Alleged Man-made Climate Change Exemplifies What's Wrong with Science

page: 9
28
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join

posted on May, 19 2014 @ 03:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: SonOfTheLawOfOne
If CO2 increases foliage growth (which it does), and more plants end up growing and consuming more carbon and therefore, also dying, over time, the CO2 will start to increase at a faster rate. It's one of many feedback loops in climate, but you already knew that. As temperature increases, so will the rate of decomposition as it is temperature that fosters the growth of the bacteria that break down the sugars from the plants and release the carbon back into the atmosphere. Higher temps = more plants = more plant perspiration = more plant death = faster decomposition = increased CO2.


That doesn't make sense at all.

Plants absorb more CO2 than they emit in their entire life and death cycle.
scienceline.ucsb.edu...

No matter how you look at it, there is less CO2 in the end.




posted on May, 20 2014 @ 10:26 AM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

It doesn't mean that I can't comprehend what I read, lol, and nowhere have I ever said that 8 billion people would ever be able to live in peace. In fact, I've said the exact opposite of that. This is about money. It's about making the whole world pay a tax based on BS data. That's a lot of money from a lot of sheep, because they do see us as animals and live off us.



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 10:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Fylgje
a reply to: mbkennel

It doesn't mean that I can't comprehend what I read, lol, and nowhere have I ever said that 8 billion people would ever be able to live in peace. In fact, I've said the exact opposite of that. This is about money. It's about making the whole world pay a tax based on BS data. That's a lot of money from a lot of sheep, because they do see us as animals and live off us.



But just because there is an "Effect" that you don't like, Doesn't mean that the original issue isn't true.

Just because some will try to generate a tax or multiple taxes and revenue streams off of Man made Global Warming does not also mean that Man Made Global Warming isn't real or that we can't take some effective measures against it's effects or effective measures to mitigate it.

We're talking about two different issues.



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 01:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Fylgje
a reply to: mbkennel

It doesn't mean that I can't comprehend what I read, lol, and nowhere have I ever said that 8 billion people would ever be able to live in peace. In fact, I've said the exact opposite of that. This is about money. It's about making the whole world pay a tax based on BS data. That's a lot of money from a lot of sheep, because they do see us as animals and live off us.



Actually doing something which is good in the long run is not what sheep do. An ignorant sheep society is the one eating too much of the grass contaminated with lead and disparaging sheep scientists who want to limit this, even though it tastes yummy, because then Head Ram will not let everybody graze on it as much as they want.
edit on 20-5-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 01:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Fylgje
a reply to: Mary Rose

I totally agree with you OP. I've looked at all the "scientific data" and deemed it garbage long ago. These scientists get funding from people like Al Gore so they will create a fake panic to justify this 'TAX'. They know that the more they push it the more money they will get. It's a sham.

This being said, I'm all for holding all people to a higher standard when it comes to being environmentally responsible. We have to keep the pollution down for obvious reasons.

What's happening is totally natural, -the sun is fluctuating.


This is a scientific hypothesis which can be tested against experimental data. It has been, very very very very extensively over decades by many independent groups across the planet.

It is false, not justified by data, whereas a different physical hypothesis is fully justified by the observed data.

When I say "false" I mean not that solar fluctuations could make a difference and in the past did (no dispute there), but that solar fluctuations explain current observations substantially better than increased greenhouse effect from increased human emissions.

It was clear from the outset of this field scientifically, 5+ decades ago, that essential drivers of climate are solar influence, greenhouse effect from gases and water cycle, ocean currents and albedo.

edit on 20-5-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)
edit on 20-5-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 10:26 PM
link   
a reply to: WeAre0ne

You clearly can't read your own sources. And apparently, have never grown a plant of any kind in your life.

If temperatures go above a point where the plant is able to operate normally, it goes into distress. This can happen from temperature, pH, nutrient imbalance and a number of other things.

When a plant is in distress, what do you think happens to it? How do you think it responds? It PERSPIRES more because its metabolism increases and it has to work harder to absorb sunlight and produce sugars from CO2 and water. This is especially true with plants that have fruit.

Aside from that, you don't know what you're talking about and your source agrees with what I said.

I said:


originally posted by: SonOfTheLawOfOne
If CO2 increases foliage growth (which it does), and more plants end up growing and consuming more carbon and therefore, also dying, over time, the CO2 will start to increase at a faster rate. It's one of many feedback loops in climate, but you already knew that. As temperature increases, so will the rate of decomposition as it is temperature that fosters the growth of the bacteria that break down the sugars from the plants and release the carbon back into the atmosphere. Higher temps = more plants = more plant perspiration = more plant death = faster decomposition = increased CO2.


You said:



That doesn't make sense at all.

Plants absorb more CO2 than they emit in their entire life and death cycle.
scienceline.ucsb.edu...

No matter how you look at it, there is less CO2 in the end.


Your source says:


During their lifetimes, plants generally give off about half of the carbon dioxide (CO2), that they absorb, although this varies a great deal between different kinds of plants. Once they die, almost all of the carbon that they stored up in their bodies is released again into the atmosphere.

As you may know, plants use the energy in sunlight to convert CO2 (from the air) and water (from the soil) into sugars. This is called photosynthesis. Plants use some of these sugars as food to stay alive, and some of them to build new stems and leaves so they can grow. When plants burn their sugars for food, O2 is produced as a waste product, just like the CO2 that we exhale is a waste product from the food we burn for energy. This happens day and night, but since photosynthesis is powered by sunlight, plants absorb much more CO2 than they give off during the daytime. At night, when photosynthesis is not happening, they give off much more CO2 than they absorb. While they're alive, overall, about half of the CO2 that plants absorb is given off as waste.

When you look at a tree, almost all of the body of the tree is made of sugars, which are made from carbon (from CO2) and hydrogen and oxygen (from water). When the tree dies, it rots as decomposers, like bacteria, fungi,and insects eat away at it. Those decomposers gradually release almost all of the tree's stored carbon back into the atmosphere as CO2. Only a very small portion of the carbon in the tree ends up staying in the soil or washing out to sea without changing back into CO2.



No matter how you look at it, you are wrong.

~Namaste
edit on 9-7-2014 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)





new topics
 
28
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join