Climal Warmging Thread?

[bushwacked]

How hard is it for you to understand this?

 

What are the optimal number of blood cells a human should have?

[Perchoutofwater]

What are the optimal number of blood cells a human should have?

 

I don't know, but I'm not proposing to drastically change the economy or the way the average American lives his or her daily life in order to reduce them by requiring everyone to stop eating anything made with wheat because wheat because studies show that people with more blood cells eat more wheat even though wheat may or may not increase the number of blood cells. If I was trying to impose that on the American people you can damn sure bet I would figure it out first.

Edited December 3, 2010 by Perchoutofwater

[Clubfoothead]

I don't know, but I'm not proposing to drastically change the economy or the way the average American lives his or her daily life in order to reduce them by requiring everyone to stop eating anything made with wheat because wheat because studies show that people with more blood cells eat more wheat even though wheat may or may not increase the number of blood cells. If I was trying to impose that on the American people you can damn sure bet I would figure it out first.

 

Actually whole grains are very geood for your heart.

[Perchoutofwater]

Actually whole grains are very geood for your heart.

 

And lack of snow on the ground is typically good for agriculture, which in turn is good for feeding the hungry citizens of the world.

[Clubfoothead]

And lack of snow on the ground is typically good for agriculture, which in turn is good for feeding the hungry citizens of the world.

 

Maximum CO2 is typically what?

[bushwacked]

I don't know,

 

1. So we don't know what the optimum number of blood cells are, so we don't know if loosing blood cells is going to have more negative impact on the health of of a human.

2. We don't know if healthy blood cells help the heart.

3. If we don't know the answer to 1 and 2 above we shouldn't make health changes that have a negative impact on the palate.

 

Stuff I know by Perch.

Edited December 3, 2010 by bushwacked

[Jimmy Neutron]

There isn't an optimal temperature and you aren't really making a point.

 

I think there probably is an optimum temp - the point at which a healthy and periodic amount of water falls on the most arable ground. That's bound to change over time - it did long before people dotted the earth.

 

My real problem with the climate change chicken littles is the arrogant fear mongoring. They belittle those that don't agree with them. That's not science. There are hundreds if not thousands of peer reviewed published articles disputing the findings of the IPCC and others.

 

Ursa said something like, "you can present all the science you want..." No "science" has been presented. Science is not something that is presented. What has been presented is a set of data and a theory or two to go along with it. Some of what they've predicted has come to pass and some has not. This suggests that either the model is wrong or incomplete.

 

I hear things like, "the Atlantic mean temp us up 0.415 degrees, so we expect a strong hurricane season" - something I heard just this past spring. Alas, it was a mild hurricane season. Anecdotal, but entirely common amid this circus.

 

Anybody read that link I posted earlier in the thread? Up until very recently, we were pretty darn sure that we knew the building blocks of life in our universe were carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, sulphur and phosphorus. All life had these things in common. Up until a few weeks ago. Then, in the far reaches of a strange place called California, an organism was found that substitutes arsenic (you know, the stuff that's usually toxic to living organisms) for phosphorus. If that doesn't make you stop and think, "Wow, That's interesting and surprising"...

[Clubfoothead]

I think there probably is an optimum temp - the point at which a healthy and periodic amount of water falls on the most arable ground. That's bound to change over time - it did long before people dotted the earth.

 

My real problem with the climate change chicken littles is the arrogant fear mongoring. They belittle those that don't agree with them. That's not science. There are hundreds if not thousands of peer reviewed published articles disputing the findings of the IPCC and others.

 

Ursa said something like, "you can present all the science you want..." No "science" has been presented. Science is not something that is presented. What has been presented is a set of data and a theory or two to go along with it. Some of what they've predicted has come to pass and some has not. This suggests that either the model is wrong or incomplete.

 

I hear things like, "the Atlantic mean temp us up 0.415 degrees, so we expect a strong hurricane season" - something I heard just this past spring. Alas, it was a mild hurricane season. Anecdotal, but entirely common amid this circus.

 

Anybody read that link I posted earlier in the thread? Up until very recently, we were pretty darn sure that we knew the building blocks of life in our universe were carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, sulphur and phosphorus. All life had these things in common. Up until a few weeks ago. Then, in the far reaches of a strange place called California, an organism was found that substitutes arsenic (you know, the stuff that's usually toxic to living organisms) for phosphorus. If that doesn't make you stop and think, "Wow, That's interesting and surprising"...

 

I certainly makes me think we should pump more aresnic into the atmosphere.

[Deathpig]

What are the optimal number of blood cells a human should have?

 

Less than 5 minutes of google:

 

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1998/LanNaLee.shtml

http://www.rnceus.com/cbc/cbcrbc.html

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/003643.htm

 

One small caveat, the optimal number will be based on factors specific to an individual, but the guidelines (assuming adult male) are:

 

1) 4.7 to 5.0 liters of blood in the body. For math purposes we'll use 5 liters.

2) 4.6 to 6.0 million red blood cells per cubic millimeter of blood.

3) 4.5 to 10 thousand white blood cells per cubic millimeter of blood.

4) 1 million cubic millimeters per liter.

 

Therefore the answer is to multiply the values in 2 and 3 above by 5 million (the amount of cubic millimeters of blood established in 1, above) and those are the optimal ranges of blood cells a human should have. I have been nice and answered your sarcastic retort of a serious question, so perhaps you can link me where:

 

1) How much of the recent temperature change was caused directly by CO2 (isolated and opposed to other factors, other greenhouse gasses, solar events, currents, etc.)

2a) How much of current CO2 values are directly caused by man.

2b) Perhaps you could even link scientific evidence isolating CO2 spikes that happen regularly throughout the earths history and illustrate their nature (because what we're currently experiencing could be related to that).

3) For extra credit you could try and explain why CO2 historically is a trailing indicator of heat increase instead of a leading indicator. You're trying to say the hot stove boils water, but the historic data shows the boiling water makes the stove hot.

[bushwacked]

 

There are hundreds if not thousands of peer reviewed published articles disputing the findings of the IPCC and others.

 

Ursa said something like, "you can present all the science you want..." No "science" has been presented. Science is not something that is presented. What has been presented is a set of data and a theory or two to go along with it. Some of what they've predicted has come to pass and some has not. This suggests that either the model is wrong or incomplete.

 

Science is not something presented?

 

Jimmy there are plenty of articles that dispute the anthropogenic effect of GW...there are just a lot more that take the other viewpoint.

 

This overwhelming consensus among climate experts is confirmed by an independent study that surveys all climate scientists who have publicly signed declarations supporting or rejecting the consensus. They find between 97% to 98% of climate experts support the consensus (Anderegg 2010). Moreover, they examine the number of publications by each scientist as a measure of expertise in climate science. They find the average number of publications by unconvinced scientists (eg - skeptics) is around half the number by scientists convinced by the evidence. Not only is there a vast difference in the number of convinced versus unconvinced scientists, there is also a considerable gap in expertise between the two groups.

 

 

And then there is this

 

An invitation to participate in the survey was sent to 10,257 Earth scientists. The database was built from Keane and Martinez [2007], which lists all geosciences faculty at reporting academic institutions, along with researchers at state geologic surveys associated with local universities, and researchers at U.S. federal research facilities (e.g., U.S. Geological Survey, NASA, and NOAA (U.S.National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) facilities; U.S. Department of Energy national laboratories;

 

This brief report addresses the two primary questions of the survey, 1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant? 2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures? Results show that overall, 90% of participants answered “risen” to question 1 and 82% answered yes to question 2. In general, as the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement with the two primary questions......It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists.

 

 

 

I know this doesn't jive with your perception, and you'd rather talk about Al Gore, Ed Bagley Jr., Carrot Top and chicken littles...but the Scientific view is what it is.

Edited December 4, 2010 by bushwacked

[bushwacked]

Less than 5 minutes of google:

 

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1998/LanNaLee.shtml

http://www.rnceus.com/cbc/cbcrbc.html

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/003643.htm

 

One small caveat, the optimal number will be based on factors specific to an individual, but the guidelines (assuming adult male) are:

 

1) 4.7 to 5.0 liters of blood in the body. For math purposes we'll use 5 liters.

2) 4.6 to 6.0 million red blood cells per cubic millimeter of blood.

3) 4.5 to 10 thousand white blood cells per cubic millimeter of blood.

4) 1 million cubic millimeters per liter.

 

Therefore the answer is to multiply the values in 2 and 3 above by 5 million (the amount of cubic millimeters of blood established in 1, above) and those are the optimal ranges of blood cells a human should have. I have been nice and answered your sarcastic retort of a serious question, so perhaps you can link me where:

 

That's a range.

 

ETA: and I'm making dinner and having guests over....I can try to link up answers to your list of questions later if you promise to be nice.

 

I'm not trying to pretend to be an expert on climate warming.

Edited December 4, 2010 by bushwacked

[Clubfoothead]

So for adult males the optimal number of blood cells is 20.7 million or 3 times that number?

[Jimmy Neutron]

Science is not something presented?

 

Jimmy there are plenty of articles that dispute the anthropogenic effect of GW...there are just a lot more that take the other viewpoint.

 

 

 

 

And then there is this

 

 

 

 

 

I know this doesn't jive with your perception, and you'd rather talk about Al Gore, Ed Bagley Jr., Carrot Top and chicken littles...but the Scientific view is what it is.

 

Again, science is not something that is presented - it's a process. Data, methodology and theories are presented.

 

Others have presented conflicting data, methodologies and theories to GW, so GW theorists have begun presenting their theory as science itself.

[bushwacked]

Data, methodology and theories are presented.

 

That is part of Science.

[Perchoutofwater]

1. So we don't know what the optimum number of blood cells are, so we don't know if loosing blood cells is going to have more negative impact on the health of of a human.

2. We don't know if healthy blood cells help the heart.

3. If we don't know the answer to 1 and 2 above we shouldn't make health changes that have a negative impact on the palate.

 

Stuff I know by Perch.

 

Again, I didn't pretend to know the optimal number of blood cells are. I also didn't suggest we take any actions that would drastically change the way we live our lives in order to try to reach or maintain that level. Your the one doing that with global warming. If I suggested we take certain actions that we don't know if they even affect the number of blood cells or are the effect of the number of blood cells already there, not knowing the optimal number of blood cells, I'd look pretty silly wouldn't I?

[Deathpig]

So for adult males the optimal number of blood cells is 20.7 million or 3 times that number?

 

Much higher, it's 5 million * 5 million for red, so closer to 25 trillion.

 

White would be 5 million * ~7 thousand, so closer to 35 billion.

 

I'm not a biologist, so it wouldn't shock me if I'm missing something obvious, and I'm not exactly a pro at hasty math so I might be off a zero one way or another. More to the point, the information to answer that fairly narrow question is very readily available, from multiple sources, with the same basic ranges.

 

ETA: and I'm making dinner and having guests over....I can try to link up answers to your list of questions later if you promise to be nice.

 

I'm not trying to pretend to be an expert on climate warming.

 

I appreciate it; I know you aren't a climate scientist (just like I'm not a biologist). I don't seem to find the data I want, and I can't tell if it's just Google-fu failure or whatever... so I'll take any help I can get.

[bushwacked]

I also didn't suggest we take any actions that would drastically change the way we live our lives in order to try to reach or maintain that level. Your the one doing that with global warming.

 

I am? No, I'm not, good point though, again.

Edited December 4, 2010 by bushwacked

[Perchoutofwater]

I am? No, I'm not, good point though, again.

 

Really? You sure are doing your best to insult and argue with anyone that questions that we are causing global warming, and the need to take actions to curb it.

[bushwacked]

Really?

 

Yea, really. And I was making fun of the point you weren't making; I didn't mean to insult you, personally. Sorry if I hurt yer feelings.

[bushwacked]

1) How much of the recent temperature change was caused directly by CO2 (isolated and opposed to other factors, other greenhouse gasses, solar events, currents, etc.)

2a) How much of current CO2 values are directly caused by man.

2b) Perhaps you could even link scientific evidence isolating CO2 spikes that happen regularly throughout the earths history and illustrate their nature (because what we're currently experiencing could be related to that).

3) For extra credit you could try and explain why CO2 historically is a trailing indicator of heat increase instead of a leading indicator. You're trying to say the hot stove boils water, but the historic data shows the boiling water makes the stove hot.

 

Okay here is what I found, but apparently some of the references are pay journaly type things:

 

1 - I don't know but the earlier NASA link that Square link clearly showed that Scientists attribute temperature gain over the last 100 rising eight times faster than the million year average being attributable to human influence.

 

2 and 2b-

 

Manmade CO2 emissions are much smaller than natural emissions. Consumption of vegetation by animals & microbes accounts for about 220 gigatonnes of CO2 per year. Respiration by vegetation emits around 220 gigatonnes. The ocean releases about 332 gigatonnes. In contrast, when you combine the effect of fossil fuel burning and changes in land use, human CO2 emissions are only around 29 gigatonnes per year. However, natural CO2 emissions (from the ocean and vegetation) are balanced by natural absorptions (again by the ocean and vegetation). Land plants absorb about 450 gigatonnes of CO2 per year and the ocean absorbs about 338 gigatonnes. This keeps atmospheric CO2 levels in rough balance. Human CO2 emissions upsets the natural balance.

 

About 40% of human CO2 emissions are being absorbed, mostly by vegetation and the oceans. The rest remains in the atmosphere. As a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20.000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years.

 

3)

 

Over the last half million years, our climate has experienced long ice ages regularly punctuated by brief warm periods called interglacials. Atmospheric carbon dioxide closely matches the cycle, increasing by around 80 to 100 parts per million as Antarctic temperatures warm up to 10°C. However, when you look closer, CO2 actually lags temperature by around 1000 years. While this result was predicted two decades ago (Lorius 1990), it still surprises and confuses many. Does warming cause CO2 rise or the other way around? In actuality, the answer is both.

 

Interglacials come along approximately every 100,000 years. This is called the Milankovitch cycle, brought on by changes in the Earth's orbit. There are three main changes to the earth's orbit. The shape of the Earth's orbit around the sun (eccentricity) varies between an ellipse to a more circular shape. The earth's axis is tilted relative to the sun at around 23°. This tilt oscillates between 22.5° and 24.5° (obliquity). As the earth spins around it's axis, the axis wobbles from pointing towards the North Star to pointing at the star Vega (precession).

 

The combined effect of these orbital cycles cause long term changes in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth at different seasons, particularly at high latitudes. For example, around 18,000 years ago, there was an increase in the amount of sunlight hitting the Southern Hemisphere during the southern spring. This lead to retreating Antarctic sea ice and melting glaciers in the Southern Hemisphere.(Shemesh 2002). The ice loss had a positive feedback effect with less ice reflecting sunlight back into space (decreased albedo). This enhanced the warming.

 

As the Southern Ocean warms, the solubility of CO2 in water falls (Martin 2005). This causes the oceans to give up more CO2, emitting it into the atmosphere. The exact mechanism of how the deep ocean gives up its CO2 is not fully understood but believed to be related to vertical ocean mixing (Toggweiler 1999). The process takes around 800 to 1000 years, so CO2 levels are observed to rise around 1000 years after the initial warming (Monnin 2001, Mudelsee 2001).

 

The outgassing of CO2 from the ocean has several effects. The increased CO2 in the atmosphere amplifies the original warming. The relatively weak forcing from Milankovitch cycles is insufficient to cause the dramatic temperature change taking our climate out of an ice age (this period is called a deglaciation). However, the amplifying effect of CO2 is consistent with the observed warming.

 

CO2 from the Southern Ocean also mixes through the atmosphere, spreading the warming north (Cuffey 2001). Tropical marine sediments record warming in the tropics around 1000 years after Antarctic warming, around the same time as the CO2 rise (Stott 2007). Ice cores in Greenland find that warming in the Northern Hemisphere lags the Antarctic CO2 rise (Caillon 2003).

 

To claim that the CO2 lag disproves the warming effect of CO2 displays a lack of understanding of the processes that drive Milankovitch cycles. A review of the peer reviewed research into past periods of deglaciation tells us several things:

 

Deglaciation is not initiated by CO2 but by orbital cycles

CO2 amplifies the warming which cannot be explained by orbital cycles alone

CO2 spreads warming throughout the planet

[Jimmy Neutron]

That is part of Science.

 

Yes, it is a part of the scientific process - not science itself.

 

Chicken littles GW is science and those that argue with it are anti-science. Bull diaper dirt. That's not science, it's politics.

[bushwacked]

Yes, it is a part of the scientific process - not science itself.

 

Chicken littles GW is science and those that argue with it are anti-science. Bull diaper dirt. That's not science, it's politics.

 

I'm really not getting what you are trying to say here. Science is never settled. There is debate in Science everywhere and it's never "anti-Science" to have an opposing view. But you keep trying to insinuate there is some big debate amongst the experts in the Scientific circles, and for the most part, that just isn't true. Sorry Jimmy.

[Jimmy Neutron]

I'm really not getting what you are trying to say here. Science is never settled. There is debate in Science everywhere ... there is some debate amongst the experts in the Scientific circles, I love you, Jimmy.

 

Well, at least we agree on that much.

[bushwacked]

Well, at least we agree on that much.

 

 

I actually have to give a powerpoint presentation next week to the WA state dept. of ecology. Can I cancel and refer to you in saying that it can't be presented?

[westvirginia]

You can tell them you aren't bright enough to present it. If they know you, I'm sure it's one thing you say that they will believe... (Just poking - I'm so tired of this flipping debate I don't even enjoy it anymore.)

 

 

I actually have to give a powerpoint presentation next week to the WA state dept. of ecology. Can I cancel and refer to you in saying that it can't be presented?