I definitely question those things... not whether they exist, but what their underlying mechanics are. As far as I am aware, the exact nature of gravity (for example) is still uncertain.

Likewise, I am not proposing that the climate is not changing. I do want to understand why it changes though, and I have to get beyond that before I can even begin to know whether or not I agree with projections for the future.

If I had to pick sides for some reason, then I would side with the consensus. I have no reason to doubt it. That wouldn't satisfy my intellectual curiosity though... I like to know how stuff works. If someone asked me whether or not I could explain how much of an effect humans have on the climate then I would have to answer "no", and that bothers me.

Disagree with the video all you want, but don't think that it represents me. It's just something I posted to start a discussion.


>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
You don't question gravity, or plate tectonics, or photosynthesis, or the reality of the ozone layer, do you?
Why defy science on this lone issue?

^But you do 'believe' in scientific consensus. You 'believe' every other conclusion scientific consensus has ever come to. You don't question gravity, or plate tectonics, or photosynthesis, or the reality of the ozone layer, do you?

Why defy science on this lone issue?

Could it have anything to do with the billion dollar PR campaign designed to put these ideas in the public mind?

Video Analysis:

I can't speak to the validity of the science, because I am not a scientist, but I can certainly speak to some of the political manipulation found within this video.

-The video replaces the term 'climate science' with the less accurate, more politically charged term 'global warming'.
-Science is described as 'opinion' to downplay the research that defines it.
-'Public opinion' is put on an equal footing with science.
-The "debate" is framed as one of equals, using the image of two men with cannons firing at each other. In reality, this is science vs. rich guys who don't want to clean up their factories.
-The video pretends to differentiate itself from, and rise above these two warring factions, despite its overt partisanship.
-The video condescendingly reminds scientists of the importance of evidence. WTF?
-At the end, the video reaches conclusions that were not satisfactorily proven, and then displays the image of a judge pounding a gavel in an attempt to invoke the mental frame of officiality and authority in the mind of the viewer.

The debate on this issue has nothing to do with science, it is pure *politics. The scientific process has already reached the consensus that climate change is real, man made and potentially harmful to organic lifeforms. I find it disturbing that you would put politics on an equal footing with science within the context of a scientific debate. Putting your 'belief' in experts is a good thing, and I imagine that outside of this political bizzaro world, you probably do just that.

If you need medical attention, you go to a doctor, not a lawyer.
If you need your car fixed, you go to a mechanic, not a gourmet chef.
If you need information on climate change, you go to climate scientists, not greedy industrialists!

Don't sleep on this:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Photosynthesis-The-Rap-Music-Video

demon, you did not understand me correctly. I think microbial life could be quite likely, though not complex multicellular life. I know the black smoker communities rely on bacteria that perform chemosynthesis. But this doesn't produce oxygen. The bigger life around the black smokers still uses oxygen provided by photosynthesis elsewhere.
Also a cable does not seem practical for communication. The ice may be more than a 100km thick. If the cable was only 1cm thick, which is quite thin for something in usch an extreme environment, you would already need 8m3 storage space, just for cable. That quickly becomes impractical.

demon, it seems unlikely that there will be complex bigger lifeforms. That is because at least on Earth oxygen respiration is required to sustain energetic multicellular creatures. No sunlight reaches the depth of Europa so oxygen generating photosynthesis is unlikely. So if we only harm a small place in, the worst case scenario of a leak or meltdown, then I don't think it would matter that much on a planetary scale. However leaving the reactor in the water will doubtlessly cause it to leak after decades or centuries. Maybe they could drive the meltprobe back up a bit after the mission is done. If it then locks into the ice it should remain so.

Crake for communication a wire would bring problems as you say. What they could do, is drop radio beacons at certain distances along the way down which could then relay the signal back up the surface. Or maybe use really longwave radio signals which might be able to penetrate the ice, though could only carry very low bandwidth.

again with the extreme confusion over the products of combustion engines vs. photosynthesis and respiration... stop it please

I am getting confused as to why emissions related to combustion engines are getting bulked in with photosynthesis and respiration in the minds of republicans... the attempt here is regulating an element in engine emissions because of the hazards of excess emissions in the atmosphere.. right?? that sounds just dandy... not to mention the particles from combustion, heavy metals, and other nasties from gasoline engines... so really this is crazy

>> ^westy:
It's a children's show. Would she be "manipulated" and "used" if she was explaining photosynthesis? Sure, science and evidence speaks for itself, but not in a children's show.

>> ^Zor:
I thought trees and plants breathed carbon dioxide. There must be something else mixed in, or it killed the roots.


During the day plants take in carbon dioxide and release oxygen while using the energy of sunlight to create sugars from the carbon dioxide, through Photosynthesis.

However at night, when there is no sunlight, they take in oxygen and release carbon dioxide.

For those of you wanting to know more about how it works, here is a short description from Science Daily:

"The key component in Nocera and Kanan's new process is a new catalyst that produces oxygen gas from water; another catalyst produces valuable hydrogen gas. The new catalyst consists of cobalt metal, phosphate and an electrode, placed in water. When electricity — whether from a photovoltaic cell, a wind turbine or any other source — runs through the electrode, the cobalt and phosphate form a thin film on the electrode, and oxygen gas is produced.

"Combined with another catalyst, such as platinum, that can produce hydrogen gas from water, the system can duplicate the water splitting reaction that occurs during photosynthesis.

The new catalyst works at room temperature, in neutral pH water, and it's easy to set up, Nocera said. "That's why I know this is going to work. It's so easy to implement," he said.""

^we're so used to being dependent on one source of fuel that we can't think outside the box. Why would we automatically jump to the conclusion that we're trying to run the world on energy obtained through photosynthesis. It does, however, appear to be a reasonable supplementary energy source for maybe desert cities or something of that sort.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_resources_and_consumption

One Tenth of New Mexico would only receive 4*10^20 J of sunlight in a year, and the US uses 1.2*10^20 J per year, so he's assuming an efficiency of 30% for the whole process, including photosynthesis, refining and transportation of the final product? I call bullshit. Photosynthesis is typically less than 1% efficient, and even the most efficient known species of algae convert light to biomass at 3-6% efficiency.


Humans use 5*10^20 J per year, and over 80% of that is fossil fuel.

Only 4*10^24 J per year of sunlight reaches the earth (do the math)

Assuming photosynthesis efficiency of 1% and fermentation+distillation+transportation efficiency of 25%, you would have to cover 1/25 of the earth's cross-section with biofuel-growing (that's at least 1/4 of the total arable land, depending on latitude) to cover the world's energy needs. Burning biofuels still produces atmospheric pollution like ozone and nitrogen oxides. Elecrtic cars will pollute the atmosphere less than any biofuel internal-combustion car.

Anything based on photosynthesis is going to be wildly inefficient compared to solar thermal generators.

If we burnt every last bit of fossil fuel in the earth, the atmosphere would revert to the way it was before photosynthesis existed. The reason Earth has free oxygen is biological carbon sequestration. We're gonna have to switch to nuclear, wind, solar, and hydro power. Solar power is the simplest and safest variety of nuclear power

Global consumption of oil averages around 4 quadrillion watts, which is roughly the amount of electricity that would be produced on average by a 200km * 200km square of photovoltaics.

Sorry choggie, just read you're post fully.

'even the tree huggers will agree, more carbon dioxide means more lush foliage!'

Where did you get your facts from? Plants photosynthesis to produce carbohydrates, which removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Yet like animals they need to respire to produce ATP, which is used as energy. This process produces CO2. Ecosystems are finely balanced, more of a necessary component is not good. An example of this is eutropification. This is a process that happens when to much nutrient is introduced to fresh water systems. If you're interested this link explanes

http://www.rpi.edu/dept/chem-eng/Biotech-Environ/Environmental/Eutro/eutrop.htm