Watch the video I posted above, all is explained
Greta
- Thread starter 3ml
- Start date
Trees removed a lot of co2 already, actually has brought us to a point of carbon drought. plants need a min of 130 ppm to survive, before we started to burn it was as low as 180. That is scary. almost at a collapse.
Did anyone here know that greenhouses pump co2 from either their furnaces or from tanks into their greenhouses because plants thrive around 1000 to 2000 ppm for co2.
The greening effect on the earth has increased by about 30% since we started burning, and it can be easily proven that co2 levels and temperature levels are not in conjunction with each other. All the climate models cannot take in the effect that water, in all its forms has on the climate, like Clouds, humidity, water and snow. Shit it makes up 70% of the green house gases. The computers cannot compute it, so they leave it out. Does that seem like effective science?
Is everyone ignoring the facts that the Greenland ice sheets are growing, or that Antarctica is becoming larger? This information is really easy to find. and it is not doctored, but actual satellite images from Nasa.
Look at the models from Russia or any other country not trying to profit from the religion of Co2. They sure are not predicting this gloom.
Forest fires have actually decreased globally. I can pull up actual scientific data if you wish, Its really not hard to find.
I’m sorry I have gotten a bit carried away, but science was always my thing. I like actual repeatable data.
Anyhow here is another video.
This was my favourite by far, if you pay attention, you can actually see when trees evolved and how drastically co2 levels dropped. You can also see how co2 levels are not connected to temperature, but that orbit has a way larger impact.
Anyhow enjoy, plus I am open to any discussion, please provide verifiable data though. Saying you feel like plants are dying, or that the sun seemed hotter on your skin isn’t data.
Plus any videos that has graphs, should have data or graphs from a dustinguished organization. Not something like Al Gore made a graph on the computer proving his point, but there is no verified data proving this.
Anyhow here is another video.
This was my favourite by far, if you pay attention, you can actually see when trees evolved and how drastically co2 levels dropped. You can also see how co2 levels are not connected to temperature, but that orbit has a way larger impact.
Anyhow enjoy, plus I am open to any discussion, please provide verifiable data though. Saying you feel like plants are dying, or that the sun seemed hotter on your skin isn’t data.
Plus any videos that has graphs, should have data or graphs from a dustinguished organization. Not something like Al Gore made a graph on the computer proving his point, but there is no verified data proving this.
Fuck it, here we go
To view an isolated co2 rich environment does not equate to the whole picture. While elevated co2 does cause a degree of enrichment to much plant growth (dependent on species), the primary issue lies in the acclimation of increased co2, and most importantly an increased need for nitrogen, which will not be sufficient. This lack of N, among other nutrients in a co2 rich environment will cause a substantial decrease in nutrient density and ultimately contribute to human illness, disease, through lack of proteins and many others.
This is in my deciphering words from reading several reviewed studies. Easy google and many hours of great boring reading, if you dont like how I put it.
I honestly feel that both sides of the arguement have a degree of truth to them, however each in themselves are incorrect.
An excess of anything is detrimental and would need correction. A lack would also be detrimental and would need correction. Balance is key and we all do not need to be scientists to realize that. Something we are straying away from. A consensus has to be met.
To view an isolated co2 rich environment does not equate to the whole picture. While elevated co2 does cause a degree of enrichment to much plant growth (dependent on species), the primary issue lies in the acclimation of increased co2, and most importantly an increased need for nitrogen, which will not be sufficient. This lack of N, among other nutrients in a co2 rich environment will cause a substantial decrease in nutrient density and ultimately contribute to human illness, disease, through lack of proteins and many others.
This is in my deciphering words from reading several reviewed studies. Easy google and many hours of great boring reading, if you dont like how I put it.
I honestly feel that both sides of the arguement have a degree of truth to them, however each in themselves are incorrect.
An excess of anything is detrimental and would need correction. A lack would also be detrimental and would need correction. Balance is key and we all do not need to be scientists to realize that. Something we are straying away from. A consensus has to be met.
Question that maybe was touched on. Has the N content of the planet reduced since the earlier stages where co2 was at very higher concentrations and plantlife was at a higher concentration, such as during the Triassic period?
Also when they grow in greenhouses and use co2 to increase it to 1000 ppm, is the nutrient availability diminished? Or since they add N it’s fine, so the issue is the nitrogen available on the Earth?
I'm not sure about the first question. That's something I'll have to look up.
The second question I do have a slight clue. But yes. In an agricultural environment, we use fertilizers etc that boost the nutrients in the soil, so the lack of Nitrogen is not comparable to what occurs In the open world. In our civilized neck of the woods, we can combat this to a small extent through modernized farming methods, however it's the effect on the entire worlds ecosystems that will eventually get to us, based on that research. Less nutrients from plants, will affect wildlife, sealife and so on to us. Top o' the fucking food chain.
Less developed areas with current nutrient deficiencies (such as Africa) will be affected most at first, but the trickle down is glaringly apparent. Is it a game ender? No idea. Is it good? Nope.
Now I have no idea how to grasp the global warming concept. Is it man made? Is it natural? Hell, is it caused by our complex planetary orbits over millennia? No idea. Is the earth heating up? Also, no idea. I'd like to think I'm critical enough to try and sort some truth out of all this.
The problem is we live in a world where almost any information can be passed to people through media and internet without pause. We live in a world where a few pull the strings of many. Mass media is merely a tool (ie: Greta for example). Misinformation and disinformation confuses everyone into really not knowing what the fuck is going on..and with that comes fear of the unknown. And through fear comes control. Control for what? Well, one must assume that this all has an intended destination if it is a fabricated crisis. I say look as if you're looking from the eyes of the few, looking at the hordes of many, and attempt to see that perspective. I suspect that's where the truth lies.
And if it's a real deal crisis, well, who knows, maybe we are fucked. It was a good ride and I'll keep enjoying it until I'm dead
biguglynewf
Moderator
Phytoplankton.... we haven’t even touched on phytoplankton.....far bigger carbon sink and responsible for way more oxygen generation than all the trees combined....... go.....
And......What causes coral bleaching anyway?
And......What causes coral bleaching anyway?
This is my last video. This guy in particular has been studying the effects of co2 on the environment for over 30 years. Far more educated than me. He doesn’t seemed to be concerned at all. Actually seems to be optimistic.
Truthfully I like the part where he talks about it’s only in western countries where we seem to be concerned.
I think I’m going to take more of his approach and not be concerned.
I believe you might find this interesting. Best part is he doesn't denounce man made climate change, which I agree. But like me isn’t sure if it’s harmful but actually beneficial, I myself for a long time think that once the earth traps all the carbon to a certain extent, that is when life will die. Or when the temperature of the earth becomes low enough that life will die. My thought has always been that what we are doing, the earth (as far as co2, the pollution is something entirely different) and ourselves a favour re releasing the carbon that was previously in the atmosphere at the beginning of life (one of the reasons for life) and also believed if it increased temperature (because overall it has been steadly declining since the explosion of life) that would be a good thing as well. We need liquid water to survive.
Anyhow give it a watch
Last edited:
No idea, but the biggest reefs are restoring themselves, so I guess it wasn’t a big of a disaster as they thought.
I bet like everything, reefs in one area die off maybe because of changes in water movement (currents) but grow better in other areas.
Like at one time the Sarah desert was lush, but other areas were desert like, but now the Sarah is a desert and the previously desert areas are now lush.
Its caused by stress, same as any other plant, something has changed...
Why is it that as soon as someone has a question about a topic it makes them a denier?
I would think getting the facts before coming to a conclusion makes sense
I would think getting the facts before coming to a conclusion makes sense
biguglynewf
Moderator
Sorry my friend. Go dive them. You will see a different story. I’ve been there and I’ve seen it in person.
Reefs are not restoring themselves. Not even close.
biguglynewf
Moderator
Stress? Sure. But the stressors linked to this are commonly speaking to raised oceans temperature amongst other things that would stress living organisms.
Yes there is evidence demonstrating that it’s been happening for hundreds of years. But never at this rate. Some dieoffs come back, most don’t. Not large the scale ones.
Again. Is it all us... is it natural cycles? Probably both. To some degree at least. However again and again to think that all the things we do don’t have any negative impact is irresponsible.
I don’t believe we have zero impact on climate change, but to think that man is the sole driving force behind it is a little egotistical no? In the grand scheme of the existence of the world we are a single grain of sand in a desert. To think that our time as an evolved society creating pollution, that tiny amount of time we’ve created a planet that is going to be uninhabitable? Just my two cents.
biguglynewf
Moderator
Not sure why you quoted me. I have never once said through all of this that humans are the sole driving force of anything. Change or not.
All I’ve said is to think that all we do or don’t do has little to no negative impact on the earth is pretty silly and we are certainly more than a single grain of sand in the desert. We are 8 billion strong and consume more and more each day. There is not one other oraganism on the planet Thor has there ever been that are as destructive and greedy as humans.
I’m not finger pointing. I’m included there too. Again only when faced with complete loss or destruction are humans willing to make changes when it could affect what they truly like or like to do.
I was only meaning to expand on your last piece of your comment. I don’t know how to only quote a section of a post. I didn’t mean to imply you had said that humans were the sole contributor.
biguglynewf
Moderator
No worries, was just confused.
The best part about this entire thread is it’s posted on a message board full of meatheads and it’s been the most active thread in days.... if not more..... lol.
Sorry just repeating what I watched from you tube. I’ll try to find the video, it was recent, this guy has been studying the reefs around the triangle for 30 years and stated they were recovering. So not me but a scientist.
I’m going next winter to Cozumel I guess snorkeling is supposed to be good there.
biguglynewf
Moderator
Cozumel is pretty damn good. Good shark dives. Not my favourite but definitely pretty great diving. Safer than it used to be as well.
Some reefs are no doubt coming back in some places. Some are still pretty pristine. The last truly great diving I did was in Belize. There’s parts of the barrier reef there (world’s second largest) that have been protected since the early 50’s. Mother Nature is as brutal as she is resilient.
Still overall there’s a ton that’s been lost though.