CO2 fertilization diminishes over time?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
So you want to retreat back to that again?

I can kill plants with my rototiller and it takes very little time before grass and other weeds grow back. Hurricanes cause even less damage to the plants than farmers do to their fields trying to kill as many weeds as possible. You really are foolish for clinging to such a weak theory.

http://www.washingt ...[text shortened]... ain-drough/

There is no evidence that hurricanes will increase. That is mere scare mongering.

You do know perhaps, that hot air can hold more water than cool air, right? Do you deny even this? Higher temperatures means more rain and in hurricanes, more flooding, which definitely will ruin a farmer's day.

https://www.livescience.com/28489-sandy-after-six-months.html

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Oh, then you don't know...

diddly-squat?

Originally posted by humy
Farmers killing weeds isn't a problem.
Hurricanes killing crops is.
And so is your moronic irrelevancies..

That has nothing to do with CO2. FAIL!

Originally posted by sonhouse
You do know perhaps, that hot air can hold more water than cool air, right? Do you deny even this? Higher temperatures means more rain and in hurricanes, more flooding, which definitely will ruin a farmer's day.

https://www.livescience.com/28489-sandy-after-six-months.html

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/7/climate-change-models-wrong-predicting-rain-drough/

Originally posted by Metal Brain
That has nothing to do with CO2.

science says more CO2 means more global warming means more intense hurricanes that destroy more crops; and weed control has nothing to do with that. Which part of that don't you comprehend?

Originally posted by humy
science says more CO2 means more global warming means more intense hurricanes that destroy more crops; and weed control has nothing to do with that. Which part of that don't you comprehend?

"science says more CO2 means more global warming means more intense hurricanes"

What is your source of information?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"science says more CO2 means more global warming means more intense hurricanes"

What is your source of information?

science, which unlike you, I am qualified in.

Originally posted by humy
science, which unlike you, I am qualified in.

So you are afraid to post your source of info? I'm not surprised.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
So you are afraid to post your source of info? .

As you well know, I have already posted my sources to you many times in the past but you apparently don't process nor accept nor understand any of the science or scientific validity. Are you afraid to? I'm not surprised.

Originally posted by humy
science, which unlike you, I am qualified in.

Can't say I've ever heard an actual, competent (and qualified) scientist ever make such a ridiculously immature and unprofessional claim.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Can't say I've ever heard an actual, competent (and qualified) scientist ever make such a ridiculously immature and unprofessional claim.

Even if it is true? Do you figure YOU are more qualified in science than H?

Originally posted by humy
As you well know, I have already posted my sources to you many times in the past but you apparently don't process nor accept nor understand any of the science or scientific validity. Are you afraid to? I'm not surprised.

You have NOT posted any website that proves what you have claimed. Furthermore, I already proved to you that farmers tilling fields cause more damage to plants than hurricanes. Your theory that hurricanes will diminish CO2 fertilization is absolute crap apparent to anybody educated adequately in science.
You constantly lie and make up stuff that is stupid. Nobody is to blame for that other than you. More lies only make you look foolish. I don't understand why you persist to embarrass yourself, but it is not my problem. It is yours.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Can't say I've ever heard an actual, competent (and qualified) scientist ever make such a ridiculously immature and unprofessional claim.

That is exactly why I questioned his science credentials. I think he has a bad case of psychological projection. Most of his criticism of others applies only to himself.