Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Incorrect. And as soon as you admit that you failed to provide any evidence for your claims I will show you how we know.There is no difference between the CO2 produced by nature and the CO2 produced by burning of fossil fuels. All of the CO2 produced is balanced out of the atmosphere by vegetation and the ocean. Co2 produced by man is no different.
Okay, I found the article. And you misunderstood it:The mathmatics of leaf decay MIT is the name of the article.
Incorrect.No carbon dioxide is carbon dioxide and is acted upon in the atmosphere the same as all of the carbon dioxide it's absorbed by vegetation and the ocean. The very small amount of CO2 emissions we produce is cancelled out by the ocean and vegetation.
The CO2 produced by nature is much more than that produced by man .
Wrong again. "Nature" does not treat all isotopes the same.How are you saying that CO2 operates different from co2 produced by nature and I mankind. Nature is blind to the CO2 produced Carbon dioxide is carbon dioxide. The carbon cycle operates on carbon dioxide from fossil fuels and plants and animals decomposing. How can the heat acted upon in co2 be hot after the four years it is holding CO2 in the atmosphere. The laws of thereodynamics and entropy go against this happening. The heat after four years must be less than the original figure according to the law of entropy.
If they are scientists where are there peer reviewed papers? If one is not actively doing science one can hardly claim to be a scientist. The deniers are pretty much an anti-science bunch.
C!aims are worthless if you cannot support themTheir papers are peer-reviewed. Many of these profs are associated with universities or institutes. The people who were not peer-reviewed were Oreskes & the thesis student. Just because they disagree with the politically-charged theory, does not make them anti-science. They understand the basic concepts in any earth science course plus the advanced math applied to it. People need not examine graphs all day or listen to left-wing media or Al Gore & assume they're God. That's about as bad as watching LBJ & his Gulf of Tonken story or Arlen Specter's magic bullet. Not every person is ready to be led to the slaughter by would-be politicians or their surrogates. Be it IPCC or WHO, none of these people do anything but distribute a propoganda. If you're asking about where the papers are, you have not looked? Myself on the other hand have watched the podcasts plus the debates between the differing scientists. An example of one way a claim gets distorted is the ocean. I've stated many times that the ocean is the largest global repository of co2 absorption & we are 72% ocean (not to mention seas, lakes, rivers, your basic pond). Some of this co2 will be used by the gazillions of plankton that we can't see plus all the algae. In shallow waters, esp in the Atlantic, there is bivalve uptake plus corals. Now the claim by Mann et al in his group is that it's warmer because the excess co2 is stepping down to a further depth. Sounds plausible? Well, per the marine geologists on the ocean floor we have lots of volcanos & seamounts & hydrothermal vents spurting out hot magma, hot steam, hot water, & hot acid type stuff circulating. And to add to that, co2 absorbs better in colder water. But this is the catch. People are assuming that sunlight is rapidly warming the ocean layers & enhancing co2 absorption of light. But they left out the part that the sun's radiation can only penetrate so far before it reaches the aphotic zone.
Arlen Specter's magic bullet
C!aims are worthless if you cannot support them
And no, scientists are not allowed to assume things like that.
And where are your answers to the questions that I asked you about isotopes?
I doubt she knows, or at least understands why the question would be asked. Unfortunately, this post and too many in the last couple days are just conspiritorial rantings from a number of posters, particularly about the "hockey stick", "algore," etc.
This particular graph was fudged-the infamous hockey stick.
wrongMost people don't realize that Gov. Conolly was sitting in a jump seat that put him lower to the ground and not sitting directly in front of the President. It is perfectly reasonable that a single bullet passed thorough the President's neck, Governor's wrist, and lodged in his thigh. There are some misperceptions about the timing of the three shots relative to the film that eliminate any "hovering" issues. The book I would recommend is "Case Closed" by Gerald Posner.
How is that wrong? What did he claim that was wrong and what is your evidence? He can support all of his claims with reliable evidence. Conspiracy theorists can only say "wrong".wrong
Nope.As for isotopes, plants decomposing create isotopes too.
You know, if a person is honest and admits that he or she does not understand something I have no problem with helping them to understand, politely and without judgment. But to write such a post indicates that the person will never own up to the mistakes that he makes.I'm afraid your attempts at being knowledgeable are seriously backfiring.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?