How It All Ends: Mechanics of GCC (pt 2 of 3)

guffpot Says:

Mar 11, 2008 - Something not quite right about emissions from volocanoes (I might have missed something, so please kleep me right).0.2 Gte goes to sedimentation and I suppose on to subduction. (You have not shown a release from sedimentation).Emissions from volcanoes would need to balance this with 0.2 Gte from year. If not, the Earth would be a net consumer of C and the C cycle would eventually fizzle out.

wonderingmind42 Says:

Mar 11, 2008 - (1/2) guffpot: Yes, good point. Really I guess we should be contrasting the 200 years it takes to REALESE all that carbon to the time period it took to SEQUESTER them, which--as you point out--must be less than 300 million years. But I would wager is still much longer than 200 years, preserving the contrast I was ineptly trying to make. But then, I would simply be guessing. As would you, I suppose. This is why my main point is. . . (cont)

wonderingmind42 Says:

Mar 11, 2008 - (2 of 2) guffpot: Why do we trust the scientists when they tell us that lead might be bad for us, or mercury, or MTBE, or saccharin, but not when they tell us carbon emissions might be bad for us? Where is the wisdom in ignoring the very clear warnings of AAAS, NAS, the Royal Society, USCAP, and even Royal Dutch Shell? To give your (or my) analysis of the science more weight than theirs is an extraordinary claim, and I think requires a better answer than some form of conspiracy theory.

guffpot Says:

Mar 11, 2008 - There is a difference - the things you mention can be verified by experiment.Also, UK regulations make it difficult for untested remedies and unqualified practitioners to get through to the patient.AGW is not testable. Even if there is a lot of expert opinion in support of it, I make some room for my own opinion. Part of that is (as you say) looking at both sides of the argument. Gets me to "undecided".I'm not into conspiracy theories. I do suspect groupthink is at work.

TheRealArchAngel Says:

Mar 12, 2008 - Einstein was dismissed as a "patent Clerk" for a lot of years and in return Einstein thought George Lemaitre's "Big Bang" Theory was silly and to linked to his Creationist Ideals(Big Bang Theory's creator was a Catholic Priest).And is Eggs good for you or bad? Seems the Scientist change there opinion on that every couple of years.There is enough Real problems with Fossil Fuel Emmisions to reduce,clean,& even replace the technology from Acid Rain,Poisoning of wildlife,to mutations in our kids

TheRealArchAngel Says:

Mar 12, 2008 - Actually, Oil and Coal are carbon rich rock from deep earth that has been liquified by preasure and methane like 22 miles below the suface then seeps up to 1-5 miles below the surface near volcanos or where continents collide or part. Fossils from 300 million years ago can be found with minimum digging if not are just lying around from weather damage to the surface while Oil is 1 to 5 miles deep,though Dinosaurs to seem to get trapped in Tar pits (wait,aren't they the tar by consensus logic?)

wonderingmind42 Says:

Mar 15, 2008 - guffpot: Again, I defer to the scientists. I tried to make the point in "The Nature of Science" that even whether an experiment "verifies" a hypothesis is subjective (criteria such as reproducibility, which statistical methods and metrics you use, alternate hypothesis, causation vs. correlation). So again, I don't trust your judgment as to what is valid science and what is not more than the judgment of the scientific community. Doesn't mean they're right. But it doesn't seem prudent to ignore.

guffpot Says:

Mar 16, 2008 - We are in basic agreement on experimentation and hypotheisis testing.It's true in ideal laboratory conditions where we have devised an experiment to isolate the phenomenon we want to observe (like the famous Michaelson Morley test).We don't have that for AGW. The best we can hope for is good quality empirical data. But good, consistent data is in short supply.Is it not jumping the gun to act on (what is essentially) a bunch of theoretical propositions? Could do more harm than good.

Bozeman42 Says:

Mar 18, 2008 - If "heat always rises" and "cold always sinks" How do we get heat from the sun "way up there"? It has to somehow come "down". You are talking about things that tend to happen with cold AIR and hot AIR. Heat has other forms. Radiation (and I'm not talking about NUCLEAR radiation which some of your comments seem to think we're implying. Radiation in this context only sounds sinister to the naive.)

raminile Says:

Mar 23, 2008 - have you seen the Risk Management series he did?

DavidSChandler Says:

Apr 4, 2008 - The ratio of 300 million years to 200 years is 1.5 million. Let's say your line thickness representing 200 years is 1/2 cm (i.e. 0.005 m). 1.5 million of these is 7500 m, or 7.5 km, about 5 miles.

wonderingmind42 Says:

Apr 4, 2008 - Please see the video description for a summary of a couple errors that commentors have caught.

ExtremeMorphs Says:

Apr 7, 2008 - I have to say its funny that anyone who posts a refute, can not justify, or prove with any facts. And the only people that have had valid problems with your video chastised minor discrepancies rather than your factual information. I have to say, I was a fence sitter until yesterday about global warming. This Video series is really important, and should get on Teli!

greyflcn Says:

Apr 12, 2008 - "Number I got here are from Nasa"So where specifically can I get these numbers used?Are these the numbers used?nasa. gov/ centers/langley/news/researchernews/rn_carboncycle.html

Skjoldemand Says:

Jun 4, 2008 - I find both the subtitles and the "blahblah" very exiting... Don't worry about that!

ilikeneurons Says:

Jul 7, 2008 - I'm sure this is negligible, but carbon is released into the atmosphere by plants and animals... Cows, and humans, release a good amount of CH4 every time they fart.

WAKeele Says:

Jul 18, 2008 - I miss MST3K!

LilBola1 Says:

Aug 3, 2008 - Nope, not negligible 19% of all CH4 released is from cattle. So think twice when you decide between the fish or the steak.

hexusziggurat Says:

Sep 14, 2008 - uh...your statement creates NO LESS concern for the issue

DavidSChandler Says:

Sep 14, 2008 - I agree. I am not disagreeing with the central thrust of your argument. I was just pointing out a problem in a detail so you would give a better example in the future.

wonderingmind42 Says:

Sep 19, 2008 - Yeah. That's the graph I pulled the numbers from. If anybody has a better source for me, please send me a message directly to my YouTube account, letting me know.

barbarossa0067 Says:

Dec 3, 2008 - I am a chemical engineer who also minored in environmental studies who believes in human induced climate change. I would say that it is a bit misleading to say "all of the carbon is released" in 200 years. Maybe A LOT would be a better way of saying it. However you put it, it is a significant percentage of this carbon we have released in the last 200 years. I would personally guess no more than 30% of total carbon stocks stored in the last 300 million years. But this is just a guess.

mjk4523 Says:

Dec 8, 2008 - since were carbon based wouldnt the 2.???% get ebsorbed by us?

cattlewrangler Says:

Dec 13, 2008 - Bullshit if that's the case global warming should have happened years ago.

T3ZaNg Says:

Jan 1, 2009 - We absorb oxygen, then breathe carbon dioxide.