British Expats - Are they for real?

British Expats (https://britishexpats.com/forum/)

- The Barbie (https://britishexpats.com/forum/barbie-92/)

- - Are they for real? (https://britishexpats.com/forum/barbie-92/they-real-735736/)

Re: Are they for real?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bix (Post 9683378)

Yep :thumbsup:

And I enjoyed watching that :thumbup:

never thought of them two as them, until now:blink:

very funny mate and very true:rofl:

Re: Are they for real?

Quote:

Originally Posted by lesleys (Post 9683337)

Higher productivity of what?

CO2 used to at MUCH higher concentrations. It was the breakdown of CO2 that gave the earth the much of oxygen and water that we have today, which produced the conditions for life to start.

And it is testable using long term averages.

What is testable by averages of what? Please define long-term.

Practically all the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is biological in origin. CO2 was at much higher conc and there was no oxygen, until photosynthesis evolved. Once oxygen was produced as a waste product of photosynthesis then oxygenic respiration evolved, which converted oxygen back into CO2 as a waste product. Higher productivity produces more CO2, because there is more respiration. Respiration goes on all the time, photosynthesis only occurs in the presence of sunlight. It is a very complex dynamic equilibrium, and impossible to model with any accuracy no matter how big your computer is.

Long-term: (a) lasting for or pertaining to a relatively long period of time; maturing or becoming effective only after a long period.

Re: Are they for real?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burbage (Post 9683431)

http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/5b.html

Please take a look. CO2 has a bit more of a history.

Please define long-term as a numerical value for this case.

Re: Are they for real?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wol (Post 9679121)

(But I am not going to rise to the climate bait :p - I don't claim to be able to understand even a small percentage of the data or conclusions, I just look at which group of debaters I find more "believable".)

Kind of the problem. Without a reasonable basis in science and critical thinking, it all becomes a 'good hair' discussion to many. Couple in a vested interest in the status quo with their pollution and you get some of the arsehat statements made here. Blatant untruths, half truths and confused mumbling that most can't tell from real science. I blame hair spray commercials - fake science made up by advertisers (liars) and a populous that ends up not being able to tell the bull**** from the real.

Re: Are they for real?

MMGW is a load of bollocks