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

[flip]

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. This has been well documented. In one study it grew Sorghum bicolor grown in a 570 ppm CO2 environment had water-use efficiencies that were 9 and 19% greater than the control plants grown in ambient conditions in both well-watered and water-stressed conditions.
Conley, M.M., Kimball, B.A., Brooks, T.J., Pinter Jr., P.J., Hunsaker, D.J., Wall, G.W., Adams, N.R., LaMorte, R.L., Matthias, A.D., Thompson, T.L., Leavitt, S.W., Ottman, M.J., Cousins, A.B. and Triggs, J.M. 2001. CO2 enrichment increases water-use efficiency in sorghum. New Phytologist 151: 407-412.

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

While this sounds simple on the paper, this is not a good thing. Roads stop many species from following the plants up to higher latitudes. Other natural formations and habitats, that can't follow the plants when they move will also put more species under threat. It's like beating up the nature, and beliving it will be all fine. The bad news for us is that we are a part of this fine tuned nature that we are beating up.

New plants don't help against global warming because they are CO2 neutral, ie can't consume and clean out the high denisity of CO2 emissioned by humans, it have to be old growth forest, that we are chopping down at a high rate.

 

[Jiro]

You said the man have some influence on the climate, but that the earth corrects itself. Now, I am curious what you mean with correct itself?

yes SOME influence but not a MAJOR influence - just as much as cows, pigs, cockroach, birds contribute to.

I've already repeatedly explained what I meant about Earth correcting itself. I explain again - Earth is correcting itself to meet growing living things' demand. That's why there are lands that were once inhospitable and inhabitable are now accessible and livable. For example - arctic zone.

Shrinking North Pole equals more land in Canada and Russia, accessible routes in Arctic zone for humans/aquatic animal to travel thru, and melting ice/glacier for more water and more land.

 

[flip]

again - when that species were gone, new species arrived. It can be new plants, new bacteria, etc.

For example - NEW SPECIES


Photos: treasure trove of new species discovered in Ecuador

That's wrong, and new species are not of interest in this cycle. It's normal that new species arrives, but it's at a 1000 to 10.000 species out and 1 in rate at the moment.

"Extinction is permanent and irreversible. Although extinction is a natural process, current and projected extinction rates are estimated to be 1,000 to 10,000 times the natural background rate."

Numerous species have been driven extinct

 

[Jiro]

That's wrong, and new species are not of interest in this cycle. It's normal that new species arrives, but it's at a 1000 to 10.000 species out and 1 in rate at the moment.

"Extinction is permanent and irreversible. Although extinction is a natural process, current and projected extinction rates are estimated to be 1,000 to 10,000 times the natural background rate."

Numerous species have been driven extinct

ah.... of course! an organization with a specific agenda! :roll:

 

[flip]

yes SOME influence but not a MAJOR influence - just as much as cows, pigs, cockroach, birds contribute to.

I've already repeatedly explained what I meant about Earth correcting itself. I explain again - Earth is correcting itself to meet growing living things' demand. That's why there are lands that were once inhospitable and inhabitable are now accessible and livable. For example - arctic zone.

Shrinking North Pole equals more land in Canada and Russia, accessible routes in Arctic zone for humans/aquatic animal to travel thru, and melting ice/glacier for more water and more land.

I don't follow you. You mean that the earth shrink itself in the antarctic and expands in the arctic because some living things have demaned it? Who demanded that the antarctic must shrink?

 

[flip]

ah.... of course! an organization with a specific agenda! :roll:

this is a scientific consensus. Again, your evil brotherhood of scientists trying to dominate the world. Please tell us what they are up to?

 

[flip]

sighhhhhhhh. Read what I just wrote here and elsewhere, again. I never denied that global warming isn't happening. It is but what I challenge is the claim that increasing CO2 directly cause global warming. There is no basis to drum up fear over something that isn't true about CO2 as the primary driver for global warming. This is a natural thing that has been going on for hundreds of millions of years.

Statstically, comparing the numbers of scientists that deny human caused global warming and who belive the world is flat, is not far away from each other. You could almost go on arguing that the world is flat as well as denying that warming is man caused. You only draw the attention from average joes, not scientists with your arguing.

 

[Jiro]

this is a scientific consensus. Again, your evil brotherhood of scientists trying to dominate the world. Please tell us what they are up to?

Try Again!

 

[Jiro]

I don't follow you. You mean that the earth shrink itself in the antarctic and expands in the arctic because some living things have demaned it? Who demanded that the antarctic must shrink?

I have never talked about Antarctica and nowhere in my post did not say that arctic zone is expanding. Read again.

 

[flip]

Remember, approximately 3% of the atmosphere contain water vapor while only .038% of of the atmosphere contain CO2.

This is a no brainer. CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas, something that those numbers and tests from highly respected labs show.

 

[flip]

Try Again!

I have asked. Your evil brotherhood of scientitsts claimed it's no agenda, just pure science. It leaves to us you beeing the only one that can elaborate how scientific consensus in natural sciences really is a hidden agenda.

 

[flip]

I have never talked about Antarctica and nowhere in my post did not say that arctic zone is expanding. Read again.

"Earth is correcting itself to meet growing living things' demand."

and then

"Shrinking North Pole equals more land in Canada and Russia, accessible routes in Arctic zone for humans/aquatic animal to travel thru, and melting ice/glacier for more water and more land."

This is weird to me. I don't get this at all. "Earth correcting itself to meet growing living things' demand"?

 

[flip]

You misunderstood, I never said that the tree produce the pollution. I stated if there are no trees, then there will be no way to produce the oxgyen. The pollution will take over the world faster if there are no trees. Trees produce the oxgyen.

Funny how some people here misinterprent you all the time, must be something with lack of knowledge to do We are really depedent on old growth forest yes, is a reason to worry. I think people living in large cities, far away from the nature, makes it harder for them to undertand how the earth works.

 

[Jiro]

I have asked. You evil brotherhood of scientitsts claimed it's no agenda, just pure science. It leaves to us you beeing the only one that can elaborate how scientific consensus in natural sciences really is a hidden agenda.

it is up to people to understand what the scientific consensus has agreed on and the details behind it. sadly enough - most people ignore or do not bother educating themselves with details behind it. They depend on what media feed to them - disinformation & misinformation.

example -

"scientific consensus has agreed that global warming is real and happening"
-to people with little or no Earth Science knowledge: OMFGWTF! HUMANITY IS DYING!
-to people with $$$ agenda: global warming? never heard of it. it's fake. keep buying Hummer and oil.
-to people with hippie/tree-hugging agenda: MEN IS EVIL TO MOTHER EARTH! MAKE LOVE, NOT CARS!
-to people with Earth Science knowledge: meh of course it's real. it's cyclic pattern in nature.

 

[flip]

it is up to people to understand what the scientific consensus has agreed on and the details behind it. sadly enough - most people ignore or do not bother educating themselves with details behind it. They depend on what media feed to them - disinformation & misinformation.

example -

"scientific consensus has agreed that global warming is real and happening"
-to people with little or no Earth Science knowledge: OMFGWTF! HUMANITY IS DYING!
-to people with $$$ agenda: global warming? never heard of it. it's fake. keep buying Hummer and oil.
-to people with hippie/tree-hugging agenda: MEN IS EVIL TO MOTHER EARTH! MAKE LOVE, NOT CARS!
-to people with Earth Science knowledge: meh of course it's real. it's cyclic pattern in nature.

funny desriptions. Too bad you got the consensus wrong.

The consensus is not "scientific consensus has agreed that global warming is real and happening".

It's "scientific consensus has agreed that human activities have impact on the global warming". The question is how much.

Still awaiting your elaboration on the hidden agenda from your evil brotherhood.

 

[Jiro]

funny desriptions. Too bad you got the consensus wrong.

The consensus is not "scientific consensus has agreed that global warming is real and happening".

It's "scientific consensus has agreed that human activities have impact on the global warming". The question is how much.

fine. it's still same descriptions anyway

 

[Jiro]

Still awaiting your elaboration on the hidden agenda from your evil brotherhood.

me? what evil brotherhood? what hidden agenda? are you smoking a lil' too much leaf?

 

[flip]

fine. it's still same descriptions anyway

Scientific consensus: "scientific consensus has agreed that human activities have impact on the global warming."


"-to people with Earth Science knowledge: meh of course it's real. it's cyclic pattern in nature."

So Earth Science knowledged people claim that human activities causing global warming is a cyclic pattern in nature? Can you elaborate how the human activities and cycling parts go along?

 

[flip]

ah.... of course! an organization with a specific agenda! :roll:

Here is your evil brotherhood. I present you with a scientific consensus, and you instantly reply with specific agenda.

 

[Jiro]

Scientific consensus: "scientific consensus has agreed that human activities have impact on the global warming."


"-to people with Earth Science knowledge: meh of course it's real. it's cyclic pattern in nature."

So Earth Science knowledged people claim that human activities causing global warming is a cyclic pattern in nature? Can you elaborate how the human activities and cycling parts go along?

the same way that dinosaur activities and cycling parts went along. I wouldn't be surprised if we had same fate as dinosaurs