/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9471924
>but, but, if some of a thing is GOOD for you, how can too much of it be BAD for you?
>it just DOESN'T MAKE SENSE
consider sudoku

>>8876151
Snowball Earth wasn't anthropogenic, but it's a clear counterexample to his claim that "Earth's atmosphere is remarkably adept at dampening forcings from either direction and does not amplify them". Glaciers near sea level in the tropics (along with what we know of the circumstances surrounding them) are extremely strong evidence that there are indeed positive feedbacks that can cause runaway change.

>>8703522
>Claiming the study discredits AGW is like bringing up continental drift to try and get out of a speeding ticket.
this desu senpai

>>8703557
>CO2 is a pathetic greenhouse gas, given its linear structure.
CO2's absorption spectrum has been measured over and over again experimentally. The results are consistent with it having a significant effect on the transparency of the atmosphere to infrared light.

>>8704444
>Thinking the man is wrong about everything when he's dedicated so much to to genuinely studying this, that isn't realistic.
investing loads of time and effort doesn't make you right. Lysenko spent decades working on Soviet agrobiology, and he too was wrong about EVERYTHING.
can you give an example of a specific claim that you think Hovind is right about? and maybe explain his position?

remember, Hovind's "dissertation" is basically elementary-school level writing, complete with rampant misspellings.
>http://rationalia.com/gawdzilla/kent-hovind-doctoral-dissertation.pdf

fertilizing marine environments is a no-go because it causes dead zones (or at least, fertilization will have to be minimal). but we can fertilize terrestrial environments, and plant fast-growing trees and grasses that can fill marginal niches. maybe a bioengineered strain of switchgrass with some kind of granddaughterless mutation or similar to stop it from spreading out of control (though that would require constant re-seeding).
basically fix as much carbon on land as we can, and either sequester it somewhere or process it into feed or fuel.

making lab-grown meat economically viable would be big, too. growing muscle tissue in a tank has the potential to be much less resource-intensive than growing a whole cow.