Anthropogenic global warming?

[robertkernodle]

.
Biased a bit, ... are we?

I present a link to seemingly sound numbers and counter arguments to the popular-press-supported status quo, and what I get back is a quick dismissive statement of distaste and a humorous slam on UK universities.

Veeery impressive.

RK

[James]

Is it just an act or are you actually deluded?

[kotoreru]

Robert, I see absolutely no references to anything in Science, Nature, the Journal of Bryology (at the least!) or any peer-reviewed papers for that matter.

Much of it is apparently University-produced information sheets, which have probably been taken way out of context.

I dont think I'm being cynical.

(also, James - what have you got against him?)

[mehdi71000]

ok I’ve heard oxygen cools the earths atmosphere so why not genetic engineer a plactum that reproduce like 100 or more times faster and has more oxigen producing capability. ive heard planctum them selves reproduce like mad.
What do you think. I think all needed it a more promoters in the dna of plactum.
did you know scientist has build a protein that can make O3 that’s ozone. I think its a protein im not sure I cant remember but definitely O3 producing

[kotoreru]

Do you mean Plankton? Ouch I dont even know where to start with that...

Put it this way - if making a viable plant/algae that can chuck out 02 like mad was that easy (or even a smart thing to do), it would have already been done.

I think you are referring to C02 drawdown from phytoplankton blooms in the Southern Ocean...now that is interesting stuff.

02 doesnt cool the atmosphere to my knowledge, and in fact is actually not our main concern. DMS (dimethyl sulphide) does cool the atmosphere as it oxidises to sulphate and nucleates water to form cloud...and this stuff is released from phytoplankton blooms as above (Emiliania huxleii the coccolithophore, for example).

03, I cant really comment on...

[robertkernodle]

.
Me? Deluded?

Nope,... just open minded.

How DOES a person measure the entire CO2 contribution of humankind to the whole earth's atmosphere? Ever think about that?

Just HOW do ya do it? HOW do we assess this in agreement? What's the technique? What's the margin of error? Who's doing it? Who's checking it? Do we use the same method?

How do you take a graph of temperature change compared to CO2 change "out of context"?

The data either is a flat out lie,... OR the truth is right in front of your face, and you refuse to acknowledge it.

RK

[david23]

Making O3 is not necessary useful unless it's in the higher atmospheres, you really just need more O2 first.
To answer why cant they engineer a plant that can make more O2 is little complicated. The current goal is simply allow plants to consume more CO2 first, and as they grow faster from the extra CO2, eventually they will make more O2. The problem however lies in the Rubisco protein that captures CO2, which also waste resources to uptake O2 for no reason at all. The O2 capture process is entirely a wasted of resources.

Two biochemists I know have in the past tried to make the Rubisco protein more efficient at CO2 capture along with many others. Up till now, no one has succeed. So essentially we are stuck.

Oh Robert as to how people measure all the CO2 produced by mankind, it's simply an average of the CO2 produced in a sample population and then estimated over the whole human raise.

[robertkernodle]

.
Oh,.. by the way,.. did I mention that, up til about eight months ago, I was (and always had been) a firm believer in the anthropogenic global warming premise.

Then, I started to notice some very intelligent people raise some very intelligent objections.

Consider, for example:

Our review suggests that the dissenting view offered by the skeptics or opponents of global warming appear substantially more credible than the supporting views put forth by the proponents of global warming.

Further, the projections of future climate change over the next fifty to one hundred years is based on insufficiently verified climate models and are therefore not considered reliable at this point in time.

SOURCE:

Khandekar, M. L., Murty, T. S., and Chittibabu, P. The Global Warming Debate: A Review of the State of Science, Pure & Applied Geophysics, Aug 2005 Vol. 162 Issue 8/9, p. 1557 - 1586.

RK

[kotoreru]

They object at the inaccuracies of current models, yet offer no alternatives based on better data! Who are these intelligent people, Robert? Where are their interests vested? Where are they from?

This is all very much, or at least appears to be, a small set of people being given a disproportionately loud voice by Governments who simply do not want to face facts...

Also: I still havent seen anything on 'that side of the fence' published in Nature...does that not say anything about credibility?

[MrMistery]

About this. I may be paranoid but I am seeing climate changing all around me. Drought, 30 celsius at noon and thunder storms in the evening every day for the last few weeks, hale falling in early spring, snow in late spring but not in winter are only of the few things happening nowadays that didn't used to happen 10 years ago...

[kotoreru]

I'm not so sure many people actually doubt that Global Warming is occuring - just whether it's anthropogenic or not.

[robertkernodle]

.
The article from which I quoted previously is in a peer-reviewed technical journal,... published by a highly reputable publisher of other peer-reveiwed technical journals.

Is Nature your ONLY source of credible reports,... discounting all the other hundreds and hundreds of peer-reviewed jounals to total exclusion?

Here's access to the online, full-text article in Pure and Applied Geophysics:

Full Text

Robert K.