Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52996
    29 Oct '19 17:201 edit
    @KellyJay
    His post clearly says that managing farming can reduce methane which means he wants to reduce GW not increase it. Where did you get the idea he wants to make GW worse?

    Was gone for a week or so, mom died, RIP, she had a long fruitful life, in her 100th year. We all loved her. She is missed.
  2. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14963
    12 Nov '19 05:51
    More CO2 is good for the planet. Leftists have been brainwashed.

    YouTube&t=13s
  3. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    12 Nov '19 09:012 edits
    @metal-brain said
    More CO2 is good for the planet. Leftists have been brainwashed.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-nsU_DaIZE&t=13s
    No, because, and as I and many science-experts here and even scientists here have repeatedly pointed out to you MANY times before again and again, the known fertilizing effect of CO2 on plants (which NOBODY denies so don't start that straw man) would be easily MORE than offset by the more frequent extreme weather events, such as droughts, floods, and the more severe hurricanes etc, that comes with increased CO2, devastating crops and causing famine etc. So no net global benefit from more CO2 there then.

    Try agian.
  4. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14963
    12 Nov '19 16:15
    @humy said
    No, because, and as I and many science-experts here and even scientists here have repeatedly pointed out to you MANY times before again and again, the known fertilizing effect of CO2 on plants (which NOBODY denies so don't start that straw man) would be easily MORE than offset by the more frequent extreme weather events, such as droughts, floods, and the more severe hurricanes e ...[text shortened]... ating crops and causing famine etc. So no net global benefit from more CO2 there then.

    Try agian.
    Those are all myths I have proven wrong to you before. Here are the peer reviewed articles that prove you wrong.

    https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/2007JCLI1871.1

    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1005457318876

    Try again.
  5. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52996
    12 Nov '19 18:47
    @Metal-Brain
    YOU should try again, GH CO2 increase lowers nutritional value of rice and there may be more crops negatively affected by CO2 increase.

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/as-co2-levels-rise-rice-becomes-less-nutritious/

    I guess this is just another example of fake news, eh.......
  6. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Quarantined World
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    86468
    12 Nov '19 20:32
    @metal-brain said
    Those are all myths I have proven wrong to you before. Here are the peer reviewed articles that prove you wrong.

    https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/2007JCLI1871.1

    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1005457318876

    Try again.
    The first point is that photosynthesis is limited by the amount of sunlight reaching the ground. This is bounded by the sun's power output. Your references do not touch on this or anything other than storms.

    Reading the first paper it's not obvious it supports your point. In his model the number of storms has increased slightly, up to choice of starting date. The number of storms becoming hurricanes decreased slightly depending on starting date. The conclusion is that one needs to be careful choosing the starting date when analysing storm data. I do not think the authors of the paper are claiming future predictions. Further the paper only considers data for the North Atlantic. It is a useful scientific contribution, but proves nothing in either direction in the context of this thread.

    I took a quick look at the second paper and the author seemed to want to list what he regards as fallacies. Trying to understand the first paper has used up an hour of my time so I concentrated on that and will leave the second to others.
  7. Joined
    20 Oct '06
    Moves
    8348
    12 Nov '19 20:431 edit
    @metal-brain said
    Those are all myths I have proven wrong to you before. Here are the peer reviewed articles that prove you wrong.

    https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/2007JCLI1871.1

    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1005457318876

    Try again.
    The flooding paper you cite stresses the importance of preparing for inevitably more disasterous weather events, regardless of cause. Preparation/mitigation is key, not denialism. Also, this is from 1999. It's not necessarily inaccurate, but believe it or not science has advanced since then and we have new information and tools to study these things.
  8. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14963
    13 Nov '19 00:52
    @deepthought said
    The first point is that photosynthesis is limited by the amount of sunlight reaching the ground. This is bounded by the sun's power output. Your references do not touch on this or anything other than storms.

    Reading the first paper it's not obvious it supports your point. In his model the number of storms has increased slightly, up to choice of starting date. ...[text shortened]... paper has used up an hour of my time so I concentrated on that and will leave the second to others.
    You are wrong. Show me an excerpt from the article that supports your claim. You are misrepresenting what the article concluded.
  9. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14963
    13 Nov '19 01:00
    @sonhouse said
    @Metal-Brain
    YOU should try again, GH CO2 increase lowers nutritional value of rice and there may be more crops negatively affected by CO2 increase.

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/as-co2-levels-rise-rice-becomes-less-nutritious/

    I guess this is just another example of fake news, eh.......
    .....and potatoes grown with irrigation has less nutrition as a result. Water is evil!
    Stop demonizing CO2 with propaganda. What is the worst that can happen? Are you suggesting people will become malnourished? The article does not suggest that at all.

    Back to reality. More CO2 means faster plant growth and more food for people to consume. There will be more rainfall world wide helping crops grow. Life will become easier.
  10. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14963
    13 Nov '19 01:03
    @wildgrass said
    The flooding paper you cite stresses the importance of preparing for inevitably more disasterous weather events, regardless of cause. Preparation/mitigation is key, not denialism. Also, this is from 1999. It's not necessarily inaccurate, but believe it or not science has advanced since then and we have new information and tools to study these things.
    A warmer climate means more rainfall worldwide. That means crops will be more productive. More food is a good thing.
  11. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    13 Nov '19 07:241 edit
    @metal-brain said
    A warmer climate means more rainfall worldwide. That means crops will be more productive.
    More raging floods means crops will be more productive?
  12. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Quarantined World
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    86468
    13 Nov '19 07:29
    @metal-brain said
    You are wrong. Show me an excerpt from the article that supports your claim. You are misrepresenting what the article concluded.
    Read the second sentence of the abstract.
  13. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52996
    13 Nov '19 13:501 edit
    @Metal-Brain
    Actually, less PEOPLE is a good thing. There WILL be a population correction sometime in the next 200 years or so and there won't be 8 billion humans on the planet any more. THAT is when the climate gets straightened out and we have polar ice caps again.

    The numbers on rice shows a lessening of nutritional value of as much as 17% less so that would wipe out an increase in actual tonnage of rice produced.
    You continue to have your head firmly up your ass.
  14. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14963
    13 Nov '19 14:34
    @humy said
    More raging floods means crops will be more productive?
    There are pros and cons to everything, but if you want more rainfall there will on average be more floods, but there will be nothing raging about it. You are talking nonsense.

    More rainfall will make crops more productive. Isn't that better than droughts? I already proved your hurricane myth wrong. You have been consistently wrong about this issue for a long time.

    I keep disproving nearly every claim you make. I would think it would have sunk in by now that you have been duped by myths.
  15. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14963
    13 Nov '19 14:351 edit
    @deepthought said
    Read the second sentence of the abstract.
    Copy and paste it. Then provide the specific link you are referring to. I posted two of them. I can't read your mind.
Back to Top