It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

EPA Chief concedes climate rule; it's about 'reinventing a global economy'

page: 8
53
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2016 @ 08:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Greven

Wow... the amazement never ceases.

So far, I have refuted the claim that CO2 does not support life because carbon monoxide is an asphyxiant... that plant life is impossible without commercial fertilizer... that CO2 does not promote plant growth... that plant growth is independent of temperature... and now I am faced with the prospect of debating whether some locations having poor soil negates the last two facts above. Oh, yes, and you want an explanation of ATP and ADP.

They're 3-letter acronyms.

Sorry, but I don't tutor biology, just math, computer science, and engineering. If I were to explain the known metabolic pathways to you, I believe you would find another imagined reason to dispute it. Google is your friend.

TheRedneck

Hey look, you made up a bunch of strawmen knocked them over. Congratulations. Every single one of them.

I'm a programmer by trade, and I can't fathom the 'logic' you use in this discussion. Do you remember that term from logic - strawmen?




posted on May, 16 2016 @ 08:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven
...
Again, it was a combination of factors. Drought was not new to the Great Plains when the Dust Bowl occurred. It was a severe drought, to be sure, but human activities exacerbated the problem. Our farming methods removed the hardy natural grasslands and replaced it with plants that just couldn't cope with those sorts of droughts. We didn't use contour farming. We didn't plant windbreaks. We did everything wrong, and it bit our butts.

Yet, you want to claim that it was solely due to the heat and the drought? Why didn't the Dust Bowls happen before the 1930s, then? Why didn't they happen after? These areas experienced droughts before and after.
...


If the warming in the Pacific and Atlantic didn't occur this event would not have occurred.

It stopped raining. Are you now going to claim the great plains would not have dried up, and the soil would not have turned essentially to dust if mankind hadn't been there? Lack of rain will dry up plant life, plant life dies and rots, the soil becomes brittle and is reduced to dust from the lack of water. The dust bowl would have happened even if mankind hadn't been in the Great Plains.


edit on 16-5-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 08:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: Greven

Are we really now going to go over what you were implying in your own argument?

Since when are events occurring during a climate change "fringe items"?... Never heard/read anyone label events occurring during climate change as "fringe items"...


Please, read this post carefully:

It seems like you have to be contrarian to any possible fringe item related to climate change. Why is that?

Let's break it down: 'item' being 'Dust Bowl' not 'your argument' here. Said item is 'related' to 'climate change' got that? But it's not a particularly strong relation to climate change, see... it's just 'fringe' - we all clear now?

Stop alleging I have written something I have not. Both you and TheRedneck have been doing that repeatedly.



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 08:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Greven
...
Again, it was a combination of factors. Drought was not new to the Great Plains when the Dust Bowl occurred. It was a severe drought, to be sure, but human activities exacerbated the problem. Our farming methods removed the hardy natural grasslands and replaced it with plants that just couldn't cope with those sorts of droughts. We didn't use contour farming. We didn't plant windbreaks. We did everything wrong, and it bit our butts.

Yet, you want to claim that it was solely due to the heat and the drought? Why didn't the Dust Bowls happen before the 1930s, then? Why didn't they happen after? These areas experienced droughts before and after.
...


If the warming in the Pacific and Atlantic didn't occur this event would not have occurred.

It stopped raining. Are you now going to claim the great plains would not have dried up, and the soil would not have turned essentially to dust if mankind hadn't been there? Lack of rain will dry up plant life, plant life dies and rots, the soil becomes brittle and is reduced to dust from the lack of water. The dust bowl would have happened even if mankind hadn't been in the Great Plains.

Then surely such an event as the dust bowl has happened before or since.

Or perhaps it was unprecedented. Which poison do you want to pick?



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 09:13 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

One thing that always gets me is this...why do we (US/Europe) have to have extreme austerity measures for climate change when we are already some of the cleanest countries on Earth? We have made amazing strides in our clean technology, and we no longer dump chemicals into our waterways and dirty our environment.
China and India, and many other 1st and 2nd world countries literally dump thousands of gallons of toxic chemicals into their rivers. They let their raw sewage spill into lakes and rivers. Some rivers in China and India run red or yellow or other colors based on what chemical was dumped that day. That is insane!
Why don't we focus our efforts on getting those countries to the same level we are? It seems to me that by doing that, we will combat global climate change and pollution far greater than by further restricting and limiting the western people.



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 09:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

Nope, I was too busy learning gate configurations and assembly code.

You use strawman to write apps, eh? Interesting...

TheRedneck



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 10:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Greven

Nope, I was too busy learning gate configurations and assembly code.

You use strawman to write apps, eh? Interesting...

I prefer a little higher level work than that.

Since you bring it up, how about looking back at your strawmen:

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Oklahoma is primarily agricultural, yet you can't seem to follow that plants grow better in warmer temperatures

I never said warm temps are bad. Warm temps are great... if the soil has the right nutrients, if the water is in good supply, if the soil retains water suitably, if the sun (or shade) conditions are right, if it isn't too acidic for the plant, ...etc.

Meanwhile, it can be 110F during the summer here and bone-dry. Or it can be downpours that drown plants and they don't grow so well. Things matter a bit.

, use CO2 in photosynthesis,

Really? When the hell have I said otherwise?

or have different nutrient requirements between different species.

Yeah, plants can be picky about their soil. What's different from what I've been saying?

originally posted by: TheRedneck
So far, I have refuted the claim that CO2 does not support life because carbon monoxide is an asphyxiant...

I never claimed that?

that plant life is impossible without commercial fertilizer...

I never claimed this?

that CO2 does not promote plant growth...

I didn't claim this either?

that plant growth is independent of temperature...

I also didn't claim this?

Oh, yes, and you want an explanation of ATP and ADP.

Now let's get this straight. You claimed this:

originally posted by: TheRedneck
No nutrient is common to all green plant life.

To which I asked this:

originally posted by: Greven
No nutrients are necessary for every green plant? Hmm... what do you suppose ADP & ATP are made of?

Y'know, ADP/ATP being kind of fundamental processes to plants (and other living things, too)... and being an awful important nutrient for plants, I reckon (P)hosphate to be shared nutrient. Guess that's another point conceded?

Two real hits for me, a half dozen strawmen for you. I wonder which is more meaningful?



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 10:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

Ah, so now you think ATP is a nutrient?

Google is your friend... so is Wikipedia.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 10:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Greven

Ah, so now you think ATP is a nutrient?

Google is your friend... so is Wikipedia.

No. Parsing English is not that difficult:

and being an awful important nutrient for plants, I reckon (P)hosphate to be shared nutrient



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 10:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

Oh, what a difference a few words make...

Y'know, ADP/ATP being kind of fundamental processes to plants (and other living things, too)... and being an awful important nutrient for plants,


Hey, I like this game! Now I see why you play it so much.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 10:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Greven

Oh, what a difference a few words make...

Y'know, ADP/ATP being kind of fundamental processes to plants (and other living things, too)... and being an awful important nutrient for plants,


Hey, I like this game! Now I see why you play it so much.

Just as I said before, you see what you want to see.



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 10:28 PM
link   


how to maintain our competitive edge.


How is that "extreme austerity"???

And by the way, .6 degrees C is almost a degree and a half in Farenheit, and that is actually a very big difference when measuring the average temperature of the entire planet. It is very significant.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 12:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: CB328



how to maintain our competitive edge.


How is that "extreme austerity"???

And by the way, .6 degrees C is almost a degree and a half in Farenheit, and that is actually a very big difference when measuring the average temperature of the entire planet. It is very significant.


It won't be a 0.6C temperature reduction... it would be 0.06C temperature reduction at best and only "if" the entire world goes along, but India, China, and Russia have already stated several times they won't do it. That's not mentioning the fact that the contribution of CO2 to warming has been overtly exaggerated which is why climate models have been so wrong.

Many other countries won't do it either, including all of the Middle East, and most of south America. In the end it would only be Europe and the U.S., and probably Australia, and New Zealand. I doubt Japan would agree to do this.

And yes, it would be "extreme austerity measures".


Europe's climate change goals 'need profound lifestyle changes'

Leaked European commission document calls for wide-ranging debate on how to keep global warming to 1.5C
...
“It will require exploring possibilities for realising ‘negative’ emissions as well as profound lifestyle changes of current generations.

Negative emissions can refer to carbon capture and storage technology powered by biomass, geo-engineering of the atmosphere and oceans, or CO2 removal that sucks emissions out of the air.
...

www.theguardian.com...

Those "profound lifestyle changes" in Europe and the U.S. won't be forced on the elites, but rather the regular people will bear the brunt. Dramatic increases in electricity costs, and to reach "negative emissions" everything that releases CO2 will have to be stopped... You can't use natural gas to warm your house, you can't use wood to set a fire to warm your house, you can't use electricity unless it is powered in some way that does not releases CO2.

Those, among many others, are the types of "extreme austerity measures" that the elites want enforced.

That's not mentioning the fact that CO2 sequestration will cause stunt plant grow, there will be less harvests, and how exactly do you stop the sequestration once you start it?


edit on 17-5-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 08:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
a reply to: Greven

I don't need to know, animals pee naturally in the forest, there is no need to use any sort of chemical or organic man made fertilizer. It's all the cause of a bad agricultural management and a disrespect to nature.
Everything a plant need to grow is found withing the natural recycle system of for example forests.
I grow my own food for some time now as did my parents, grandparents and their fathers.
Not once have I EVER used any sort of man-made fabricated fertilizer or biocide.

If we stopped using fertilizer, much of the world's population would soon starve.

Get reading.

BS
How did we get to this stage? How did our ancestors grow food?
The use of chemical fertilizer is causing a lot more deaths, but go ahead drink your bottle of synthetic fertilizers and report back if you can.
It is easy to promote a plants growth and yield but it's another issue to promote plant quality.
I have never and will never use any type of synthetic fertilizers, it degrades the soil, degrades the plant and the one who will eventually eat it.
There is tons of food growing in the forest year after year, all without the help of man-made fertilizers or weeding or soil tilling or pesticides. How is that possible? Maybe we have to start listening to nature.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 11:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: intergalactic fire

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
a reply to: Greven

I don't need to know, animals pee naturally in the forest, there is no need to use any sort of chemical or organic man made fertilizer. It's all the cause of a bad agricultural management and a disrespect to nature.
Everything a plant need to grow is found withing the natural recycle system of for example forests.
I grow my own food for some time now as did my parents, grandparents and their fathers.
Not once have I EVER used any sort of man-made fabricated fertilizer or biocide.

If we stopped using fertilizer, much of the world's population would soon starve.

Get reading.

BS
How did we get to this stage? How did our ancestors grow food?
The use of chemical fertilizer is causing a lot more deaths, but go ahead drink your bottle of synthetic fertilizers and report back if you can.
It is easy to promote a plants growth and yield but it's another issue to promote plant quality.
I have never and will never use any type of synthetic fertilizers, it degrades the soil, degrades the plant and the one who will eventually eat it.
There is tons of food growing in the forest year after year, all without the help of man-made fertilizers or weeding or soil tilling or pesticides. How is that possible? Maybe we have to start listening to nature.

Hmm... how did our ancestors produce food?

Well, let's step back to the early 1800s (around or a few years after 1800), when Earth's population was about 1 billion. At the end of the 19th century, we reached 1.6 billion (~1900). Our population took over 120 more years to reach 2 billion (~1927). Just over 30 years later, we hit 3 billion (~1960). Within just a few years, we had surpassed 3.2 billion (~1962). Nearly a dozen years later, we hit 4 billion (~1974). Fast forward baker's dozen years, and we hit 5 billion (~1987). Another dozen years, and we hit 6 billion (~1999). By 2004, we had reached reached 6.4 billion. A few years later, we hit 7 billion (~2011). Today, it's at about 7.4 billion.

So, how did we get to our first billion? Well, just before the French and Indian War (~1750), it was about 800 million. At the end of the Medieval Warm Period (~1250), the estimated population was about 400 million. Around when China's Grand Canal (it's fun to read up on, too) came into existence by combing various preexisting canals (~600), the population was about 200 million - this work alone required perhaps 5 million people. Around 500 BC, humans reached about 100 million individuals. From there it's even more sketchy, with maybe 50 million people in the world around 1000 BC, half that in 2000 BC, a quarter of that population in 3000 BC, and an eight of that population in 4000 BC - a mere 5-7 million people. Beyond that is rather hazy.

So, where am I going with this? Fertilizer isn't new per se, but artificial fertilizer is a relatively recent invention. Its origins can be traced to the mid-1800s. By the early 1900s, artificial fertilizer had truly come into being, through several discovered chemical processes. Fertilizer consumed annually has dramatically increased since its invention. So, how well does this coincide with population growth?

4000 BC - 3000 BC, doubling rate: 1000 yrs
3000 BC - 2000 BC, doubling rate: 1000 yrs
2000 BC - 1000 BC, doubling rate: 1000 yrs
1000 BC - _500 BC, doubling rate: _500 yrs
_500 BC - _600 AD, doubling rate: 1100 yrs
_600 AD - 1250 AD, doubling rate: _650 yrs
1250 AD - 1750 AD, doubling rate: _500 yrs
1750 AD - 1900 AD, doubling rate: _125 yrs
1900 AD - 1962 AD, doubling rate: __62yrs
1962 AD - 2004 AD, doubling rate: __40 yrs

The further back we go, the more our error in estimation is likely to grow. However, I would argue that things have clearly changed considerably in recent years. Let's look back to when we kicked population growth into high gear, and be a bit more precise with our numbers (above is rounded a good bit for older data).
1750 AD - starting: 795 million
1750 AD - 1800 AD: +174 million (total: 969 million)
1800 AD - 1850 AD: +296 million (total: 1.265 billion)
1850 AD - 1900 AD: +391 million (total: 1.656 billion)

Prior to about 1850, the rate was still pretty low: 795M (~1750) * 1.22 (+50yr) = 969M (~1800). 969M * 1.31 (+50yr) = 1.265B (~1850). 1.265B * 1.31 (+50yr) = 1.656B.
If we go backwards from 1750, 795M / 1.24 (-50yr) = 640M (~1700), 640M / 1.26 (-50yr) = 508M (~1650).

Looks pretty close so far... but 1600-1650 was a bit dicey; population may have actually declined about 10% from 1600's estimated 562 million - and it isn't alone. 1500 was high, with some 483 million. 1400 was low, with some 362 million. 1300 was high, with around 396 million. 1200 was even higher, with some estimated 405 million. So population was a bit up and down for several hundred years. Before about 1200, population had been slowly increasing since about 600 AD. It's thought to have stagnated somewhat between 1 AD and 500 AD, with very little change in population - hovering near 200 million.

So, what caused the fluctuations? There was the Black Death - which killed tens or potentially hundreds of millions - in the mid-1300s. So, that's a good reason for the decline from 1300 to 1400. It kept popping back up to kill people for the next few hundred years. There was also the Little Ice Age and the reduced crop output and famine it caused.

Let's go on from 1900, then. By 1950, there is an even larger increase: 1.656B (~1900) * 1.48 (+50yr) = 2.450B (~1950). By 2000, it's higher still: 2.450B (~1950) * 2.48 (+50yr) = 6.082B (~2000). That's a staggering increase.

So, what does all of this have to do with artificial fertilizer? Without sufficient food, no species can expand. It helps feed us by increasing crop yields, but it isn't just fertilizer: it's also the breeding of crops that can produce more food. However, those crops are hungrier ones, and need more nutrients - supplied by fertilizers - to reach such high yields.

There have been studies using cover crops, some without any fertilizer and some with some fertilizer. Crops without fertilizer are lower-yielding. It may be that a happy medium can be had with a little fertilizer and the use of cover crops, as some of these studies suggest. We know that overfarming will deplete nutrients, and we know crops will not grow well or be as nutritious without the sufficient nutrients, so there has to be some give and take somewhere.



posted on May, 18 2016 @ 10:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven


No matter what fertilizer you use, if massive CO2 sequestration programs are implemented, a few already have been, plant life will produce less and less harvests, and will consume more and more water no matter how much fertilizer you put in the soil...
edit on 18-5-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 01:08 AM
link   
SMH.....I have a degree in Environmental policy and analysis with a minor in environmental health. Humans are F*&king the the environment. I dont understand why the bible people are so naive. How can you not see around you the effects we are having on this planet. Deforestation, strip mining, dumping, nuclear waste, energy waste, plastics in our oceans, etc. We humans are dirty filthy beings with no respect or regard for our planet. Some countries do it better than others, even the good ones are still bad.



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 01:10 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse
More CO2 does not lessen water requirements.



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 02:35 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Excellent OP. This is why we, the opponents of the Carbon Tax, have been saying for years that the Carbon Tax does NOTHING to save the environment.

The real purpose of the Carbon Tax is to help destroy the First World nations by hurting small businesses and the middle class. It's a REDISTRIBUTION of WEALTH scheme whereby money is sucked out of the First World nations and used to set up NWO seed governments in Third World nations.

Of course, certain people are prepared to make billions from making & selling "carbon-measuring" devices and the banksters will get their cut to handle the transactions.

The Left-wing dim bulbs who defend the Carbon Tax are useful idiots to the NWO. What they don't understand is that the NWO will destroy them. It would be funny if it weren't so tragic in its impact on the world.

Global climate change is real, but the Carbon Tax does nothing to stop it.

Edgar Cayce predicted more than 70+ years ago that global climate change will be a signal of the coming "Earth Changes." And Al Gore's carbon-measuring device isn't going to stop it.



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 02:36 AM
link   
a reply to: AuranVector

You know there is no carbon tax in the US, right?




top topics



 
53
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join