XC.Morrison Posted June 20, 2019 Share Posted June 20, 2019 1 minute ago, irv said: But yet they pump C02 into greenhouses because it increases plant growth. Let alone the fact that it's essential to life. https://dutchgreenhouses.com/technology/co2-enrichment Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an essential component of photosynthesis (also called carbon assimilation). Photosynthesis is a chemical process that uses light energy to convert CO2 and water into sugars in green plants. These sugars are then used for growth within the plant, through respiration. The difference between the rate of photosynthesis and the rate of respiration is the basis for dry-matter accumulation (growth) in the plant. In greenhouse production the aim of all growers is to increase dry-matter content and economically optimize crop yield. CO2 increases productivity through improved plant growth and vigour. Some ways in which productivity is increased by CO2 include earlier flowering, higher fruit yields, reduced bud abortion in roses, improved stem strength and flower size. Growers should regard CO2 as a nutrient. http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm Some plant species respond better than others to increased CO2. You can have too much of a good thing. You've also got to increase soil nutrient content and yes, oxygen in the soil, water, etc for plants to thrive. CO2 is only one ingredient. Certain areas will see much more severe drought as a result of climate change and plants don't like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XC.Morrison Posted June 20, 2019 Share Posted June 20, 2019 1 minute ago, irv said: Gut hooked into believing C02 is bad. Personally, I think it is cow farts. we have to eliminate cows immediately!!!! Cows emit most of their methane by belching. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NaturallyAspirated Posted June 20, 2019 Share Posted June 20, 2019 3 minutes ago, jtssrx said: C02 does not cause climate change. The one and only reason the powers that be claim it does is they can assign a carbon footprint to each living being be a person or an animal. Then they can tax the fuck out of you for simply living and breathing. It certainly does. Without it our planet would be much colder, and not transfer the solar output in the way it does. You are denying a basic, well understood fact. This makes it difficult to believe any position you take, as it is obvious you care not about the truth of your claims. Neal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irv Posted June 20, 2019 Share Posted June 20, 2019 (edited) 3 minutes ago, XC.Morrison said: Some plant species respond better than others to increased CO2. You can have too much of a good thing. You've also got to increase soil nutrient content and yes, oxygen in the soil, water, etc for plants to thrive. CO2 is only one ingredient. Certain areas will see much more severe drought as a result of climate change and plants don't like that. Got any "real" scientific proof of that or this another one of the alarmists claims that "we could" "we might see" "possibly" "we don't know for sure" scenarios?? Edited June 20, 2019 by irv Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtssrx Posted June 20, 2019 Author Share Posted June 20, 2019 Just now, NaturallyAspirated said: It certainly does. Without it our planet would be much colder, and not transfer the solar output in the way it does. You are denying a basic, well understood fact. This makes it difficult to believe any position you take, as it is obvious you care not about the truth of your claims. Neal No without it there would be no plant life. C02 is a trace gas. Water Vaper and Methane are much more important greenhouses gases when it comes to heat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted June 20, 2019 Share Posted June 20, 2019 10 minutes ago, XC.Morrison said: It contributes 126%. Sounds goofy right? More than 100%, how can that be? Do some research dude, I'm not gonna sit here all did and spoon feed ya. Because you have no clue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irv Posted June 20, 2019 Share Posted June 20, 2019 3 minutes ago, XC.Morrison said: Cows emit most of their methane by belching. So, are you going to inform AOC it is cow belching and not cow farts? She needs to know, pronto!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted June 20, 2019 Share Posted June 20, 2019 4 minutes ago, NaturallyAspirated said: It certainly does. Without it our planet would be much colder, and not transfer the solar output in the way it does. You are denying a basic, well understood fact. This makes it difficult to believe any position you take, as it is obvious you care not about the truth of your claims. Neal Colder maybe. Much colder no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted June 20, 2019 Share Posted June 20, 2019 7 minutes ago, XC.Morrison said: Some plant species respond better than others to increased CO2. You can have too much of a good thing. You've also got to increase soil nutrient content and yes, oxygen in the soil, water, etc for plants to thrive. CO2 is only one ingredient. Certain areas will see much more severe drought as a result of climate change and plants don't like that. We’re nowhere near those levels. Plants prefer 1000-1500 PPM co2 but it doesn’t get toxic after that. 400 ppm is still drought levels for plants 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtssrx Posted June 20, 2019 Author Share Posted June 20, 2019 Just now, DUMPY said: We’re nowhere near those levels. Plants prefer 1000-1500 PPM co2 but it doesn’t get toxic after that. 400 ppm is still drought levels for plants The only reason people like Neal and XC think 400ppm is bad is they've been brainwashed. Neither one of these guys has ever researched the top of what plants need to survive and that 400ppm isn't bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted June 20, 2019 Share Posted June 20, 2019 Earth is getting greener because of c02. No it’s not the only equation. Some climatards went out of their way to do a “study” proving c02 doesn’t help plants. So stupid. it certainly improves crop yields because farmers add all the extra nutrients required it also makes plants more drought resistant a lot of areas of the earth have gotten greener. Not all. Some areas just have Shitty soils and those are the limiting factors Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XC.Morrison Posted June 20, 2019 Share Posted June 20, 2019 8 minutes ago, irv said: Got any "real" scientific proof of that or this another one of the alarmists claims that "we could" "we might see" "possibly" "we don't know for sure" scenarios?? The Gobi desert has increased by 25,000 square miles since 1994. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtssrx Posted June 20, 2019 Author Share Posted June 20, 2019 A Critical Review of Global Surface Temperature Data Products by Ross McKitrick :: SSRN In 1986, NASA’s top climate scientist James Hansen predicted the US would heat up 4-6 degrees by 2020 (next year.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted June 20, 2019 Share Posted June 20, 2019 Just now, jtssrx said: The only reason people like Neal and XC think 400ppm is bad is they've been brainwashed. Neither one of these guys has ever researched the top of what plants need to survive and that 400ppm isn't bad. 400 ppm bad? All around no. Where’s the cutoff though. 800 wouldn’t really be that bad either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtssrx Posted June 20, 2019 Author Share Posted June 20, 2019 https://realclimatescience.com/61-fake-data/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtssrx Posted June 20, 2019 Author Share Posted June 20, 2019 Just now, DUMPY said: 400 ppm bad? All around no. Where’s the cutoff though. 800 wouldn’t really be that bad either. exaclty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted June 20, 2019 Share Posted June 20, 2019 Just now, jtssrx said: A Critical Review of Global Surface Temperature Data Products by Ross McKitrick :: SSRN In 1986, NASA’s top climate scientist James Hansen predicted the US would heat up 4-6 degrees by 2020 (next year.) Hansen is kind of a god to the climatards but he’s blown his predictions so many times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XC.Morrison Posted June 20, 2019 Share Posted June 20, 2019 3 minutes ago, DUMPY said: Hansen is kind of a god to the climatards but he’s blown his predictions so many times. False. https://kottke.org/18/06/james-hansens-1988-climate-predictions-have-proved-to-be-remarkably-accurate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irv Posted June 20, 2019 Share Posted June 20, 2019 1 minute ago, XC.Morrison said: The Gobi desert has increased by 25,000 square miles since 1994. Oh, Fuck!!! But some deserts are now rain forests? https://www.wri.org/blog/2017/05/we-discovered-18-million-square-miles-forest-desert Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted June 20, 2019 Share Posted June 20, 2019 1 minute ago, irv said: Oh, Fuck!!! But some deserts are now rain forests? https://www.wri.org/blog/2017/05/we-discovered-18-million-square-miles-forest-desert That’s a natural phenomenon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted June 20, 2019 Share Posted June 20, 2019 (edited) 5 minutes ago, XC.Morrison said: False. https://kottke.org/18/06/james-hansens-1988-climate-predictions-have-proved-to-be-remarkably-accurate Not false He predicted 3-4* by 2020 well it only has 3-4* to go to hit that by 2020 Edited June 20, 2019 by DUMPY Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irv Posted June 20, 2019 Share Posted June 20, 2019 Just now, DUMPY said: That’s a natural phenomenon No, Dumpy, you have it all wrong. It's all man made, even if some of the deserts were formed over 6,000 thousand years ago! For several hundred thousand years, the Sahara has alternated between desert and savanna grassland in a 41,000 year cycle caused by the precession of the Earth's axis as it rotates around the Sun, which changes the location of the North African Monsoon. The area is next expected to become green in about 15,000 years (17,000 AD). 6,000 Years Ago The Sahara Desert Was Tropical, So What Happened? https://today.tamu.edu/2016/11/29/6000-years-ago-the-sahara-desert-was-tropical-so-what-happened/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XC.Morrison Posted June 20, 2019 Share Posted June 20, 2019 11 minutes ago, DUMPY said: 400 ppm bad? All around no. Where’s the cutoff though. 800 wouldn’t really be that bad either. "Rising CO2’s effect on crops could also harm human health. “We know unequivocally that when you grow food at elevated CO2 levels in fields, it becomes less nutritious,” notes Samuel Myers, principal research scientist in environmental health at Harvard University. “[Food crops] lose significant amounts of iron and zinc—and grains [also] lose protein.” Myers and other researchers have found atmospheric CO2 levels predicted for mid-century—around 550 parts per million—could make food crops lose enough of those key nutrients to cause a protein deficiency in an estimated 150 million people and a zinc deficit in an additional 150 million to 200 million. (Both of those figures are in addition to the number of people who already have such a shortfall.) A total of 1.4 billion women of child-bearing age and young children who live in countries with a high prevalence of anemia would lose more than 3.8 percent of their dietary iron at such CO2 levels", according to Meyers. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ask-the-experts-does-rising-co2-benefit-plants1/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XC.Morrison Posted June 20, 2019 Share Posted June 20, 2019 4 minutes ago, irv said: No, Dumpy, you have it all wrong. It's all man made, even if some of the deserts were formed over 6,000 thousand years ago! For several hundred thousand years, the Sahara has alternated between desert and savanna grassland in a 41,000 year cycle caused by the precession of the Earth's axis as it rotates around the Sun, which changes the location of the North African Monsoon. The area is next expected to become green in about 15,000 years (17,000 AD). 6,000 Years Ago The Sahara Desert Was Tropical, So What Happened? https://today.tamu.edu/2016/11/29/6000-years-ago-the-sahara-desert-was-tropical-so-what-happened/ A 41,000 year cycle is pretty slow. Natural cycles are slow. You couldn't seriously think that posting this would blow the whole volume of AGW study out the window - or could you? I think you really did, holy fuck you're retarded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArcticCrusher Posted June 20, 2019 Share Posted June 20, 2019 34 minutes ago, XC.Morrison said: Some plant species respond better than others to increased CO2. You can have too much of a good thing. You've also got to increase soil nutrient content and yes, oxygen in the soil, water, etc for plants to thrive. CO2 is only one ingredient. Certain areas will see much more severe drought as a result of climate change and plants don't like that. 400 PPM isn't even close to too much and its been much higher in the past. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.