Global Warming Debate

[erps]

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.

Isn't the co2 put put out by burning fossil fuels also already accounted for? As stated above, we're simply returning to the air the same carbon that was there to begin with, only a long time ago.

[jackdale]

More

Q. Should we be concerned with human breathing as a source of CO2?

A. No. While people do exhale carbon dioxide (the rate is approximately 1 kg per day, and it depends strongly on the person's activity level), this carbon dioxide includes carbon that was originally taken out of the carbon dioxide in the air by plants through photosynthesis - whether you eat the plants directly or animals that eat the plants. Thus, there is a closed loop, with no net addition to the atmosphere. Of course, the agriculture, food processing, and marketing industries use energy (in many cases based on the combustion of fossil fuels), but their emissions of carbon dioxide are captured in our estimates as emissions from solid, liquid, or gaseous fuels.

[jackdale]

Not much scepticicsm among those in the know.

In
general, as the level of active research
and specialization in climate science
increases, so does agreement with the two
primary questions (Figure 1). In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate
change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who
also have published more than 50% of
their recent peer-reviewed papers on the
subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2%
(76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1
and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2. This is in contrast to results of a
recent Gallup poll (see Gallup.Com - Daily News, Polls, Public Opinion on Government, Politics, Economics, Management.
com/poll/1615/Environment.aspx) that suggests that only 58% of the general public would answer yes to our question 2.
The two areas of expertise in the survey
with the smallest percentage of participants answering yes to question 2 were
economic geology with 47% (48 of 103)
and meteorology with 64% (23 of 36).

It seems that the debate on the
authenticity of global warming and the
role played by human activity is largely
nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis
of long- term climate processes. The
challenge, rather, appears to be how
to effectively communicate this fact to
policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate
among scientists.

Here is a link to a ppt of Figure 1. http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/doran-...9-figure-1.ppt

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

With broad research interests focused on field techniques in aquatic, climate, Quaternary and astrobiological sciences, Dr. Doran has conducted more than ten field seasons in the Canadian High Arctic and at last count about fifteen in the Antarctic in this pursuit.

Specific research areas include modern hydrological and biogeochemical processes in polar lake systems, and the use of this modern calibration in paleoenvironmental reconstruction, paleolimnology and sedimentology of perennially ice-covered Antarctic lakes, problems in Quaternary dating in the Antarctic dry valleys, biogeochemistry of deeply ice-covered lakes, physical controls on and ecological impact of persistent lake ice covers, modern controls on carbon isotopic signatures in lacustrine systems, and the use of the dry valleys as analogs to help in the search for evidence of extant or extinct life on other worlds. He has also conducted research in microclimatology of polar regions using automated weather stations. This research has been mostly connected to defining the climate controls on ice covers and modeling of polar lake systems.

Interests in global change and communicating science lead to Dr. Doran be named a Leopold Fellow in 2008 by Standford University's Woods Institute for the Environment.

He is currently a co-PI on the McMurdo Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) project in the McMurdo Dry Valleys of Antarctica and PI of a NASA ASTEP (Astrobiology Science and Technology for Exploring Planets) project in the McMurdo Dry Valleys to develop and deploy and autonomous underwater vehicle.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by erps

Isn't the co2 put put out by burning fossil fuels also already accounted for? As stated above, we're simply returning to the air the same carbon that was there to begin with, only a long time ago.

Ray

Human respiration is part of the carbon cycle - it is recycled.

We are consciously releasing that stored CO2 in fossil fuels at a much higher rate. In addition the natural carbon capture components (forests, oceans) are being compromised.


Carbon cycle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We cannot control the natural processes, but we can have an impact on how much C02 is released through human activity aside from respiration.

[erps]

We cannot control the natural processes, but we can have an impact on how much C02 is released through human activity aside from respiration.

Yes we can. Deciding whether we should or not is the problem.

[jrd22]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Not much scepticicsm among those in the know.

If you don't count these 30,000 scientists (over 9,000 PHDs) that have signed a petition opposing the whole theory of man made global warming.
This is a long, old thread and if you care to go back through it I think you'll find that not only is the science not "settled", it is riddled with corruption, distortions and lies.


30,000 Scientists Sign Petition on Global Warming - by Diane Carol Bast - Environment & Climate News

[jackdale]

John

Earth scientists support the research on climate change.

With 3146 individuals completing the survey, the participant response rate for the
survey was 30.7%. This is a typical response
rate for Web-based surveys [Cook et al.,
2000; Kaplowitz et al., 2004]. Of our survey
participants, 90% were from U.S. institutions and 6% were from Canadian institutions; the remaining 4% were from institutions in 21 other nations. More than 90%
of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had
master’s degrees. With survey participants
asked to select a single category, the most
common areas of expertise reported were
geochemistry (15.5%), geophysics (12%),
and oceanography (10.5%). General geology, hydrology/hydrogeology, and paleontology each accounted for 5–7% of the
total respondents

[erps]

Earth scientists support the research on climate change.

Evidence that the science isn't settled yet?

[US27inKS]

Originally Posted by jackdale

John

Earth scientists support the research on climate change.

And tobacco company scientists say that smoking doesn't cause cancer. Why don't we ask scientists who have absolutely nothing to gain from "climate change" or whatever the buzzword is this week? Oh thats right, they've been asked, and 30,000 of them think it's a load of crap.

On an ironic note, the climate change summit in Cancun was held during a 100 year low of 54 degrees. The best was a climate change activist sprawled out on the beach in a polar bear suit. He was the ONLY one on the beach, because it was too damn cold for anyone not in a bear suit.

[ssneade]

Originally Posted by jackdale

And you have accused me of having flatulence?

no, but i will say one thing. coveralls and navy beans are a bad combination........