Working to cope with climate change

[saveliberty]

Writing in the journal Science, researchers concluded that elevated atmospheric CO2 actually reduces plant growth when combined with other likely consequences of climate change – namely, higher temperatures, increased precipitation or increased nitrogen deposits in the soil. ~from Trakar's source #1

Let's see, more CO2, water and food means less plants. Listen to yourself. lol

 

[saveliberty]

LOL
Is this what happens where there's more CO2?...

In some specific and restricted examples, perhaps, but in general, no.
Climate Change Surprise: High Carbon Dioxide Levels Can Retard Plant Growth, Study Reveals - Climate Change Surprise: High Carbon Dioxide Levels Can Retard Plant Growth, Study Reveals

United States Geological Survey has this video lesson about increased CO2 and plant responses. - Potential Effects of Elevated CO2 and Climate Change on Coastal Wetlands - USGS Multimedia Gallery: (Video)--Potential Effects of Elevated CO2 and Climate Change on Coastal Wetlands

In general, no?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Writing in the journal Science, researchers concluded that elevated atmospheric CO2 actually reduces plant growth when combined with other likely consequences of climate change – namely, higher temperatures, increased precipitation or increased nitrogen deposits in the soil. ~from Trakar's source #1

Let's see, more CO2, water and food means less plants. Listen to yourself. lol

Hey, it's in the "Watchtower," who is he to argue?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

LOL
Is this what happens where there's more CO2?...

In some specific and restricted examples, perhaps, but in general, no.

Climate Change Surprise: High Carbon Dioxide Levels Can Retard Plant Growth, Study Reveals - Climate Change Surprise: High Carbon Dioxide Levels Can Retard Plant Growth, Study Reveals

United States Geological Survey has this video lesson about increased CO2 and plant responses. - Potential Effects of Elevated CO2 and Climate Change on Coastal Wetlands - USGS Multimedia Gallery: (Video)--Potential Effects of Elevated CO2 and Climate Change on Coastal Wetlands

Uh huh.

They increased CO2 and then turned on the hurricane fans to simulate the CAT V hurricanes that would be spawned by the "manmade global warming", hence lowered plant growth

AGW: It just ain't science

 

[Trakar]

I thought Global Warming was causing CO2 to leech OUT of the warmer oceans in a "feedback Loop"

You realize that the "ocean acidification" and "feedback Loop" are mutually exclusive, right?

The oceans are still, currently, a net sink of CO2, as they continue to warm, however, they do become less and less able to hold CO2. In many areas of the globe the warm surface waters have alredy exceeded this threshold and are in fact releasing stored CO2, but there are still enough cold water areas that are still absorbing atmospheric CO2 that the oceans overall are a net CO2 sink, but the amount of CO2 that they can absorb is decreasing as the waters warm.

Feed back loops in complex systems are not so simplistic.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

LOL
Is this what happens where there's more CO2?...

In some specific and restricted examples, perhaps, but in general, no.

Climate Change Surprise: High Carbon Dioxide Levels Can Retard Plant Growth, Study Reveals - Climate Change Surprise: High Carbon Dioxide Levels Can Retard Plant Growth, Study Reveals

United States Geological Survey has this video lesson about increased CO2 and plant responses. - Potential Effects of Elevated CO2 and Climate Change on Coastal Wetlands - USGS Multimedia Gallery: (Video)--Potential Effects of Elevated CO2 and Climate Change on Coastal Wetlands

Ever once in a while, I recommend that Progressives try reading the articles they link to.

"To understand complex ecological systems, the traditional approach of isolating one factor and looking at that response, then extrapolating to the whole system, is often not correct," Mooney said. "On an ecosystem scale, many interacting factors may be involved."

LOL.

But then they can safely say that a .002% change in Earth atmospheric composition by adding CO2 is melting the ice caps and causing the rising oceans to turn acidic killing sea life in the process

Rising acidic oceans...eeek!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I thought Global Warming was causing CO2 to leech OUT of the warmer oceans in a "feedback Loop"

You realize that the "ocean acidification" and "feedback Loop" are mutually exclusive, right?

The oceans are still, currently, a net sink of CO2, as they continue to warm, however, they do become less and less able to hold CO2. In many areas of the globe the warm surface waters have alredy exceeded this threshold and are in fact releasing stored CO2, but there are still enough cold water areas that are still absorbing atmospheric CO2 that the oceans overall are a net CO2 sink, but the amount of CO2 that they can absorb is decreasing as the waters warm.

Feed back loops in complex systems are not so simplistic.

That sounds familiar...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUQkbXWwJhQ]'what i win?' the jerk. - YouTube[/ame]

You know you're just making shit up as you go, right?

 

[saveliberty]

Wonder how sweaty these guys get riding their generator bikes to post here?

 

[Trakar]

We don't get our oil from the Persian Gulf.

I don't see anything about the originating source of oil on this page?

Glosses over the carbon footprint of moving the biomass to a generation plant. Also, most facilities of this type are cogeneration plants.

Typically transportation from mine to powerplant isn't included in coal's carbon footprint either and if you mandate that all vehicles and equipment used in the recovery, processing and combustion of biomass utilize biofuels, they become carbon neitral as well.

Biomass must be dried in some cases. That uses energy.

But not necessarily fossil fuels.

Overlooks many problems that exist currently.

Every energy source has issues, that doesn't mean that such are insurmountable nor that even with the problems they are undesirable in comparison to coal or oil.

 

[saveliberty]

We don't get our oil from the Persian Gulf.

I don't see anything about the originating source of oil on this page?

Read your own source better then.

Glosses over the carbon footprint of moving the biomass to a generation plant. Also, most facilities of this type are cogeneration plants.

Typically transportation from mine to powerplant isn't included in coal's carbon footprint either and if you mandate that all vehicles and equipment used in the recovery, processing and combustion of biomass utilize biofuels, they become carbon neitral as well.

So we are to use nonexistent vehicles.

Biomass must be dried in some cases. That uses energy.

But not necessarily fossil fuels.

No, you could use earlier dried biomass. lol

Overlooks many problems that exist currently.

Every energy source has issues, that doesn't mean that such are insurmountable nor that even with the problems they are undesirable in comparison to coal or oil.

They are undesirable to date. Otherwise they would be is use and at a reasonable cost.

My replies in blue.

 

[bobgnote]

I thought Global Warming was causing CO2 to leech OUT of the warmer oceans in a "feedback Loop"

You realize that the "ocean acidification" and "feedback Loop" are mutually exclusive, right?

You realize your head is way, way up your own ass, don't you? The smell of your own shit can't be good, for anyone but you. So don't keep farting and giggling and quoting yourself. Carbonic acid is in the oceans, not just in your sodas, fatty.

You realize you are in a logic-loop, and you are a loopy wing-nut, who needs to read my other post, in reply to your other stupid post, relative to carbonic acid experiments. You are blocking the known facts, about carbonic acid exchange, and all connected media.

You do realize quoting yourself shows your head is up your own ass! How far? Way, way up in there . . . Come out, Frankie. Wash up, join the rest of humanity.

And when you are ready, carbon exchanges to carbonic acid, in water, and your crap about a simple CO2-loop is not relevant or scholarly.

 

[Trakar]

climate change is part of nature . it has happened in the past ,present ,and will do so in the future !!! you damn leftist are so arrogant !! you not only want total control of our lives and free market system ,you want to control the weather too !!!

What is arrogant is believing that you can do as you please and add billions of tons per year of greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere and it will have no impact at all. Your right to do as you wish only extends to the point where your actions restrict the rights of others. This isn't about left or right, the "free market" is a liberal economic system (Economic liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). BTW, addressing AGW involves reducing humanity's influence and impacts on the environment, not an attempt to control of manipulate the environment.

 

[saveliberty]

I thought Global Warming was causing CO2 to leech OUT of the warmer oceans in a "feedback Loop"

You realize that the "ocean acidification" and "feedback Loop" are mutually exclusive, right?

You realize your head is way, way up your own ass, don't you? The smell of your own shit can't be good, for anyone but you. So don't keep farting and giggling and quoting yourself. Carbonic acid is in the oceans, not just in your sodas, fatty.

You realize you are in a logic-loop, and you are a loopy wing-nut, who needs to read my other post, in reply to your other stupid post, relative to carbonic acid experiments. You are blocking the known facts, about carbonic acid exchange, and all connected media.

You do realize quoting yourself shows your head is up your own ass! How far? Way, way up in there . . . Come out, Frankie. Wash up, join the rest of humanity.

And when you are ready, carbon exchanges to carbonic acid, in water, and your crap about a simple CO2-loop is not relevant or scholarly.

Please show us how CO2 is permanently trapped in the oceans dimwit.

 

[saveliberty]

climate change is part of nature . it has happened in the past ,present ,and will do so in the future !!! you damn leftist are so arrogant !! you not only want total control of our lives and free market system ,you want to control the weather too !!!

What is arrogant is believing that you can do as you please and add billions of tons per year of greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere and it will have no impact at all. Your right to do as you wish only extends to the point where your actions restrict the rights of others. This isn't about left or right, and btw, the "free market" is a liberal economic system (Economic liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). BTW, addressing AGW involves reducing humanity's influence and impacts on the environment, not an attempt to control of manipulate the environment.

Is it climate change or global warming faither?

AGW is all about manipulating data and funding.

None of your theories prove man is the cause of anything. Just long standing cycles that existed before man.

 

[Trakar]

Writing in the journal Science, researchers concluded that elevated atmospheric CO2 actually reduces plant growth when combined with other likely consequences of climate change – namely, higher temperatures, increased precipitation or increased nitrogen deposits in the soil. ~from Trakar's source #1

Let's see, more CO2, water and food means less plants. Listen to yourself. lol

Your reading and comprehension skills appear to be wanting.

 

[saveliberty]

Writing in the journal Science, researchers concluded that elevated atmospheric CO2 actually reduces plant growth when combined with other likely consequences of climate change – namely, higher temperatures, increased precipitation or increased nitrogen deposits in the soil. ~from Trakar's source #1

Let's see, more CO2, water and food means less plants. Listen to yourself. lol

Your reading and comprehension skills appear to be wanting.

Please show how it means anything different.

 

[Trakar]

You know you're just making shit up as you go, right?

That is your game, I am simply relating the understandings and observations of the mainstream scientific perspective of this issue.

 

[Trakar]

Is it climate change or global warming faither?

The IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was established in 1987 to review the scientifc evidence and understandings regarding the issue of global warming.

Climate change is the process, a gradual warming of the globe is the symptom we are realizing in the modern climate change.

There is no room for faith in this issue. The science is based on facts, observations and interconnected science understandings that involve most fields of natural science.

AGW is all about manipulating data and funding.

that is your unsupported and irrational conspiracy theory

None of your theories prove man is the cause of anything. Just long standing cycles that existed before man.

These are simply your false and flawed misunderstandings and arrogant ignorances on display.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Your reading and comprehension skills appear to be wanting.

Do you stand at the bus station in a nice suit handing out the "Watchtower" (or whatever the fuck Gaea publication) to unwilling passers by?

Do you spend your weekends knocking on doors demanding that people repent of their carbon sins and submit to the AGW church, both in obedience and with their wealth?

For the record, your religion is primitive, caveman bullshit. The shamans that you follow are NOT the first shamans to claim that we anger the volcano god and must "sacrifice" lest the village (upgraded to world) be destroyed.

And no, I'm not giving you my virgin daughters to sacrifice.

 

[Trakar]

Writing in the journal Science, researchers concluded that elevated atmospheric CO2 actually reduces plant growth when combined with other likely consequences of climate change – namely, higher temperatures, increased precipitation or increased nitrogen deposits in the soil. ~from Trakar's source #1

Let's see, more CO2, water and food means less plants. Listen to yourself. lol

Your reading and comprehension skills appear to be wanting.

Please show how it means anything different.

Higher levels of atmospheric CO2, counteract the other influences of warmer temperatures, additional water and nitrogenous fertilizers, reducing plant growth by roughly 48% (40/84) compared to these same conditions with lower levels of atmospheric CO2.