- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: What are your reasons for believing climate change is "a hoax"
Posted on 3/8/18 at 7:22 am to Pdubntrub
Posted on 3/8/18 at 7:22 am to Pdubntrub
quote:
Post any evidence that CO2 is bad for plants. Its retarded
While I get where you're going with this it's not entirely true.
Role of cysteine proteinase inhibitors in preference of japanese beetles (popillia japonica) for soybean (glycine max) leaves of different ages and grown under elevated CO2
Constraints to nitrogen acquisition of terrestrial plants under elevated CO2
Global CO2 rise leads to reduced maximum stomatal conductance in Florida vegetation
And this wasn't even an exhaustive literature search. It was me messing around for about 5 mins. It's also why I'm more concerned with rising CO2 levels than I am "global climate change". But I digress.
But what should be most disconcerting to all of us is how plants fix carbon from the atmosphere during photosynthesis. There are 3 basic types of photosynthesis that plants utilize to sequester CO2 from the atmosphere, C3, C4 and Crassulacean acid metabolism or CAM photosynthesis. Without getting too technical, most plants are C3 plants and have no special mechanisms for separating carbon uptake and fixation. In C4 plants, there is a spatial separation between carbon sequestration and fixation (between mesophyll and bundle-sheath cells). This essentially makes them more drought tolerant. In CAM plants there is a temporal separation between carbon sequestration and fixation. This occurs where the plant fixes CO2 into oxaloacetate by PEP carboxylase and then converts that to malate or another type of organic acid. During they day, the organic acids are transported out of the vacuole and broken down to release CO2. This means the plants can keep their stomata closed and conserve water.
The catch in all of this is the plants most likely to thrive under high CO2 are C3 plants. The competitive advantage that that C4 plants have over C3 plants evaporates in a high CO2 environment. So what you might ask? Well, most of our crop plants, like corn, are C4 plants while many "weedy" plants are C3 plants. This has the potential to reduce crop yields and could lead to increase herbicide use.
But I'm sure Monsanto will have an answer for us so not to worry.
This post was edited on 3/8/18 at 7:26 am
Posted on 3/8/18 at 8:05 am to Powerman
quote:
His amplified scare tactics are ridiculous but that doesn't mean that there isn't real science on the matter.
Scientist are claiming that humans account for over 100% of all climate change.... Do you agree with them or do you think it is just a conspiracy theory?
This post was edited on 3/8/18 at 8:06 am
Posted on 3/8/18 at 8:07 am to msu202020
quote:
Scientist are claiming that humans account for over 100% of all climate change
This is a mathematical impossibility
Please show me where any reputable scientists are making this claim
Reasonable assumption on my part is that YOU are making this up
Posted on 3/8/18 at 8:09 am to Powerman
quote:
Reasonable assumption on my part
"conspiracy theory"
Posted on 3/8/18 at 8:19 am to Lonnie Utah
quote:
While I get where you're going with this it's not entirely true.
Just trying to get people to look at CC from a different perspective. It is hard to refute my post without stumbling onto how well the earth is equipped at filtering massive amounts of CO2.
Posted on 3/8/18 at 8:19 am to Powerman
quote:
His amplified scare tactics are ridiculous but that doesn't mean that there isn't real science on the matter.
This is what everyone has spelled out for you. Yet, your arrogant Pompous attitude kept you from this realization. Everyone agrees Man has an Impact. Even Climatologist in your "97%" arugument, agree on this. They go on to say its at a minute scale, which you fail to recognize. But YOU, GORE and the bill nyes of the world think Man is the absolute and only cause to any Climate change now and moving forward. Its all Hyperbole and that's what everyone is calling out!! But you sit back pushing this hyperbole and calling others, that actually read entire reports, putting all info into context, as Conspiracy Theorist. You are an absolute Twat stain.
Posted on 3/8/18 at 8:25 am to Pdubntrub
quote:
Just trying to get people to look at CC from a different perspective. It is hard to refute my post without stumbling onto how well the earth is equipped at filtering massive amounts of CO2.
If that claim were true, then CO2 levels would not be rising as rapidly as they have been for the past 100 years. The simple fact is, while it's true that the planet MAY BE able to "filter" large amounts of CO2, human activity is liberating more than CO2 than can be fixed by natural means.
While I refuse to step into that arena, we could debate the consequences of that all day (and longer). I won't go there, because in this forum I don' think those discussions are productive and not likely to change anyone's mind anyway. But the fact is the carbon cycle is currently out of balance and worldwide atmospheric CO2 levels bare this out.
This post was edited on 3/8/18 at 8:27 am
Posted on 3/8/18 at 8:27 am to CptRusty
quote:
"conspiracy theory"
Do you think he is being honest when he states that scientists are claiming something that is mathematically impossible to be true?
Sounds like a pretty clear lie to me.
Posted on 3/8/18 at 8:31 am to Powerman
quote:That’s because I do. My field is large scale modeling. We apply those techniques to many domains. Financial, thermodynamics, groundwater flow. Applying them to climate is not a big leap. Math is math. You should know. You can count.
So it's not your area of expertise yet you feel like you have some sort of special knowledge on the subjectt
quote:incorect. Bandwagoning and appeal to authority is what a bullshitter would do.
Sounds like something a bullshitter would do
quote:C’mon now! I can count as high as you can.
You are not an authority on this matter
This post was edited on 3/8/18 at 8:35 am
Posted on 3/8/18 at 8:32 am to Powerman
If we found out a comet was heading to earth and will hit us in 30 years with zero doubt, do you think that every nation on the planet’s leaders would put all focus into stopping it?
Do you think that every politician with children and grandchildren would focus all of their efforts towards stopping it?
Do you think it would be the number one priority for everyone in the world?
The fact that the same care and focus isn’t happening with global warming is very telling.
Posted on 3/8/18 at 8:35 am to bstew3006
quote:
This is what everyone has spelled out for you.
Yeah, I mentioned it several times.
Its real, it's exaggerated fear mongering though.
Posted on 3/8/18 at 8:44 am to Powerman
quote:
Please show me where any reputable scientists are making this claim
google is your friend
quote:
These conclusions have led to some confusion as to how more than 100% of observed warming could be attributable to human activity. A human contribution of greater than 100% is possible because natural climate change associated with volcanoes and solar activity would most likely have resulted in a slight cooling over the past 50 years, offsetting some of the warming associated with human activities.
This post was edited on 3/8/18 at 8:46 am
Posted on 3/8/18 at 8:45 am to msu202020
quote:
google is your friend
Then you proceed to link something that is not the same as what you claimed
Posted on 3/8/18 at 8:48 am to Powerman
quote:
Then you proceed to link something that is not the same as what you claimed
You may want to read the article.
From said article...
quote:
Similarly, the recent US fourth national climate assessment found that between 93% to 123% of observed 1951-2010 warming was due to human activities.
This post was edited on 3/8/18 at 8:50 am
Posted on 3/8/18 at 8:54 am to Powerman
quote:
Sounds like powerman scientists are full of shite.
Posted on 3/8/18 at 8:55 am to msu202020
quote:
From said article...
quote:
quote:
Similarly, the recent US fourth national climate assessment found that between 93% to 123% of observed 1951-2010 warming was due to human activities.
What those numbers could mean (and I didn't read the article so I don't really know) is that there should have been some sort of cooling over that time period and since it didn't happen, you get above 100%.
But again, I didn't read it so this is speculation.
This post was edited on 3/8/18 at 8:58 am
Posted on 3/8/18 at 8:57 am to Lonnie Utah
quote:
What those numbers could mean (and I didn't read the article so I don't really know) that there should have been some sort of cooling over that time period and since it didn't happen, you get about 100%.
That is exactly what the article is implying. My question to powerman is, do you belief said scientist, or do you think they are fear mongering?
Posted on 3/8/18 at 8:58 am to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
1. I don’t know if climate change/global warming or whatever they’re calling it this week is real or not and frankly don’t care.
This is pretty much the rights stance on climate change. Some are honest enough to admit it. Acknowledging it being real AND being willfully wasteful makes you feel more guilty so denying it while being wasteful is much easier. Most on this board are pretty good at disguising their feelings towards this, but every now and then someone says EXACTLY what they’re thinking, which is that they could care less what happens in 100 years. And that’s the truth.
Posted on 3/8/18 at 8:59 am to Powerman
quote:
The sum of all of the research on the mat points heavily to the side of humans having an impact.
Good grief! This is still going??
Ya Pman...move those goalposts..that what a scientific mind would do!
Posted on 3/8/18 at 9:09 am to Dale51
quote:
Dale51
^^^ Has to be an Earnhardt Sr. fan.
Popular
Back to top



1






