Nature says global warming is real

didnt the EPA just get slapped for trying to claim water is a pollutant too?

 

Sucks to be you

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imja_Tsho

 

[video=youtube;P2qVNK6zFgE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2qVNK6zFgE[/video]

 

Why did you video leave out the reduction in nutritional value of plants grown in high CO2 environments.

 

Do you know why the CO2 levels on earth are so low, in comparison to other planets in our solar system?

Cause plants cant get all of it.... There is a tiny percentage of CO2, that evades capture....

 

That didn't answer the question even in the slightest.

 

It was amusing at first, but this has dropped into simply silly.

The question at hand is not if trees grow further north, if Dinosaurs could breath less O2, or if fresh water replenishes itself. The real question is if mankind as a civilized species recognizable as modern man can survive all of the changes.

If you want to argue over current effects or future ones, look at the availability of food. How will you handle mass migration of 3 or 4 Billion people. You have watched the effects in Texas up through the Midwest of recent droughts, if that's the new normal what will you do? The US military is worried enough about rising waters and tidal surges in its ports to start billion dollar planning to cope with it. That's billions of your tax dollars, ready to pay it?

The argument of global warming is over if for no other reason it is too far along to stop it and now we are left to live with it....or not. There are plenty of things to argue about that will have real consequences now and in the future. Are you going to zone out redeveloping beach front property or pay a few billion more tax dollars to pay for reconstruction next time? Are you going to build a dike around NYC or pay for next season's Sandy? Miami has storm water bubbling up from the sand, are you going move it? These are problems for today, not abstract arguments over how Big Oil spends its profits.

 

Thats because your question about nutritional value is irrelevant in a discussion of global warming.

 

Yes I've seen the bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Perhaps the reason no one focuses on it is because the only effect that has been seen is a slight reduction in plant protein as plants need less nitrogen to grow in a high CO2 environment. We are talking about 7% reduction in protein contrasted that with a 50% increase in yield. It is easy to understand why such arguments are bull(*)(*)(*)(*)!

It doesn't take a mathematical genius to see that warmmongers suck at math and cant even understand that 50% >>> 7%.

This doesn't' even take into account that plants shouldn't be ones primary protein source to begin with.

Go leave the thread now.

 

The number is closer to 15% and that includes sugars, more alarming these plants require upwards of 40% more water. So more water more bulk less nutrition......... great stuff

- - - Updated - - -

The number is closer to 15% and that includes sugars, more alarming these plants require upwards of 40% more water. So more water more bulk less nutrition......... great stuff

 

Which is indeed a problem in a world with less precipitation and poorer soils I would say.

 

I have a friend of mine recently finished a program for the military. His job was to help develop a remote sensing system for ice and snow in Alaska. The military would never tell him why they were interested in collecting the data, but the fact the program was not put together by NOAA or even NASA fascinated me.

- - - Updated - - -

I have a friend of mine recently finished a program for the military. His job was to help develop a remote sensing system for ice and snow in Alaska. The military would never tell him why they were interested in collecting the data, but the fact the program was not put together by NOAA or even NASA fascinated me.

 

Global warming occurs after every ice age. Incredibly naive to think that man can stop it.

 

And thats another consideration. Australia is probably going to end up with a wetter climate, which in theory should improve cultivation area. Our problem is the area that will get the rain has nothing remotely like viable soil to plant in. Its one of the reasons we have not bothered to try an irrigate some of these place. Simply nothing we need is going to grow.

- - - Updated - - -

And this is further proof you dont even understand the problem. It is not if warming will happen, it is the pace of that warming that is the issue

 

No its closer to 7%. And you are also ignoring how that reduction in nitrogen uptake is better for the longevity of the soil which will further increase yields. Oh you never thought of that did you???

I guess if its not spoon fed to you by some warmmonger hack it never occurs to you.

No it doesn't

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11538818

You will also notice the tubers increase their protein content in an increased CO2 environment. So for a large portion of the human diet there is no reduced protein since so much of the human diet around the world includes substantial consumption tubers.

A 50% increase in yield vs. a 40% increase in water. Once again you stink at math. You are getting more per unit yield per unit of water. And water is nutrition. It is the single most important nutrient.

Again the argument only holds up in a vacuum when you ignore the increase in yield. Potential small losses in per unit nutrition are dwarfed by the massive increase in yield. It is a beneficial trade off.

 

Not a man? Don't care. Nor a politician? You are most definitely a partisan liberal hell bent on seeing humans live in a commune socialist environment.

After reading the posts in this thread, it appears Grok has you over a scientific barrel.

 

And you know what - I am going to leave it right there lol - Perhaps you should write to UNICEF and WHO and let them know all the malnourished peoples of the world should drink more water. I am sure they will appreciate the advice lol

 

Only if you ignore actual scientific evidence for angelfire web pages from 2002.

 

Yeah, I noticed how you didn't answer post #199

 

Go take a nutrition class.

 

I also noticed you are incapable of refuting any of my posts yourself. Tell me, what about my post about CO2 and greenhouse effect did you disagree with? Was it the many,many, many studies that back it up? Too much scientific evidence for you? You've already pretty much admitted you don't know anything about the subject and will deny it no matter how much evidence is placed in front of you.

 

Because he is like arguing with a wooden post. And the only thing he came up with as a web page from a decade ago. I posted ridiculous amounts of facts and there is nothin more to say, he won't believe me and I won't believe him, so frankly I didn't even bother reading it. If he addresses my post on water vapor and CO2, I will gladly continue the discussion. Since he ignored mine, I will return the favor. You are welcome to read it yourself and see what you come up with.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas-intermediate.htm


Now do you have anything that you would like to say? Do you have anything to refute what I have posted? Or would you like to just ride Grok's coattails? Insulting my "social skills" hasn't magically made you bring anything to the table.

 

You do know that there is another line of thinking that the hydrological cycle's negative feedback dwarfs the positive feedback. I would hope you also know that NASA's NVAP satellite data shows that water vapor is decreasing not increasing which supports the net negative feedback argument.

 

Yes, your lack of social skills is self evident. I don't question science discovering our contribution to ozone depletion or global climate change, but science has not convinced me that we are the major contributor, the increase in volcano activity over the last few centuries would be significant in the increase in CO2.
Your claim of not answering post #199 or post #223 is again your lack of convincing others that happen to read this thread is really you insulting your own very limited social skills

 

So what caused the first age? What caused the globe to come out of that ice age? What about the fact the ocean was higher and covered such areas like the Salt Lake region in modern Utah? What caused the mini ice age in the middle ages? What caused scientist to claim we were going into a time of global cooling in the 70s?

I do laugh at local enviro-nazis who complain that some of the glaciers on Mt. Borah (Idaho) are disappearing, but fail to look at history and realize they were not always there.

Couldn't it be that the Earth goes through cycles? With or without our wishes?

Should we be good stewards of the planet? Hell yes, but I'm not against logging when its done responsibly. Should we cut emissions? Sure. Do I believe man is the cause of global warming? No, that's (*)(*)(*)(*)ing stupid and completely disregards other causes.