29 Oct 19
1 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.
12 Nov 19
2 edits
@metal-brain saidNo, 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.
More CO2 is good for the planet. Leftists have been brainwashed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-nsU_DaIZE&t=13s
Try agian.
12 Nov 19
@humy saidThose are all myths I have proven wrong to you before. Here are the peer reviewed articles that prove you wrong.
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.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/2007JCLI1871.1
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1005457318876
Try again.
12 Nov 19
@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.......
12 Nov 19
@metal-brain saidThe 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.
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.
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.
12 Nov 19
1 edit
@metal-brain saidThe 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.
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.
13 Nov 19
@deepthought saidYou are wrong. Show me an excerpt from the article that supports your claim. You are misrepresenting what the article concluded.
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.
13 Nov 19
@sonhouse said.....and potatoes grown with irrigation has less nutrition as a result. Water is evil!
@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.......
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.
13 Nov 19
@wildgrass saidA warmer climate means more rainfall worldwide. That means crops will be more productive. More food is a good thing.
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.
13 Nov 19
1 edit
@metal-brain saidMore raging floods means crops will be more productive?
A warmer climate means more rainfall worldwide. That means crops will be more productive.
13 Nov 19
@metal-brain saidRead the second sentence of the abstract.
You are wrong. Show me an excerpt from the article that supports your claim. You are misrepresenting what the article concluded.
13 Nov 19
1 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.
13 Nov 19
@humy saidThere 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 raging floods means crops will be more productive?
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.
13 Nov 19
1 edit
@deepthought saidCopy and paste it. Then provide the specific link you are referring to. I posted two of them. I can't read your mind.
Read the second sentence of the abstract.