SoloHQ: Forum

Forum

Post 0

Thursday, September 8 - 7:10am

Link

Edit

Time to ban soil, I say.

Post 1

Thursday, September 8 - 7:15am

Link

Edit

Time to ban soil, I say.

Forget soil. Ban carbon!!

(that *poof* you just heard was the cessation of your own existance)

;o)

Post 2

Thursday, September 8 - 8:23am

Link

Edit

Quote Max: "This means that the antropogenic part of CO2 emission is even lower than anticipated and that Global Warming is more of a natural phenomen than an artifical one."

No, this is not what the research points out: it argues that global warming is a positive feedback system. That is, the warmer it gets, the more CO2 is released which makes it still warmer and that the cycle may be repeating itself.

Be precise when you discuss science.

Sanjay

Post 3

Thursday, September 8 - 10:25am

Link

Edit

Yes, and no, because we also must take into account that the growing forest will absorb some oft CO2 increase. So, in the end, we face a natural circle that is ever engaging in getting to a balance, but will never cease at a stable equilibrium.
So, this is a natural system, which can be accelerated or decellerated by human input, but only so much, but never stops.

There has always be a warming and a cooling and if the study is right, then has there always been a release from the soil, so we are talking a natural phenomenon and not a primarily human induced.
Therefore I argue that the human component is smaller than anticipated.

Let's just take this:

The UK researchers who measured the loss claim its ultimate cause is climate change, which could be increasing the metabolism of soil bacteria so that they spit more carbon into the air. If true, this could feed more greenhouse gas into the atmosphere, causing more warming.

You see here some bogus science, because they have no evidence that climate change (and especially anthropogenic climate change) is creating the change.

Losses occurred everywhere, irrespective of land use. This, say the authors, points to climate change as the likely culprit.

But the destination of the carbon is unclear. It may be leaching into water systems and deeper soils as bicarbonate and organic materials, or into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide, say the researchers. Their study did not use any tracers to determine where the carbon went.

You really assume this is good science? If no obvious reasons are seen, it must be climate change.

I might have not posted the complete train of thought, but still my resume is ok. If the study is correct, then humans are less responsible as thought before. If the study is incorrect or not solid, then we are as uncertain as before.

(Edited by Max on 9/08, 10:35am)

Post 4

Thursday, September 8 - 1:03pm

Link

Edit

Max wrote: "Let's just take this:

The UK researchers who measured the loss claim its ultimate cause is climate change, which could be increasing the metabolism of soil bacteria so that they spit more carbon into the air. If true, this could feed more greenhouse gas into the atmosphere, causing more warming.

You see here some bogus science, because they have no evidence that climate change (and especially anthropogenic climate change) is creating the change."

First of all, the quoted statements ('the UK researchers...') are purely hypothesising in their nature(hence the use of phrases like 'could be' and 'if true'). That does not automatically make it 'bogus science'. Secondly, as a scientist, I would consider it only as a first step towards understanding the phenomenon and not as the final word. So they are (very likely) working on several hypotheses that are more plausible than others.

[I don't rule out the possibility that it is indeed what you would call as bogus science, but I am more willing to give them the benefit of doubt.]

As I wrote in a different thread, there is an unfortunate loss of information while translating from scientific language (either mathematical or that involving terminology) to everyday usage and news organizations are often guilty of misinterpreting scientific data. So concluding that a particular research is 'bogus' or 'bad' based on a couple of news reports is unscientific and irrational.

Sanjay

Post 5

Friday, September 9 - 6:52am

Link

Edit

Sanjay,

Ah, the mysteries of the priestly language. The high tongue unavailable to mere mortals.

http://solohq.com/inc/Galleries/Articles/1386_t.shtml

Post 6

Friday, September 9 - 8:18am

Link

Edit

Robert Davison wrote: "
Ah, the mysteries of the priestly language. The high tongue unavailable to mere mortals.
"

If it pleases you, sir, take it in whatever manner you like.

Sanjay

Post 7

Friday, September 9 - 12:08pm

Link

Edit

First of all, the quoted statements ('the UK researchers...') are purely hypothesising in their nature(hence the use of phrases like 'could be' and 'if true'). That does not automatically make it 'bogus science'. Secondly, as a scientist, I would consider it only as a first step towards understanding the phenomenon and not as the final word. So they are (very likely) working on several hypotheses that are more plausible than others.

Yes, this is true as long as it is a singular event, but they do it for the press, jumping to a possible conclusion. They could have named more alternatives, but they said it is this one theory we seem possible. It may be a misstatment by Nature, but in the end, this makes no difference.

[I don't rule out the possibility that it is indeed what you would call as bogus science, but I am more willing to give them the benefit of doubt.]

Yes, I have done this several times, but it is just increasing (this way of doing things). Perhaps it is the down side of too much media interest and especially popular media.
If I (as a scientist) discovered something new due to my field test, I'd be not too fast to conclude anything, because sometimes a theory in-advance can destroy a lot, especially when voiced publicly.

As I wrote in a different thread, there is an unfortunate loss of information while translating from scientific language (either mathematical or that involving terminology) to everyday usage and news organizations are often guilty of misinterpreting scientific data. So concluding that a particular research is 'bogus' or 'bad' based on a couple of news reports is unscientific and irrational.

Not really, because the conclusion is still not founded and as such bogus. I don't want to call the study bogus, because I haven't read the detailed report yet. However, I call the way scientists nowadays are going to the public bogus and deeply disturbing.

Post 8

Friday, September 9 - 2:26pm

Link

Edit

This is in fact an old story.

I remember a few years ago an article came out whereby they said that replanting trees as the Kyoto protocol called for would in fact release more carbon into the atmosphere than it would mitigate.

Of course the greens could always argue that the carbon release means land use should become Eco-regulated. Scary!!!!