Survivalist Forum - Reply to Topic
Survivalist Forum

Advertise Here

Go Back   Survivalist Forum > > >
Articles Classifieds Donations Gallery Groups Links Store Survival Files


Notices

General Discussion Anything non-survival related - news and information, current events, general chit-chat stuff.

Advertise Here
Thread: Thank God for CO2 Reply to Thread
Title:
  
Message:
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Survivalist Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:
Gender
Insurance
Please select your insurance company (Optional)

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Topic Review (Newest First)
09-02-2019 11:27 AM
PalmettoTree Published scientific studies have proved all of the above wrong. It is true in some cherry picked environment plants wall turnover less CO2 for example in a drought or excessive heat. However on average for the globe increased global temperatures and increased global average temp increase will increase the global average plant growth and CO2 exchange rate. As I said growing areas, seasons, and plant types for a given area may shift. SO WHAT!

It is a scientific fact proven by biologist aka botanist, agronomist, and horticulturist all agree that increasing CO2 up to 700ppm will be good for dry plant mass and increased CO2 exchange rates. They also say as this occurs idea plant habitat for for individual species will likely shift. This has been proven wising thousands of plants in many independent studies. The difference between the above linked studies is they are designed with supporting the anti-CO2 myth while the other studies are designed to find ideal growing conditions for increased CO2.

Oceanographers agree that some sea life will suffer while othesr benefit from decreased ocean pH but there is a natural limit that will prevent an over all ocean life catastrophe.

Always remember if you see the word "COULD" even the author his his doubts and the science is weak.
09-01-2019 11:54 PM
Rural Buckeye Guy There are billions in research grants at risk for these same scientists with the global warming paradigm. This funding must be maximized carefully to insure that careers are funded, publications are steadily produced and steady media attention is maintained. From a globalist perspective, wealth transfer to the developing and third world via carbon taxes wil enable infrastructure creation needed for full integration into a global economy and governmental structure to maximize resource and manufacturing potentials worldwide. A sense of urgency is only lacking to leverage all these goals.
09-01-2019 10:09 PM
ralfy "As Climate Warms, Plants Will Absorb Less CO₂, Study Finds"

The study mentioned:

"Large influence of soil moisture on long-term terrestrial carbon uptake"

Related:

"Effects of Rising Atmospheric Concentrations of Carbon Dioxide on Plants"

"Ask the Experts: Does Rising CO2 Benefit Plants?"

"CO2 Effects on Plants Increase Global Warming"

"High CO2 levels cause plants to thicken their leaves, could worsen climate change effects"

The reason for these points is not hard to understand: the world is not a laboratory where all factors can be controlled. But count on the mainstream to imagine otherwise.
09-01-2019 06:03 PM
PeterEnergy
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlgoRhythms View Post
You calling something "notorious fake" doesn't make it either notorious or fake.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Old Coach View Post
No, it's them being a mouthpiece for the worst of the IPCC scams for years and years that makes them notorious and fake. They've also engaged in personal attacks on respectable climate researchers like Dr.Spencer and Dr. Ball.
Sadly, AlgoRhythms is engaging in one of the worst forms of intellectual dishonesty; being obtuse, pretending the subject has not been fundamentally analyzed 100,000,000,000 millions of times before this thread. The next study could prove the misanthropism of the Left is true.

Let's pretend we are talking about this subject for the very 1st time - like a virgin. Let's pretend this is about science and not politics. And let's pretend this thread's title is not about thanking God. And let's pretend we all believe the moral outrage of AlgoRhythms is real that I'm not buying into his being all offended that I reject all his pretensions.

09-01-2019 04:51 PM
The Old Coach
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlgoRhythms View Post
You calling something "notorious fake" doesn't make it either notorious or fake.


The comments in the article basically agree with the writer(s). They differ in degree. I guess you didn't read them, or the article.
No, it's them being a mouthpiece for the worst of the IPCC scams for years and years that makes them notorious and fake. They've also engaged in personal attacks on respectable climate researchers like Dr.Spencer and Dr. Ball.

The comments agree with the article because they won't ever allow anything critical. Unlike, say, WattsUpWithThat.com which lets even the craziest CAGW stuff be posted so long as it isn't pornographic or advocating violence, because the rationalists can handle criticism.

Yes, I read the whole thing. Some of the comments got into beads and incense territory.
09-01-2019 04:25 PM
PalmettoTree I have seen this report and it is pointless. For example it says: "A significant reduction in maize [corn] yield is found for each day with a maximum temperature above 32°C [89.6], in broad agreement with previous estimates. The recent increase in such hot days has likely contributed to the observed yield stagnation."

That is true but while in some warmer areas the increase in temperature may reduce yield that increase in temperature globally will create new areas of ideal growth. Current ideal areas will be pushed north. While more southern areas will gain a second growing season. So the fact that average temp is 75.5°F in July for the lower 48 is the hottest month. We have considerable room on average for ideal temperature ranges.

Another quote: "Another study published in Nature Climate Change last week concluded that higher temperatures will cause wheat production to decline. Just a 1°C rise in global temperature will decrease wheat yields by about 5% (approximately 35 million tons). Climate change is bad news for several of our staple crops."

This is based on current locations of wheat growth. Many areas already use two wheat seasons.

The fact is we hare developing more and more drought/heat tolerant crops all the time. It is important to know the facts. One important fact to know is the ideal temperature for plant growth. Still another important factor is that plants in general will thrive more and exchange more CO2 faster at higher CO2 levels than current ambient air.

If there is anything nature, all of nature including man, is good at is adjusting to changes in nature.

Given 89.6°F is the temp for reduced plant growth and our current hottest month averages 75.5°F we have considerable growth cushion temperature wise. Given we are at about 400 ppm and plant growth gets better as we hit 700 ppm. Plus there is plenty of evidence CO2 is not a major contributor to global temperature increases if a factor at all. Science and math tell us all this CO2 caused global warming mess is nothing more than a hyped-up con.
09-01-2019 10:02 AM
AlgoRhythms
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Old Coach View Post
Y'all be aware that his link is to a notorious AGW Fake Science site.

Read the comments - they're a hoot!

You calling something "notorious fake" doesn't make it either notorious or fake.


The comments in the article basically agree with the writer(s). They differ in degree. I guess you didn't read them, or the article.
09-01-2019 04:21 AM
PeterEnergy
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Old Coach View Post
Y'all be aware that his link is to a notorious AGW Fake Science site.

Read the comments - they're a hoot!
The claim of evidence is more important than the actual evidence. Ralfy was relying on the headline to be persuasive. You ruined his ruse by reading the article AND the comments.

It so telling that Liberals, like Algorythems and Ralfy cannot stand the idea that CO2 could be good for life.
09-01-2019 03:10 AM
The Old Coach Y'all be aware that his link is to a notorious AGW Fake Science site.

Read the comments - they're a hoot!
09-01-2019 01:51 AM
ralfy New study undercuts favorite climate myth ‘more CO2 is good for plants’
08-31-2019 09:50 PM
AlgoRhythms
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Old Coach View Post
What, you now own the thread?

Typical lib. Don't like the trend of a discussion, shut it down. Twitter thinking.

Of course not.

However, I was hoping to actually learn something.

I guess I did.
08-31-2019 09:33 PM
The Old Coach
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlgoRhythms View Post
You don't want a discussion.
You want a brawl.

Find it somewhere else.

You're now on ignore.
What, you now own the thread?

Typical lib. Don't like the trend of a discussion, shut it down. Twitter thinking.
08-31-2019 09:32 PM
PeterEnergy Libs are too easy to trigger. Great comedic value though.
08-31-2019 09:29 PM
AlgoRhythms
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterEnergy View Post
LOL. This thread is about thanking God for CO2. See thread title You are pretending this thread is about the diversion of scientific study and CO2 being a warming agent for the atmosphere.

P.S. If CO2 is a warming agent, that would be a good thing for life, especially human life.
You don't want a discussion.
You want a brawl.

Find it somewhere else.

You're now on ignore.
08-31-2019 08:25 PM
PeterEnergy
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlgoRhythms View Post
THIS topic IS scientific and evidence based. Why are you hijacking this thread? What you've posted has NOTHING to do with the question of CO2 being a warming agent for the atmosphere.
LOL. This thread is about thanking God for CO2. See thread title You are pretending this thread is about the diversion of scientific study and CO2 being a warming agent for the atmosphere.

P.S. If CO2 is a warming agent, that would be a good thing for life, especially human life.
08-31-2019 06:12 PM
PalmettoTree
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlgoRhythms View Post
That's pretty much true. Beans, an important food crop, are an exception to that. They do take nitrogen from the air as well as soil.
Depending on the bean CO2 increases at 300 ppm over ambient increases growth rate from 46.3 to 104.3% and CO2 turnover rate is 34 to 55.8%.

This may be what you are thinking of: "The bacteria infects legume plants such as peas and beans and uses the plant to help it [the bacteria] draw nitrogen from the air. The bacteria converts this nitrogen gas and then stores it in the roots of the plant. When the plant stores the nitrogen in the roots, it produces a lump on the root called a nitrogen nodule."

This is why beans are use in crop rotation. [Was I am not sure many farmers rotate crops these days.]: "Beans and peas add lots of nitrogen, which encourages leafy growth, back into the soil. One approach to crop rotation is to divide your plants into these four basic groups: legumes, root crops, fruit crops, and leaf crops."

So as posted above by Old Coach plants do not get nitrogen from the air. It is the bacteria that like beans that causes the nitrogen fixation.
08-31-2019 05:55 PM
AlgoRhythms
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Old Coach View Post
No, even legumes do not take nitrogen from the air. They merely provide a hospitable environment for nitrogen-fixing bacteria.

https://aces.nmsu.edu/pubs/_a/A129/

Thanks for the link. I had a incomplete understanding of the mechanism. The nitrogen that plants use comes from the atmosphere, but the plants don't directly draw it from the air. Microorganisms that live in the plant and soil draw the nitrogen from the atmosphere and "fix" it into the soil.

In the case of the legumes, these microorganisms live symbiotically with the plant. The plant wouldn't have nitrogen without them, but the microorganisms couldn't survive without the plant.
08-31-2019 05:46 PM
AlgoRhythms
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterEnergy View Post
That’s just it! “Science and evidence” is how Liberals rationalize their negative philosophical outlook about everything! I am not talking about “Science and evidence” but world view.

NON-LIBERAL SAYS: The grass needed the rain.

LIBERAL BE LIKE: Yabut ... too much is bad.

NON-LIBERAL SAYS: People have been fruitful and multiplied all over the Earth.

LIBERAL BE LIKE: Yabut ... too much is bad. Earth is overpopulated.

NON-LIBERAL SAYS: Energy consumption is a great proxy indicator of a high life style.

LIBERAL BE LIKE: Yabut ... too much is bad. There could be such a thing as man-made global warming!

NON-LIBERAL SAYS: People from all over the world want to come to America, the greatest country that ever existed.

LIBERAL BE LIKE: Yabut ... America is imperialistic, became rich off the backs of people of color and slaves, is racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic, xenophobic, too powerful, rich and successful and don’t care about the poor.

NON-LIBERAL SAYS: Americans give more money to charity than any people on Earth.

LIBERAL BE LIKE: Yabut ... Looks for a way to be negative ... keeps looking ... keeps looking ... as a % of income other countries give more to poor than Americans.

NON-LIBERAL SAYS: Studies show those who believe in God live longer and are happier.

LIBERAL BE LIKE: Yabut ... There is no scientific evidence to prove God exists (when you disregard everything, the existence of the universe, life and the resurrection of Jesus Christ.)

The only thing Liberals aren’t negative about is recognizing the moral decline in our society.

Hows that godless, science and evidence life working out for you?

THIS topic IS scientific and evidence based. Why are you hijacking this thread? What you've posted has NOTHING to do with the question of CO2 being a warming agent for the atmosphere.


Post this personal attack garbage in the political forum where you usually hang out and stop wrecking an otherwise informative exchange.
08-31-2019 04:34 PM
The Old Coach The symbolic animal of the global left should be Eeyore.
08-31-2019 04:30 PM
The Old Coach
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlgoRhythms View Post
That's pretty much true. Beans, an important food crop, are an exception to that. They do take nitrogen from the air as well as soil.
No, even legumes do not take nitrogen from the air. They merely provide a hospitable environment for nitrogen-fixing bacteria.

https://aces.nmsu.edu/pubs/_a/A129/
This thread has more than 20 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:47 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © Kevin Felts 2006 - 2015,
Green theme by http://www.themesbydesign.net