Remember me
▼ Content

California Wildfires, Trumps Fault?



Page 3 of 3<123
19-09-2020 02:47
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(632)
spongy iris As I already stated, CA in particular, seems to be a high risk zone.

The risk being a high pile up of CO2 emissions at the rocky mountains puts pressure on the ceiling of our enclosed system called Earth.

A statistically significant increase in droughts and fires in recent years, seems to be another indication I notice, which makes me think this risk is real.

What possible evidence do you have that CO2 piles up?? Gravity keeps our atmosphere nothing is putting pressure on it verticaly.Can I suggest you go take a long look at all the theories and conclude your own veiw rather than believe the gospel of AGW/CC It worked for me
19-09-2020 04:54
James___
★★★★★
(3283)
duncan61 wrote:
spongy iris As I already stated, CA in particular, seems to be a high risk zone.

The risk being a high pile up of CO2 emissions at the rocky mountains puts pressure on the ceiling of our enclosed system called Earth.

A statistically significant increase in droughts and fires in recent years, seems to be another indication I notice, which makes me think this risk is real.

What possible evidence do you have that CO2 piles up?? Gravity keeps our atmosphere nothing is putting pressure on it verticaly.Can I suggest you go take a long look at all the theories and conclude your own veiw rather than believe the gospel of AGW/CC It worked for me



You guys are unbelievable. Science can't tell us anything except for where we might find fish and at what depth. I don't really care for the IPCC but at the same time I'm not going to take them on.
There's a lot of other scientists who have their own opinion but like everyone else, what did the IPCC say? Who really cares? Nobody does. What does the media say? And now we know who cares.
20-09-2020 23:46
andeep
☆☆☆☆☆
(20)
I think CO2 piles up due to its greater density. It is double the density of air at room temperatuere, and probably even higher in comparison to air at higher elevations. Some of this CO2 gets absorbed by the oceans and plants, but then a lot of it cycles back within the carbon cycle.
21-09-2020 01:51
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(632)
I do not see a problem
21-09-2020 02:45
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2534)
The problem I see, is that CO2 is a trace gas, but absolutely vital to life on this planet. The population of all species keep growing, but we keep killing off the vegetation. Plants are the only thing in the food chain, that takes carbon, directly from the environment. Carbon is the basis of all the wonderful molecules, that make up every living thing. We deliberately destroy vegetation to build on the land. Climate-fools, want to kill off millions of acres, just to plant, mostly useless solar panels and windmills. We need more CO2 to better accommodate what vegetation we have left, since the demand for food keeps increasing. I like my ribeye steak (medium-rare), like most sane folks, and that magnificent animal fed entirely on vegetation, so I would have to eat so much vegetables myself. Man was never meant to be vegan, stomach is big enough to handle the volume of vegetation.
21-09-2020 06:11
andeep
☆☆☆☆☆
(20)
HarveyH55 wrote:
The problem I see, is that CO2 is a trace gas, but absolutely vital to life on this planet. The population of all species keep growing, but we keep killing off the vegetation. Plants are the only thing in the food chain, that takes carbon, directly from the environment. Carbon is the basis of all the wonderful molecules, that make up every living thing. We deliberately destroy vegetation to build on the land. Climate-fools, want to kill off millions of acres, just to plant, mostly useless solar panels and windmills. We need more CO2 to better accommodate what vegetation we have left, since the demand for food keeps increasing. I like my ribeye steak (medium-rare), like most sane folks, and that magnificent animal fed entirely on vegetation, so I would have to eat so much vegetables myself. Man was never meant to be vegan, stomach is big enough to handle the volume of vegetation.


You're right in saying that CO2 is valuable, however the problem is there is too much CO2.

As an afterthought though, I think the major issue though is not whether climate change and too much CO2 can have serious consequences in the sense of flooding, heat droughts, etc. This is already clear by now. It is more important to ask the question of whether climate change *will* have serious consequences, and whether it's already happening. If policy comes into effect, perhaps climate change will not be a serious problem. And perhaps as the need becomes more urgent, any foreseeable problems could be taken care of. To my mind, however, the biggest question is not what climate change can cause, but whether there will be irreversible damage caused to the atmosphere before policy comes into effect. The answer to that question is not really clear yet I think. And I think we wouldn't want to find the answer to that question too late.
21-09-2020 10:42
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2534)
andeep wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
The problem I see, is that CO2 is a trace gas, but absolutely vital to life on this planet. The population of all species keep growing, but we keep killing off the vegetation. Plants are the only thing in the food chain, that takes carbon, directly from the environment. Carbon is the basis of all the wonderful molecules, that make up every living thing. We deliberately destroy vegetation to build on the land. Climate-fools, want to kill off millions of acres, just to plant, mostly useless solar panels and windmills. We need more CO2 to better accommodate what vegetation we have left, since the demand for food keeps increasing. I like my ribeye steak (medium-rare), like most sane folks, and that magnificent animal fed entirely on vegetation, so I would have to eat so much vegetables myself. Man was never meant to be vegan, stomach is big enough to handle the volume of vegetation.


You're right in saying that CO2 is valuable, however the problem is there is too much CO2.

As an afterthought though, I think the major issue though is not whether climate change and too much CO2 can have serious consequences in the sense of flooding, heat droughts, etc. This is already clear by now. It is more important to ask the question of whether climate change *will* have serious consequences, and whether it's already happening. If policy comes into effect, perhaps climate change will not be a serious problem. And perhaps as the need becomes more urgent, any foreseeable problems could be taken care of. To my mind, however, the biggest question is not what climate change can cause, but whether there will be irreversible damage caused to the atmosphere before policy comes into effect. The answer to that question is not really clear yet I think. And I think we wouldn't want to find the answer to that question too late.


We've had severe weather events, and natural disasters since long before there was a written language, to record the events. Nothing has actually changed, except the perception, by some. Instead of destroying the economy, our modern ways of living, people use to throw sacrifices into a volcano. The world is always moving, and in a constant state of change. Policy, is politics, about power and control. There is no controlling nature, no matter how many people you stuff into a volcano.

There doesn't seem to be an upper limit, but plants stop showing any improved growth characteristic around 800 ppm. We are basically at half, the ideal CO2 level, for maximum plant growth. There is a lower limit of around 180 ppm, where most plants are barely able to reproduce. Most will starve and die at 150 ppm. Commercial greenhouses augment CO2, as a common practice, as the results are abundantly clear.

CO2 isn't immediately returned to the atmosphere, the moment a plant dies. Even then, only a small portion of the carbon content, is actual released as CO2. CO2 is a trace gas, and not evenly distributed across the planet. Plants don't always get as much as they need. The level of CO2 must continue to rise, with the population, to insure we have a sufficient food supply. We manage to survive many natural catastrophes, but we don't survive long without food.
21-09-2020 14:32
andeep
☆☆☆☆☆
(20)
HarveyH55 wrote:
andeep wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
The problem I see, is that CO2 is a trace gas, but absolutely vital to life on this planet. The population of all species keep growing, but we keep killing off the vegetation. Plants are the only thing in the food chain, that takes carbon, directly from the environment. Carbon is the basis of all the wonderful molecules, that make up every living thing. We deliberately destroy vegetation to build on the land. Climate-fools, want to kill off millions of acres, just to plant, mostly useless solar panels and windmills. We need more CO2 to better accommodate what vegetation we have left, since the demand for food keeps increasing. I like my ribeye steak (medium-rare), like most sane folks, and that magnificent animal fed entirely on vegetation, so I would have to eat so much vegetables myself. Man was never meant to be vegan, stomach is big enough to handle the volume of vegetation.


You're right in saying that CO2 is valuable, however the problem is there is too much CO2.

As an afterthought though, I think the major issue though is not whether climate change and too much CO2 can have serious consequences in the sense of flooding, heat droughts, etc. This is already clear by now. It is more important to ask the question of whether climate change *will* have serious consequences, and whether it's already happening. If policy comes into effect, perhaps climate change will not be a serious problem. And perhaps as the need becomes more urgent, any foreseeable problems could be taken care of. To my mind, however, the biggest question is not what climate change can cause, but whether there will be irreversible damage caused to the atmosphere before policy comes into effect. The answer to that question is not really clear yet I think. And I think we wouldn't want to find the answer to that question too late.


We've had severe weather events, and natural disasters since long before there was a written language, to record the events. Nothing has actually changed, except the perception, by some. Instead of destroying the economy, our modern ways of living, people use to throw sacrifices into a volcano. The world is always moving, and in a constant state of change. Policy, is politics, about power and control. There is no controlling nature, no matter how many people you stuff into a volcano.

There doesn't seem to be an upper limit, but plants stop showing any improved growth characteristic around 800 ppm. We are basically at half, the ideal CO2 level, for maximum plant growth. There is a lower limit of around 180 ppm, where most plants are barely able to reproduce. Most will starve and die at 150 ppm. Commercial greenhouses augment CO2, as a common practice, as the results are abundantly clear.

CO2 isn't immediately returned to the atmosphere, the moment a plant dies. Even then, only a small portion of the carbon content, is actual released as CO2. CO2 is a trace gas, and not evenly distributed across the planet. Plants don't always get as much as they need. The level of CO2 must continue to rise, with the population, to insure we have a sufficient food supply. We manage to survive many natural catastrophes, but we don't survive long without food.


It would be interesting to know whether we could benefit from more amounts of CO2, especially in this age of overpopulation. Keep in mind that if CO2 levels are too high a lot of ecosystems and vegetations can be killed off. Benefits would have to be weighed against the cost.

Some information indicates that higher C02 improves the drought resiliance of crops. And I have seen articles that claim higher CO2 levels will help feed a large population, but they don't take into account the risks that higher temperatures will cause to the population. It's a question of which is better: the higher CO2 levels or avoiding the damage to vegetation caused by higher temperatures.
21-09-2020 17:50
James___
★★★★★
(3283)
HarveyH55 wrote:
andeep wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
The problem I see, is that CO2 is a trace gas, but absolutely vital to life on this planet. The population of all species keep growing, but we keep killing off the vegetation. Plants are the only thing in the food chain, that takes carbon, directly from the environment. Carbon is the basis of all the wonderful molecules, that make up every living thing. We deliberately destroy vegetation to build on the land. Climate-fools, want to kill off millions of acres, just to plant, mostly useless solar panels and windmills. We need more CO2 to better accommodate what vegetation we have left, since the demand for food keeps increasing. I like my ribeye steak (medium-rare), like most sane folks, and that magnificent animal fed entirely on vegetation, so I would have to eat so much vegetables myself. Man was never meant to be vegan, stomach is big enough to handle the volume of vegetation.


You're right in saying that CO2 is valuable, however the problem is there is too much CO2.

As an afterthought though, I think the major issue though is not whether climate change and too much CO2 can have serious consequences in the sense of flooding, heat droughts, etc. This is already clear by now. It is more important to ask the question of whether climate change *will* have serious consequences, and whether it's already happening. If policy comes into effect, perhaps climate change will not be a serious problem. And perhaps as the need becomes more urgent, any foreseeable problems could be taken care of. To my mind, however, the biggest question is not what climate change can cause, but whether there will be irreversible damage caused to the atmosphere before policy comes into effect. The answer to that question is not really clear yet I think. And I think we wouldn't want to find the answer to that question too late.


We've had severe weather events, and natural disasters since long before there was a written language, to record the events. Nothing has actually changed, except the perception, by some. Instead of destroying the economy, our modern ways of living, people use to throw sacrifices into a volcano. The world is always moving, and in a constant state of change. Policy, is politics, about power and control. There is no controlling nature, no matter how many people you stuff into a volcano.

There doesn't seem to be an upper limit, but plants stop showing any improved growth characteristic around 800 ppm. We are basically at half, the ideal CO2 level, for maximum plant growth. There is a lower limit of around 180 ppm, where most plants are barely able to reproduce. Most will starve and die at 150 ppm. Commercial greenhouses augment CO2, as a common practice, as the results are abundantly clear.

CO2 isn't immediately returned to the atmosphere, the moment a plant dies. Even then, only a small portion of the carbon content, is actual released as CO2. CO2 is a trace gas, and not evenly distributed across the planet. Plants don't always get as much as they need. The level of CO2 must continue to rise, with the population, to insure we have a sufficient food supply. We manage to survive many natural catastrophes, but we don't survive long without food.



Word salad. Et tu Brute? When plants die, it is true that their carbon content isn't immediately returned to the atmosphere.
First plants need to decay. And depending on the latitude, it might take years.
2nd, when they release methane (CH4) then it needs to undergo photolysis. This is when CH4 + 3O2 > CO2 + 2H2O. And in this manner, CH4 can remain in the atmosphere for up to 12 years.
But you knew all of this, right Harvey?
And you also know that since European countries are burning trees as a carbon neutral policy that in ~ (means about) 50 years, a sustainable cycle of burning trees and the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere will be stabilized.
If you take the drive to your local library, they have computers that you can use for free that have Hi-Speed internet. Then again I have posted about the carbon neutral policy of burning trees and your slow dial up didn't allow you to read it.
All I could find is one forest in North Carolina has lost 120,000 acres of trees in 10 years. In about another 40 years, those trees should be in the recycling phase for the 2nd harvest.
Pulp for paper products have farms where harvest is at a set rate so when trees mature, they can be harvested. This allows for a sustainable source of raw materials.
And with me, I don't like Word Salad. It doesn't taste good and it's just not a healthy part of any diet.
21-09-2020 18:45
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2534)
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
andeep wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
The problem I see, is that CO2 is a trace gas, but absolutely vital to life on this planet. The population of all species keep growing, but we keep killing off the vegetation. Plants are the only thing in the food chain, that takes carbon, directly from the environment. Carbon is the basis of all the wonderful molecules, that make up every living thing. We deliberately destroy vegetation to build on the land. Climate-fools, want to kill off millions of acres, just to plant, mostly useless solar panels and windmills. We need more CO2 to better accommodate what vegetation we have left, since the demand for food keeps increasing. I like my ribeye steak (medium-rare), like most sane folks, and that magnificent animal fed entirely on vegetation, so I would have to eat so much vegetables myself. Man was never meant to be vegan, stomach is big enough to handle the volume of vegetation.


You're right in saying that CO2 is valuable, however the problem is there is too much CO2.

As an afterthought though, I think the major issue though is not whether climate change and too much CO2 can have serious consequences in the sense of flooding, heat droughts, etc. This is already clear by now. It is more important to ask the question of whether climate change *will* have serious consequences, and whether it's already happening. If policy comes into effect, perhaps climate change will not be a serious problem. And perhaps as the need becomes more urgent, any foreseeable problems could be taken care of. To my mind, however, the biggest question is not what climate change can cause, but whether there will be irreversible damage caused to the atmosphere before policy comes into effect. The answer to that question is not really clear yet I think. And I think we wouldn't want to find the answer to that question too late.


We've had severe weather events, and natural disasters since long before there was a written language, to record the events. Nothing has actually changed, except the perception, by some. Instead of destroying the economy, our modern ways of living, people use to throw sacrifices into a volcano. The world is always moving, and in a constant state of change. Policy, is politics, about power and control. There is no controlling nature, no matter how many people you stuff into a volcano.

There doesn't seem to be an upper limit, but plants stop showing any improved growth characteristic around 800 ppm. We are basically at half, the ideal CO2 level, for maximum plant growth. There is a lower limit of around 180 ppm, where most plants are barely able to reproduce. Most will starve and die at 150 ppm. Commercial greenhouses augment CO2, as a common practice, as the results are abundantly clear.

CO2 isn't immediately returned to the atmosphere, the moment a plant dies. Even then, only a small portion of the carbon content, is actual released as CO2. CO2 is a trace gas, and not evenly distributed across the planet. Plants don't always get as much as they need. The level of CO2 must continue to rise, with the population, to insure we have a sufficient food supply. We manage to survive many natural catastrophes, but we don't survive long without food.



Word salad. Et tu Brute? When plants die, it is true that their carbon content isn't immediately returned to the atmosphere.
First plants need to decay. And depending on the latitude, it might take years.
2nd, when they release methane (CH4) then it needs to undergo photolysis. This is when CH4 + 3O2 > CO2 + 2H2O. And in this manner, CH4 can remain in the atmosphere for up to 12 years.
But you knew all of this, right Harvey?
And you also know that since European countries are burning trees as a carbon neutral policy that in ~ (means about) 50 years, a sustainable cycle of burning trees and the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere will be stabilized.
If you take the drive to your local library, they have computers that you can use for free that have Hi-Speed internet. Then again I have posted about the carbon neutral policy of burning trees and your slow dial up didn't allow you to read it.
All I could find is one forest in North Carolina has lost 120,000 acres of trees in 10 years. In about another 40 years, those trees should be in the recycling phase for the 2nd harvest.
Pulp for paper products have farms where harvest is at a set rate so when trees mature, they can be harvested. This allows for a sustainable source of raw materials.
And with me, I don't like Word Salad. It doesn't taste good and it's just not a healthy part of any diet.


You are wrong, as usual... Not 100% of the plant decays into CH4 either. Not to mention, you don't take into account, what killed the plant... That, part used for food, the carbon goes to building a different organism, which often gets eaten by something else. Some of the carbon isn't converted to a gas either, it goes into the ground. Plants are also used as building materials, and not just by humans either... Bill Nye tends to over simplify his explaintions.
26-09-2020 23:22
andeep
☆☆☆☆☆
(20)
duncan61 wrote:
I do not see a problem


I see that you don't know what you're talking about.
27-09-2020 03:02
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(632)
Andeep you are creating a problem that does not exist.Everything is fine.Where do you get that more CO2 will harm plant life
27-09-2020 04:23
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2534)
Warmer climate and double our current atmospheric CO2 would be ideal for plant growth. Plants feed every living thing on the planet. The populations of many species, even, unfortunately, democrats, continues to grow, at an alarming rate. All those people (and democrats), and other critters, need food. We need to encourage plant growth, to continue feeding the planet. I don't think I'd enjoy a ribeye steak, off malnourished, under fed cattle.
27-09-2020 06:38
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13468)
andeep wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
The problem I see, is that CO2 is a trace gas, but absolutely vital to life on this planet. The population of all species keep growing, but we keep killing off the vegetation. Plants are the only thing in the food chain, that takes carbon, directly from the environment. Carbon is the basis of all the wonderful molecules, that make up every living thing. We deliberately destroy vegetation to build on the land. Climate-fools, want to kill off millions of acres, just to plant, mostly useless solar panels and windmills. We need more CO2 to better accommodate what vegetation we have left, since the demand for food keeps increasing. I like my ribeye steak (medium-rare), like most sane folks, and that magnificent animal fed entirely on vegetation, so I would have to eat so much vegetables myself. Man was never meant to be vegan, stomach is big enough to handle the volume of vegetation.


You're right in saying that CO2 is valuable, however the problem is there is too much CO2.

Not at all. There is far less CO2 in the atmosphere than necessary to cause breathing difficulties. YOU don't get to decide if there is too much CO2 in the atmosphere. How much is 'enough'? How much is 'too much'?
andeep wrote:
As an afterthought though, I think the major issue though is not whether climate change and too much CO2 can have serious consequences in the sense of flooding, heat droughts, etc.

CO2 cannot cause any flooding. It is not liquid in open air. There is no such thing as a 'heat drought'. CO2 cannot cause any drought. I find it amusing that you claim there will be floods and droughts at the same time from the same so-called cause.
andeep wrote:
This is already clear by now.

It is clear. The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law clear show that CO2 cannot change the temperature of the Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing. You cannot heat the surface using a colder gas.
andeep wrote:
It is more important to ask the question of whether climate change *will* have serious consequences, and whether it's already happening.

Define 'climate change'. You have to define it to show whether it's happening or not.
andeep wrote:
If policy comes into effect,

What 'policy'? Who dictates this policy? You? Are you the king? Are you a god? Who put YOU in charge?
andeep wrote:
perhaps climate change will not be a serious problem.

Define 'climate change'. You can't describe what problem it might have until you define it.
andeep wrote:
And perhaps as the need becomes more urgent, any foreseeable problems could be taken care of.

What 'problem'? Define 'climate change'.
andeep wrote:
To my mind, however, the biggest question is not what climate change can cause, but whether there will be irreversible damage caused to the atmosphere before policy comes into effect.

You are not the dictator, king, or a god. YOU don't get to dictate policy.
andeep wrote:
The answer to that question is not really clear yet I think.

It's clear. You do not get to dictate.
andeep wrote:
And I think we wouldn't want to find the answer to that question too late.

The answer is known. You are not the dictator. You are not the king. You are not a god.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
27-09-2020 06:41
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13468)
andeep wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
andeep wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
The problem I see, is that CO2 is a trace gas, but absolutely vital to life on this planet. The population of all species keep growing, but we keep killing off the vegetation. Plants are the only thing in the food chain, that takes carbon, directly from the environment. Carbon is the basis of all the wonderful molecules, that make up every living thing. We deliberately destroy vegetation to build on the land. Climate-fools, want to kill off millions of acres, just to plant, mostly useless solar panels and windmills. We need more CO2 to better accommodate what vegetation we have left, since the demand for food keeps increasing. I like my ribeye steak (medium-rare), like most sane folks, and that magnificent animal fed entirely on vegetation, so I would have to eat so much vegetables myself. Man was never meant to be vegan, stomach is big enough to handle the volume of vegetation.


You're right in saying that CO2 is valuable, however the problem is there is too much CO2.

As an afterthought though, I think the major issue though is not whether climate change and too much CO2 can have serious consequences in the sense of flooding, heat droughts, etc. This is already clear by now. It is more important to ask the question of whether climate change *will* have serious consequences, and whether it's already happening. If policy comes into effect, perhaps climate change will not be a serious problem. And perhaps as the need becomes more urgent, any foreseeable problems could be taken care of. To my mind, however, the biggest question is not what climate change can cause, but whether there will be irreversible damage caused to the atmosphere before policy comes into effect. The answer to that question is not really clear yet I think. And I think we wouldn't want to find the answer to that question too late.


We've had severe weather events, and natural disasters since long before there was a written language, to record the events. Nothing has actually changed, except the perception, by some. Instead of destroying the economy, our modern ways of living, people use to throw sacrifices into a volcano. The world is always moving, and in a constant state of change. Policy, is politics, about power and control. There is no controlling nature, no matter how many people you stuff into a volcano.

There doesn't seem to be an upper limit, but plants stop showing any improved growth characteristic around 800 ppm. We are basically at half, the ideal CO2 level, for maximum plant growth. There is a lower limit of around 180 ppm, where most plants are barely able to reproduce. Most will starve and die at 150 ppm. Commercial greenhouses augment CO2, as a common practice, as the results are abundantly clear.

CO2 isn't immediately returned to the atmosphere, the moment a plant dies. Even then, only a small portion of the carbon content, is actual released as CO2. CO2 is a trace gas, and not evenly distributed across the planet. Plants don't always get as much as they need. The level of CO2 must continue to rise, with the population, to insure we have a sufficient food supply. We manage to survive many natural catastrophes, but we don't survive long without food.


It would be interesting to know whether we could benefit from more amounts of CO2, especially in this age of overpopulation.
YOU don't get to decide whether there is overpopulation or not. You are not the king.
andeep wrote:
Keep in mind that if CO2 levels are too high a lot of ecosystems and vegetations can be killed off.
Nope. Plants like CO2.
andeep wrote:
Benefits would have to be weighed against the cost.
What cost?
andeep wrote:
Some information indicates that higher C02 improves the drought resiliance of crops. And I have seen articles that claim higher CO2 levels will help feed a large population, but they don't take into account the risks that higher temperatures will cause to the population.
CO2 is incapable of increasing the temperature of Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing.
andeep wrote:
It's a question of which is better: the higher CO2 levels or avoiding the damage to vegetation caused by higher temperatures.

Plants are not temperature sensitive (other than freezing). CO2 cannot increase the temperature of the Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
27-09-2020 06:42
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13468)
andeep wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
I do not see a problem


I see that you don't know what you're talking about.


Inversion fallacy. No, that would be YOU. It is YOU that is denying science and mathematics.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
27-09-2020 22:28
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7514)
duncan61 wrote:Where do you get that more CO2 will harm plant life

It's exactly the same princple at play that makes providing food harmful to Ethiopians.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
28-09-2020 00:11
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2534)
Lot of people seem to think that when you dump fertilizer on the ground. it just sits there, until plant roots suck them in. The truth is that a large portion of the nutrients are carried off by water. There is a lot of other stuff going on in the soil, besides plant roots. Some of it's chemistry, the various nutrients plants need, can't always be absorbed, or used. Some will get broken down over time. Some mix with other stuff, and form salts, and no longer useful. More CO2, produces larger, healthier, faster growing plants, which would take better advantage of the nutrients in the soil. Commercial farming can be rough on the soil, since the try to make a dime off the entire plant, not just the food product portion. The soil can easily be reconditioned and restored. How many commercial farms get abandon because the soil is useless?
29-09-2020 03:51
James___
★★★★★
(3283)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Lot of people seem to think that when you dump fertilizer on the ground. it just sits there, until plant roots suck them in. The truth is that a large portion of the nutrients are carried off by water. There is a lot of other stuff going on in the soil, besides plant roots. Some of it's chemistry, the various nutrients plants need, can't always be absorbed, or used. Some will get broken down over time. Some mix with other stuff, and form salts, and no longer useful. More CO2, produces larger, healthier, faster growing plants, which would take better advantage of the nutrients in the soil. Commercial farming can be rough on the soil, since the try to make a dime off the entire plant, not just the food product portion. The soil can easily be reconditioned and restored. How many commercial farms get abandon because the soil is useless?



And now you're getting into soil erosion because of farming which you and your friends say doesn't happen.
29-09-2020 10:34
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2534)
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Lot of people seem to think that when you dump fertilizer on the ground. it just sits there, until plant roots suck them in. The truth is that a large portion of the nutrients are carried off by water. There is a lot of other stuff going on in the soil, besides plant roots. Some of it's chemistry, the various nutrients plants need, can't always be absorbed, or used. Some will get broken down over time. Some mix with other stuff, and form salts, and no longer useful. More CO2, produces larger, healthier, faster growing plants, which would take better advantage of the nutrients in the soil. Commercial farming can be rough on the soil, since the try to make a dime off the entire plant, not just the food product portion. The soil can easily be reconditioned and restored. How many commercial farms get abandon because the soil is useless?



And now you're getting into soil erosion because of farming which you and your friends say doesn't happen.


California is about to see massive soil erosion, as they move into their wet season, in a couple months. A lot of those millions of acres they just allowed to burn, will be stripped of a lot of top soil, in the form of mudslides. Many tons of top soil will end up in the Pacific ocean. Soil erosion is a natural thing,man-made, fear mongering way you claim.
Page 3 of 3<123





Join the debate California Wildfires, Trumps Fault?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
California, Global Climate Leader?130-10-2019 19:46
California Historic Power Outage!1926-10-2019 17:58
New California Laws113-10-2019 21:01
California's Carbon-Tax?117-05-2019 10:16
California restaurants can now add a 1% surcharge to help fight climate change228-04-2019 18:34
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact