Originally posted by @fabianfnas In the reference link one can read:
"While rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the air can be beneficial for plants, it is also the chief culprit of climate change. The gas, which traps heat in Earth's atmosphere, has been increasing since the industrial age due to the burning of oil, gas, coal and wood for energy and is continuing to reach [b]con ...[text shortened]... ing, rising sea levels, melting glaciers and sea ice as well as more severe weather events."[/b]
It also says this:
"Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time."
What it does not tell you is that the CO2 levels would have to be extremely high. Much higher than anybody should ever worry about. The article is clearly biased and withholds facts that make the claim misleading.
As for the claim that co2 is the chief culprit of climate change, it is false. There is no evidence of that at all. I created a thread on this forum to show that. See "anthropogenic GW myth".
Anybody can make a claim. Proving it is a different matter.
Originally posted by @metal-brain It also says this:
"Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time."
What it does not tell you is that the CO2 levels would have to be extremely high. Much higher than anybody should ever worry about. The article is clearly biased and withholds facts tha ...[text shortened]... hat. See "anthropogenic GW myth".
Anybody can make a claim. Proving it is a different matter.
It was your ref, not mine. I just read it and agreed with one paragraph in particular.
If you don't agree with the ref you gave, then why did you give it in the first place?
Let me requote once more;
"While rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the air can be beneficial for plants, it is also the chief culprit of climate change. The gas, which traps heat in Earth's atmosphere, has been increasing since the industrial age due to the burning of oil, gas, coal and wood for energy and is continuing to reach concentrations not seen in at least 500,000 years. The impacts of climate change include global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers and sea ice as well as more severe weather events."
Originally posted by @fabianfnas It was your ref, not mine. I just read it and agreed with one paragraph in particular.
If you don't agree with the ref you gave, then why did you give it in the first place?
Let me requote once more;
"While rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the air can be beneficial for plants, it is also the chief culprit of climate change. [b]The gas, which ...[text shortened]... ing, rising sea levels, melting glaciers and sea ice as well as more severe weather events."[/b]
I could not find another source that was not a duplicate of the other article. The original was from NASA I think. NASA is very biased when it comes to GW.
Originally posted by @humy what has whether that is true got to do with man made global warming? -answer; nothing.
Why do you endlessly repeat the same moronic irrelevancies?
The damage hurricanes have on plant vegetation is minimal and temporary. Even farmers who try really hard to kill the roots of weeds have a hard time doing it unless they keep at it for months. It isn't worth mentioning in regards to GW unless you are a moron.
I'm repeating it because it is very relevant. Why are you too slow to catch on to the obvious?
Originally posted by @metal-brain The damage hurricanes have on plant vegetation is minimal and temporary. Even farmers who try really hard to kill the roots of weeds have a hard time doing it unless they keep at it for months. It isn't worth mentioning in regards to GW unless you are a moron.
so why DO you (and repeatedly so) mention it if you aren't a moron?
I'm repeating it because it is very relevant.
how can it be both "not worth mentioning" and "very relevant"?
Out of those two mutually exclusive assertions, only the "not worth mentioning" one is correct.
Farm weed control has extremely little if anything to do with global warming thus it isn't relevant.
Originally posted by @humy so why DO you (and repeatedly so) mention it if you aren't a moron?
I'm repeating it because it is very relevant.
how can it be both "not worth mentioning" and "very relevant"?
Out of those two mutually exclusive assertions, only the "not worth mentioning" one is correct.
Farm weed control has extremely little if anything to do with global warming thus it isn't relevant.
You should not mention it because it is misleading nonsense. I mention it is nonsense because you are too dumb to see the obvious. My points are very relevant, yours are not. Hurricanes do not uproot many plants other than some trees as they get pushed over by wind. Vegetation grows back very fast, much faster than my garden when I roto-till it and even that would grow back within a few weeks if I didn't till it repeatedly.
Move on to something logical that does not contradict common sense. Accept the obvious.
Originally posted by @metal-brain I mention it is nonsense
I mention it is nonsense
you mentioned it so you admit you talk nonsense.
Hurricanes do not uproot many plants
why do you change the subject and suddenly try to trivialize hurricanes?
Hurricanes destroy property and kill people and are obviously very undesirable; which also has nothing to do with farm weed control. So you choose to talk yet more nonsense?
why do you change the subject and suddenly try to trivialize hurricanes?
Hurricanes destroy property and kill people and are obviously very undesirable; which also has nothing to do with farm weed control. So you choose to talk yet more nonsense?
You are full of it!
You said hurricanes damage plants to the extent that they can't produce oxygen nearly as well. That is clearly bunk! You are a pathetic moron!
Furthermore, I did NOT change the subject. You are a lying troll!
Originally posted by @metal-brain I could not find another source that was not a duplicate of the other article. The original was from NASA I think. NASA is very biased when it comes to GW.
NASA is biased by the truth. NASA has no reason to lie.
Are you a tin foil conspirationist?
Originally posted by @metal-brain You said hurricanes damage plants to the extent that they can't produce oxygen nearly as well.
I said no such thing; at least not in the current threads including this one and at least not in the last ~ten weeks and I don't recall ever mentioning this although that doesn't mean I never did. And I wouldn't say any such thing in the current threads because, regardless of whether it's true, it is totally irrelevant to the issues in all the current threads including this one.
Originally posted by @sonhouse Already, engineers and scientists are making breakthroughs in magnesium batteries, new one with twice the power density of lithium and a lot cheaper:
I stumbled across this info on the web, a lot of options in various forms of new battery development.
Very interesting.
Any of them have a future?
We should encourage the scientists to work faster!
http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/130380-future-batteries-coming-soon-charge-in-seconds-last-months-and-power-over-the-air
Originally posted by @pawnpaw Any of them have a future?
I bet, for reasons too complex to explain here, magnesium-sulfur (MgS) batteries will have a great future and will eventually become the batteries of choice. Unfortunately, very little research is currently done on MgS despite their huge potential so it would take a long time before that happens.
Electric cars
07 Sep '17 16:59
Back to Top