U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 06-16-2019, 10:28 PM
 
24,185 posts, read 12,015,288 times
Reputation: 10316

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
Only the intentionally ignorant don't know why the climate is changing.
The climate always changes.

The earth heats and cools periodically.

 
Old 06-17-2019, 06:21 AM
 
23,333 posts, read 12,384,752 times
Reputation: 7416
Quote:
Originally Posted by Listener2307 View Post
https://www.insidescience.org/news/r...ta-controversy John Bates stands by accusations that 2015 study was rushed and biased, but says he only guessed that motivations were political.......

Bates told Inside Science that he believes in human-caused climate change


"Nothing in Bates' post provides any evidence that Karl et al. manipulated the data or specifically tried to show more warming," Hausfather told Inside Science in an email. Hausfather wasn't involved in the Karl study, but he replicated its key findings in a study published in Science Advances. When he saw Bates' accusations, he published a blow-by-blow rebuttal on the blog CarbonBrief.

For his part, Bates maintains his criticisms of the Karl study and his concerns about how climate data are managed. But when it comes to the reality of climate change, he sees eye-to-eye with his former colleagues.

"Global warming," Bates said, "is a scientific fact."
 
Old 06-17-2019, 12:24 PM
 
1,334 posts, read 302,004 times
Reputation: 1562
Quote:
Originally Posted by normstad View Post
Explain the isotope ratio C13/C12 then that could only have been cause by burning fossil fuels.

Oh, and CO2 has been known to be a greenhouse gas for a very long time.
How does this added CO2 affect plant life on the planet?
 
Old 06-17-2019, 01:41 PM
 
4,415 posts, read 903,753 times
Reputation: 2460
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncguy50 View Post
How does this added CO2 affect plant life on the planet?
Here is one answer... there are more, all of them having negative effects.

https://qz.com/1288303/climate-chang...ss-nutritious/
 
Old 06-17-2019, 01:51 PM
 
19,365 posts, read 12,306,574 times
Reputation: 10662
Quote:
Originally Posted by normstad View Post
Here is one answer... there are more, all of them having negative effects.

https://qz.com/1288303/climate-chang...ss-nutritious/


What nonsense!


CO2 is not "pumped into plants". Plants use CO2 to build complex carbohydrates (which we as humans like to eat).


Again, you need to read a little about plant physiology and how plants use CO2. For optimal plant growth, we are at LOW LEVELS of CO2 and need to increase atmospheric levels. How we would do that is very hard, as man has little to do with atmospheric CO2 levels.


Your C12/C13 contention is old nonsense that has been refuted. We have these little things called oceans that allow CO2 to equilibrate with the atmosphere and a very good buffering system. The expansion of crops, as opposed to native grasses and trees, has changed (very minutely) the ratio of C12 to C13, not burning fossil fuels.


Plants "less nutritious"? The next thing you know, libs will be telling us that watering plants is actually drowning them and we need to stop. So you are saying that the dinosaurs died millions of years ago not by an asteroid impact, but "malnutrition" due to "lower vitamin levels" in the plants from higher Co2?????!!!!!


Pseudo-science at its best- Oh WOW! "Science Advances" again! The online "journal" of AGW for the AGW crowd. That is hilarious.


"There isn’t a deep body of evidence yet on the topic of how carbon dioxide changes nutritional profiles, even though the effects of such a phenomenon could dramatically impact the lives of hundreds of millions" (i.e.- this was a bogus study and we really don't know if this is real or not).


And the "environment" into which they "pumped the CO2 into" was gas tight, right? Now without the buffering system of the oceans, I wonder what the pH of the soil was in their "well controlled experiment"? That is just priceless. What was the concentration of N2 and O2 in the "environment"? Did they think that perhaps the "infusion system" may have leached other trace elements into the soil? Did they control the experiment by arranging the same system, but just infusing air?


That is the problem with junk science- garbage in- garbage out.

Last edited by hawkeye2009; 06-17-2019 at 02:01 PM..
 
Old 06-17-2019, 02:19 PM
 
Location: NE Mississippi
13,777 posts, read 8,641,649 times
Reputation: 20062
Quote:
Originally Posted by moneill View Post
............"Global warming," Bates said, "is a scientific fact."
The issue is what is causing it.
 
Old 06-17-2019, 02:21 PM
 
4,415 posts, read 903,753 times
Reputation: 2460
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009 View Post
What nonsense!


CO2 is not "pumped into plants". Plants use CO2 to build complex carbohydrates (which we as humans like to eat).
No one said it was pumped into plants. We are pumping it into the atmosphere. Quit selective reading to match your presuppositions.

Quote:
Your C12/C13 contention is old nonsense that has been refuted.
It has NOT been refuted by peer reviewed science, only by opinions from questionable sources. Show us some PEER reviewed science if you want to make such assertions.

Let's go to real sources, not your denial sites.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...nefit-plants1/

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...1111/gcb.12938
 
Old 06-17-2019, 02:27 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
30,923 posts, read 31,833,210 times
Reputation: 12664
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009 View Post
What nonsense!


CO2 is not "pumped into plants". Plants use CO2 to build complex carbohydrates (which we as humans like to eat).


Again, you need to read a little about plant physiology and how plants use CO2. For optimal plant growth, we are at LOW LEVELS of CO2 and need to increase atmospheric levels. How we would do that is very hard, as man has little to do with atmospheric CO2 levels.


Your C12/C13 contention is old nonsense that has been refuted. We have these little things called oceans that allow CO2 to equilibrate with the atmosphere and a very good buffering system. The expansion of crops, as opposed to native grasses and trees, has changed (very minutely) the ratio of C12 to C13, not burning fossil fuels.


Plants "less nutritious"? The next thing you know, libs will be telling us that watering plants is actually drowning them and we need to stop. So you are saying that the dinosaurs died millions of years ago not by an asteroid impact, but "malnutrition" due to "lower vitamin levels" in the plants from higher Co2?????!!!!!


Pseudo-science at its best- Oh WOW! "Science Advances" again! The online "journal" of AGW for the AGW crowd. That is hilarious.


"There isnít a deep body of evidence yet on the topic of how carbon dioxide changes nutritional profiles, even though the effects of such a phenomenon could dramatically impact the lives of hundreds of millions" (i.e.- this was a bogus study and we really don't know if this is real or not).


And the "environment" into which they "pumped the CO2 into" was gas tight, right? Now without the buffering system of the oceans, I wonder what the pH of the soil was in their "well controlled experiment"? That is just priceless. What was the concentration of N2 and O2 in the "environment"? Did they think that perhaps the "infusion system" may have leached other trace elements into the soil? Did they control the experiment by arranging the same system, but just infusing air?


That is the problem with junk science- garbage in- garbage out.
Junk science? Really? I don't think you know more than this group of scientists.

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/5/eaaq1012
 
Old 06-17-2019, 02:31 PM
 
17,902 posts, read 19,868,700 times
Reputation: 7525
Lol, vitamin deficiency... as long as you eat, it should not be a problem... junk science indeed...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top