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.

 

Earths natural thermostat at risk

page: 2
17
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 03:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Greven

Never once did I say that global Oxygen levels should be going up because of this. I corrected you on photosynthesis, you were leaving members under the impression that rising C02 levels caused plants to put out LESS 02, which is patently false, and I think you knew that.

I don't know why you refer to the Global Greening as bluster, what part of it do you question? I don't know why you alarmists can't at least acknowledge that there are some benefits to increased C02 levels. It's just silly to deny everything good about climate change.
NASA Link

The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.

edit on 10-6-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 05:12 AM
link   
So... Dr. Seuss's book __The__Lorax_ was correct? .....Cool



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 10:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Greven

It doesn't disagree with him.

D8Tee is absolutely correct with his description of photosynthesis and its effect as a negative feedback control on carbon dioxide levels. What you are posting is an overall measurement on oxygen levels.

That graph needs to be put into perspective. It shows an oxygen loss of 0.0019% atmospheric volume per year, yes. The total oxygen concentration in the atmosphere is approximately 20% by volume. So it's not as bad as that graph makes it look. If the graph showed the actual decrease on full scale, no one would be able to see the deviation. The trend may be worthy of notice, but it is far from disastrous.

The oxygen cycle is not the same as the carbon dioxide cycle, although the two are related. Oxygen is created through photosynthesis and consumed by combustion, whether that combustion is organic (respiration) or chemical (energy). The actual numbers involved do not matter; only the ratio between them matters. If carbon dioxide levels go up, more oxygen is produced via the greening effect; if oxygen numbers go up, more carbon dioxide is produced through increased quantities of fauna.

The whole idea behind this thread is sound; if we produce additional carbon dioxide, through energy conversion or population, the ecosphere will respond by increasing plant growth rates and efficiency in an attempt to maintain balance. However, if we remove the mechanism by which the ecosphere accomplishes this, then we have created a problem. We do not need to tax people, let people freeze to death in the winter, or live in caves... all we need do is to not destroy the flora.

It's (luckily) not just trees that are the issue. It's cities. Even grass absorbs carbon dioxide, but asphalt and concrete do not. That's one reason I tend to get frustrated with slickers (city dwellers) who cry about Global Warming... their lifestyle is the problem!

Fortunately, there are solutions. Make technology available to equatorial third-world countries in exchange for pledges to curb deforestation. That will reduce their need to log vast areas to survive, and spur their economic development to boot. Seed the oceans with algae. Oceanic algae is more beneficial to overall photosynthesis levels than the rainforest, and the natural boon to oceanic life would improve exhausted fishing levels to boot. The result of either will be more oxygen, less carbon dioxide, and more food.

Or, as has been previously mentioned... plant some trees! Fruit and nut trees also produce food.

The only downside is that it does not involve taxing people. All those programs would involve minimal cost.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the term 'bluster', but the implication is that you talk up greening a lot, not that greening isn't happening.

a reply to: TheRedneck

For one thing, D8Tee confuses respiration with transpiration:

originally posted by: D8Tee
Increased C02 levels result in increased photosynthesis resulting in more C02 used up and more 02 given off during respiration.


For another, there's this:

originally posted by: D8Tee
Of course a plant that is gaining mass faster at increased C02 levels is taking in additional C02 and putting out more 02.
...
Crop yields up all over this world, it is a Global Greening taking place. Plant growth is going into overdrive.

Which is now:

originally posted by: D8Tee
Never once did I say that global Oxygen levels should be going up because of this.


G ⇒ O
G
∴ ~O ...?



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Greven


For one thing, D8Tee confuses respiration with transpiration:

OK, so he got a term wrong. I missed that. The effect is still spot on.


For another, there's this:

Which is now:

Saying that plants increasing growth rates increases their oxygen output (which is true) is not the same as saying atmospheric oxygen levels will rise. That is exactly what I pointed out in detail. Did you read it?

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

As another poster says, we should implement urban forestry.

We can also do urban farming, where we use vacant lots to turn into something similar to victory gardens of WW2 so we can be less dependent on food from out of state and country. Saves gas and thus reduce carbon dioxide.

In addition to victory gardens, we should also raise chickens on certain areas.



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: starwarsisreal

There is absolutely no reason, aside from vanity, to not do what you are proposing. Materials science has been capable for decades now of efficiently allowing rooftop gardens, which would mitigate temperature swings and provide food for the inhabitants, as well as improving flora propagation. Trees can easily be planted in areas where no major construction exists, Even concrete sidewalks could be replaced by manicured, raised grass beds.

I understand there will always be areas that simply cannot accommodate plants, such as heavily-developed industrial areas. But the vast majority of cities outside of the inner-city urban areas, and especially the suburbs, can do a much better job.

Chickens are a pretty dirty bird; I have a small flock for eggs. But they also naturally fertilize the ground to allow for better plant growth. I would guess it would be nice to have a chicken pen (and less insects and free eggs!) in the city. I know it's great for me... my place is large enough I don't even have a pen. They know where home is.

It is not necessary to clear-cut for development. My house is settled back into the woods, and my shop is completely inside the tree line... in neither case was any major clearing done. Only small brush, which has since been replaced by even more growth than was here originally. And my heating/cooling bills are tiny compared to homes out in the open.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I wanna confess I used to misjudge people here ATS and Conservatives by thinking you guys don't give a d@mn about the environment and the world.

Now that I think of it, the real issue was how the Global Warming alarmists presented themselves and plus try to profit from the scare.

Where I come from in California, they paint all Conservatives as people who don't believe in Global Warming and just wanna pollute the environment.


edit on 6/10/2017 by starwarsisreal because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Plants are the #1 enemy of the nature hating transhumanist elite.

The largest portion of today's "products" are synthetic knockoffs of plant substances. From medicines to plastics. When the trees are gone, there will be no one left to mourn. Monsanto actively killing the earths soil as we speak.



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 02:09 PM
link   
a reply to: starwarsisreal

Hahahaha, don't feel bad; it's a common misconception.

My story: I'm a degreed electrical engineer, working on a Masters in Control Theory (directly applicable to understanding the ecosphere), but I also live inside a virgin forest away from people. It's my home, my solace, my altar, and my peace of mind. I care for this place, and it cares for me.

IMO, we as a society have strayed far, far from our harmony with nature. In many ways, we have made great improvements... I love the easy communication the Internet and even phone lines have brought us. I remember when a phone was this big box on the table and you always checked before making a call (always local; long distance was expensive) to make sure you didn't dial in someone else's ear. We had a party line. I love having electric lights, convenient and reliable food storage, easy food preparation, and hot showers at a whim. I like being able to travel easily, quickly, and in comfort. In short, I love technology.

But we have also made many mistakes... as a society, we are becoming more dependent on computers and less on ourselves. We have placed green paper before simple life pleasures (and then denied the green paper to those truly in need). We have purified our environment to the point that our inherent immunities are under-developed. We have allowed pollution to persist as long as we can't see it (and we don't look). And we have decided that we must clear and pave massive tracts to make them 'usable.'

I believe we can have the best of both. We can have the limitless energy, convenience, and prosperity that technology promises, as well as the serenity, peace, and sustainability that nature provides. We just have to understand what we're doing before we do it, and not jump to wild conclusions because someone on TV wants to make money. That's my gripe with Global Warming: it's not supported by tried and proven science, it is not logical from an unbiased scientific perspective, and it revolves around more interference into a system which has supported us for millions of years but which we don't understand well yet. All for money.

The next time you hear how 'evil' conservative are, ask yourself: how evil is the person calling others evil even though they make no effort to understand our concerns over a political, not an environmental, difference of opinion?

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 11:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven
There are plenty of references supporting the theory that more CO2 is causing a greening of the planet. As a direct result, food costs are being held down. Agricultural productivity is rising in lockstep with rising CO2.

Some folks think that a plant grows from dirt. It doesn’t. When you plant a seed in a pot, the plant grows almost entirely from the CO2 in the air (there are a few trace minerals the plant takes from the soil).

So it is not surprising that more CO2 is greening the biosphere. There is solid, measurable evidence of that
The rise in CO2 has been, and continues to be, a net benefit to the biosphere. There has been no global damage or harm as a result of the rise in that beneficial trace gas, which has been up to 20X higher in the geologic past.

Conclusion: the climate alarmist crowd began with a wrong premise; that CO2 is a problem. They went so far as to get it classified as “pollution”. But they were wrong.

More CO2 is a good thing. It remains a tiny trace gas, measured in parts per million. But it is as essential to life on earth as H2O.

Honest scientists admit it when their premise is disproved.

What else is there to say??







 
17
<< 1   >>

log in

join