PlanetZ forums @ scopeusers.com

Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth wrote:https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/20 ... ning-earth

(This one is for Gary)

That's a weird and flawed paper, even though it was published in a prestigious journal. What NASA has been detecting is an enzyme named rubisco that is used in the first chemical step in fixing CO2. It's the most abundant enzyme on Earth, and noticable by it's brown color that is revealed when vegetation dies. While it's still in something living it has a pretty strong IR emission line that can be read well by suitably equipped satellites. There is an increase in rubisco, but it doesn't fully correlate with and increase in plant area. The authors of the study made a low-complexity simulation that fits observation to theory in a crude and simplistic way. Shortly after the paper came out I helped a physicist that specializes in atmospheric science to craft a pretty scathing put-down of the paper.

Never thought I would apply my fancy science degrees here.

I'd love to hear more Peter.

Valis, not much to tell beyond that. I was just the biology guy helping out some physicists and chemists. It is good to get down to primary sources instead of simple summaries, although science papers can be difficult reading even with a lot of science education.

Here's the paper in question: http://sites.bu.edu/cliveg/files/2016/0 ... c-2016.pdf
The big flaw here is something called "model-fitting" in which a simulation model is adjusted until it reproduces the observed data and then that model is cited in determining the mechanistic sources of those observed effects. I'm sure you can see that there's a recursion problem here with cause and effect.

It draws heavily from this paper: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com ... /gbc.20027
The dataset here is a weird chimera from a number of different sources. I haven't wrangled with it and don't have the mathematical expertise to pull it apart and show that it is poorly assembled, but I have it on good authority that there are assumptions and conclusions within it that are non-trivially sub-optimal.

Both of these papers are also reliant on this one: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/5/2/927
The real meat of this is in the supplemental information, which covers the sensing methodologies. This is where I was most involved in showing that different types of vegetation, or changes in vegetational composition can easily be mistaken for changes in vegetation area. Essentially errors in categorizing things between quantitative and qualitative data.

Science is hard, and often doesn't feature simple answers, so the single-cause "this because of that" kind of science articles deserve to be regarded skeptically.

I should probably also add, look into the Calvin cycle for the nitty-gritty on rubisco and how plants utilize CO2.

you know, ALL the models are incomplete, on all sides.

this includes the models that have created the present hysteria.

the FACT is that the current "accepted" climate models are junk science for political and sociological purposes, and most of the "opposing" models are equally nonsensical. wake me the day that humans get complete control over climate, so that i can hide. also, wake me when carbon taxes and the like do anything but impoverish the poor and middle class, and actually lead to "stable" climate, something the world has never known. in the mean time, "experts" can shove it up their asses.

and i am NOT against science in any way. as i have said many times, there have been some VERY important scientists in my family. one of which is a person i loved very much, someone who's opinions i will always respect. he would be appalled at what goes for science these days. science is a way of investigating the real world, but it NEVER has absolute conclusions. science can CERTAINLY provide working explanations that are useful for various purposes, but there is a reason that true scientists speak about THEORIES and not FACTS. culture creators are the folks that proclaim theories to be facts, not scientists.

Been a flat earthier and brown skinned racist my whole life, always enjoy seeing my biases confirmed.

I was ready to get all sorts of free stuff, then these dip shits started talking the green dream shit again, so my chances of Liberals winning and giving me free stuff is out the window because of these dip shit socialist professors and other cult leaders.

These goofy dreamers never learn during a campaign to stick to their scripts.
Now I’ll have to keep working instead of being paid to travel.

dawman wrote: Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:20 am These goofy dreamers never learn during a campaign to stick to their scripts.

Some do (sort of)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=066WAeG5muE

These videos are great.
Its the only way to actually enjoy these dog & pony shows.

next to nothing wrote: Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:42 am

dawman wrote: Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:20 am These goofy dreamers never learn during a campaign to stick to their scripts.

Some do (sort of)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=066WAeG5muE

this just goes to show what a farce politics is. it's called hi-jinks.
these guys always do a great job with their lip-sync.

May as well have fun with these clowns, we cant really do anything about it any way.
One thing is certain, these politicians know 65,000,000 Americans voted for Trump just because theyre tired of thier bull shit.
Instead of trying to get these voters back theyve taken it personal and now belittle them.
Pretty stupid since youll need these voters to win National Elections.

To beat Trump in 2020 theyll have to promise rivers of honey.

DNC Slogan in 2020...
Everything will be free, but this time we mean it.

jimmy's on a roll

Btw, when we hear meaningless assertions like “Climate change is real,” or “The science is settled” I have this knee-jerk response always come to my mind, “fine, then we should cancel all funding for climate research.”

This is not so much a retort to you Peter as it is my reaction to the politicization of the subject, and imho that’s a properly political response.

Ms Ocasio, the new bubble-headed USA congresswoman, says the earth is going to end in 12 years, unless we all stop breathing out CO2. if that's all the time there is, it doesn't matter what people do.

I guess its nothing shocking but I am pretty convinced we do make alterations to the climate with extensive CO2 emissions. I am not saying there are no other factors to climate change than this (of course there is), but i think it is a factor. I am not saying Ms Ocasio is right in her prediction, but neither do i believe The Dotard when he is dismissing it because it is snowing outside.

plant trees....

or just install Sweden's government. they fix everything.

What turns people off the most is the alarmist politicized positions where if you don’t play along you’re belittled as a flat earthier. Then if you believe CO2 is the culprit you’re a zealous grant grabbing mouthpiece.

These extreme positions tells me somewhere in the middle is the place to discuss concerns.

My biggest problem is where in the periodical time table people choose to start their graphs/research.

I only look at America’s history from 12,000 years ago and noticed how Ice Melted quicker and for longer periods of time than we’re experiencing. Tracking the retreat of Ice and the forming of the Great Lakes shows oceans riding and temperatures.
No industrialization then, nothing but the usual historical rise in temperatures that follow an Ice Age.

Let’s say we’re contributing and accellerating the process, it seems we can’t do much about nature’s trends.

On the bright side, if we go into an Ice Age we can build another few hundred thousand coal plants to melt Ice with seeings his we got that part figured out.

next to nothing wrote: Sun Feb 17, 2019 8:37 am I guess its nothing shocking but I am pretty convinced we do make alterations to the climate with extensive CO2 emissions. I am not saying there are no other factors to climate change than this (of course there is), but i think it is a factor. I am not saying Ms Ocasio is right in her prediction, but neither do i believe The Dotard when he is dismissing it because it is snowing outside.

You do realize of course, that both of the personas you're referencing here are politicians?

Let me prod the coals of this discussion a bit more:

The point of the 'Science is settled' parallels what GaryB said some distance above. Science is based on theory and observation, and in that sense, "Science" is more of a verb than a noun: Theorize, test & observe...

We humans tend to like to label to reduce complexity in our heads (perhaps that's why we do this via the "Sciences"?), and so glomming together many fields of study into a noun makes it easier to talk about, not to mention it lends an air of authority that speaks to the amount of debt one accrues to get to any position of note. Also note again the verb "study"...or one might say investigate, test, (in)validate etc. In middle school here in the US, they teach you one of the fundamental tenants of science, that it is a 'method' or methodology (via the 'scientific method' no less).

Being able to reduce complexity to the point that a theory is usable (and not intractable in its own complexity or so overly simplistic that it only works for politicians). This, it seems to me, is a necessary function of our own ability of cognition. But it doesn't ignore the complexity to begin with. Rather, you (in my understanding) have to ensure what is left outside of the scope of Theory also doesn't invalidate the theory, by being either incidental in its effect or conversely, accounted for in some way that makes additional inputs unnecessary.

And so on down the rabbit-hole we go, to the point of being Nuanced and Constantly Expanding based on the scope of what came before. But that only works for those entrenched in their field and satisfied with the flow of their work. For others, well we all face numerous distractions away from our own fields of work already.

Gary is correct in pointing out that new observations can always invalidate a theory and open the way up to a new one. Which brings up a point I was going to ask Peter Drake about, isn't this "model fitting"? When one model doesn't work, go back to the data and a new theory, test & validate again...? Feel free to expand on how their use of model fitting went beyond what is normal in the sciences, for I am willing to believe you but would like to understand further exactly how that differs from statistical data selection and hockey stick effects.

“Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting thearcticc ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing variables of climate uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies.”

Next we note that those same expansions are often preceded by a collapse of some sort. This is less a function of 'reality' than it is of our ability to Model Reality with our limited scope of perspective, understanding, senses and the tools we create. Our models SHOULD fall apart and be put back together again, especially if they don't work! In this sense I would agree with the polarized on both sides of the isle: seek to improve on what we can and accept what we cannot; stop lurching about avoiding the nature of our own existence! We are finite, individually, and that is a certainty. Yet here we are, as always, projecting our own limited lifespan and demise on the world around us through all manner of The-End-Is-Nigh scenarios and Eschatons, and shifting the blame onto that other guy: the adversary, that 'other' that-is-not-me and surely is the cause of it all (and btw, I'm probably the cause of it all too because in my darker moments we are all well-to-aware of our own limitations and excesses, right?).


SO, the to the point of my expansive polemic here:

Nuance and expansion run counter to what politics is best at: polarization and oversimplification. One does not win arguments (dialectics) in political arenas through subtle nuance and allowing for many circumstances. Either we're all gonna die from those damn evil do'ers causing the Ultimate Justice (but God's Grace is merciful and his Justice is not yet served, right?) or all humans need to accept their dark side and understand if we don't accept what the Administrators tell us, we're all doomed regardless of what some silly Sky-Father worshippers say in their lunatic superstitions (note in this case I am advocating in the voice of *both* sides of the isle for effect, aka (sic)).

Note we covered this subject before, and the reason I decided to resurrect it from the dead is to re-iterate something GaryB pointed out the last time we ran the gamut on this (it was about 11-12 years ago I believe). Aside from the fact that CO2 is *good* for plants, and so is more warmth. (Plants could give a shit what seaside properties are affected, and which are improved, btw). Rather, as can be seen above, the same political forces that once clamored for covering the poles with black soot to counter the claimed effect that "Earth’s average temperature could drop by 20 degrees fahrenheit", and were calling for diverting arctic rivers...well now we have mandates that we must all move to city centers, accept our lofty Administrators as knowing what's best for us, and if we're lucky, LUCKY, we might just make it past this inequality gap between what we do and how we feel.

thanks.
exactly.

I’ve been hearing how bad fireplaces are now. They cause Cancer and many other ailments.

I’m amazed we ever survived as a species.
If my grandpa ever knew I had to pay for water he’d roll over in his grave,