Return Home
It is currently Tue Jan 26, 2021 10:20 am

All times are UTC-06:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Jul 17, 2020 8:59 pm 
Offline
Frequent Poster
Frequent Poster
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:52 pm
Posts: 91
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
I'll begin by saying that:

1) I am not a climate change denier
2) I'm not interested in, nor do I support, propaganda from either side of the so-called "debate"

Having said that, I do have some sincere questions that I haven't been able to answer with casual Google searches. I posed the same questions to my brother, who is a professor of ecology. Even he wasn't able to provide a satisfactory answer.

All organisms on earth under the classification of "botanical life" construct themselves out of complex carbohydrates. They derive the carbon from the atmosphere rather than the soil. What I can't get my head around is how CO2, as a trace gas in our atmosphere (at 0.04%, less abundant than even argon at just under 1%) can be used to construct a tree whose mass - minus water - is mostly carbon. How do they do it?

Just to make up some numbers, let's say a mature oak tree weighs 10 imperial tons. If the water is extracted, the remaining mass is perhaps 7 tons. Of the remaining mass, 80% percent is carbon - meaning there are roughly 6 tons of carbon in the tree...all extracted from the atmosphere where carbon dioxide is less than half as abundant as argon.

In light of this, and considering the low concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere, plus its weak greenhouse effect relative to water vapor, how can a third decimal place rise in concentration have such a strong effect on the climate?

This is an honest question and not meant in any way to refute climate change - whose effects I have (admittedly, subjectively) observed directly within my own lifetime.


Top
PostPosted: Sat Jul 18, 2020 5:33 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 11:44 am
Posts: 1349
Here’s how they do it... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis

Climate change is not caused by CO2. There isn’t too much CO2 in the atmosphere. Al Gore is not a scientist and healthy polar bears can easily swim for miles and miles. The entire premise is false.

There is no such thing as a non political answer to your question, I’ll give you a hint. We and all life on earth are carbon based life forms. We All depend on the carbon cycle to survive. Hey, I have an idea, let’s tax everything based on the basic chemistry of its existence. Then we can funnel money into companies we’re invested in as long as we call them “green” and have a leafy logo. Smart. ;)

CO2. It’s got what plants crave, just don’t water them with Gatorade. Humans need to stop drinking the kool aid.


Top
PostPosted: Sat Jul 18, 2020 10:34 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 6:54 pm
Posts: 6406
Location: Ocala, FL
This PMR has a ruleset. And within the parameters of the ruleset their are ideal conditions for it to operate efficiently. When parameters get outside of operating efficiently there are problems. Those problems are going to show up in climate.


Top
PostPosted: Sat Jul 18, 2020 8:37 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 3:05 pm
Posts: 1224
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Excellent that you are asking these questions!

Trying to grasp magnitudes and scales of "things" and how they relate to the mechanics of this reality (the rule-set) is not something that should be done lightly. You can't really just use your own "common sense" thinking of scale and magnitude and then apply to all of reality, and then expect things to work in a certain way.

The answer is that your sense of scale ("trace", "less abundant", "third decimal place") is simply wrong related to the exact mechanics and processes you are trying to understand. The photosynthesis process (and the Calvin cycle etc.) simply operates at a scale that is different than what your expectations and beliefs would suggest.

Just try to imagine that for the complex processes and interactions that eventually leads to the construction/accumulation of 'complex carbohydrates', a 0.04% may actually be huge! Well what does huge even mean? It just means that unlikely to be a bottleneck in the process. I'm not saying that you have to think it's "huge", but you need to imagine that it might as well could be.

You need to apply the same kind of humility and openness towards how the "third decimal place" change in something can have a strong effect on something like climate..

It can very easily..

If you need to have some even more 'crazy' examples of scales and magnitudes, look up the matter-antimatter asymmetry problem. Why didn't all matter and anti-matter annihilate each other a short time after the Big Bang? It would have been expected, as there should have been created equal amount of matter and anti-matter.. But we can calculate that about one particle per billion survived, and thus we are here.. if this tiny asymmetry didn't exist, the Universe would just have been ocean of photons, nothing else.

What about the fundamental physical constants, such as the Fine-structure constant (characterizing the strength of the electromagnetic interaction between elementary charged particles)? A tiny change to this constant (or any of the others representing fundamental forces) would result in huge changes, from stellar fusion being impossible, to making it impossible for water to exist. This related to the Anthropic Principle, which in part discusses whether this "fine-tuning" of the Universe is just a survivorship bias (that the Universe must be compatible with life, since we can observe it) or if it has greater implications on whether life or consciousness is some integral part of the Universe.. interestingly, the Universe being a virtual reality is one of the possible solutions to this philosophical problem.

There are countless examples of scale and magnitudes defying "everyday thinking".

To summarise: Much of physics (or biochemistry, or any other science) defies the "everyday thinking" that most people are very used to.. part of the training involved in becoming a (good) scientist, is to humble yourself and discard the sense of comfort through relating to the world with this "everyday thinking".. and discard one's easy reliance on assumptions and beliefs in how things work. It also helps to practise critical thinking.


The scientific literacy is unfortunately quite low in a lot of places in the world, including the U.S. An uneducated citizen is easier to manipulate than an educated one, and if you want your way as a politician in a democratic society, one solution is to sabotage the education system, allow anti-scientific teachings, and shape people as you want them as they grow up. Let us just say it's in no way conducive to growth towards a lower entropy society, nor individuals.

If you want to, the answer to your question could be a whole journey in itself. A journey (and effort!) of getting rid of beliefs, and getting a new and deeper understanding and appreciation of those who dedicate themselves to understand the questions you asked, and the whole personal process which YOU also can experience. This would benefit you much more than just a super technical answer to your question.


Top
PostPosted: Mon Jul 20, 2020 8:41 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Fri May 04, 2018 8:55 pm
Posts: 1035
Once again, thanks for the question. This question and your question on the meaning of QoC are very thought provoking. I am in the stages of forming my TOE and this falls in line with recent information that I have received. I do not intend to promote any aspect of my developing theory because this is Campbell's house. So I have been meditating on a way to weave in a response.

I concur with Specialis Sapientia and Sainbury. What I reflect on when reading their posts, is that as conscious personality-avatars, we perceive objective reality as "rock solid". We are conditioned during our life experience to believe it. Once we begin to realize and accept, not believe, that we are more than these VR bodies, our entire line of thinking changes. Our VR PMR is information or a sense data stream. The final formation of that information into a objective reality is a "matter of probabilities directed by consciousness".

The climate change debate places avatar's use of resources within this VR PMR at the forefront of the cause. The real question then is: does the source originate from the actions of the objectified personality conscious avatar or from the subjective reality of consciousness itself.


Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 

All times are UTC-06:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited