Environment gets Bushed

[BasketCase]

BasketCase, it not so hard to understand, but I'll explain it once again, as have others before: if you make a claim, you bring proof of it, not demand someone else proves it wrong.

You fail to do so, your claim gets dismissed - period.

I provided that proof.

#1: First, I proved with a link that planetary oxygen content is remaining constant.

#2: Then I pointed out that human consumption of oxygen is going up. Do you dispute this? No. Neither does any other environmentalist nutjob I've run afoul of, in CFC or anywhere else.

If #1 and #2 are both true, then something MUST be producing oxygen at a higher rate. Note the boldface word there.

And where does all the planet's oxygen come from? Plants.


And there you have it. Proof complete.

For about the fourth time.

 

[BasketCase]

No, there wasn't. Even the Greeks figured out that it was round and worked out an approximate size, and that was quite some time before scientists appeared.

Before that.

Go back far enough, and you WILL find a time in Earth history when very few people believed the Earth was spherical. Or, pick some other topic. Such as the true nature of those bright lights in the night sky, or the existence of Pluto (in fact, that would be a real good one, because NOBODY ANYWHERE knew about Pluto until 1930).

The basic idea holds true, regardless. The fact that there are relatively few global warming doubters right now actually has no bearing on whether or not global warming is really happening.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Before that.

Go back far enough, and you WILL find a time in Earth history when very few people believed the Earth was spherical. Or, pick some other topic. Such as the true nature of those bright lights in the night sky, or the existence of Pluto (in fact, that would be a real good one, because NOBODY ANYWHERE knew about Pluto until 1930).

The basic idea holds true, regardless. The fact that there are relatively few global warming doubters right now actually has no bearing on whether or not global warming is really happening.

1) This is unfalsifiable nihilist skepticism
2) You're not applying it evenly
3) Your examples do not support your argument

 

[Simple Simon]

No, it says NET production increased.
[...]
Or you might want to note that Net Primary Production is:

the amount of vegetable matter produced (net primary production) per day, week, or year

check the reddened words.......

Get it, willya? I am arguing that increasing production only sequesters carbon if you actually KEEP the produced stuff. If you produce ten rolls a day, and ten get eaten, how many will you have left? If you produce a billion rolls a day, but a million get eaten, how many will you have?


Show me that at least a significant part of the increased production leads to increased sequestration. I ask nothing but that. You keep showing that the wheel spins faster, which I do not care about. I care about whether the net biomass increases so much that the difference 'rolls being baked but not yet eaten' sequesters significant amounts of CO2. It seems to me that the actual mass bound in that increase is minimal compared to the CO2 we pump out from fossil fuels. IF forests were significantly expanding, then you had a point, but they really aren't.

Find a good source that shows that net biomass is up, not production, please!


You know, I'd be glad if BasketCase's weird idea would work out, and if we did not have to worry about burning fossil fuels. But your ability to find lots of stuff on RATES and none on MASS makes me believe there is nothing to be found out there that strengthens his claim.

 

[Simple Simon]

I provided that proof.

#1: First, I proved with a link that planetary oxygen content is remaining constant.

FALSE - you claimed that it changed.. erh, only in cities, with somehow the rest staying the same and magically the average not changing, which is impossible... erh, it DOES go down slightly.... erh

what was it you supposedly showed?

Oh, right, that we can't measure gases at all, that's what you showed! So how can your link show that oxygen remained constant?

MAKE UP YOUR MIND! You are changing your claims whenever it suits you, that's NOT honest arguing, but just being evasive.

rest of your post needs not be addressed.

 

[El_Machinae]

Find a good source that shows that net biomass is up, not production, please!

The biomass is increasing, because not all of the dead plant material is returned (immediately) as CO2 or CH4 during decomposition. The rainforest, for example, will merely gain more and more plant matter as CO2 increases. Algae can fall to the ocean floor.

The increase in biomass is part of the reason why ppm only goes up 1/3-2/3 of our yearly outputs. Some is going into the oceans (yay?) and some is being sequested as biomass. It's not such a stretch to think that forests are growing a little more robustly each year.

We're deforesting, yes, but we're not really deforesting as fast as much as we used to. Much tree harvesting is from sites which are basically tree farm. Untouched land is gaining (and weakly locking) CO2.

 

[ainwood]

check the reddened words.......

Get it, willya? I am arguing that increasing production only sequesters carbon if you actually KEEP the produced stuff. If you produce ten rolls a day, and ten get eaten, how many will you have left? If you produce a billion rolls a day, but a million get eaten, how many will you have?

I know what you're arguing. You are wrong, but I do know what you are arguing.

IF forests were significantly expanding, then you had a point, but they really aren't.

Find a good source that shows that net biomass is up, not production, please!

I have provided you with some evidence, that you're choosing not to believe and playing semantics with. The links I provided you with explained it all, but you appear not to have red them or chosen to ignore them. One link even noted that people commonly make the mistake of confusing production (the result) with productivity (the process or rate).

How about you show me some evidence to back-up your claims?

 

[BasketCase]

FALSE - you claimed that it changed.. erh, only in cities, with somehow the rest staying the same and magically the average not changing

Not magical at all. My original source said oxygen levels have been significantly lower in "several major cities".

Exact words. "Several major cities". With a surface area insignificant compared to the whole planet. If you drop oxygen content to 15% in, say, a dozen major cities, the planet's average oxygen content won't even notice.


But then, this is all moot because I just realized your whole entire argument line got shot down long ago. I read back through the thread, and noticed that somebody (I think it was Ainwood) posted a link showing that planetary biomass CAN be measured (with infrared from satellites) and that it IS going up--and that you and Ainwood have been arguing that for several pages.

The guys who did the satellite measuring dealie stated their conclusions very clearly:

"Gross biomass is up."
"Net biomass is up."
"The planet is the greenest it's been in decades--possibly centuries."

I loved how you tried to argue semantics and twist the above around and go "no, they're not saying planetary biomass is going up". No dice, sucker--they are in fact saying planetary biomass is up.


Sorry, but I believe a bunch of scientists with satellites a lot more readily than I believe you. But I think Ainwood has already been beating you over the head with that conclusion for a few pages now.

 

[BasketCase]

1) This is unfalsifiable nihilist skepticism
2) You're not applying it evenly
3) Your examples do not support your argument

I don't care. A while back, there was some guy who first said "what if the Earth is a sphere?" and got laughed at by everybody else. The same with the Theory of Relativity and the discovery of Pluto. And the same with global warming.

A while back, some guy came up with the idea "hey, what if our pollution is heating up the planet???" And guess what, he got laughed at by everybody else.

Now we're at that same juncture again. A few scientists are saying "what if global warming is NOT being caused by humans?" And guess what, they're getting laughed at by everybody else.

Don't be so quick to laugh at them, because they might turn out to be right.

 

[C~G]

Don't be so quick to laugh at them, because they might turn out to be right.

Yeah, and there are still few "scientists" claiming that creationism is a fact.

I guess instead of laughing to them we have to take them seriously since they are the minority and minority will end up being right at the end.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

<problems with BasketCase's reasoning>

I don't care.

Okay! I'll just start talking past you and making faulty analogies and repeating bad reasoning that people have tried to explain the problem with, then!

 

[History_Buff]

I don't care. A while back, there was some guy who first said "what if the Earth is a sphere?" and got laughed at by everybody else. The same with the Theory of Relativity and the discovery of Pluto. And the same with global warming.

A while back, some guy came up with the idea "hey, what if our pollution is heating up the planet???" And guess what, he got laughed at by everybody else.

Now we're at that same juncture again. A few scientists are saying "what if global warming is NOT being caused by humans?" And guess what, they're getting laughed at by everybody else.

Don't be so quick to laugh at them, because they might turn out to be right.

A while back there were a few scientists that proposed that the Universe was filled with an Ether than allowed waves to travel through space.

There were also scientists that were behind Autodynamics, Emission Theory, and Bates' method to improve eyesight.

There are all kinds of things proposed by scientists that turn out to be blantantly false, as well as the ones that turn out to be true. But just because some people are saying it, doesn't make it true, nor does it default the opposing theory into falsehood.

 

[CheScott]

That is exactly what I would have done too. But I would have done it in a cowboy getup and shot toy revolvers in the air while going YEEEHAWW!

But seriously, he already knows he's the most hated person in the world and not even sacrificing himself to save the world from a disaster like an asteroid about to hit the Earth is going to change that. He'd be crazy NOT to go out in style!

Hahahaha! Excelent.

 

[BasketCase]

There are all kinds of things proposed by scientists that turn out to be blantantly false, as well as the ones that turn out to be true. But just because some people are saying it, doesn't make it true, nor does it default the opposing theory into falsehood.

Exactly. And there's the catch--how do we know which ones....?

The only way to know is to find out. Global warming could be one of those popular theories that turns out to be crap. We have to be willing to find out--and therein lies the problem. There are a whole lot of people out there--including you--who are not willing to test the unpopular idea that global warming might not even be really happening.

 

[BasketCase]

Oh, right, that we can't measure gases at all, that's what you showed!

Actually, I was guessing. It was a very safe guess, and here's why:

If we can measure atmospheric gases accurately, then the ideas I've been posting for the last dozen thread pages are correct. And we can't have that, can we? BasketCase must be wrong at all costs.

But if we can't measure atmospheric gases accurately, then the entire theory that global warming is being caused by humans goes in the toilet.


So, it doesn't matter if my guess is right or wrong--either way, conventional global warming theory is screwed.


The big problem with the entire global warming theory is that its believers are trying to cook it up to be what they want it to be, not what it is. The global warming Bible thumpers want the planet to be in danger. They want humans to be slowly incinerating the planet. They want ocean levels to be going up. They want plant biomass to be going down. They want the planet to be turning into a desert. They want oxygen levels to be going down. They want global warming to be 100% bad and 0% good.

But the real truth is, the Earth doesn't care about politics. Global warming will produce a random hodgepodge of good and bad effects. Ocean levels will go up, plant biomass will go up, crop yields will increase, hurricanes will get nastier, summers will get hotter, winters will get milder, percentage of desert terrain will go DOWN (not up), more of the world's land will be habitable, and yes, weather patterns will change.

 

[ainwood]

Oh, right, that we can't measure gases at all, that's what you showed!

Well, now that you mention it, its not so much the measurements as the assumptions.

Global warming models assume that CO2 is well-mixed in the atmosphere; recent measurements show that its not.

And the linked article has some interesting content:

Thank you for your interest in the AIRS CO2 data product.

We are still in the validation phase in developing this new product.
It will be part of the Version 6 data release, but for now those of us
working on it are intensively validating our results using in situ
measurements by aircraft and upward looking fourier transform IR
spectrometers (TCCON network and others).

The AIRS CO2 product is for the mid-troposphere. For quite some time
it was accepted theory that CO2 in the free troposphere is
&#8220;well-mixed&#8221;, i.e., the difference that might be seen at that altitude
would be a fraction of a part per million (ppmv). Models, which
ingest surface fluxes from known sources, have long predicted a smooth
(small)variation with latitude, with steadily diminishing CO2 as you
move farther South. We have a &#8220;two-planet&#8221; planet - land in the
Northern Hemisphere and ocean in the Southern Hemisphere. Synoptic
weather in the NH can be seen to control the distribution of CO2 in
the free troposphere. The SH large-scale action is mostly zonal.

Since our results are at variance with what is commonly accepted by he
scientific community, we must work especially hard to validate them.
We have just had a paper accepted by Geophysical Research Letters that
will be published in 6-8 weeks, and are preparing a validation paper.

We have global CO2 retrievals (day and night, over ocean and land, for
clear and cloudy scenes) spanning the time period from Sept 2002 to
the present. Those data will be released as we satisfactorily
validate them.

I suggest you Google &#8220;Carbon Tracker&#8221; for some interesting maps
generated using model atmospheres and data for CO2 sources. It shows
the CO2 weather in the lowest part of the atmosphere.

The big picture is that CO2 sources and sinks are in the planetary
boundary layer. Global circulation of CO2 occurs in the free
troposphere. Thus, PBL is local whereas free troposphere is
international.

&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;-
AIRS Team

 

[History_Buff]

Exactly. And there's the catch--how do we know which ones....?

The only way to know is to find out. Global warming could be one of those popular theories that turns out to be crap. We have to be willing to find out--and therein lies the problem. There are a whole lot of people out there--including you--who are not willing to test the unpopular idea that global warming might not even be really happening.

Who said I'm not in favour of scientific investigation?

I just recognize that, while there are dissenters, the scientific opinions seems to be oriented towards the fact that AGW is both real, and a big deal. With that in mind, dessention does not justify inaction. If it turns out the whole thing is just some crackpot theory, we'll have lost much less than if it is what a great deal of people are concerned about.

 

[BasketCase]

If our greenhouse gas reduction programs set off an Ice Age, we will in fact have lost a great deal.

 

[skadistic]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,380202,00.html

 

[Loki130]

oh, for the love of...
I will now post 4 facts-if we doubt these, we might as well doubt we have 2 hands (no offense, amputees
#1:CO2 levels are rising
#2:if this continues, it will cause the greenhouse effect will cause a rise in sea levels
#3:this bodes well for nature
#4:this does NOT bode well for us
whenever you hear some guy talking about 'saving the environment,' they're lying. Nature will survive us-we're just worried about our selves. Is that distinction clear now?
And how, oh HOW would greenhouse gas reduction lead to an ice age?