Talk-Polywell.org

tomclarke: Your assumptions are decidedly lacking. I've read recently that the effects of CO2 are logarithmic (I don't know if that's the absorption, or its affect on temperature), so your "ax" is wrong from the start as logarithmic is decidedly non-linear (as x gets bigger, you have to add more x t...

The magnetic field does not protect us from cosmic rays (and certainly not UV rays or microwaves: The Core was absolutely abysmal on that point). The atmosphere does. However, the magnetic fields do, to some extent, protect the atmosphere. If the flip is gradual (even as fast as a few hours, I think...

I will admit to having only skimmed that article. I can certainly agree that more CO2 in the soil can cause excessive microbial competition for soil based resources. My point about their methods is that it appears everything was done in open air. This should severely limit their control over the amo...

That's why I started googling: looking for numbers on CO2 and plant growth. I haven't found anything yet (been busy actually reading that last article I posted).

Here's another article. It seems to be on the "good for plants" side. (all the hits I've seen for "bad for plants" have so far been the same article).

Well, a bit of googling shows there seems to be some conflicting views: CO2 bad for plants CO2 good for plants And for a bit of interesting language: The biggest surprise from the study was the discovery that elevated carbon dioxide only stimulated plant growth when nitrogen, water and temperature w...

When being honest with oneself, is there ever anything but a self-interested perspective? I have yet to see reliable evidence of one.

The article isn't about the plants helping with AGW (assuming it even exists). Rather, the article is about how plants are nowhere near as prosperous as they could be due to CO2 levels being too low, and that humans pumping CO2 into the atmosphere is good for the environment. Thus, it has plenty to ...

seedload commenting that plants stopped evolving was rather disingenuous (and yes, I checked the meaning of that word). The original text made no such implication.

Plants have been evolving for the lower CO2 levels... by getting smaller.

I think it's because they want to be the herder (or at least in the herder's in group).

And then there's being too blinded by their good intentions to see what direction their road is headed.

I maintain my vote for "nothing", though I guess "continue to talk to him" might fit under "other", but I don't consider it to be an answer to the question: thus "nothing". I am more interested in helping Josh (become a better communicator) than doing anything about him. Thus my distinction between ...

Well, "nothing" might not be quite accurate, but I'm certainly not in favor of banning him (he's had some interesting things to say in non-related topics). I'm also not in favor of banning AGW discussions: they've been rather interesting too.

さっぱりわからん

(loose translation: I haven't a clue what you said)

What makes my explanation stupid? Is it because you already knew it? That means only that it is redundant, not stupid. No, I didn't belittle you. You felt belittled. Why is that? Why are you so sensitive to having made the mistake? Might it be that until recently you believed sea ice melting was a p...

Dishonesty? Are you sure? It looks more like confusion between rate and acceleration. On both sides. Or maybe the article you linked to is wrong and is treating rate as acceleration. As for the mention of sea ice in the article itself (not the comments), it's used only as an indication of sea temper...