Ez ryder Posted June 20, 2019 Share Posted June 20, 2019 1 hour ago, NaturallyAspirated said: I have not made any claims, you outright lie when you state such. Again, do you have an example of doubling or tripling down? Perhaps you should just admit you fucked up and we're wrong... Neal you may personal have made no claims but you stand firmly behind those that have waving the flag . but yeah the science is settled we know Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted June 20, 2019 Share Posted June 20, 2019 30 minutes ago, XC.Morrison said: "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/ They will but not until it’s into the 1000’s ppm area people are allowed to be on submarines and space shuttles into the 3000-4000 ppm range this is why the alarmism cult is so laughable Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NaturallyAspirated Posted June 20, 2019 Share Posted June 20, 2019 1 hour ago, jtssrx said: 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 Sure, however the fact that plants need it doesn't mean it has no impact on climate. The two are not related and it isn't supporting evidence of your claim. Water vapor is indeed the giant in the greenhouse has arena, however it has extremely fast input and output of the system. It's a very quick regulation positive feedback gas. It also amplifies other greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, as warmer atmosphere can hold more water vapor. Methane, which is indeed a much more potent greenhouse has, is also a strong anthropic concern, however it doesn't as yet contribute as much as CO2. Methane is a trace gas, as is CO2, and water vapor. Neal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irv Posted June 20, 2019 Share Posted June 20, 2019 38 minutes ago, XC.Morrison said: 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. But you alarmists hit the panic button when the climate is compared today with what it was just 40 yrs ago. Speaking of retarded, If you had a brain on your shoulders you'd realize, in the grand scheme of things, that is a pittance in time or mere seconds comparatively speaking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f7ben Posted June 20, 2019 Share Posted June 20, 2019 Co2 lags temp rise.....is it not a driver Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XC.Morrison Posted June 20, 2019 Share Posted June 20, 2019 2 minutes ago, f7ben said: Co2 lags temp rise.....is it not a driver That's partly true. When we look at the warming period following ice ages CO2 does initially lag temperature rise. Later on in the warm up process, CO2 leads temperature rise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f7ben Posted June 20, 2019 Share Posted June 20, 2019 1 minute ago, XC.Morrison said: That's partly true. When we look at the warming period following ice ages CO2 does initially lag temperature rise. Later on in the warm up process, CO2 leads temperature rise. We can look at way more warm periods than that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NaturallyAspirated Posted June 20, 2019 Share Posted June 20, 2019 1 hour ago, DUMPY said: Colder maybe. Much colder no. That's ambiguous language that isn't meaningful. State it clearly in objective levels. Neal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NaturallyAspirated Posted June 20, 2019 Share Posted June 20, 2019 1 hour ago, 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. I've never said it's bad. I have very much indeed researched what plants need to survive and thrive. For example, can you tell the class what happens to RuBisCO as temperature increases? What happens to soil nitrogen during prolonged increased plant growth? Simply adding CO2 isn't a key to great sustained plant growth increase. It is far more complex than that. Neal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NaturallyAspirated Posted June 20, 2019 Share Posted June 20, 2019 1 hour ago, Ez ryder said: you may personal have made no claims but you stand firmly behind those that have waving the flag . but yeah the science is settled we know Oh, do you have examples of claims of others I have endorsed? Neal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NaturallyAspirated Posted June 20, 2019 Share Posted June 20, 2019 40 minutes ago, f7ben said: Co2 lags temp rise.....is it not a driver Not totally correct, both are positive feedback drivers. The release of CO2 by the earth natrually warming will still cause the CO2 to increase warming that otherwise would not have happened. Neal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awful knawful Posted June 20, 2019 Share Posted June 20, 2019 Stop global cooling! Must be a tax we can issue to help this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f7ben Posted June 20, 2019 Share Posted June 20, 2019 1 hour ago, NaturallyAspirated said: Not totally correct, both are positive feedback drivers. The release of CO2 by the earth natrually warming will still cause the CO2 to increase warming that otherwise would not have happened. Neal This is correct....but 95% of it is Henry's law related Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gold Member BOHICA Posted June 20, 2019 Gold Member Share Posted June 20, 2019 (edited) climate anomalies are a natural phenomenon that extreme radical climatologist, that spell doom and gloom, fail to understand. There is no harm in the current naturally changing climate that we are experience. Edited June 20, 2019 by BOHICA 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Momorider Posted June 20, 2019 Share Posted June 20, 2019 3 hours ago, DUMPY said: They will but not until it’s into the 1000’s ppm area people are allowed to be on submarines and space shuttles into the 3000-4000 ppm range this is why the alarmism cult is so laughable Supposedly when most of the coal oil and gas was created was when atmospheric CO2 levels were around 4000 ppm some very productive historicsl times we should strive to make those numbers again so reserves can be replenished Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted June 20, 2019 Share Posted June 20, 2019 2 hours ago, NaturallyAspirated said: That's ambiguous language that isn't meaningful. State it clearly in objective levels. Neal If you are perplexed, redesign the integral axis to propagated outcomes 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted June 20, 2019 Share Posted June 20, 2019 2 hours ago, NaturallyAspirated said: I've never said it's bad. I have very much indeed researched what plants need to survive and thrive. For example, can you tell the class what happens to RuBisCO as temperature increases? What happens to soil nitrogen during prolonged increased plant growth? Simply adding CO2 isn't a key to great sustained plant growth increase. It is far more complex than that. Neal No but it is a requirement. Technically we postponed the death of the earth a long time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted June 20, 2019 Share Posted June 20, 2019 30 minutes ago, BOHICA said: climate anomalies are a natural phenomenon that extreme radical climatologist, that spell doom and gloom, fail to understand. There is no harm in the current naturally changing climate that we are experience. It’s natural but we do play a small role. Current warming isn’t alarming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NaturallyAspirated Posted June 20, 2019 Share Posted June 20, 2019 36 minutes ago, DUMPY said: If you are perplexed, redesign the integral axis to propagated outcomes I am not, I am letting you know the post doesn't further discussion. It's unimportant. Neal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted June 20, 2019 Share Posted June 20, 2019 1 hour ago, NaturallyAspirated said: I am not, I am letting you know the post doesn't further discussion. It's unimportant. Neal We already gathered that from your posts 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtssrx Posted June 20, 2019 Author Share Posted June 20, 2019 1 hour ago, NaturallyAspirated said: I am not, I am letting you know the post doesn't further discussion. It's unimportant. Neal Right it doesn’t further the discussion you want to push which is man causes climate change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted June 20, 2019 Share Posted June 20, 2019 20 minutes ago, jtssrx said: Right it doesn’t further the discussion you want to push which is man causes climate change. We probably are a little, fortunately Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member steve from amherst Posted June 20, 2019 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted June 20, 2019 16 minutes ago, DUMPY said: We probably are a little, fortunately well 7 billion people burning shit probably does have an impact. But a tax isn't going to fix it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted June 20, 2019 Share Posted June 20, 2019 1 minute ago, steve from amherst said: well 7 billion people burning shit probably does have an impact. But a tax isn't going to fix it. It needed to be done to save the earth. The question is where do we stop Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member steve from amherst Posted June 20, 2019 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted June 20, 2019 Just now, DUMPY said: It needed to be done to save the earth. The question is where do we stop WE don't, we adapt. 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.