SuzukiSavage.com - Mann Down!

T And T Garage

Serious Thumper

Offline

SuzukiSavage.com
Rocks!

Posts: 9839

Re: Mann Down!
Reply #45 - 07/10/17 at 12:54:52

justin_o_guy2 wrote on 07/10/17 at 12:39:29:

Whether Scientists agree or not, the SCIENCE is settled..

WebImagesVideosMapsNews
1,640,000 RESULTSAny time
About our ads
Co2 Injector at Amazon | Amazon.com
Ad · www.Amazon.com
Free Shipping on Qualified Orders. Buy Co2 Injector at Amazon!
Carbon Dioxide In Greenhouses - Ministry of …
www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm
The benefits of carbon dioxide supplementation on plant growth and production within the greenhouse environment have been well understood for many years. Carbon ...
Greenhouse growing carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) supply ... - Praxair
www.praxair.com/industries/food-and-beverage/greenhouse-growing
Greenhouse growing carbon dioxide ... Print; Growing green. Achieve optimal greenhouse growing with carbon dioxide ... build and install the best CO 2 injection ...
Hydrofarm - Carbon Dioxide Enrichment Methods
https://www.hydrofarm.com/resources/articles/co2_enrichment.php
Carbon Dioxide Enrichment Methods . By Roger H. Thayer, Eco Enterprises . CARBON DIOXIDE (CO2) Carbon dioxide is an odorless gas and a minor constituent of the air …
Subpart UU – Injection of Carbon Dioxide | Greenhouse …
https://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/subpart-uu-injection-carbon-dioxide
10 rows · Rule Information. This rule requires reporting of greenhouse gases (GHGs) …
FEDERAL REGIS… CITATION ACTION DESCRIPTION
12/09/2016 81 FR 89188 Final Rule Finalizes revisions to specific pro…
11/29/2013 78 FR 71904 Final Rule Finalizes amendments that consi…
04/02/2013 78 FR 19802 Proposed Rule Proposal to amend the Greenhou…
08/13/2012 77 FR 48072 Final Rule Finalizes confidentiality determin…
See all 10 rows on www.epa.gov
Is CO2 is so bad for the planet, why do greenhouses …
www.naturalnews.com/040890_greenhouses_carbon_dioxide_generators...
If carbon dioxide is so bad for the planet, why do greenhouse growers

http://skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm

http://www.salon.com/2015/05/22/scientists_destroy_another_climate_denier_myt...

http://climate.nasa.gov/news/2436/co2-is-making-earth-greenerfor-now/

(skepticalscience.com)
What would be the effects of an increase of CO2 on agriculture and plant growth in general?

1. CO2 enhanced plants will need extra water both to maintain their larger growth as well as to compensate for greater moisture evaporation as the heat increases. Where will it come from? In many places rainwater is not sufficient for current agriculture and the aquifers they rely on are running dry throughout the Earth (1, 2).

On the other hand, as predicted by climate research, we are experiencing more intense storms with increased rainfall rates throughout much of the world. One would think that this should be good for agriculture. Unfortunately when rain falls in short, intense bursts it does not have time to soak into the ground. Instead, it quickly floods into creeks, then rivers, and finally out into the ocean, often carrying away large amounts of soil and fertilizer.

2. Unlike Nature, our way of agriculture does not self-fertilize by recycling all dead plants, animals and their waste. Instead we have to constantly add artificial fertilizers produced by energy-intensive processes mostly fed by hydrocarbons, particularly from natural gas which will eventually be depleted. Increasing the need for such fertilizer competes for supplies of natural gas and oil, creating competition between other needs and the manufacture of fertilizer. This ultimately drives up the price of food.

3. Too high a concentration of CO2 causes a reduction of photosynthesis in certain of plants. There is also evidence from the past of major damage to a wide variety of plants species from a sudden rise in CO2 (See illustrations below). Higher concentrations of CO2 also reduce the nutritional quality of some staples, such as wheat.

4. As is confirmed by long-term experiments, plants with exhorbitant supplies of CO2 run up against limited availability of other nutrients. These long term projects show that while some plants exhibit a brief and promising burst of growth upon initial exposure to C02, effects such as the "nitrogen plateau" soon truncate this benefit

5. Plants raised with enhanced CO2 supplies and strictly isolated from insects behave differently than if the same approach is tried in an otherwise natural setting. For example, when the growth of soybeans is boosted out in the open this creates changes in plant chemistry that makes these specimens more vulnerable to insects, as the illustration below shows.

6. Likely the worst problem is that increasing CO2 will increase temperatures throughout the Earth. This will make deserts and other types of dry land grow. While deserts increase in size, other eco-zones, whether tropical, forest or grassland will try to migrate towards the poles. Unfortunately it does not follow that soil conditions will necessarily favor their growth even at optimum temperatures.

In conclusion, it would be reckless to keep adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Assuming there are any positive impacts on agriculture in the short term, they will be overwhelmed by the negative impacts of climate change.

Added CO2 will likely shrink the range available to plants while increasing the size of deserts. It will also increase the requirements for water and soil fertility as well as plant damage from insects.

Increasing CO2 levels would only be beneficial inside of highly controlled, enclosed spaces like greenhouses.

Back to top

IP Logged

WebsterMark

Serious Thumper

Offline

SuzukiSavage.com
Rocks!

Posts: 12854

Gender: male

Re: Mann Down!
Reply #46 - 07/10/17 at 13:08:54

-No. It's miniscule. I'm 56 and have traveled the country and to a lesser extend the world, since I was in my 20's. I can't see any difference anywhere. And neither can you.

See chart and links above.

=The actual change in temperature attributed to CO2 from burning fossil fuels is unknown by anyone. In fact, the tiny change in the actual temperature is debatable since adjustments have been made from past readings.

Sorry, I don't believe in such crazy conspiracies. I do know that the main lobbyists for denial are funded heavily by big oil. To me, that's more cause for concern. It's also concerning that the establishment right wing is behind the denial as well. Two red flags that are hard to miss.

-No, they are not heavily funded by "big oil". You don't honestly believe Judith Curry was funded by big oil and that's why she spoke up and lost her job? You think Francis Menton of the Manhattan Contrarian is a secret big oil employee? If I listed a 1000 scientist and professors who question the currently climate change story, would you think Mobil pays them all a salary? I don't particularly like you at all, but I don't think you're that stupid.

You can't list that many. Nice try though.

= Bet me.

Says who? Oh yea.,. oil and coal companies!! LOL . The fact is, the entire planet gets ALL the energy it has ever had, or will ever have, from the sun. Yes, even geothermal, tidal and wind can be traced back to the good old sun. So to say that there's a "ceiling" - that's kind of absurd. The true "ceiling" or actually "basement" is fossil fuels. They are indeed finite and non-replenishable.

-Says me. I see it all the time. In my work, we use the sustainability angle and we all know it's BS. Yes, there's a ceiling. Just like there's a ceiling in anything mechanical. We can never have flying cars and spaces ships that zip in and out of orbit that are popular in science fiction for example. It's fun to think about and watch NASA make little jet packs suits a guy can fly around in for a few minutes. But our physical world will not allow the ships in "Close Encounters" for example. There is a mechanical ceiling that we'll bump up against.

Like the "unbreakable" sound barrier, right?

=I don't know what you do for a living or what your background or education level is but you really don't have any idea what you're saying in regards to this. And if they didn't think the sound barrier was breakable, they wouldn't have done it.

We'll make improvements no doubt but we'll hit a limit.

LOL - again, says who? Are you a theoretical physicist? Are you a astrophysicist?

= Not exactly. Let me guess, you believe in Star Trek's transporter?....

How soon is anyone's guess. And there's a ceiling for solar energy. We've been at this for 30 or 40 years and it's a fraction of our energy. We can spend billions and billions to move up a few percentage points.

You may want to check what those "fractions" are... not so insignificant anymore.

=yes, they are. In the big picture, they are literally the pimple on the elephant's butt.

Not a strawman - it's actually a fact. Humans do indeed affect the Earth on a daily basis.

-Saying humans affect the Earth is like auditioning for Captain Obvious. No $hit Sherlock. But that's not the question now is it? The question is: Is the majority of the temperature increase we see (and we do see it. 15,000 years ago, the Great Lakes were nothing but ice so no one disputes the earth has/is warming) due to CO2 in the atmosphere due to fossil fuels? Plenty of scientist say NO to that question.

Sigh.... rate of change. Rate of change. Rate of change....

=You have no idea what the rate of change is.

I have - I still side with the proven climate scientists.

-I side with the proven climate scientist who say manmade climate change due to co2 from fossil fuels is overstated. The evidence is more on their side than the other side.

Rate of change.

=The IPCC reports estimating global temperatures have been wrong every time. I think they've issued 5 since they started, maybe more. Now they are telling you the same thing again and it never occurs to you to think they've been wrong every single time?....

It's said you can't argue with a religious zealot and I think that's the case here. Go bow to your climate change God.

Back to top

IP Logged

justin_o_guy2 Serious Thumper Offline What happened? Posts: 55279 East Texas, 1/2 dallas/la.	Re: Mann Down! Reply #47 - 07/10/17 at 13:15:35 The PERPETUALLY WRONG scientists are supported by the PERPETUALLY WRONG left.
Back to top	The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion.- Edmund Burke. IP Logged

T And T Garage

Serious Thumper

Offline

SuzukiSavage.com
Rocks!

Posts: 9839

Re: Mann Down!
Reply #48 - 07/10/17 at 13:22:22

WebsterMark wrote on 07/10/17 at 13:08:54:

-No. It's miniscule. I'm 56 and have traveled the country and to a lesser extend the world, since I was in my 20's. I can't see any difference anywhere. And neither can you.

See chart and links above.

=The actual change in temperature attributed to CO2 from burning fossil fuels is unknown by anyone. In fact, the tiny change in the actual temperature is debatable since adjustments have been made from past readings.

But the RATE OF TEMPERATURE CHANGE is the crux!!

Sorry, I don't believe in such crazy conspiracies. I do know that the main lobbyists for denial are funded heavily by big oil. To me, that's more cause for concern. It's also concerning that the establishment right wing is behind the denial as well. Two red flags that are hard to miss.

-No, they are not heavily funded by "big oil". You don't honestly believe Judith Curry was funded by big oil and that's why she spoke up and lost her job? You think Francis Menton of the Manhattan Contrarian is a secret big oil employee? If I listed a 1000 scientist and professors who question the currently climate change story, would you think Mobil pays them all a salary? I don't particularly like you at all, but I don't think you're that stupid.

You can't list that many. Nice try though.

= Bet me.

Have at it!!

Says who? Oh yea.,. oil and coal companies!! LOL . The fact is, the entire planet gets ALL the energy it has ever had, or will ever have, from the sun. Yes, even geothermal, tidal and wind can be traced back to the good old sun. So to say that there's a "ceiling" - that's kind of absurd. The true "ceiling" or actually "basement" is fossil fuels. They are indeed finite and non-replenishable.

-Says me. I see it all the time. In my work, we use the sustainability angle and we all know it's BS. Yes, there's a ceiling. Just like there's a ceiling in anything mechanical. We can never have flying cars and spaces ships that zip in and out of orbit that are popular in science fiction for example. It's fun to think about and watch NASA make little jet packs suits a guy can fly around in for a few minutes. But our physical world will not allow the ships in "Close Encounters" for example. There is a mechanical ceiling that we'll bump up against.

Like the "unbreakable" sound barrier, right?

=I don't know what you do for a living or what your background or education level is but you really don't have any idea what you're saying in regards to this. And if they didn't think the sound barrier was breakable, they wouldn't have done it.

Scientists thought (at the time) it was unbreakable!!! That's a FACT!!! Sheesh!! lol

We'll make improvements no doubt but we'll hit a limit.

LOL - again, says who? Are you a theoretical physicist? Are you a astrophysicist?

= Not exactly. Let me guess, you believe in Star Trek's transporter?....

LOL - no, but that's not what I'm talking about. But what you mention - commonplace space travel, is actually VERY plausible. In the last 10 years we've seen private citizens like Elon Musk design, build and fly missions to the ISS.

How soon is anyone's guess. And there's a ceiling for solar energy. We've been at this for 30 or 40 years and it's a fraction of our energy. We can spend billions and billions to move up a few percentage points.

You may want to check what those "fractions" are... not so insignificant anymore.

=yes, they are. In the big picture, they are literally the pimple on the elephant's butt.

Sigh... ok - here you go:

Top 8 countries in 2016 based on total PV installed capacity (MW)
China: 78,100 MW (25.8%)
Japan: 42,800 MW (14.1%)
Germany: 41,200 MW (13.6%)
United States: 40,300 MW (13.3%)
Italy: 19,300 MW (6.4%)
United Kingdom: 11,600 MW (3.8%)
India: 9,000 MW (3.0%)
France: 7,100 MW (2.3%)

NOT insignificant.

Not a strawman - it's actually a fact. Humans do indeed affect the Earth on a daily basis.

-Saying humans affect the Earth is like auditioning for Captain Obvious. No $hit Sherlock. But that's not the question now is it? The question is: Is the majority of the temperature increase we see (and we do see it. 15,000 years ago, the Great Lakes were nothing but ice so no one disputes the earth has/is warming) due to CO2 in the atmosphere due to fossil fuels? Plenty of scientist say NO to that question.

Sigh.... rate of change. Rate of change. Rate of change....

=You have no idea what the rate of change is.

Actually, I do. It seems you don't. The RATE at which the Earth is warming is at an alarming rate. Get it?

I have - I still side with the proven climate scientists.

-I side with the proven climate scientist who say manmade climate change due to co2 from fossil fuels is overstated. The evidence is more on their side than the other side.

Rate of change.

=The IPCC reports estimating global temperatures have been wrong every time. I think they've issued 5 since they started, maybe more. Now they are telling you the same thing again and it never occurs to you to think they've been wrong every single time?....

It's said you can't argue with a religious zealot and I think that's the case here. Go bow to your climate change God.

Climate change is based in science, not God - nice try.

Back to top

IP Logged

WebsterMark

Serious Thumper

Offline

SuzukiSavage.com
Rocks!

Posts: 12854

Gender: male

Re: Mann Down!
Reply #49 - 07/10/17 at 14:02:40

But the RATE OF TEMPERATURE CHANGE is the crux!!

=How could you know the rate of change associated with CO2 if you don't know the natural rate of change? The historical temperatures are unknown, they are estimates. As has been pointed out by the Climategate emails, they were changed to hide the decline.

Have at it!!

=Nope. Bet me. $100 bucks. It’s not your country.

Scientists thought (at the time) it was unbreakable!!! That's a FACT!!! Sheesh!! Lol

=No they didn’t! Whips break the sound barrier when you snap them. The props on airplanes break the sound barrier. They knew and understood this.

I give, you win. You've successfully convinced me that by being wrong about almost everything we've discussed, you at right.
So I will be like you. The IPCC scientist have told you the temp would be X. In reality it's currently X-Y. And they've done this to you over and over again. You however believe everything they say. You have been wrong over and over again in this thread. So I choose to believe you know what you're talking about despite all evidence to the contrary.

I am TT.

Back to top

IP Logged

justin_o_guy2 Serious Thumper Offline What happened? Posts: 55279 East Texas, 1/2 dallas/la.	Re: Mann Down! Reply #50 - 07/10/17 at 14:13:59 All scientific Facts presented provided by the Same PERPETUALLY WRONG scientists. But allegedly critically thinking adults continue to buy it.
Back to top	The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion.- Edmund Burke. IP Logged

T And T Garage

Serious Thumper

Offline

SuzukiSavage.com
Rocks!

Posts: 9839

Re: Mann Down!
Reply #51 - 07/10/17 at 14:18:16

WebsterMark wrote on 07/10/17 at 14:02:40:

But the RATE OF TEMPERATURE CHANGE is the crux!!

=How could you know the rate of change associated with CO2 if you don't know the natural rate of change?

Indirect ways of assessing past temperatures, using so-called temperature proxies, take measurements of responses to past temperature change that are preserved in natural archives such as ice, rocks and fossils.

The historical temperatures are unknown, they are estimates. As has been pointed out by the Climategate emails, they were changed to hide the decline.

Wrong.

Have at it!!

=Nope. Bet me. $100 bucks. It’s not your country.

Huh? It is my country.

Scientists thought (at the time) it was unbreakable!!! That's a FACT!!! Sheesh!! Lol

=No they didn’t! Whips break the sound barrier when you snap them. The props on airplanes break the sound barrier. They knew and understood this.

Perhaps I overstated - but engineers thought it was (near) impossible to make a plane that would go that fast... sheesh!! (think propellers prior to the jet)

I give, you win. You've successfully convinced me that by being wrong about almost everything we've discussed, you at right.
So I will be like you. The IPCC scientist have told you the temp would be X. In reality it's currently X-Y. And they've done this to you over and over again. You however believe everything they say. You have been wrong over and over again in this thread. So I choose to believe you know what you're talking about despite all evidence to the contrary.

I am TT.

Rate.... of.... change.....

Back to top

IP Logged

justin_o_guy2 Serious Thumper Offline What happened? Posts: 55279 East Texas, 1/2 dallas/la.	Re: Mann Down! Reply #52 - 07/10/17 at 14:21:37 Called important by the same Perpetually Wrong scientists. I'm all shook up. Let's hyperventilate over what is unproven, And Import refugees, who have wrecked Europe. I'm supposed to yield to That decision making ability?
Back to top	The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion.- Edmund Burke. IP Logged

T And T Garage

Serious Thumper

Offline

SuzukiSavage.com
Rocks!

Posts: 9839

Re: Mann Down!
Reply #53 - 07/10/17 at 14:24:00

justin_o_guy2 wrote on 07/10/17 at 14:21:37:

Called important by the same
Perpetually Wrong scientists.
I'm all shook up.
Let's hyperventilate over what is unproven,
And
Import refugees, who have wrecked Europe.

I'm supposed to yield to That decision making ability?

No - you do you. I'll take the path of caution and err on the side of the scientists. No big deal to me. I'll buy a Tesla as soon as I can.

Back to top

IP Logged

justin_o_guy2 Serious Thumper Offline What happened? Posts: 55279 East Texas, 1/2 dallas/la.	Re: Mann Down! Reply #54 - 07/10/17 at 14:51:52 But WHY ? Who is So WRONG for so Long but retains credibility?
Back to top	The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion.- Edmund Burke. IP Logged

T And T Garage

Serious Thumper

Offline

SuzukiSavage.com
Rocks!

Posts: 9839

Re: Mann Down!
Reply #55 - 07/10/17 at 15:00:42

justin_o_guy2 wrote on 07/10/17 at 14:51:52:

But WHY ?
Who is So WRONG for so Long but retains credibility?

Like I said - you do you. You think I'm wrong - I think you're wrong. That's never gonna change apparently.

I personally want to err on the side of caution. I'll support lowering emissions, and increasing funding to cleaner energy. I see the alternative as unsustainable and damaging. I think that Man has caused the rapid elevation of Earth's temperature. I can see more science supporting it than not.

I also take comfort in the fact that I will try and change for the betterment of the Planet than to turn a blind eye to it.

So.... Let's say it is all a hoax - I'd STILL rather try to find alternatives to fossil fuels.

Back to top

IP Logged

justin_o_guy2

Serious Thumper

Offline

What happened?

Posts: 55279
East Texas, 1/2 dallas/la.

Re: Mann Down!
Reply #56 - 07/10/17 at 15:07:28

Change towards something cleaner and sustainable is only reasonable.
Pretending the climate is going crazy, driving support for change with fear, that's WRONG.
You can want better without screaming Fire.
You can't justify pretending the demonstrably incorrect Science we've had shoved down our throats by saying you want to err on side of caution after the Destruction promised BY THEIR INFORMATION hasn't happened.

Back to top

The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion.- Edmund Burke.

IP Logged

T And T Garage

Serious Thumper

Offline

SuzukiSavage.com
Rocks!

Posts: 9839

Re: Mann Down!
Reply #57 - 07/10/17 at 15:14:02

justin_o_guy2 wrote on 07/10/17 at 15:07:28:

Change towards something cleaner and sustainable is only reasonable.
Pretending the climate is going crazy, driving support for change with fear, that's WRONG.
You can want better without screaming Fire.
You can't justify pretending the demonstrably incorrect Science we've had shoved down our throats by saying you want to err on side of caution after the Destruction promised BY THEIR INFORMATION hasn't happened.

I don't see it that way. I see core, ocean and geologic sediment temps that point to acceleration at an alarming rate.

I'm not scared of it - I see the immediate need to change.

What scares me is the denial. That everything is fine.

You just said it - "Change towards something cleaner and sustainable is only reasonable."

Well then... let's get going on it - why wait?

Back to top

IP Logged

justin_o_guy2 Serious Thumper Offline What happened? Posts: 55279 East Texas, 1/2 dallas/la.	Re: Mann Down! Reply #58 - 07/10/17 at 15:55:16 I'm not Rossi. What steps do you suggest?
Back to top	The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion.- Edmund Burke. IP Logged

WebsterMark

Serious Thumper

Offline

SuzukiSavage.com
Rocks!

Posts: 12854

Gender: male

Re: Mann Down!
Reply #59 - 07/11/17 at 05:34:56

Putting this Mann thread to bed; a couple of important points.

One guy responsible for the original global warming charade taking off is the guy this thread's titled after, Michael Mann. He filed two libel suits after articles appeared saying he basically made stuff up to make his infamous hockey stick graph work.

In both cases, he's refused to provide his data during the discovery part of the pre-trial. So the writers said his data was false, he sued for libel but now refuses to show the original data.... Hmmmmm Yea, he lied.

So, for Sew and TT who seem to impose near angelic status on anyone claiming to be a climate scientist, one of the original architects of GW created false data and that helped to kick off the greatest scientific fraud in history....

Secondly, from Manhattan Contrarian. (whom you should all read by the way;http://manhattancontrarian.com/ ). Basically, the temps are back where they were in the 80's and 90's. And if you read thru the rest of his stuff, he post all the temp readings and the MARGIN OF ERROR showing how all these headlines that we've just head the hottest June etc.... are BS because the temp difference in so tiny and within the margin of error.

With the breakup of last year's big El Niño, global temperatures declined significantly. The latest global temperature anomaly from the UAH satellite temperature series is +0.21 deg C for June 2017 -- down a remarkable 0.65 deg C from the February 2016 global anomaly of +0.86 deg C. The Northern Hemisphere anomaly dropped even more, by 0.86 deg C, from +1.19 deg C to only +0.32 deg C. Those declines represent well more than half of the entire warming that had been present in the satellite record at the peak of the El Niño, and bring recent temperatures below those recorded during many months in the 1980s and 90s. It's no wonder that the breathless press releases from NASA and NOAA trumpeting "hottest [April, May, June, etc.] ever!" have at least temporarily ceased.

Back to top

IP Logged