Options

Global warming and thermodynamical quantities

13»

Comments

  • 101.

    Even if that’s true, what bearing does it have on the effect of plant growth on the triggering of microbial activity?

    Possibly if there is too much CO2, plants might flip switches and reduce growth/size, as happened in the radiation case and therefore reduce the upcoming cycles of CO2 generation. So they might grow like crazy but smaller plants.

    Therefore the article is missing a huge consideration, in other words one cannot make inferences about more CO2 release or microbial activity unless genetics considered as was the case with radiation as we have learned recently from nuclear accidents.

    Comment Source:>Even if that’s true, what bearing does it have on the effect of plant growth on the triggering of microbial activity? Possibly if there is too much CO2, plants might flip switches and reduce growth/size, as happened in the radiation case and therefore reduce the upcoming cycles of CO2 generation. So they might grow like crazy but smaller plants. Therefore the article is missing a huge consideration, in other words one cannot make inferences about more CO2 release or microbial activity unless genetics considered as was the case with radiation as we have learned recently from nuclear accidents.
  • 102.

    You’ve gone out on a limb, so please substantiate your case.

    I already did!

    Original atmosphere and soil on this planet were toxic. (Conjectured or established) The microbes and plants for the most part reduced the toxicity to what we have today which sustains life as such. So they also balanced the CO2 and other gases.

    So it is very hard for me to believe that these same plants and microbes could increase CO2 to dangerous levels for life.

    It is also hard for me to digest how one could infer anything on these matters without paying attention the genetics of plants and microbes, hence my crackpot comment.

    Comment Source:>You’ve gone out on a limb, so please substantiate your case. I already did! Original atmosphere and soil on this planet were toxic. (Conjectured or established) The microbes and plants for the most part reduced the toxicity to what we have today which sustains life as such. So they also balanced the CO2 and other gases. So it is very hard for me to believe that these same plants and microbes could increase CO2 to dangerous levels for life. It is also hard for me to digest how one could infer anything on these matters without paying attention the genetics of plants and microbes, hence my crackpot comment.
  • 103.

    Here check this out:

    Deinococcus radiodurans

    Deinococcus has been genetically engineered for use in bioremediation to consume and digest solvents and heavy metals, even in a highly radioactive site. For example, the bacterial mercuric reductase gene has been cloned from Escherichia coli into Deinococcus to detoxify the ionic mercury residue frequently found in radioactive waste generated from nuclear weapons manufacture. Those researchers developed a strain of Deinococcus that could detoxify both mercury and toluene in mixed radioactive wastes.

    This tells me that bacteria's appearance in the nature plays a significant role in detoxification and balancing of the environment to sustain life, therefore I could fathom that they will handle the excess carbon in soil or atmosphere similarly (in chorus with plants).

    This also tells me, that inferences made about anything on the issue of soil and CO2 and plants and bacteria needs serious attentions to the genome and molecular structure of bacteria, and one cannot just infer claims leaving this most important fact out of the picture.

    And if we do, that is crackpot science.

    Comment Source:Here check this out: [Deinococcus radiodurans](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinococcus_radiodurans) >Deinococcus has been genetically engineered for use in bioremediation to consume and digest solvents and heavy metals, even in a highly radioactive site. For example, the bacterial mercuric reductase gene has been cloned from Escherichia coli into Deinococcus to detoxify the ionic mercury residue frequently found in radioactive waste generated from nuclear weapons manufacture. Those researchers developed a strain of Deinococcus that could detoxify both mercury and toluene in mixed radioactive wastes. This tells me that bacteria's appearance in the nature plays a significant role in detoxification and balancing of the environment to sustain life, therefore I could fathom that they will handle the excess carbon in soil or atmosphere similarly (in chorus with plants). This also tells me, that inferences made about anything on the issue of soil and CO2 and plants and bacteria needs serious attentions to the genome and molecular structure of bacteria, and one cannot just infer claims leaving this most important fact out of the picture. And if we do, that is crackpot science.
  • 104.

    As I said, at most what you are showing is that an important factor was not being considered. If what you are saying is true, than this could be the beginning of your contribution to science. But to call someone a crackpot because they overlooked something is unfounded and rude.

    Comment Source:As I said, at most what you are showing is that an important factor was not being considered. If what you are saying is true, than this could be the beginning of your contribution to science. But to call someone a crackpot because they overlooked something is unfounded and rude.
  • 105.

    David said:

    But to call someone a crackpot...

    I did not call ANYONE any names, please do not misquote me, I called the paper crackpot science:

    this article dirty pool.. is a good candidate for crackpot science.

    Some of my friends who have read the public posts here say some of them as inappropriate, save John's of course he is always impeccably polite. I tend to ignore their comments, people in heat of technical discussions talk differently than around a thanx giving table. It is called passion.

    Comment Source:David said: >But to call someone a crackpot... I did not call ANYONE any names, please do not misquote me, I called the paper crackpot science: >this article dirty pool.. is a good candidate for crackpot science. Some of my friends who have read the public posts here say some of them as inappropriate, save John's of course he is always impeccably polite. I tend to ignore their comments, people in heat of technical discussions talk differently than around a thanx giving table. It is called passion.
  • 106.
    edited January 2015

    To call an article crackpot science implies that its authors are crackpots.

    Comment Source:To call an article crackpot science implies that its authors are crackpots.
  • 107.

    Thanx David, I remember that :)

    Comment Source:Thanx David, I remember that :)
  • 108.

    You know, we have had a longstanding goal of attracting more climate researchers to the Azimuth project, but with your vocal hostility towards them as a group, they may be deterred rather than attracted.

    Comment Source:You know, we have had a longstanding goal of attracting more climate researchers to the Azimuth project, but with your vocal hostility towards them as a group, they may be deterred rather than attracted.
  • 109.

    I am sure I am not the cause, but if I am by all means I will leave.

    I do not wish to hamper your attracting the climatologists here.

    Comment Source:I am sure I am not the cause, but if I am by all means I will leave. I do not wish to hamper your attracting the climatologists here.
  • 110.

    Dara, the real point is maintaining a collegial atmosphere, which extends to all scientists, programmers, etc., regardless of whether their object of study is rocks, evolution, climate, or what have you. I would like to think that we can achieve this together.

    Comment Source:Dara, the real point is maintaining a collegial atmosphere, which extends to all scientists, programmers, etc., regardless of whether their object of study is rocks, evolution, climate, or what have you. I would like to think that we can achieve this together.
  • 111.
    edited January 2015

    In order to attract the climatologists to come here and contribute you need to have funds or connections to individuals/institutions of importance or media access.

    From what I see NASA and number of other agencies are doing, is they are re-inventing the climatology or making it obsolete, by the new satellite networks I mentioned earlier.

    Large computing resources are what is needed, crack programmers and leadership of minds like John.

    Obviously I am not dictating this, do as you like, but I think the writing is on the wall from where I am standing: satellites orbiting the earth stream gargantuan real-time data (oceanic, atmospheric, top of atmospheric, soil moisture and vegetation) to highly optimized machine learning servers...

    Comment Source:In order to attract the climatologists to come here and contribute you need to have funds or connections to individuals/institutions of importance or media access. From what I see NASA and number of other agencies are doing, is they are re-inventing the climatology or making it obsolete, by the new satellite networks I mentioned earlier. Large computing resources are what is needed, crack programmers and leadership of minds like John. Obviously I am not dictating this, do as you like, but I think the writing is on the wall from where I am standing: satellites orbiting the earth stream gargantuan real-time data (oceanic, atmospheric, top of atmospheric, soil moisture and vegetation) to highly optimized machine learning servers...
Sign In or Register to comment.