- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: WH Science Adviser: Make CO2 Emissions 'Close to Zero
Posted on 12/29/14 at 10:42 am to Hester Carries
Posted on 12/29/14 at 10:42 am to Hester Carries
quote:
Scientists report facts.
So to you, there is no such thing as junk science or scientist who publish inaccurate results simply to procure grants and to continue funding their research?
Posted on 12/29/14 at 10:56 am to Revelator
quote:
I asked a simple question which was dogged by many including yourself. Those on here that place all their faith in science and consider it the," end all be all"
Are you really making this a science vs. non-science issue?
I'm a christian who thinks the WH Science advisor is clearly a nut. But, I most certainly am on the "science" team.
Posted on 12/29/14 at 10:56 am to Revelator
quote:
So to you, there is no such thing as junk science or scientist who publish inaccurate results simply to procure grants and to continue funding their research?
1) Of course those things happen. This was all covered in the "being told of a scientific finding is only the first step. Then you look into it."
2) Thats not science.
Posted on 12/29/14 at 11:47 am to moneyg
quote:
Are you really making this a science vs. non-science issue?
No I'm not. I'm aware that there all levels of people's reliance on science. Some don't put much faith in it. Some, it really is like a religion to them where it's raised above every other thing. And then there is a wide variety of those in between.
My post and initial comments were to those who accept everything science says as fact and, if they accepted this guys assertions as fact.
This post was edited on 12/29/14 at 11:51 am
Posted on 12/29/14 at 11:49 am to Hester Carries
quote:
1) Of course those things happen. This was all covered in the "being told of a scientific finding is only the first step. Then you look into it."
Then since you are in the middle camp and neither follow science blindly, nor discount it's contributions, there was never anything in my initial comments for you to take offense.
Posted on 12/29/14 at 11:58 am to Revelator
quote:
Then since you are in the middle camp and neither follow science blindly
Not even science blindly follows science. In fact, science's number one goal is to frick with science.
Posted on 12/29/14 at 1:42 pm to udtiger
quote:he talkin bout NET emissions.
The only way to make this happen. Is to cease all industrial activity worldwide (including most generation of electricity), and kill off almost all mammals or other animals that survive through aerobic respiration.
Posted on 12/29/14 at 2:23 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
he talkin bout NET emissions.
Anything else would be crazy right?
Posted on 12/29/14 at 2:34 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
he talkin bout NET emissions.
Let's see...
You AGW disciples have based everything on the last 135 years (observed temperature readings). Therefore, the "natural" state of the Earth was prior to that time (and, since industry is so evil, prior to the 1760s [Industrial Revolution]).
So, the "net" so-called would be that additional CO2 that is the result of man's activities. Right?
Well...reproduction is an activity of man, that has resulted in an increase in global population from approximately 1.3 billion in 1870 to 7.2 billion today. So, in addition to SUVs and smokestacks, you also have almost 6 billion more humans converting oxygen to CO2 than were around in 1870 (and, unlike a car, the humans do this 24/7/365 from the moment they are born until their last breath).
Of course, if we go back to 1750, we're talking about around 800 million worldwide.
So, you see, just getting rid of industrial activity is not going to set things back in "balance" as existed back in the "good old days." We're going to have to off a shitton of people.
And, of course, don't forget the chickens, cows, pigs, etc.
Posted on 12/29/14 at 4:31 pm to udtiger
quote:NET EMISSIONS
6 billion more humans converting oxygen to CO2
Posted on 12/29/14 at 6:57 pm to EST
quote:
so where is all of this accumulated CO2 that wasn't absorbed into the carbon cycle? Is it hiding?
umm, guess i can make this easier to understand for the slow uptakes.
about 40 percent of the net human contributed carbon emissions are not absorbed by the multiple carbon pathways in the atmosphere and ocean atmosphere
its rather rapidly and disturbingly raised the ppm CO2 concentration in our atmosphere from 300 to 405 ppm in just over 55 years...
took nearly 10000 years the last time it happened naturally.
so no its not hiding, its collecting in the atmosphere as a greenhouse gas, slowly acidifying the ocean.
Posted on 12/29/14 at 7:02 pm to Revelator
quote:
Why don't you address this instead of going on rants?!
I wouldnt have to rant if you were educated and made post that actually made sense and werent some dumbass OMG I GOTCHA WARMERS type comment that is fricking stupid.
How bout you not comment on the subject of the article you linked because you are ignorant of the words, the syntax and science therein.
Posted on 12/29/14 at 7:11 pm to udtiger
quote:
udtiger
NET EMISSIONS, NET EMISSIONS, NET EMISSIONS
after reading your post here, you should join Revelator on the sidelines of posting about climate matters, you lack the game to contribute anything meaningful as well.
but here is a little lesson for you from just googling the subject.
Climate Myth...
Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
"Pollution; none of us are supporting putting substances into the atmosphere or the waterways that might be pollutants, but carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. If Senator Wong was really serious about her science she would stop breathing because you inhale air that's got 385 parts per million carbon dioxide in it and you exhale air with about ten times as much, and that extra carbon comes from what you eat. So that is absolute nonsense." (Ian Plimer)
The very first time you learned about carbon dioxide was probably in grade school: We breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide. Any eight-year-old can rattle off this fact.
More specifically, the mitochondria within our cells perform cellular respiration: they burn carbohydrates (in the example shown below, glucose) in the oxygen that we breathe in to yield carbon dioxide and water, which we exhale as waste products, as well as energy, which is required to maintain our bodily processes and keep us alive.
C6H12O6 + 6O2 ? 6CO2 + 6H2O + energy
carbohydrates + oxygen ? carbon dixoide + water + energy
It should come as no surprise that, when confronted with the challenge of reducing our carbon emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, some people angrily proclaim, "Why should we bother? Even breathing out creates carbon emissions!"
This statement fails to take into account the other half of the carbon cycle. As you also learned in grade school, plants are the opposite to animals in this respect: Through photosynthesis, they take in carbon dioxide and release oxygen, in a chemical equation opposite to the one above. (They also perform some respiration, because they need to eat as well, but it is outweighed by the photosynthesis.) The carbon they collect from the CO2 in the air forms their tissues - roots, stems, leaves, and fruit.
These tissues form the base of the food chain, as they are eaten by animals, which are eaten by other animals, and so on. As humans, we are part of this food chain. All the carbon in our body comes either directly or indirectly from plants, which took it out of the air only recently.
Therefore, when we breathe out, all the carbon dioxide we exhale has already been accounted for. By performing cellular respiration, we are simply returning to the air the same carbon that was there to begin with. Remember, it's a carbon cycle, not a straight line - and a good thing, too!
Posted on 12/29/14 at 7:55 pm to Cruiserhog
quote:
I wouldnt have to rant if you were educated and made post that actually made sense and werent some dumbass OMG I GOTCHA WARMERS type comment that is fricking stupid. How bout you not comment on the subject of the article you linked because you are ignorant of the words, the syntax and science therein.
You really are a trip with delusions of grandeur. If not being an expert on a subject prevented people from posting stories here, there would be a dearth of post on the poliboard. And I've never seen your lack of knowledge on the bible stop you from making asinine comments. It just so happens that you think you are an expert on this particular subject so you feel compelled to preach to the rest of us and set us straight.
I've got a suggestion for you, if you don't like my post, stay out of them.
Posted on 12/29/14 at 8:06 pm to Revelator
quote:
You really are a trip with delusions of grandeur.
What did he say that was false?
Posted on 12/29/14 at 8:52 pm to Cruiserhog
So...your position is that adding almost 6 BILLION continuously running CO2 producing machines over 135 years is insignificant?
Thanks, I can freely ignore you bullshite going forward.
Thanks, I can freely ignore you bullshite going forward.
Posted on 12/29/14 at 9:02 pm to EastNastySwag
quote:
I can't breathe.
The real question is why aren't liberals applauding the NYPD's efforts to reduce CO2 emissions?
Posted on 12/29/14 at 9:41 pm to udtiger
quote:We don't "produce" CO2 from nothing. All the carbon we exhale ultimately comes from plants (sometimes with animals as a middleman). And the plants got it... from the air.
So...your position is that adding almost 6 BILLION continuously running CO2 producing machines over 135 years is insignificant?
An increase in the human population just means more carbon in the current cycle spending time in human bodies and human-cultivated vegetation. It doesn't add any net carbon to the atmosphere.
Now, bringing up carbon that has been sequestered underground for millions of years and burning it? That's different.
Posted on 12/29/14 at 10:06 pm to Iosh
quote:
We don't "produce" CO2 from nothing. All the carbon we exhale ultimately comes from plants (sometimes with animals as a middleman). And the plants got it... from the air.
An increase in the human population just means more carbon in the current cycle spending time in human bodies and human-cultivated vegetation. It doesn't add any net carbon to the atmosphere.
Now, bringing up carbon that has been sequestered underground for millions of years and burning it? That's different.
Unless he responds with "Thanks, i didnt know that. Ive learned something new and retract my previous statement" we know that he is a brick wall.
Posted on 12/29/14 at 10:14 pm to Revelator
quote:
Those on here that place all their faith in science and consider it the," end all be all" will you agree with the head of science for the White House on his recommendations?
I'm skeptical of many aspects of climate science as it is defined today (e.g., causal estimates, predictive models). Most importantly, I'm concerned with the political influence that has taken over both sides of the argument; the exteme positions are the loudest and often times it has become unscientific.
With that being said, your statement about science is a flat out misrepresentation. Sure some have tried say it is completely definitive and settled, but that is not a scientific stance. Those of us that put our faith in science greatly value the process including self-corrections and falsifiability. Just because some distort the scientific process does not weaken science; in fact, I believe it will highlight the true value science as eventually the BS will be exposed one way or the other (e.g., the predictions will either be correct or incorrect). Faith and beliefs are irrelevant when the truth, albeit slowly at times, presents itself.
This post was edited on 12/29/14 at 10:17 pm
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News