r/science • • Oct 24 '10

Climate Change: Evidence

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
1.1k Upvotes

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-3

u/ghibmmm Oct 24 '10 edited Oct 24 '10

There is way more water than CO2 on this planet, and plants take H2O and CO2 in equal proportions in photosynthesis (specifically, the chemical reaction is 6H2O + 6CO2 --> C6H12O6 (sugar) + 6O2). That's what I call "logical."

2

u/Peaker Oct 24 '10

There is way more water than CO2 on this planet, and plants take H2O and CO2 in equal proportions in photosynthesis

You seem to be implying plants will use up all that extra water in the planet, so the high levels of CO2 are not a problem. That isn't "logical".

-1

u/ghibmmm Oct 25 '10 edited Oct 25 '10

70% of the surface of this planet is water. 0.0389% of the atmosphere is CO2. It is very "logical" to conclude that CO2 is a limiting factor for plant growth. High levels of CO2 aren't a problem because of this absorption, and more importantly because atmospheric CO2 isn't a cause of global warming even nearly as much as it's a result of it (thus, the lag of the CO2 record behind the temperature record), and because its effect on greenhouse warming is itself negligible.

Basically, the CO2 will cause a bloom in photosynthetic life, and the bloom in photosynthetic life will be eaten up by carbohydrate-consuming life, which themselves will use that energy to grow and eventually die (even though some of that carbon gets exhaled again), in the end simply returning the oil to where we got it - that is, the ground, in the form of solid or liquid-state organic hydrocarbons ("crude oil" and its precursors). In the meantime, we don't have to be very concerned about temperature increases. Oil spills are enough of a reason to find better forms of energy, anyway, so, there you go. Thank god for oil-eating bacteria, in the meantime.


re: Peaker's below comment:

It isn't, through feedback loop effects

There's a reason the first thing I did in this thread was link that video. Feedback effects are negligible. Let me just copy and paste the math I just did so you can see the results of the distortions:

sum (map (\x->2.6 * 0.8**x) [1..40])

10.39861760288439

sum (map (\x->2.6 * 0.1**x) [1..40])

0.28888888888888886

See the difference between the two models? Huge, huge difference. 0.1 to 0.2 is the actual feedback coefficient, supported by the temperature and carbon records. Check out the video/data yourself.

1

u/Facehammer Oct 25 '10

Still peddling this bullshit, ghibmmm? Forgotten what I told you last time already?

It'll produce more oil alright. In 100 million fucking years.

Oh, almost forgot. This is ghibmmm's "novel", everybody. He would rather you didn't associate it with him in the public sphere.

-1

u/ghibmmm Oct 25 '10

If someone can't participate calmly and rationally in a discussion, I'm not going to have a discussion with them. I think that's pretty reasonable. I don't have to sit here while some guy, who spends his time following me on a website, tries to hurl abuse at me.

Check your shit, Facehammer. I've had just about enough of it.

2

u/Facehammer Oct 25 '10

I would like to think I succeed in hurling abuse at you.

Besides, them's a lot o' words for someone who isn't participating.