Are they for real?
Oct 19th 2011, 10:24 am
#76
no stressin no fussin....
Joined: Aug 2007
Location: Fantasy Island....
Posts: 12,616
Oct 19th 2011, 10:57 am
#77
Demi-God
Joined: Oct 2008
Location: Far North Queensland
Posts: 2,812
Re: Are they for real?
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.
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.
Long-term: (a) lasting for or pertaining to a relatively long period of time; maturing or becoming effective only after a long period.
Oct 19th 2011, 11:19 am
#78
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Dec 2003
Location: Gold Coast Hinterland
Posts: 2,359
Re: Are they for real?
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.
Long-term: (a) lasting for or pertaining to a relatively long period of time; maturing or becoming effective only after a long period.
Please take a look. CO2 has a bit more of a history.
Please define long-term as a numerical value for this case.
Oct 19th 2011, 11:40 am
#79
snɐןɔ ʎʇıuɐs
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,558
Re: Are they for real?
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.
- 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".)
Oct 19th 2011, 11:42 am
#80
Proudly Deplorable
Joined: May 2003
Location: Alloha snack bar
Posts: 24,246
Re: Are they for real?
MMGW is a load of bollocks
