Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have been chatting with some of our liberal associates who are advocates of the AGW concept, in which man-made CO2 is presumed to be causing atmospheric warming.
In these discussions, I have been shocked to find that most do not understand that, as carbon based organic organisms, the carbon in their bodies ultimately came from atmospheric CO2.
CO2, of course, is absorbed by plants, which, using photosynthesis, create simple and complex sugars. These sugars are the basis for other carbon based compounds, with which the planet produces polysaccharides which produce the plant fibers for the structural integrity of the plant. In addition, of course, the sugars are the food for all animal life.
The carbon that started as CO2 was converted to sugars and plant fibers, which all animals ingest to sustain life. Sugars are used at the cellular level for energy in the Krebs Cycle, in which ATP is produced (cellular energy) and CO2 is expelled as a waste product into the atmosphere, starting the whole cycle over again.
If one does not understand that CO2 is where carbon, one of the essential building blocks for life, comes from, one is missing this very fundamental and basic issue of science.
When (and if) libs understand that they have come from CO2, it must shock them to the core, much like when Luke Skywalker found that Darth Vader was his father. Such a realization must be pretty traumatic for libs, as they must face that they are what they hate- CO2. I don't want to press any libs to suicide with that realization, as we are all carbon based organisms and have come to grips with that long ago. It's okay to be made of carbon and nothing to be ashamed of. Frosty the Snowman was not made of carbon, but he is the exception to the rule here.
Above is an elementary school level explanation of the carbon cycle, such that even the most scientifically challenged should be able to read and understand it. We are big bags of water, carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen and many other elements such as calcium, phosphorous, iron, chloride, potassium......................... the list goes on. However THE compounds that comprise human beings are carbon based compounds.
I have been chatting with some of our liberal associates who are advocates of the AGW concept, in which man-made CO2 is presumed to be causing atmospheric warming.
In these discussions, I have been shocked to find that most do not understand that, as carbon based organic organisms, the carbon in their bodies ultimately came from atmospheric CO2.
CO2, of course, is absorbed by plants, which, using photosynthesis, create simple and complex sugars. These sugars are the basis for other carbon based compounds, with which the planet produces polysaccharides which produce the plant fibers for the structural integrity of the plant. In addition, of course, the sugars are the food for all animal life.
The carbon that started as CO2 was converted to sugars and plant fibers, which all animals ingest to sustain life. Sugars are used at the cellular level for energy in the Krebs Cycle, in which ATP is produced (cellular energy) and CO2 is expelled as a waste product into the atmosphere, starting the whole cycle over again.
If one does not understand that CO2 is where carbon, one of the essential building blocks for life, comes from, one is missing this very fundamental and basic issue of science.
When (and if) libs understand that they have come from CO2, it must shock them to the core, much like when Luke Skywalker found that Darth Vader was his father. Such a realization must be pretty traumatic for libs, as they must face that they are what they hate- CO2. I don't want to press any libs to suicide with that realization, as we are all carbon based organisms and have come to grips with that long ago. It's okay to be made of carbon and nothing to be ashamed of. Frosty the Snowman was not made of carbon, but he is the exception to the rule here.
Above is an elementary school level explanation of the carbon cycle, such that even the most scientifically challenged should be able to read and understand it. We are big bags of water, carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen and many other elements such as calcium, phosphorous, iron, chloride, potassium......................... the list goes on. However THE compounds that comprise human beings are carbon based compounds.
Creepy, huh?
It is indeed creepy to see all the pseudo science that Trumpers parade around in favor of their corporate overlords like Exxon (Rex, we hardly knew ye).
Scientists have known for a very long time that life on earth is carbon based. That's just a fact - neither good nor bad. Carbon is the fourth most abundant element in the Universe. Most of Earth’s carbon—about 65,500 billion metric tons—is stored in rocks. The rest is in the ocean, atmosphere, plants, soil, and fossil fuels.
Carbon flows between each reservoir in an exchange called the carbon cycle, which has slow and fast components. Any change in the cycle that shifts carbon out of one reservoir puts more carbon in the other reservoirs. Changes that put carbon gases into the atmosphere result in warmer temperatures on Earth.
Your argument is pretty convoluted, but you seem to think that carbon based life is sort of like original sin or something. Nothing is inherently wrong with carbon itself. The problem for the current life forms inhabiting the earth is that our current rate of carbon emissions is causing the atmosphere to warm more rapidly than it has at least since the Jurassic - a whole new world is already upon us and it's one we aren't going to like - not because carbon has some "good" or "bad" value, but because the warming planet will be ever more liable to famine, drought and rising oceans.
It is indeed creepy to see all the pseudo science that Trumpers parade around in favor of their corporate overlords like Exxon (Rex, we hardly knew ye).
Scientists have known for a very long time that life on earth is carbon based. That's just a fact - neither good nor bad. Carbon is the fourth most abundant element in the Universe. Most of Earth’s carbon—about 65,500 billion metric tons—is stored in rocks. The rest is in the ocean, atmosphere, plants, soil, and fossil fuels.
Carbon flows between each reservoir in an exchange called the carbon cycle, which has slow and fast components. Any change in the cycle that shifts carbon out of one reservoir puts more carbon in the other reservoirs. Changes that put carbon gases into the atmosphere result in warmer temperatures on Earth.
Your argument is pretty convoluted, but you seem to think that carbon based life is sort of like original sin or something. Nothing is inherently wrong with carbon itself. The problem for the current life forms inhabiting the earth is that our current rate of carbon emissions is causing the atmosphere to warm more rapidly than it has at least since the Jurassic - a whole new world is already upon us and it's one we aren't going to like - not because carbon has some "good" or "bad" value, but because the warming planet will be ever more liable to famine, drought and rising oceans.
Your last statement is incorrect. We do not know definitively that CO2 is doing anything deleterious to the climate or earth's temperatures. That hypothesis is far from being "proven" and is so far an unsubstantiated hypothesis.
For now we know that CO2 is essential for life on this planet and have no idea what the "optimal" CO2 level may be. Further, CO2 levels have been much, much higher in the past and supported a very robust ecosystem with plant and animal life at those levels. We may need far higher CO2 levels than now to "optimize" conditions for plant and animal life. No one currently knows what those levels may be .
Before drastic, potentially irreversible changes are made to the environment to "remedy" the CO2 "problem", perhaps it would be prudent to examine this in far greater detail. To act without definitive evidence would be reckless and illogical.
In medicine, there is a saying, "Don't just do something- stand there". "Doing something" when one is not quite sure if something needs to be "done", or what the something may be, can have very harmful consequences.
Your last statement is incorrect. We do not know definitively that CO2 is doing anything deleterious to the climate or earth's temperatures. That hypothesis is far from being "proven" and is so far an unsubstantiated hypothesis.
For now we know that CO2 is essential for life on this planet and have no idea what the "optimal" CO2 level may be. Further, CO2 levels have been much, much higher in the past and supported a very robust ecosystem with plant and animal life at those levels. We may need far higher CO2 levels than now to "optimize" conditions for plant and animal life. No one currently knows what those levels may be .
Before drastic, potentially irreversible changes are made to the environment to "remedy" the CO2 "problem", perhaps it would be prudent to examine this in far greater detail. To act without definitive evidence would be reckless and illogical.
In medicine, there is a saying, "Don't just do something- stand there". "Doing something" when one is not quite sure if something needs to be "done", or what the something may be, can have very harmful consequences.
97% of ALL scientists agree that global climate change thanks to rising levels of CO2 is very real and very detrimental. If you actually read the science and quit wasting your time cherry picking absurdities, you would understand this.
Go study up on the Arrhenius equation, a mathematical expression that describes the effect of temperature on the velocity of a chemical reaction, the basis of all predictive expressions used for calculating reaction-rate constants. In the Arrhenius equation, k is the reaction-rate constant, A and E are numerical constants characteristic of the reacting substances, R is the thermodynamic gas constant, and T is the absolute temperature. The equation is commonly given in the form of an exponential function
k = Aexp(−E/RT)
and it predicts that a small increase in reaction temperature will produce a marked increase in the magnitude of the reaction-rate constant.
We have known this since at least 1903 when Svante Arrhenius won the Nobel Prize for his work in this field. In developing a theory to explain the ice ages, Arrhenius, in 1896, was the first to use basic principles of physical chemistry to calculate estimates of the extent to which increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) will increase Earth's surface temperature through the greenhouse effect. From Wikipedia:
These calculations led him [Arrhenius] to conclude that human-caused CO2 emissions, from fossil-fuel burning and other combustion processes, are large enough to cause global warming. This conclusion has been extensively tested, winning a place at the core of modern climate science. Arrhenius, in this work, built upon the prior work of other famous scientists, including Joseph Fourier, John Tyndall and Claude Pouillet. Arrhenius wanted to determine whether greenhouse gases could contribute to the explanation of the temperature variation between glacial and inter-glacial periods. Arrhenius used infrared observations of the moon — by Frank Washington Very and Samuel Pierpont Langley at the Allegheny Observatory in Pittsburgh — to calculate how much of infrared (heat) radiation is captured by CO2 and water (H2O) vapour in Earth's atmosphere. Using the Stefan–Boltzmann law, he formulated what he referred to as a 'rule'. In its original form, Arrhenius's rule reads as follows:
If the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.
The science is solid. The politics are a broken vessel that will leave us stranded in a dystopian future that is quickly becoming our present.
97% of ALL scientists agree that global climate change thanks to rising levels of CO2 is very real and very detrimental. If you actually read the science and quit wasting your time cherry picking absurdities, you would understand this.
Go study up on the Arrhenius equation, a mathematical expression that describes the effect of temperature on the velocity of a chemical reaction, the basis of all predictive expressions used for calculating reaction-rate constants. In the Arrhenius equation, k is the reaction-rate constant, A and E are numerical constants characteristic of the reacting substances, R is the thermodynamic gas constant, and T is the absolute temperature. The equation is commonly given in the form of an exponential function
k = Aexp(−E/RT)
and it predicts that a small increase in reaction temperature will produce a marked increase in the magnitude of the reaction-rate constant.
We have known this since at least 1903 when Svante Arrhenius won the Nobel Prize for his work in this field. In developing a theory to explain the ice ages, Arrhenius, in 1896, was the first to use basic principles of physical chemistry to calculate estimates of the extent to which increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) will increase Earth's surface temperature through the greenhouse effect. From Wikipedia:
These calculations led him [Arrhenius] to conclude that human-caused CO2 emissions, from fossil-fuel burning and other combustion processes, are large enough to cause global warming. This conclusion has been extensively tested, winning a place at the core of modern climate science. Arrhenius, in this work, built upon the prior work of other famous scientists, including Joseph Fourier, John Tyndall and Claude Pouillet. Arrhenius wanted to determine whether greenhouse gases could contribute to the explanation of the temperature variation between glacial and inter-glacial periods. Arrhenius used infrared observations of the moon — by Frank Washington Very and Samuel Pierpont Langley at the Allegheny Observatory in Pittsburgh — to calculate how much of infrared (heat) radiation is captured by CO2 and water (H2O) vapour in Earth's atmosphere. Using the Stefan–Boltzmann law, he formulated what he referred to as a 'rule'. In its original form, Arrhenius's rule reads as follows:
If the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.
The science is solid. The politics are a broken vessel that will leave us stranded in a dystopian future that is quickly becoming our present.
I do believe you have an error. Everything in your formula can not be a constant.
It is unfortunate but irrelevant. What is more important is what those who are trained and qualified think about climate change, and that is very clear at this point. The scientists are in massive agreement that (a) the earth is warming at an alarming rate, and (b) the most plausible explanation for the unnaturally rapid rise in temperatures is human activity.
So people here can debate all they want, or you can debate with friends or whatever, but the debate is essentially over within the science community. The only debate now is what to do about it.
I have to say that I find it odd that people will trust science when it comes to matters of medicine, or technology, but when it comes to climate change, all of a sudden lay people are experts and question what people who are highly trained are saying. It is like going to the doctor and he/she tells you that you have MS or something and you say it is a conspiracy, that you don't believe him. Or that GPS is a conspiracy of scientists and you don't believe it. I mean really, either you trust science or you don't.
Your last statement is incorrect. We do not know definitively that CO2 is doing anything deleterious to the climate or earth's temperatures. That hypothesis is far from being "proven" and is so far an unsubstantiated hypothesis.
For now we know that CO2 is essential for life on this planet and have no idea what the "optimal" CO2 level may be. Further, CO2 levels have been much, much higher in the past and supported a very robust ecosystem with plant and animal life at those levels. We may need far higher CO2 levels than now to "optimize" conditions for plant and animal life. No one currently knows what those levels may be .
Before drastic, potentially irreversible changes are made to the environment to "remedy" the CO2 "problem", perhaps it would be prudent to examine this in far greater detail. To act without definitive evidence would be reckless and illogical.
In medicine, there is a saying, "Don't just do something- stand there". "Doing something" when one is not quite sure if something needs to be "done", or what the something may be, can have very harmful consequences.
There is tons of evidence...You just choose to ignore it...
Carbon dioxide is added naturally to the atmosphere and oceans from volcanoes and hydrothermal vents at a rate of about 0.1 billion tons of carbon each year. Human industrial activity and destruction of forests is adding carbon about 100 times faster, approximately 10 billion tons of carbon each year.
"The imbalance in the carbon cycle that we are creating with our emissions is huge compared to the kinds of imbalances seen over the time of the glacial ice core records," says Caldeira. "We are emitting CO2 far too fast to expect mother nature to mop up our mess anytime soon. Continued burning of coal, oil and gas will result in long-term changes to our climate and to ocean chemistry, lasting many thousands of years."
97% of ALL scientists agree that global climate change thanks to rising levels of CO2 is very real and very detrimental. If you actually read the science and quit wasting your time cherry picking absurdities, you would understand this.
Go study up on the Arrhenius equation, a mathematical expression that describes the effect of temperature on the velocity of a chemical reaction, the basis of all predictive expressions used for calculating reaction-rate constants. In the Arrhenius equation, k is the reaction-rate constant, A and E are numerical constants characteristic of the reacting substances, R is the thermodynamic gas constant, and T is the absolute temperature. The equation is commonly given in the form of an exponential function
k = Aexp(−E/RT)
and it predicts that a small increase in reaction temperature will produce a marked increase in the magnitude of the reaction-rate constant.
We have known this since at least 1903 when Svante Arrhenius won the Nobel Prize for his work in this field. In developing a theory to explain the ice ages, Arrhenius, in 1896, was the first to use basic principles of physical chemistry to calculate estimates of the extent to which increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) will increase Earth's surface temperature through the greenhouse effect. From Wikipedia:
[i]These calculations led him [Arrhenius] to conclude that human-caused CO2 emissions, from fossil-fuel burning and other combustion processes, are large enough to cause global warming. This conclusion has been extensively tested, winning a place at the core of modern climate science. Arrhenius, in this work, built upon the prior work of other famous scientists, including Joseph Fourier, John Tyndall and Claude Pouillet. Arrhenius wanted to determine whether greenhouse gases could contribute to the explanation of the temperature variation between glacial and inter-glacial periods. Arrhenius used infrared observations of the moon — by Frank Washington Very and Samuel Pierpont Langley at the Allegheny Observatory in Pittsburgh — to calculate how much of infrared (heat) radiation is captured by CO2 and water (H2O) vapour in Earth's atmosphere. Using the Stefan–Boltzmann law, he formulated what he referred to as a 'rule'. In its original form, Arrhenius's rule reads as follows:
If the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.
The science is solid. The politics are a broken vessel that will leave us stranded in a dystopian future that is quickly becoming our present.
97% of ALL scientists agree that global climate change thanks to rising levels of CO2 is very real and very detrimental. If you actually read the science and quit wasting your time cherry picking absurdities, you would understand this.
Go study up on the Arrhenius equation, a mathematical expression that describes the effect of temperature on the velocity of a chemical reaction, the basis of all predictive expressions used for calculating reaction-rate constants. In the Arrhenius equation, k is the reaction-rate constant, A and E are numerical constants characteristic of the reacting substances, R is the thermodynamic gas constant, and T is the absolute temperature. The equation is commonly given in the form of an exponential function
k = Aexp(−E/RT)
and it predicts that a small increase in reaction temperature will produce a marked increase in the magnitude of the reaction-rate constant.
We have known this since at least 1903 when Svante Arrhenius won the Nobel Prize for his work in this field. In developing a theory to explain the ice ages, Arrhenius, in 1896, was the first to use basic principles of physical chemistry to calculate estimates of the extent to which increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) will increase Earth's surface temperature through the greenhouse effect. From Wikipedia:
These calculations led him [Arrhenius] to conclude that human-caused CO2 emissions, from fossil-fuel burning and other combustion processes, are large enough to cause global warming. This conclusion has been extensively tested, winning a place at the core of modern climate science. Arrhenius, in this work, built upon the prior work of other famous scientists, including Joseph Fourier, John Tyndall and Claude Pouillet. Arrhenius wanted to determine whether greenhouse gases could contribute to the explanation of the temperature variation between glacial and inter-glacial periods. Arrhenius used infrared observations of the moon — by Frank Washington Very and Samuel Pierpont Langley at the Allegheny Observatory in Pittsburgh — to calculate how much of infrared (heat) radiation is captured by CO2 and water (H2O) vapour in Earth's atmosphere. Using the Stefan–Boltzmann law, he formulated what he referred to as a 'rule'. In its original form, Arrhenius's rule reads as follows:
If the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.
The science is solid. The politics are a broken vessel that will leave us stranded in a dystopian future that is quickly becoming our present.
That 97% figure was debunked long ago. That was 97% out of one group only.
I do believe you have an error. Everything in your formula can not be a constant.
It's an exponential function.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
