cyclodextrine-based MOF's for carbon Capture

@sonhouse said
@Metal-Brain
And you cannot fathom the idea that climate change and increased CO2 has lowered the nutritional value of rice by 17% ALREADY and climate change is just in the opening bell.
THAT BTW was the result of a science study by the science unit, the FORMER science unit of the USDA, ripped apart by our corrupter in Chief Trump BECAUSE of that paper, he wanted not a HI ...[text shortened]... of climate change so he disbanded the entire science unit.
That is science censorship at its worst.

If rice was 100% of my diet I would care. I looked at the nutrients in question and they are not even that important.

@Metal-Brain
Of course for someone like you who is so provincial you never went to another country or lived among natives for years like I did in several countries so you would have a very uneducated and small view of the world.
Rice is NEVER 100% of ANYBODY'S diet and the people I lived with ate a lot of rice and a large reduction like 15 or more % is meaningful in THEIR lives but of course for someone like you who thinks a meal is a McDougle deathburger it is now wonder your brain is in fact made of metal.
All you can contribute is 'So there is more CO2, better crops', of course based on your zero understanding of biology.

@sonhouse said
@Metal-Brain
Of course for someone like you who is so provincial you never went to another country or lived among natives for years like I did in several countries so you would have a very uneducated and small view of the world.
Rice is NEVER 100% of ANYBODY'S diet and the people I lived with ate a lot of rice and a large reduction like 15 or more % is meaningful in THEIR ...[text shortened]... bute is 'So there is more CO2, better crops', of course based on your zero understanding of biology.

From the link below:

"When the 2 factors are combined, it is estimated that about 0.50–0.60 kg of CO2/hr/100 m2 must be added in a 'standard’; glass greenhouse to maintain 1,300 ppm."

http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm

Let me know when we reach 1000 ppm. Until then everything is fine. CO2 does not cause significant warming and food production will increase.

@Metal-Brain
Tell that to the folks battling fires in the west of the US or in Australia, no bid deal, just a few million acres burned to the ground and heat records set around the world and glaciers disappearing forever, north pole losing it's ice, polar bears starving, mass extinctions in progress as we speak.

Sure, don't worry, be happy, go back to drinking beer and eating pizza while you watch the Celtics.
You idiots will be screaming ITS JUST WEATHER when temperatures hit 150 degrees in death valley and 120 degrees in London.

@sonhouse said
@Metal-Brain
Tell that to the folks battling fires in the west of the US or in Australia, no bid deal, just a few million acres burned to the ground and heat records set around the world and glaciers disappearing forever, north pole losing it's ice, polar bears starving, mass extinctions in progress as we speak.

Sure, don't worry, be happy, go back to drinking beer and ...[text shortened]... eaming ITS JUST WEATHER when temperatures hit 150 degrees in death valley and 120 degrees in London.

Forest fires are new?
Jack Pine would not exist without forest fires. Lightning has been causing forest fires before man existed and now man is causing more forest fires, but that has nothing to do with global warming. Polar bears are doing better than ever. Antarctica has plenty of ice. Sea level rise is not rising fast enough for glaciers to be melting as much as you are claiming.

Stop spreading misinformation.

@Metal-Brain
You blithely ignore reality, or willfully ignore reality, take your pick.
The fires are so bad, for instance and orbiting observatory designed specifically to track CO2 and other GHG's showed something new going on, in the Amazon rain forests.
Those millions of trees are a net CO2 absorber among others on the planet but the observatory has noted the Amazon rain forests are now a net CO2 PRODUCER.
They did more work, analyzed what was going on and they found something interesting, major forest fires there, both natural, lightning and the like but also clear burning to open land for farming and cattle. It seems those fires add up to killing the absorption of CO2 in the amazon and they were able to trace the gasses from those huge number of fires going all the way across the Atlantic into Africa. That data was clear. I saw it on a NASA special about the orbiting observatory documentary.
I can only assume you will just poo poo that documentary like you do every other work from real scientists so go ahead, hit me with your best shot.

BTW, Polar bears are NOT doing well, in fact they have taken to mate with Grizzly bears and a new kind is popping up they call Prizzly bears, a hybrid very large.
There is much less sea ice now and polar bears have such thick coats if the temperature rises much above freezing they get too hot to survive but all of that will fall on your deaf ears won't it. They are starving but you just close what is left of your mettalic mind to their plight.

@sonhouse said
@Metal-Brain
You blithely ignore reality, or willfully ignore reality, take your pick.
The fires are so bad, for instance and orbiting observatory designed specifically to track CO2 and other GHG's showed something new going on, in the Amazon rain forests.
Those millions of trees are a net CO2 absorber among others on the planet but the observatory has noted the Amazon ra ...[text shortened]... s won't it. They are starving but you just close what is left of your mettalic mind to their plight.

Let's examine the reality.
How much does temperature rise per year on average?
Answer that question and tell me how that is making a difference.

@Metal-Brain
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/monthly-report/global/202013#:~:text=The%20global%20annual%20temperature%20has,2.30%C2%B0F)%20above%20average.

It took me about 30 seconds to find this data, showing you have no interest in actual research on your own and I fully expect your next post to poo poo this data as biased or some other BS.

@sonhouse said
@Metal-Brain
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/monthly-report/global/202013#:~:text=The%20global%20annual%20temperature%20has,2.30%C2%B0F)%20above%20average.

It took me about 30 seconds to find this data, showing you have no interest in actual research on your own and I fully expect your next post to poo poo this data as biased or some other BS.

Tell me how much it says per year on average, then answer my question.

@Metal-Brain
Read it yourself, I am not your frigging librarian data assistant.
It is obvious now your actual lack of education is getting in the way of you learning but that is on you not me to fix.

@sonhouse said
@Metal-Brain
Read it yourself, I am not your frigging librarian data assistant.
It is obvious now your actual lack of education is getting in the way of you learning but that is on you not me to fix.

You simply do not want to admit how small that amount is.
How is that puny amount causing forest fires to be worse?

@Metal-Brain
FUK the average, it is the TREND that counts and has been going up for over a century and THAT is a direct result of human pooping in their own backyards except the backyard now is the whole planet.

You refuse to even accept what is going on in the Brazilian rainforests where sats see the smoke coming from those massive fires and reaching all the way to AFRICA, no big deal, just weather.

OF COURSE you poo poo any of that because your god Putin wants it that way.

@sonhouse said
@Metal-Brain
FUK the average, it is the TREND that counts and has been going up for over a century and THAT is a direct result of human pooping in their own backyards except the backyard now is the whole planet.

You refuse to even accept what is going on in the Brazilian rainforests where sats see the smoke coming from those massive fires and reaching all the way to AFRI ...[text shortened]... g deal, just weather.

OF COURSE you poo poo any of that because your god Putin wants it that way.

Stop dismissing the data. Without data there is no proof of anything.

Give me the average temp increase in the last decade. Then explain why that would cause forest fires to be worse. How is a temp increase that you cannot even notice cause forest fires to be worse?

@Metal-Brain
There is a LOT of data and I provided it, the fact you cannot read is not my problem.

@sonhouse said
@Metal-Brain
There is a LOT of data and I provided it, the fact you cannot read is not my problem.

Give me the average temp increase in the last decade. Then explain why that would cause forest fires to be worse. How is a temp increase that you cannot even notice cause forest fires to be worse?

I already know the rise in temps is negligible. That is why you don't want to post it, because you would have to admit it is such a puny amount if you did.