Confessions of a Climate Change Denier
- Thread starter grainfedpraiboy
- Start date
No, I usually don't expect you to embarrass yourself but seriously, what's next? Are you going to provide a link to somebody that uses a ouija board?
This is fun.
The answer is right at your finger tips, but it appears that come hell or high water, you'll only see what you want to see.
The answer is right at your finger tips, but it appears that come hell or high water, you'll only see what you want to see.
I was thinking more around Massachusetts seeing how Eagle is from there.
Let's see....
"There was a man from Boston
That had a Mini Austin
There was room for his a s s
And one tank of gas
But his balls fell out and he lost 'em"
I'll take a look into that and see what year they predicted the ice free North... It will be disappointing if they also projected 2013 as the date.
Says the idiot that thinks naturopathy is a religion. Check the data, farmers almanac has a really good track record.
Don't forget the guys with the computer models predicted an ice free arctic ocean in 2008. How accurate was that?
No...jeez, I'll multi-quote since you seem to be having comprehension problems.
In the examples I gave you, the end result for both scenarios is, 5 fewer tonnes of heat trapping gas. That's called equivalence.
Then you need to go back to watching Sesame Street.
No part of what I said should be complicated to anyone that understands concepts like which number is bigger than another, which is smallest, and which are the same.
Cut, misunderstanding, I don't care what you call it. Yes the physics is simple, five fewer tonnes of greenhouse gas, it doesn't matter how that result was achieved. The physics is quite clear on that, the universe doesn't react differently to emissions from fewer people versus fewer emissions from the same amount of people when the radiative result is the same...
Since the rest is more of the same, I think I'll just leave it at that.
Do you know what the difference is between a C4 and C3 carbon fization by plants? In the latter case, higher temperatures and drought will erase gains made by more carbon dioxide. More CO2 does not necessarily mean more food. The plants utilizing the C3 carbon fixing pathways lose roughly 25-30% of the fixed carbon. The enzyme RuBisCO (read the products paragraph in the section on Enzymatic activity) is responsible for two reactions, carboxylation, and oxegenation. When plants are stressed by heat and drought, more carbon is utilized by RuBisCo in the oxeganation pathway, losing more than the 25-30% of carbon I mentioned above.
If the world is growing more tropical plants, then yes, generally more CO2 means more plant food. In the developed world, where we grow temperate climate cultivars, the end result is far more uncertain, because of those other factors like droughts and heat stress.
Of course naturopathy is a religion. That's why you can't back up much of what you say with scientific evidence....just like your claims of accuracy when it comes to the almanac. As I've said before, you should probably refrain from posting in any thread that is remotely connected to science
I'm sorry I've upset you but really, this is the science section and not the theology section.
Hilarious.
Ya just can't admit it can you?
The model that assumes that anthro sources of the alleged GHGs that will cause Armageddon has a critical level at which point, I assume, that the Earth morphs into a ball of fire, or whatever catastrophic fictional crisis they have modeled (with an accurate model this time, no doubt).
That said, the more emitters translates into a faster acceleration towards the critical level.... All of the +/- 5 tonne examples are meaningless in a closed system where the pop is expanding at a massive rate... Understand?.. There is a net increase of the # of emitters (70 million up to this point in 2014 alone) so the +/- 5 people or tonnes or whatever don't mean squat.
PS - I love the emboldened part re: radiative results being the same.... I provided a link of Fuel (cooking) sources to you... 2.5 billion folks use wood or coal daily... Ya might want to think about that as part of the ole radiative results thingy
Admit what? You and I are disagreeing about what is the prominent problem. I'm saying the amount of heat trapping radiation is what matters, and it doesn't matter how you bring the value down. You're saying that it does, and that the number of humans matter more than how much the radiative forcing changes by. Why would I admit to anything about your illogical premise?
Five is five, except in your world apparently. I will admit, to being shocked at your statements. That is all.
Jeez, you are verging on retarded. I said that it doesn't matter how you reduce the number, when the number is the same in two different scenarios. Of course some fuel sources produce more, I never denied that. To our disagreement here, it's a red herring. You're very good at those logical fallacies.
I'm saying you're a damn fool for thinking 5 is better than 5. If you care to revise your statement, now would be a good time.
I guess that you're just a sh*tty communicator.
Let me ask then a yes/no question:
Is the advent of anthropogenic global warming a function, in any way, of the number of 'emitters' in the equation?
A simple yes or no is all that's required
if you choose not to factor the actual emission output of your "number of emitters", what's really your point here?