Global warming: the chilling effect on free spe...

Originally posted by Ragnorak
Where did those concerns come from?

D

The lack of criticism of the alleged journalist's proposal from this forum.

Originally posted by Ragnorak
Of course not.

But it appears the climate change deniers are resorting to dirty tricks campaigns.

Why would I respond negatively to a non-event? Even if one australian columnist compared global warming denial to holocaust denial, I don't see why I should get excited about it. Der Schwarzer has painted a picture of the whole global warming theorists ...[text shortened]... that all global warming deniers are paedophiles? It's faulty logic, and a red herring.

D

Come on, you're also smearing all with one brush as well, by calling them 'deniers'.

Originally posted by Palynka
The lack of criticism of the alleged journalist's proposal from this forum.

Should we have invented a scenario about legislators getting involved like you seem to have done?

I found the comments, which were made on an independant web-diary. http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/986. The author seems to be either A)thinking out loud (if you know what I mean), or B) making a point as to the seriousness of the situation. It doesn't read like a serious proposal to me.

D

Originally posted by Ragnorak
Should we have invented a scenario about legislators getting involved like you seem to have done?

I found the comments, which were made on an independant web-diary. http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/986. The author seems to be either A)thinking out loud (if you know what I mean), or B) making a point as to the seriousness of the situation. It doesn't read like a serious proposal to me.

D

That's funny. So we can only discuss a scenario AFTER it becomes real?

Besides, legislators ALREADY are messing with history, by legislating it (David Irving's jailing and France regarding the Armenian Genocide). Note that it's not just about generic proposals to detter all-out lying, it's about SPECIFIC events that are deemed untouchable by law.

As much as I despise David Irving, I'm against all legislation forbidding contestation of the Holocaust or any other historical event.

Originally posted by Palynka
As much as I despise David Irving, I'm against all legislation forbidding contestation of the Holocaust or any other historical event.

Right. We should be free to question/deny the Holocaust, global warming, or any other fact, opinion or point of view.

Science NEVER allows a fact or therory to be above question. An unquestionable scientific truth is like infinity -- one can imagine that it exisits, but just try to reach it.

All prohibited speech laws are wrong (even the one about shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre should be covered by the harm or nuisance caused -- not the speech itself).

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Of course, increased CO2 can be beneficial to plants - and generally is, in the short term. Longer term studies actually show a repression in photosynthesis due to starch build up and insufficient sink strength. Plants may take up more CO2, but increased temperatures also increase respiration rate, especially of one of the planet's biggest sink king huge amounts of de-gassing.

Sorry to bring some actual science to the debate folks....

Raggy was comparing sitting in a running car in a garage to the CO2 build up in the environment.

Raggy: "That's effectively what we're doing"

The point is his alarmist exagerated shriekings, I would like to see some proof that a .003% increase in CO2 causes Hypercapnia or any other direct harm to man. The same with these "longer term studies" you mention. Were the increased levels of CO2 the plants subjected to in the .003% range or possibly a little more 😲

Originally posted by Ragnorak
That's a non starter of an argument.

Try telling the residents of Bhopal that MIC is "harmless" (obviously using your version of the word here), because it was only a tiny part of the atmosphere after the disaster.

Its lethal in doses as low as 22 ppm (0.000022% ), causing damage at doses as low as 0.4 ppm (0.0000004% ). But, in your world, it's "h phere to lethal atmosphere is unimportant, when looking at the maths, wajoma style.

D

Come on, you're digging yourself a bigger hole, how does this lead to sitting in a running car in a garage being compared to a .003% increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.

Edit: Just saw this, you continue to pursue it

Our atmosphere is lethal with just a 0.000022% change in the levels of MIC. The point that wajoma makes (0.003% change being insignificant due to its tinyness), which you applaud him for, is a non-point and completely disingenuous.

You're trying to mislead, wont work, we weren't discussing MIC.

Originally posted by howardgee
The reason cited: "Effects on the economy"

Real reason: Petroleum companies funding Bush and Howard, avoiding paying money to clean up their pollution.

PS - might have known a gun nut like you would believe in the "global warming ain't happening" lie.

Howee you dumbass.

Originally posted by slimjim
Howee you dumbass.

He's not about love.

Originally posted by Wajoma
Raggy was comparing sitting in a running car in a garage to the CO2 build up in the environment.

Raggy: "That's effectively what we're doing"

The point is his alarmist exagerated shriekings, I would like to see some proof that a .003% increase in CO2 causes Hypercapnia or any other direct harm to man. The same with these "longer term studies" you mentio ...[text shortened]... ased levels of CO2 the plants subjected to in the .003% range or possibly a little more 😲

Realistic levels of CO2. Go google FACE (as in Free Air CO2 Enrichment) studies. Many show transient increases in CO2 assimilaton by plants, but subsequent increases in soil respiration. And, of course, respiration rate scales with temperature.

Originally posted by Wajoma
Come on, you're digging yourself a bigger hole, how does this lead to sitting in a running car in a garage being compared to a .003% increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.

Edit: Just saw this, you continue to pursue it

Our atmosphere is lethal with just a 0.000022% change in the levels of MIC. The point that wajoma makes (0.003% change being insignificant d ...[text shortened]... completely disingenuous.

You're trying to mislead, wont work, we weren't discussing MIC.

The thing is, that in climate terms a .03% rise in global CO2 partial pressure is not "insignificant". I presented a lecture to a first year class on this earlier this year. I showed a graph from ice core data in Antarctica (go google EPICA ice core) which shows an extraordinary fit between global CO2 concentration and temperature (temperature was interpolated from 18O data). It really is uncanny. When you take into account the fact that every year since 1983 has been warmer than the 1961-1991 long term average (23 years) it's undeniable that the planet is warming. The chances of 23 consecutive years being warmer than the long term average is around 4.2 million to 1.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Realistic levels of CO2. Go google FACE (as in Free Air CO2 Enrichment) studies. Many show transient increases in CO2 assimilaton by plants, but subsequent increases in soil respiration. And, of course, respiration rate scales with temperature.

This is what I got:

"...growth chambers, and open-top chambers have suggested that growth of many plants could increase about 30% on average with a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration, in the short-term (up to a few years, to most). However, the applicability of such work to the growth of plants outdoors, under natural conditions and for longer periods, has been seriously questioned."

So doubling the CO2 concentration is hardly comparable to a .003% increase, and you said you were going to introduce some real science.

Originally posted by Wajoma
This is what I got:

"...growth chambers, and open-top chambers have suggested that growth of many plants could increase about 30% on average with a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration, in the short-term (up to a few years, to most). However, the applicability of such work to the growth of plants outdoors, under natural conditions and for longer p ly comparable to a .003% increase, and you said you were going to introduce some real science.

Your 0.003% increase is misleading, and you know it. Your figure is a 0.003% increase as a percentage of the total atmosphere. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution the CO2 partial pressure has went up from 280ppm to 381ppm (currently), a 36% increase, mostly in the last 50 years. Your cited study is one study, presumably under conditions where water was sufficient. Under drought conditions however (even just plain low water availability) plants start to photorespire. Under normal photosynthesis the enzyme Rubisco fixes CO2, however, it also has an oxygenase activity which currently accounts for about 1/3 of the light energy absorbed by the plant. Under drought conditions the leaf stomata close and the intercellular CO2 concentration decreases to the "CO2 compensation point". Now, despite the fact that Rubisco strongly selects for CO2 (under 50% O2 50% CO2 conditions it would select 88 CO2s for every O2 fixed) the high concentration of oxygen in these circumstances favours the oxygenase activity. Rubisco catalyses the addition of a CO2 molecule to a molecule in the Calvin cycle called Riblose bisphosphate (or RuBP) producing two molecules of 3-PGA (phosphoglycerate). The oxygenase activity however leads to the production of 1 molecule of PGA and one molecule of phosphoglycerate. Phosphoglycerate cannot be used to produce starch, but instead has to be recycled to RuBP, causing the respiration of 1 CO2 molecule for every O2 fixed.

Soil respiration

http://face.env.duke.edu/PDF/bgc77-06.pdf

In this paper, they raised the CO2 conc by 200ppm - a realistic amount considering "business as usual" scenarios predict it may reach 700ppm by the end of this centrury - and found a 23.9% increase (+/- 2.3% ) in soil respiration. Considering that the soil reservior is two and a half times the size as ALL the biomass on the planet, this is worrying.

Any other thoughts?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Any other thoughts?

Yes, according to the Antarctic ice core data, high levels of co2 in our atmosphere are not mutually exclusive to the present time period.
http://xs307.xs.to/xs307/06416/Antarctic_ICD1.jpg
There seems to be a cycle or cut off point where the trend reverses.

Originally posted by xs
Yes, according to the Antarctic ice core data, high levels of co2 in our atmosphere are not mutually exclusive to the present time period.
http://xs307.xs.to/xs307/06416/Antarctic_ICD1.jpg
There seems to be a cycle or cut off point where the trend reverses.

But your figure doesn't show present day CO2 - upto 380 ppm.