Irony of ironies, Gore's hometown Nashville Breaks 1877 Cold Temp Record...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jiro said:
like I said - plenty of tree all over the world. burning tree is not a pollution. oil spill from tanker boat is. beside - wildfire is nothing compared to volcano's eruption in terms of environmental disaster. Nature's cruel, si?

We've had forest fires in NY/NJ (such as Bear Mountain) too. Hardly a concern for me. I guess it's just me.
Click to expand...

I mean, if there are no tree then there will be no produce of oxgyen, but pollution.
 
PuyoPiyo said:
As the wildfire increasing, there will not enough plants to survive. There are wildfires every summers in the west coast, especially California and it is getting worse every year.
Click to expand...

natures way of telling everyone to leave before the great earthquake hits :Ohno:
 
PuyoPiyo said:
I mean, if there are no tree then there will be no produce of oxgyen, but pollution.
Click to expand...

trees do not produce pollution. neither oxygen nor CO2 is a pollution. and why would there be no trees? that's impossible unless it's 2012 :lol:
 
kokonut said:
This is about, obviously, plants that get enough sun and water to see a huge crop yield differences.

Research results have shown that more plants are growing and adapting in higher latitudes. The irony is this. When CO2 concentration rises the photosythesis process becomes more efficient when it comes to cycling nutrients and water.

So, increase in CO2 concentration of upward of 2000 ppm has an obvious benefit to plants.
Click to expand...

The most logical explanation (and use common sense) is that it's not as hot as lower latitudes. Plants adapt to changes and when they cannot produce enough because of heat, they will die but their offsprings who are luicky to ve in the higher latitude will survive thanks to cooler temperature and keep producing more.

Like I said, if they're dying because of drought or heat, then no amount of CO2 will revive them. It pretty defeats the "benefit" of increased CO2 if the heat is also increased and causes more droughts.
 
netrox said:
You contradict yourself, as usual. You're saying we are having a global warming but cited a graph to prove that we're not warming up. Make up your mind!
Click to expand...

Sigh. I've reitterated this a hundred times, literally in this thread and elsewhere. No one, even me, do not dispute that we have been warming up. The dispute is, again!, is whether the increasing temperature is a natural occurrence or wholly man caused through additional CO2 input by us. I was pointing out the fact that the last 10 years temperature did not go up while CO2 concentration continues to rise. Did you not see that graph?

Got it? Reread all the threads I produced. The core topic and disputes have been about CO2 supposed direct and primary affect on rise in temperature, not about whether Earth warmed up or not over time. Earth has been warming up ever since the last ice age some 12,000 years ago. This is the same stance I've had over the last several years. I've not diverged away from it. The argument, again, is about whether global warming is man made by the artificial introduction CO2.
 
Jiro said:
like I said - plenty of tree all over the world. burning tree is not a pollution. oil spill from tanker boat is. beside - wildfire is nothing compared to volcano's eruption in terms of environmental disaster. Nature's cruel, si?

We've had forest fires in NY/NJ (such as Bear Mountain) too. Hardly a concern for me. I guess it's just me.
Click to expand...

What about the elimination of the rain forests? Isnt that contributing to the problem?
 
Jiro said:
but it's not gone, right? ;)
Click to expand...

Not yet..


Let's say in theory..they all get eliminated and there are no significant square footage of rain forests left..now, what would happen to the environment?
 
shel90 said:
Not yet..


Let's say in theory..they all get eliminated and there are no significant square footage of rain forests left..now, what would happen to the environment?
Click to expand...

no idea
 
shel90 said:
Would CO2 levels increase to the point where the air becomes toxic? :hmm:
Click to expand...

who knows? Earth's mysterious. Humanity's adaptive. There are other organisms that can substitute plants. We have technology that can substitute plants. We could be living in bubble :)
 
netrox said:
The most logical explanation (and use common sense) is that it's not as hot as lower latitudes. Plants adapt to changes and when they cannot produce enough because of heat, they will die but their offsprings who are luicky to ve in the higher latitude will survive thanks to cooler temperature and keep producing more. Koko - With the increasing warming going further into the northern latitudes more plants are able to grow and prosper there in higher latitudes. A good example of how increasing warming in the higher latitudes are benefitting plant growths and survivability was the recent discussion about Greenland's plants. It was recently in the last 20 years or so that plants, trees and crops have been growing more abundantly every year because of the gradual warming over the last 20 years or so (despite the static level in the last 10 years).

Like I said, if they're dying because of drought or heat, then no amount of CO2 will revive them. It pretty defeats the "benefit" of increased CO2 if the heat is also increased and causes more droughts. Koko - rather it's the global cooling that produces more droughts than a warming one as records have indicated. Go back in TIME and read - Another Ice Age? - TIME .
Again, it has been shown that increasing CO2 concentration and temperature resulted in more plant growths in the northern latitudes by expanding the growing season even more.
Science/AAAS | Science Magazine: Sign In
Click to expand...

My comments are in red.
 
Jiro said:
who knows? Earth's mysterious. Humanity's adaptive. There are other organisms that can substitute plants. We have technology that can substitute plants. We could be living in bubble :)
Click to expand...

let's go with the Logan's Run type of plan :thumb:
 
toxic = capable of causing injury or death, especially by chemical means.

You saw the ppm discussions.
 
kokonut said:
toxic = capable of causing injury or death, especially by chemical means.

You saw the ppm discussions.
Click to expand...

That was what I meant. I want to make sure that I am interpreting your question correctly. Are u asking me what percentage of PPM the ozone would be considered toxic or the chemicals that will make it toxic?

I am very ignorant about science but I want to learn and I would love to learn true facts.
 
kokonut said:
Sigh. I've reitterated this a hundred times, literally in this thread and elsewhere. No one, even me, do not dispute that we have been warming up. The dispute is, again!, is whether the increasing temperature is a natural occurrence or wholly man caused through additional CO2 input by us. I was pointing out the fact that the last 10 years temperature did not go up while CO2 concentration continues to rise. Did you not see that graph?
Click to expand...

Yes, and IF you contend that we are actually warming up, why does it matter so much that Gore's hometown breaks the 1877 cold temperature? It has nothing to do with CO2 at all, you know that? You are basically arguing that since it's relatively cooler than before, there cannot be global warming. You posted graphs showing that the temp has been "stable" yet paradoxically, you say we're warming up. If we are warming up as you say, then why does that graph claim we aren't warming up?

Either you agree that we're having a global warming OR you deny it, it doesn't matter what causes it. If there's no global warming then who cares what causes it - after all, there's nothing to worry and we're safe, right?
 
kokonut said:
My comments are in red.
Click to expand...

Did you notice that you cited an article written in 1974? And it never came true? A lot of people thought we were going to have a global cooling with glaciers forming everywhere but data later proved them wrong. It was the opposite.
 
shel90 said:
That was what I meant. I want to make sure that I am interpreting your question correctly. Are u asking me what percentage of PPM the ozone would be considered toxic or the chemicals that will make it toxic?

I am very ignorant about science but I want to learn and I would love to learn true facts.
Click to expand...

Not the ozone, CO2. You brought up that question specifically about CO2.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top