Climate Change Politics

has this been through the IPPC "works" ? Aren't we supposed to be checking on what they put out ? Governments are not going to be reacting to single studies, are they ?

It's all about IPPC views and nothing else. isn't it ?

"There's a lot of noise in the data. It is hard to isolate cause and effect. But there is now an effective consensus among the world's leading scientists and serious and well informed people outside the scientific community that there is a discernible human influence on the climate, and a link between the concentration of carbon dioxide and the increase in temperature. The time to consider the policy dimensions of climate change is not when the link between greenhouse gases and climate change is conclusively proven but when the possibility cannot be discounted and is taken seriously by the society of which we are part. We in BP have reached that point."

First of all, this article was published on 12/24/09, which was 8 days ago, so it's brand new, not handpicked by a consortium.

Secondly, the academic affiliations and funding sources for the study are openly disclosed in the article (at the end).

Finally, who cares?

If you are going to really comment on science, then read the science -- if you can. If you can't read primary science literature, then your aspersions at science have no meaning.

The methods of this scientific study are here for you to critique. You are your own IPCC right now, and you have the opportunity to contest this science based on the science itself. This is science as pure as it gets. So have at it and don't give me some irrelevant conspiracy theory that has nothing to do with the documentation in the paper.

If you are going to really comment on science, then read the science -- if you can. If you can't read primary science literature, then your aspersions at science have no meaning.

You later offered a mealy-mouthed explanation that had nothing to do with what went on, with your ciritique . so please, do take a break on your BS mouthings about my ability.

It's already demonstrated that your opinions on science subjects are just about worthless

You're seemingly able to cherry pick the odd mistake or inconsistency in the testimony of individual scientists - maybe - it's hard for me to tell what you're going on about at the best of times really.

But you've not said anything sensible about the gestalt findings of the scientific community, as far as I can tell.

Whereas Aedes mouthings aren't BS or worthless, on the whole.

When he, or others, aren't being tripped up by semantic games there's plenty to be learned.

You'll obviously be refusing to examine what goes on with IPPC works, won't you ?

Your medical credentials should guarantee that you know about ammonia.

You didn't. You failed miserably even after I pointed out the problem.

It's already demonstrated that your opinions on science subjects are just about worthless

I'm completely fine examining their references. I don't care about the politics. Conspiracies are brain candy for people who need Haldol.

I didn't fail at all. The only science in that citation was 100% totally completely accurate, and that was the ammonia chemistry. They made one typo by saying "decrease" for pH. The rest of it was overview material without much specificity.

Perhaps what you can tell is that your shoelaces are tied. that;'s good, but you have NOTHING to say about me that is relevant. there was not ANY semantic game on that page he vouched for.

It's just SLOPPY, meaningless blabber, that "vouching for". On a VERY VERY simple subject. A ten year old could comprehend the page.

You could not.

I am a bit tired of your ongoing baseless accusations, Dave Allen.

Well, why don't you critique those videos you said you would, or remark on something other than a rash comment made about a page who's relevence to the subject at hand seemed pretty obtuse anyway?

Yes it's always a bit humbling when a mistake is made - but the guy's track record for being one of this community's more insightful scientific commentators isn't trashed just because he fouls up under your (rather incoherant) cross-examination.

wrong again. they also got that toxicity and temperature backward. sloppy, sloppy. We do not know how many have died or had complications from sloppiness, do we ?

You're completely confused. All my commentary was about your first link, which makes only cursory mention of pH and temperature. A low pH is more likely to cause ammonia to ionize, by the way, because there is more H+ available to oxidize NH3 to NH4+ in an acidic environment. This is possibly what he meant.

Ammonia Nitrogen Fish Toxicity Surface Water


The only detailed temperature stuff comes from your other link (fishdoc.co.uk????), which I did not even open until just now and I haven't even read yet.

Ammonia, water quality and fish health


Your second link, which you seem to believe is the source of information, is a web page run by fish enthusiasts. The first link is an academic site from a university. You really think they pilfered information from people who have ornamental koi ponds? Come on...

but since you insist on jumping into the water, Dave Allen, please be advised that it is INCREASE in temp with the presence of ammonia, that offers more risk, rather than the cooling temps, as you believe...you see, the toxic form is more prevalent in higher pH and more toxic at higher temps...and the animal has more respiratory demand at higher temp too..double whammy.



Like I said, they had it backwards, and so do you

Re: Climate Change Politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by memester
Actually it contains a glaring error. that's my point. You guys don't know enough to tell us what's up.

Quote:

I can entirely vouch for the chemistry in that link being correct. The extent and degree of ammonia-induced alkalinization as an actual environmental problem I have no idea about. But I'm pretty good with the chemistry part, my undergraduate degree is in it.

The info on the academic site, at least about ammonia chemistry, is correct. The two sites MAY contradict one another, but they may not -- I don't know because the academic site mentions toxicity but the fishdoc site shows a chart about potency, not about toxicity. Potency has to do with the effective dose to achieve a given toxic effect -- toxicity has to do with the magnitude of the effect.

For all I know about fish toxicology they may both be wrong. The only way to know is to look at source material.

I do agree that the academic site probably stole that photo from the fishdoc page or they both found it from a common source.

And again -- I vouch for the ammonia chemistry being correct. Period. I don't know anything about environmental ammonia or about gill pathology. Do you?

show what was incoherent about my inquiry . you're chock full of unsubstantiated claims.

**************quiet**********************

yeah, we just have non reliable numbers, and dishonesty rampant in the science.
other than that, everything is settled.

it's gotta be a secret, how this marvelous SCIENCE is done. It's so fantastic that you wouldn't believe it if you knew, so they won't tell you.

QUICK ! EEEEEEEEEE! Open the U.S. treasury to Tuvalu !!! eeeeee ! It's sinking, it's sinking ! Give it quick ! Can't you see all the tears ?

It's a nation already evacuated... ! eeeeeee ! Send Fort Knox to Tuvalu !

It's MEGA DISASTER! THE BIRTH RATE IS ABOUT 22/1000.... RISING PRECIPITOUSLY IN THE LAST 5 YEARS COMPARED TO OTHER NATIONS !

SEND ALL YOUR MONEY !


Tuvalu Sinks Today--the Rest of Us Tomorrow?

Well responses such as
or

Lack coherency as far as I see it.

Perhaps they aren't part of the inquiry, in your view - that would seem to fit the paradigm of your thrust - but that's my point also, as it's not at all clear to me when you're being relevent or not.

"quiet" is a correction of "quite" in the post before.

You do not know about ammonia and it's relationship to temp and pH ? and you are a teaching doctor ?

Not in fish. Why would I?

Furthermore, you clearly do not understand that the pH and temperature table in your fishdoc page is untranslatable to human health and disease. It's completely and totally irrelevant.

There are three main reasons:

1) The human body temperature under non-disease conditions varies by only around 1-2 degrees C, roughly between 36 and 37.5 degrees, and the greatest extremes seen in disease states are seldom broader than 33-43 degrees (except for things like severe hypothermia and malignant hyperthermia). This table lists temperatures that are below any body temperature compatible with life in a human, and it is a range of temperatures far broader than one measures in a human body. And environmental temperatures in this range are STILL basically irrelevant because being homeotherms we maintain our body temp at 36-37 or so regardless of the ambient temperature.

2) The pH of human blood is regulated between 7.40-7.42. Below 7.0 and above 7.6 or 7.7 are quickly fatal without immediate medical intervention. The table gives pH ranging from 6.5-9.0, a range of more than two orders of magnitude.

3) The temperatures and pH in the table are environmental conditions in the water inhabited by fish. Humans do not live in water.


If you want me to bare my soul about what I know about ammonia in human disease, feel free to engage me in that conversation. You didn't ask me that. You asked me to comment on a web page for people with koi ponds. We didn't study koi in med school. :nonooo:

the chemical relationship between ammonia and pH is not specific to human biology.

neither one of you knows anything, but intend to tell us what these wonderful Climate Change people are up to; wonderful science - only it's not.

You'll need to have more knowledge of what you speak about, in order to make such sly commentaries about people - and not expect to get something back, Paul.

No use claiming it's not your field after you talk like that. You said the page was correct, thereby demonstrating your lack of skills.

How can you look into climate science - as it's not your field either ?

I'd be terrified to be doctored by anyone with those skills. You might alter my blood chemistry and kill me. Then tell the family that it was not your particular field of medicine.

I think we are all decent people here.

No, but my particular expertise is rather specific to human biology and that of human pathogens; and while the routine chemistry of ammonia is high school level stuff, the relationship of ammonia to human disease is a completely different topic than its environmental toxicity to fish. Yes, we have many biological similarities to fish, but that is a generic statement, and fundamentally fish handle temperature, pH, and ion homeostasis completely differently than mammals.

The range of pH and temperatures compatible with life are extremely narrow compared with what is in that fishdoc table. I do not know much about ammonia toxicology, i.e. human disease from ammonia exposure. That's a rather subspecialized thing; I know a little bit about ammonia ingestion, but I emphasize the 'little' -- even ER physicians call Poison Control about that one.

There are a handful of common scenarios we deal with in human medicine. The one of most interest to me, being an infectious disease specialist, is urease production by bacteria (H. pylori and Proteus mirabilis are the famous ones). These bacteria split urea into ammonia, which alkalinizes their environment by soaking up protons. This is a survival strategy for these bugs to live in acidic milieuxs. A urinary tract infection with Proteus usually results in a urine pH of 7 or 8, which is quite high compared with normal urine or urine infected with other bugs. It also makes Proteus prone to forming certain kinds of stones, which deposit under alkaline conditions.

We also commonly deal with urea elevation. Urea is H3N-CO-NH3, a simple molecule that the liver synthesizes out of free ammonia in order to detoxify it. Ammonia mainly comes from deamination of amino acids from protein breakdown, whether from endogenous protein, the diet, or from gut flora. Patients with kidney failure can develop enormous elevations of urea (usually referred to as BUN or blood urea nitrogen), which has certain symptoms (mainly encephalopathy). Patients with kidney failure may also be very acidemic, but again the range of pH is extremely narrow compared with the environmental conditions in that article (we have a lot of buffering capacity in our blood), and I've never heard a nephrologist talk about the implications of pH on urea chemistry or pathobiology. It may be real, but it's probably not clinically important.

Next, patients with advanced liver disease (i.e. cirrhosis) cannot make urea, so they accumulate pure ammonia, NH3. This also causes an encephalopathy, but it's generally felt that serum levels of NH3 are a proxy marker for other toxic things that accumulate.

We do not measure NH4+ ions under normal clinical circumstances. There are genetic disorders of amino acid metabolism, famously urea cycle disorders, and geneticists order all sorts of highly subspecialized tests to find out which enzyme is deficient or defective.

This isn't to display my feathers -- it's just to show that what I know about, what I teach about, and what I need to know to be a good doctor is quite a bit different than the conversation we're having.

I've told you I know nothing -- I'm a dilettante at the climate change question.

Wonderful science? Well, you've run for the hills when I gave you a scientific global warming article to critique. You didn't even bother. That article may well be wonderful science, it may not, but if you won't even ATTEMPT to read it critically, then I can't take seriously the judgments you pass on the whole domain of climate science.

Yeah, that was dickish of me. Sorry.

It was correct. At least the ammonia chemistry part was. The temperature and pH references were specifically to fish toxicology and not to ammonia chemistry. How many times would you like me to repeat that?

I'm willing to critically evaluate ANY scientific article you put in front of me, including the one I linked. I've done plenty of journal clubs in my life. Scientific methodology is fairly uniform down to a point. I can't do advanced math, so complex modeling papers are harder for me to critique, but in general the climate change articles are fairly accessible to anyone with a science background.

Yup. Live in fear. Of course, it so happens that today I saw a guy in acute renal failure with a BUN of 140, which is the highest I've ever seen, and I was giving him a bicarbonate infusion because of a severe metabolic acidosis. It saved his life. He'll still probably need dialysis, but that was true before I ever saw him. Wasn't my best case of the day, but it was a challenging one.

We are. We spar and posture too much and talk too little. It's unproductive. I thank you for reminding us of this, it's important.

It was correct. At least the ammonia chemistry part was. The temperature and pH references were specifically to fish toxicology and not to ammonia chemistry. How many times would you like me to repeat that?