in time.

[tripsis]

No, you didn't express an opinion, but you have done so elsewhere. It was a fair assumption to see this video as connected to your opinions on the topic of climate change.

Yeah, you're right, I am making assumptions on the basis of your opinion. If it is wrong, my apologies, but please do enlighten me as to what the basis of your opinions actually are then.

You have also made assumptions. I am not engaging in a debate on whether climate change is induced by humans or not. The point I am making is that high CO₂ is not necessarily a good thing, despite some of its obvious advantages. Plants are not the only organisms to consider. Take coral reefs for example. There is evidence to indicate that increased CO₂ is detrimental to corals and could cause the widespread decline of coral reefs.

Whether climate change is human induced or not is in some ways irrelevant and just one issue of the many that we face. We should be critically assessing the impact we are having on our planet, reducing our exploitative nature and turning to more sustainable way of living. Or do you see that as propaganda too?

[ref1ect1ons]

Or do you see that as propaganda too?

Typical response to a 'Skeptic', I am not a skeptic so..., I hold a range of varying opinions that seem to fulfil your labelling requirements.

Firstly if GW is not induced by humanity than we should not worry, it is beyond our intelligence and control anyways; the climate is so complex that we cannot predict it with any great certainty for any great length of time.

To answer ur 'question'; I have always said and will continue to say that humanity really needs to open their eyes and look to great nature with awe and respect. We cannot match or surpass the mysteries and intelligence of nature and so we should treat nature with reverence. Rather then assuming we know what's going on, i suggest we all stop, take a breath and start looking at how we can change and what needs to change. Which means living sustainably. It does not mean start panicking and obsessing over unlikely doomsday scenarios that are more concerned with preserving humanity and humanities current destructive trends than saving animals and planet earth. I think most greenies are more concerned about their own impending destruction because life and life on earth are not at stake here, we are. We will be wiped from the face of the earth, as evolution demands, if we cannot learn to live in sync with the rest of life.

Some of the solutions, such as toxic substances being pumped out to change the response of the atmosphere, are more dangerous than c02 ever could be and shows just what sort of mistakes humanity can make if we become too arogant and assume too much of ourselves.

I am still prepared to debate the various findings, research and other such garbage if you really wish to get into it.

[ThunderIdeal]

Some of the solutions, such as toxic substances being pumped out to change the response of the atmosphere, are more dangerous than c02 ever could be and shows just what sort of mistakes humanity can make if we become too arogant and assume too much of ourselves.

 

is anything like this actually happening? please say no. i've read about some of these ideas and they are crazy.

[tripsis]

Well then, we see eye to eye on at least some things.

I disagree that if climate change is not human induced, then we should not worry about. Firstly, we need to actually be able to tell with absolute certainty whether it is or not, something that clearly has been done yet, or the debate would not exist. Even if the change is not induced by humans, we are not helping pumping out CO₂, N₂O and other greenhouse gases and ozone depleting products. So regardless of whether we are the main problem or not, we should be changing our actions regardless.

I also disagree that most "greenies" are more concerned with self-preservation than with preservation of the environment. Most of the greenies I know are genuinely pained to see the environment degraded and ecosystems destroyed. Personally, I hold the environment in much regard esteem than I do humanity.

I agree that some of the other chemicals being released into the environment, for whatever reason, are worse than CO₂, but this is not a reason to dismiss the problems associated with CO₂.

[ref1ect1ons]

Thunderideal, there were plans for sulfur dioxide as it reflects light back out into space and apparently leads to a cooling effect. But it also causes acid rain, and not one news service mentioned this devastationg little tidbit.

Tripsis I really dont think we disagree on much at all regarding this issue. I think we can spare the drudgery and focus on our little discussion point.

I believe that saving the amazon is of greater importance than cc, other polutants also and just the general thankless attitude of people towards exploiting the environment. This is where we can make real change. I also think kids in school should be taught how to respect nature rather than just a crash course on doomsday without a focus on nature at large. I really think we need to show kids what nature is, because currently you sit in a class, walled off from nature, forced to absorb a never-ending stream of nonsense and loud noise.

We wonder why boys are falling behind and why people barely even see the forest while filling their car-up, staring blankly towards the trees without ever really acknowledging their presence. Throwing rubbish on the ground without feeling anything! keeping a pet for hugs and feeding it garbage... once we change our attitude, our conciousness, I think cc will solve itself. But if we try to fix nature without fixing ourselves then we may end up setting fire to our bed in our sleep.

We produce too much c02, it may not be the toxin or have the effects the mass media says it does, but it is still too much. This should be on our list as part of the 'things we can change' but decieving people to get more money and hyping it up beyond all reason is not something i agree with.

[tripsis]

For the most part, those who are opposed to the idea of anthropogenic climate change, in my opinion, have some sort of hidden agenda, be it laziness and not wanting to change their actions, to monetary investments in fossil fuels, etc. Fortunately, you don't appear to be one of those people.

Regardless of whether human induced global warming is real, I agree that we need to teach people more than just doomsday scenarios and ways to save their own skin. If it is propaganda, as you think (which I still don't agree with), it still isn't necessarily a bad thing. People need to be considering their actions and climate change is getting them to do that.

People need to reconnect with nature, to see that we are a part of it, not apart from it. Deep ecology is something that should be taught in school. Everyone should be aware of how everything is connected and that all of our actions have consequences. Instead we build ourselves concrete jungles, large enough that many people never even see natural ecosystems and which create alienation from the natural world. No wonder people don't care.

[ref1ect1ons]

I agree I think the alienation from 'nature', 'god' or 'life' is the number one 'problem' humanity faces, to wake-up. I think that by re-connecting with nature, in the sense of reconnecting with our selves, we will see the Earth for what it is and overcome the problems we blindly create effortlessly. We constantly exchange energy with nature, we are nature. Totallly and utterly dependent on eachother.

I stand in sheer awe of self-proclaimed geniuses who fail to see the most obvious aspect of our existence, that we are all connected, then write books on how there is no god and that everyone who disagrees is stupid. I find these types the most frustrating and stubborn of all people.

In regards to cc, I think both parties are too polarised and thereby do not see what is actually here. I realise that this may seem in contradiction to my past stance, however I have another intention.

Edited May 3, 2010 by ref1ect1ons

[TheFriendlyPlanter]

...

Edited November 27, 2010 by Quantum turkey

[ref1ect1ons]

Actually any increase is not 'significant', maybe you should review the statistical meaning of that word. Also check out the 'calculate cc for yourself' thread as it shows just how little man contributes compared to the natural environment.

[Whispering Leaves]

very interesting to watch.

overall, one is not that much more impressive than the other if you imagine a garden bed with 200 of these grooving away. Some 20 percent, 10 percent or 5 percent bigger than "normal" and some a few the other side. Would just be a bunch of plants. But clear lighting and time lapse makes anything look cool.

I saw a good segment on Catalyst tonight about how experimentally increasing the levels of Co2 for cassava crops led to dodgy root growth and increased production of cyanide compounds.

Bigger is not always better.

[tripsis]

Actually any increase is not 'significant', maybe you should review the statistical meaning of that word.

Interesting about the correlation between increased cyanide compounds and increased CO₂ in cassava crops WL.

[TheFriendlyPlanter]

...

Edited November 27, 2010 by Quantum turkey

[ref1ect1ons]

When did man contribute the co2 to the carbon sinks?, before industralisation?

I am not going through your whole post becasue it is your own fault that you have not educated yourself properly.

But in statisitcs if you have a very large building and a very small building, the smaller building may infact be overshadowed and completely invisible, it is a statistical concept related to effect and power.

When testing a hypothesis you check it against a sample. In this case the sample were measurements of temperature and carbon dioxide. The hypothesis is 'Does co2 cause an effect in(at) temperature as it increases'?

A statiistically significanrt result would say it is likely. A statiscally insignificant result is likely either due to chance or error.

So if you have a non-significant result, it means the carbon has no effect on temperature and that a confounding factor is responsible.

In-fact the most supported scientific finding regarding co2 and temperature is that co2 rises as an effect of temperature increase, this means that the environment releases co2 from it's 'carbon sinks' as temperature rises due to the increased activity of the sun during the period of 1990 to 2000 or there abouts. So the sun, as always, drives temperature as it has with the whole solar system

My beliefs are not based on conspiracy etc etc. You watch too much tv.

[TheFriendlyPlanter]

...

Edited November 27, 2010 by Quantum turkey

[Whispering Leaves]

The best pre industrial example of man affecting carbon relations in the biome is the good old days when most of Europe, Asia, andthen the new world was progressively deforested for fuel, resources and security. Producing pop music and printers so cheap you throw em away and get a new one is not the typical human conditions - converting a hundred year old tree to keeping your toes warm and your brine/iron/booze boiling is.

Funny how paying extra on your power bill now means something, whereas out great great great great whoever's chopping down BILLIONS of acres of old growth forest and then burning it to dry some fishies is apparently just a matter of historical interest.

Jeebus, it's almost like the planet takes 500-1000 years to really show the true effects of our actions... who could imagine it? That's like a conifer showing drought damage three years later - oh wait.

[ref1ect1ons]

I really couldn't be bothered right now, but the positive feedback theory is a joke, made in haste as cc science came crumbling down. That's no way to do science, to make a quick adjustment to invite further doubt into your research and thereby raise it's validity.

Are you aware that your modelling of the climate in your experiment introduces it's own confounding factors. And there is the fact that the model, computer or otherwise, has been found NOT to generalise to the real world environment. The climate is so complex that the number of factors is enormous, this means that all the models that man can make cannot account for the number of factors in the real-world. Projections (not predictions) become chaotic.

Where are the hotspots QT? Positive feedback theory predicted hotspots in the upper atmosphere, none were found and attetnion shifted. So are they going to revise this theory as before, scientist aren't normally granted this luxury, but this one is too damn lucrative.

I have actually done (completed) 3 experimental design and 3 stats courses, there are four stats courses in total for my programme, so third year stats. How many have you done? You really don't seem like you have done any when looking at your 'building' metaphor.

I was explaining that when you don't have enough power to detect an effect it is called a type II error, you miss the small building. This is a definite possibility in statistics. This is not what happenned in many studies (eg. video below) that 'observed' the effect of co2 on temperature. They had a non-signinficant result, it may have been close to significant but that is not the point. If it is not significant then causation has not been predominantly attributed to one factor (the IV) and is instead dependent on some as yet unkown factor (a confounding factor).

No one doubts co2 is a greenhouse gas and as such would cause the warming effect in a plastic bag experiment, but the perhaps the main cause of the warming on earth, (the supposedly unknown factor) could be the Sun. Simple. Also could explain the cooling of late as a natural fluctuation in the Sun's cycle, indeed another factor is water vapour and another is other natural greenhouse gases. I doubt anyone can dispute the Sun's effect on warming or that it was hotter during medieval times, can you? imagine what this fact alone suggest.

Here is a link that I think you go your stats info from. This video is deceptive for GW followers. As I have explained in that thread.

 

in the 'sustainable living', 'global warming' thread.

Oh yeah, you didn't answer my question. When exactly did man add the vast stores of carbon to the carbon sinks?, because the obvious problem arises that man has not been able to produce such amounts of carbon ever, not even now. So when, before industralisation, did man supposedly contribute to the carbon sinks?, as you say.

Edited May 7, 2010 by ref1ect1ons

[ref1ect1ons]

 

Michael Crichton on global warming and the problems with modelling. His main point is that he does believe in the effect of carbon but that the sun is the main factor. I found this after I had established my view.

He thinks it's a shame that people are so focused on a non-issue while the third world has so many other real problems.

Crichton really was brilliant, may he rest in peace.

Still waiting on your answer regarding the carbon sinks turkey..., as well as your understanding of statistics, how many courses have you done turkey?