Greta Thunberg

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
So for years you engage someone you can't stand, and when challenged with a burden of proof you can't meet you suddenly get fed up and can't/won't answer? Why not IA me?


Man, you are so full of it your eyes are brown. I haven't a clue as to what your past incarnations were or on what discussion boards we tangled at, nor do I care. Clearly, you have issues...and clearly like Monckton, you're stymied by some simple questions/observations that challenge your climate change denial. Carry on, toodles … very entertaining!

Yes I have issues with fools like you, I've known you over a decade and you've never changed, toodles. Maybe if you checked the chronology of the posts you'd remember me?

Read, you blithering bumpkin, READ! I've highlighted for you. Your floundering is akin to vaude ville.

[Taichiliberal]

It's funny how they never notice when I discuss thermodynamics or molecular physics. Into The Night is always banging on about thermodynamics and claiming that satellites cannot measure tropospheric temperatures or there is no greenhouse effect. Here is a recent discussion I had with him, didn't see TCL or Joan of Snark contributing.

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...17#post3243117

Why should I contribute to your detours when you don't have the cojones to answer basic questions, much less cop to the less than stellar rep of one of your sources?

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...22#post3323222

Carry on.

[cancel2 2022]

Read, you blithering bumpkin, READ! I've highlighted for you. Your floundering is akin to vaude ville.

I have a low tolerance for fools usually, I gave you a modicum of respect one time but no more. Your bullshit about tritium and almost zero understanding of science generally made me realise you're just a clown. How's your magnum opus entitled The Chronology Of The Posts coming along, toodles?

[cancel2 2022]

translation: junior got schooled in a fair, fact based discussion … and THIS is his best response.

Say goodnight Gracie!

Ok, I am feeling magnanimous.

1) Rainforests are often referred to as the lungs of the planet however, this is mostly bullshit. Although they do indeed soak up CO2 and produce oxygen, this is more or less balanced out by decaying matter on the forest floor and a process known as cellular respiration, where they convert the sugars they amass during the day into energy, using oxygen to power the process.

In fact it's true to say that replacing tropical trees with grass, sugar cane or soya is actually better, however there are many reasons why rain forests should remain not least the bio-diversity and potential new drugs still waiting to be discovered. Now I know you won't believe a word of this because of your programming, which won't allow it but there you go.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/e...worlds-oxygen/

2) Watch This Space

3) Watch This Space

[moon]

maggot;

1) Rainforests are often referred to as the lungs of the planet however, this is mostly bullshit.

OK, maggot- you've really overstepped. Your deceit must now be embarrassing even to the craven trolls who encourage it.

[Taichiliberal]

I have a low tolerance for fools usually, I gave you a modicum of respect one time but no more. Your bullshit about tritium and almost zero understanding of science generally made me realise you're just a clown. How's your magnum opus entitled The Chronology Of The Posts coming along, toodles?

as the reader can see, we have (yet another) right wing wonk who for YEARS follows my posts like a dog in heat seeking attention....then when logically and factually proven wrong in a fact based debate, he dissolves into the psychotic babble that my posts are worth responding to, yet he just can't stand to read people who offend his bloated on-screen ego and (and I say this with heavy sarcasm) intelligence.

You hate the phrase "chronology of the posts" because when followed your folly is exposed to the objective reader. But do carry on mimicking me, toodles...displays your lack of creativity. Carry on floundering.

[Taichiliberal]

Ok, I am feeling magnanimous.

1) Rainforests are often referred to as the lungs of the planet however, this is mostly bullshit. Although they do indeed soak up CO2 and produce oxygen, this is more or less balanced out by decaying matter on the forest floor and a process known as cellular respiration, where they convert the sugars they amass during the day into energy, using oxygen to power the process.

In fact it's true to say that replacing tropical trees with grass, sugar cane or soya is actually better, however there are many reasons why rain forests should remain not least the bio-diversity and potential new drugs still waiting to be discovered. Now I know you won't believe a word of this because of your programming, which won't allow it but there you go.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/e...worlds-oxygen/

2) Watch This Space

3) Watch This Space

Improve your reading comprehension, toodles. I didn't say JUST rainforests:

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Tell me something my little bigoted closed minded bumpkin, are you looking in the mirror when you type out these little bits of mental flatulence? I mean, a regurgitative rebuttal from Lindzen gets your little heart all a flutter? GMAFB! Typical out of context quoting coupled with "guilt by association" prose and lindzen's personal interpretations.

Your boy's rep ain't exactly solid on this subject and hasn't been for a LONG time:

https://skepticalscience.com/lindzen...i-galileo.html

https://www.inverse.com/article/1164...ar-still-wrong

But since you're puffing out your chest like you know something, I'll put to you the same questions that I stymied Lord Monckton with a few year's ago:

- With regards to climate change, how can you say that increasing deforestation on a global scale over 2 centuries has either marginal or negligible effect on the environment? Trees produce oxygen, take Co2 out of the air, and release that when burned.

- subsequently the same question goes regarding urbanization. Removal of grass, trees, foliage in general, lakes...replacing them with heat reflective glass & concrete.

- And how can you say that pumping increasing industrial waste into the air and water on a global scale over two centuries has no effect on the environment/climate?

This requires YOUR response, toodles...not a plethora of links from jokers the likes of Lindzen. Hop to it, I'll wait.

Your link requires a sign up in order to read. Copy and paste if your information is so scintillating. In the mean time, for your education:

https://sciencing.com/climate-affect...est-22138.html

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature01675

[moon]

Ok, I am feeling magnanimous.

That's because marcus doesn't like him anymore.



Haw, haw...........................haw.

[cancel2 2022]

Improve your reading comprehension, toodles. I didn't say JUST rainforests:

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal


Copy and paste if your information is so scintillating. In the mean time, for your education:

https://sciencing.com/climate-affect...est-22138.html

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature01675

So now you're claiming that you can't access the link even though it's not paywalled!! I looked at the two links you provided, the one from Sciencing claimed that rainforests provide 40% of the world's oxygen which is even bigger than the usual 20% normally bandied around. The other link was to a Nature article from 2003 and that is paywalled!!

Anyway here is the National Geographic article, so now you've no excuse. Although I suspect you'll find one anyway.


Why the Amazon doesn’t really produce 20% of the world’s oxygen

Of the many important reasons to worry about the thousands of fires raging in the world’s largest rainforest, oxygen supply is not one of them.

As the news of fires raging in the Amazon spread across the world last week, so did a misleading yet oft-repeated claim about the rainforest’s importance: that it produces 20 percent of the world’s oxygen.

That claim appears in news coverage from CNN, ABC News, Sky News, and others, and in social media posts by politicians and celebrities, such as French president Emmanuel Macron, U.S. Senator and presidential candidate Kamala Harris, and actor and environmentalist Leonardo di Caprio.

Some have taken it to mean that we’re at risk of jeopardizing the world’s oxygen supply. “We need O2 to survive!” former astronaut Scott Kelly tweeted last week.

However, the figure—which has earned the forest the title “lungs of the Earth”—is a gross overestimate. As several scientists have pointed out in recent days, the Amazon’s net contribution to the oxygen we breathe likely hovers around zero.

“There are a number of reasons why you would want to keep the Amazon in place, oxygen just isn’t any one of them,” remarks Earth systems scientist Michael Coe, who directs the Amazon program at the Woods Hole Research Center in Massachusetts.

To Coe, the claim “just doesn’t make any physical sense” because there simply isn’t enough carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for trees to photosynthesize into an entire fifth of the planet’s oxygen.

Think about it: For every batch of carbon dioxide molecules trees pull out of the air, they push a comparable number of oxygen molecules back out. Given that the atmosphere contains less than half a percent of carbon dioxide, but 21 percent oxygen, it’s not possible for the Amazon to generate that much oxygen.

Several scientists have come up with more accurate estimates. Yadvinder Malhi, an ecosystem ecologist at Oxford University’s Environmental Change Institute, bases his calculations on a 2010 study that estimates tropical forests are responsible for around 34 percent of photosynthesis occurring on land. Based on its size, the Amazon would account for about half of that. That would mean the Amazon generates around 16 percent of oxygen produced on land, explains Malhi, who detailed his calculations in a recent blog post.

That percentage sinks to 9 percent when taking into account the oxygen produced by phytoplankton in the ocean. (Climate scientist Jonathan Foley, who directs the non-profit Project Drawdown which researches climate change solutions, arrived at a more conservative estimate of 6 percent).

But that’s not the whole story. Trees don’t just exhale oxygen—they also consume it in a process known as cellular respiration, where they convert the sugars they amass during the day into energy, using oxygen to power the process. So during the night when there’s no sun around for photosynthesis, they’re net absorbers of oxygen. Malhi’s research team reckons that trees inhale a little over half the oxygen they produce this way. The rest is probably used up by the countless microbes that live in the Amazon, which inhale oxygen to break down dead organic matter of the forest.

“The net [oxygen] effect of the Amazon, or really any other biome, is around zero,” he explains.

Because of this balance between oxygen production and consumption, modern ecosystems barely budge oxygen levels in the atmosphere. Instead, the oxygen we breathe is the legacy of phytoplankton in the ocean that have over billions of years steadily accumulated oxygen that made the atmosphere breathable, explains Scott Denning, at atmospheric scientist at Colorado State University.

This oxygen could only accumulate because the plankton became trapped at the bottom of the ocean before they could rot—otherwise, their decomposition by other microbes would have used up that oxygen. The processes that determine how much oxygen is found in the atmosphere on average occur over vast geological timescales and aren’t really influenced by the photosynthesis going on now, Denning explains in an article in The Conversation.

Cradle of biodiversity

Nevertheless, the 20 percent myth has been making the rounds for decades, though it’s unclear where it originated. Malhi and Coe reckon it stems from the fact that the Amazon contributes around 20 percent of the oxygen produced by photosynthesis on land—which may have erroneously slipped into public knowledge as “20 percent of the oxygen in the atmosphere.”

Obviously, none of this is to say that the Amazon isn’t important. In its pristine state, it makes a significant contribution to pulling carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. Coe likens it not to a pair of lungs, but to a giant air conditioner that cools the planet—one of our most powerful in mitigating climate change, alongside other tropical forests in central Africa and Asia—some of which are also currently burning.

The Amazon also plays an important role in stabilizing rainfall cycles in South America, and is a crucial home for indigenous peoples as well as countless animal and plant species.

“Very few people talk about biodiversity, but the Amazon is the most biodiverse ecosystem on land, and climate change and deforestation are putting that richness at risk,” notes climate scientist Carlos Nobre with the University of São Paulo's Institute for Advanced Studies.

For its importance to the world, the Amazon might as well be a metaphorical pair of lungs, and this analogy may have been helpful in galvanizing action around deforestation. But to most researchers, it doesn’t make much sense—not least because actual lungs inhale oxygen rather than exhaling it.

“If people want to relate it to a fundamental part of their body that maintains stability and maintains life, maintains wellbeing—symbolically, you can make some kind of association,” says Nobre. “But physically speaking, it’s not really the lungs of the world, no.”

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/e...worlds-oxygen/

[Taichiliberal]

So now you're claiming that you can't access the link even though it's not paywalled!! I looked at the two links you provided, the one from Sciencing claimed that rainforests provide 40% of the world's oxygen which is even bigger than the usual 20% normally bandied around. The other link was to a Nature article from 2003 and that is paywalled!!

Anyway here is the National Geographic article, so now you've no excuse. Although I suspect you'll find one anyway.


Why the Amazon doesn’t really produce 20% of the world’s oxygen

Of the many important reasons to worry about the thousands of fires raging in the world’s largest rainforest, oxygen supply is not one of them.

As the news of fires raging in the Amazon spread across the world last week, so did a misleading yet oft-repeated claim about the rainforest’s importance: that it produces 20 percent of the world’s oxygen.

That claim appears in news coverage from CNN, ABC News, Sky News, and others, and in social media posts by politicians and celebrities, such as French president Emmanuel Macron, U.S. Senator and presidential candidate Kamala Harris, and actor and environmentalist Leonardo di Caprio.

Some have taken it to mean that we’re at risk of jeopardizing the world’s oxygen supply. “We need O2 to survive!” former astronaut Scott Kelly tweeted last week.

However, the figure—which has earned the forest the title “lungs of the Earth”—is a gross overestimate. As several scientists have pointed out in recent days, the Amazon’s net contribution to the oxygen we breathe likely hovers around zero.

“There are a number of reasons why you would want to keep the Amazon in place, oxygen just isn’t any one of them,” remarks Earth systems scientist Michael Coe, who directs the Amazon program at the Woods Hole Research Center in Massachusetts.

To Coe, the claim “just doesn’t make any physical sense” because there simply isn’t enough carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for trees to photosynthesize into an entire fifth of the planet’s oxygen.

Think about it: For every batch of carbon dioxide molecules trees pull out of the air, they push a comparable number of oxygen molecules back out. Given that the atmosphere contains less than half a percent of carbon dioxide, but 21 percent oxygen, it’s not possible for the Amazon to generate that much oxygen.

Several scientists have come up with more accurate estimates. Yadvinder Malhi, an ecosystem ecologist at Oxford University’s Environmental Change Institute, bases his calculations on a 2010 study that estimates tropical forests are responsible for around 34 percent of photosynthesis occurring on land. Based on its size, the Amazon would account for about half of that. That would mean the Amazon generates around 16 percent of oxygen produced on land, explains Malhi, who detailed his calculations in a recent blog post.

That percentage sinks to 9 percent when taking into account the oxygen produced by phytoplankton in the ocean. (Climate scientist Jonathan Foley, who directs the non-profit Project Drawdown which researches climate change solutions, arrived at a more conservative estimate of 6 percent).

But that’s not the whole story. Trees don’t just exhale oxygen—they also consume it in a process known as cellular respiration, where they convert the sugars they amass during the day into energy, using oxygen to power the process. So during the night when there’s no sun around for photosynthesis, they’re net absorbers of oxygen. Malhi’s research team reckons that trees inhale a little over half the oxygen they produce this way. The rest is probably used up by the countless microbes that live in the Amazon, which inhale oxygen to break down dead organic matter of the forest.

“The net [oxygen] effect of the Amazon, or really any other biome, is around zero,” he explains.

Because of this balance between oxygen production and consumption, modern ecosystems barely budge oxygen levels in the atmosphere. Instead, the oxygen we breathe is the legacy of phytoplankton in the ocean that have over billions of years steadily accumulated oxygen that made the atmosphere breathable, explains Scott Denning, at atmospheric scientist at Colorado State University.

This oxygen could only accumulate because the plankton became trapped at the bottom of the ocean before they could rot—otherwise, their decomposition by other microbes would have used up that oxygen. The processes that determine how much oxygen is found in the atmosphere on average occur over vast geological timescales and aren’t really influenced by the photosynthesis going on now, Denning explains in an article in The Conversation.

Cradle of biodiversity

Nevertheless, the 20 percent myth has been making the rounds for decades, though it’s unclear where it originated. Malhi and Coe reckon it stems from the fact that the Amazon contributes around 20 percent of the oxygen produced by photosynthesis on land—which may have erroneously slipped into public knowledge as “20 percent of the oxygen in the atmosphere.”

Obviously, none of this is to say that the Amazon isn’t important. In its pristine state, it makes a significant contribution to pulling carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. Coe likens it not to a pair of lungs, but to a giant air conditioner that cools the planet—one of our most powerful in mitigating climate change, alongside other tropical forests in central Africa and Asia—some of which are also currently burning.

The Amazon also plays an important role in stabilizing rainfall cycles in South America, and is a crucial home for indigenous peoples as well as countless animal and plant species.

“Very few people talk about biodiversity, but the Amazon is the most biodiverse ecosystem on land, and climate change and deforestation are putting that richness at risk,” notes climate scientist Carlos Nobre with the University of São Paulo's Institute for Advanced Studies.

For its importance to the world, the Amazon might as well be a metaphorical pair of lungs, and this analogy may have been helpful in galvanizing action around deforestation. But to most researchers, it doesn’t make much sense—not least because actual lungs inhale oxygen rather than exhaling it.

“If people want to relate it to a fundamental part of their body that maintains stability and maintains life, maintains wellbeing—symbolically, you can make some kind of association,” says Nobre. “But physically speaking, it’s not really the lungs of the world, no.”

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/e...worlds-oxygen/

All the objective reader has to do is click on the original link provided by Half moon to see the sign up block appear.

As for this post....it focuses on a claim that I DID NOT MAKE, as the links I previously provided refer to ALL the rain forests on the planet!

Once again, an intellectually limited right wing wonk does not comprehend what he reads, then spins off on his on narrative like it's a factually representation of what others have stated. You fail, toodles.

[cancel2 2022]

All the objective reader has to do is click on the original link provided by Half moon to see the sign up block appear.

As for this post....it focuses on a claim that I DID NOT MAKE, as the links I previously provided refer to ALL the rain forests on the planet!

Once again, an intellectually limited right wing wonk does not comprehend what he reads, then spins off on his on narrative like it's a factually representation of what others have stated. You fail, toodles.

Complete waste of time, you're pompous, arrogant and ignorant, sayanora toodles.

[moon]

Greta Thunberg to guest edit BBC Radio 4's Today programme
The Swedish activist will interview leading figures in the fight against global heating

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...oday-programme

Tune in, maggot. Let me know how it goes.


Haw, haw..........................................haw.


Hey, 22,000 hits. Good gal, Greta.

[cancel2 2022]

Tune in, maggot. Let me know how it goes.


Haw, haw..........................................haw.


Hey, 22,000 hits. Good gal, Greta.

The vast majority of them are internet spiders and bots, ignorant cretin. I sincerely hope that BoJo reminds the PC fascists at the BBC that they are a public funded organisation not a branch of Greenpeace.

[moon]

The vast majority of them are internet spiders and bots, ignorant cretin. I sincerely hope that BoJo reminds the PC fascists at the BBC that they are a public funded organisation not a branch if Greenpeace.

To the contrary, maggot, the majority are Greta followers laughing at adult Deniers trying to belittle a 16 year old who has TOTALLY owned them

Haw, haw..........................haw.

[cancel2 2022]

To the contrary, maggot, the majority are Greta followers laughing at adult Deniers trying to belittle a 16 year old who has TOTALLY owned them

Haw, haw..........................haw.

That's because you're an effing technophobe.