Amazing dude Wow thank u for explaining it! i was believing the hoax for a while until you introduced me to the real view
Nitrogen does not have the same effect on plants as CO2 does. Plants [i]need[/i] CO2 to grow. Nitrogen only [i]helps[/i] plants grow, but like CO2, there's only so much a plant can use at once, so any excess goes unused.
hi people!!!! i am back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! did you miss me???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
They don't do that.
My grandmother has a greenhouse, and the plants in it are some of the greenest house plants I've ever seen, and all she does to them is water them. There's no gaseous concentration difference between inside the greenhouse and outside the greenhouse. They're green because they're kept in a warm environment with plenty of light and given plenty of water, not because of excess CO2.
Well, [i]whoever[/i] is removing my links, please stop.
I'm sorry, I placed a couple of arrays in the wrong places. It should work properly, now.
Ha55ii, I would appreciate it if you'd quit removing the links to my [url=https://gist.github.com/Xyvyrianeth/847166fd4d05aa230ca436b6f6d3c78a]script[/url].
Just sayin hi
I want to join a side here but those are some scary blocks of text, and I'm sure most of them have more fallacies than two old people arguing about Trump on facebook ;_;
I'm just gonna hide for a while
30 goto 10
A greenhouse's purpose is to keep the plants inside nice and warm. It has no other effects on the plants other than it keeps them dry on rainy days. All a greenhouse is is a transparent structure that absorbs heat. That's why the Greenhouse Effect has it's name: it's just keeping heat given off by sunlight on the earth. It does not affect the concentration of [i]any[/i] gas in the air.
Fossil fuels are not the reason I am alive today. The only overall impact that they have on me is that they power the devices that make me less bored.
...you know that no matter how high the temperatures rise or how much it rains, the limiting factor of sunlight will stay not change. The rate of the flow of the transpiration stream is controlled by limiting factors as well. They will not increase. Furthermore, the amount of rain that falls will vary significantly due to global weather patterns. The most rain will fall on places where water is already a plentiful resource.
Anyways, you keep talking about carbon dioxide as a gas. What do you have to say about methane, nitrous oxides and sulphur dioxide as gases?
... So you acknowledge that plants give off CO2 as they die and that with low levels of CO2 plants die, but you don't acknowledge that this is an obvious cycle we don't need to help along?
Also your entire argument thus far has been that humans cannot have more than a negligible impact on the climate, why are you now saying that our actions are the only thing keeping the climate from killing us?
Greenhouses amplify CO2 concentration to get plants to grow. The earth has already gotten noticably greener because of increased co2 levels. This is good for the earth, more plants ia always better for the ecosystem. The overall impact of humans on the earth has been overwhelmingly positive. We have used fossil fuels to transform our world and keep us safer from the climate, and fossil fuels are the reason you are alive and typing on a computer.
Fossil fuels are not the only reason, but they are the largest. Dead plants and other factors DO release CO2, but not as much as fossil fuels. In a way, we are helping the enviornment, as CO2 levels are dropping around the world before humans came along, and would have dipped below 150ppm, which would suffocate plants. We are the saviors of the planet, by releasing co2 that has been trapped in the crust.
With this natural warm period, higher temperatures means more evaporation off the ocean, which means more clouds. More clouds means more rain, which means more water for plants. Another limiting facter has gone up. While nutrients might be rare in one area, they might not be in another. More CO2 will allow for more plants to grow in some areas. More is more.
NOT MY SNAIL! [b]NOOOOOOOO!!!![/b] It's back.
Even with the excess of those other factors, plants can only convert [script]6CO2 + 6H20 <--> 6O2 + C6H12O6[/script] back and forth so much at once.
There are limiting factors to plant growth. Even if there was a massive increase in CO2, limiting factors such as water, light, temperature and nutrients restrain the rate of photosynthesis to a normal level.
Also, Vidkun, you snail was killed.
Amazingdude is being denied today.
Plants also consume O2 to turn sugar into H2O and CO2 the same way humans do. Even while they're alive, they release CO2 into the atmosphere.
CO2 is also released as plants die and rot, so don't act as if fossil fuels are the only thing keeping the balance.
Excess CO2 doesn't make plants grow faster/better. If there was 1000% more CO2 on earth than all the plants on earth required, they'd all grow and reproduce at exactly the same rate as if there were 10% more CO2 than required.
Ill try it later, greasemonkey is being weird with me today.
LOL, we're gonna suffocate to death!! At 1% CO2. If anything, we'd go through a green revolution as the earth is transformed and ecosystems become stronger and we'll experience something like a second cambrian explosion. More CO2 = more plants. More plants = more life. More life = better earth.
Or take out all the CO2 and kill the plants, watch as ecosystems collapse, etc.
But there is such a thing as *too* much CO2. And while the Earth experienced a time when it's CO2 levels were at 10,000 ppm before our time, we have evolved to live in much lower levels and I don't think prolonged exposure of increased levels would be good for our health (I don't know for sure, but suffocation isn't the only danger with this).
I updated it. Try it now.
I'd also like to see you climate alarmists tossed into a barrel of burning oil
Fossil fuels are efficient, clean, and good for earth. We are releasing the trapped CO2 back into the air to be used by plants. More plants is good for earth. A world without CO2 is a world without life. CO2 is next to sunlight at the bottom of the food chain. All of this and we get sh,itloads of energy from it. Pollution can be managed by increasing efficiency of cars and power plants. How is using fossil fuels bad? Also, I'm not anti-nuclear, I'm just skeptical. Nuclear is our second best option.
I want to see amazingdude tossed into the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone.
I'm not want delete it. Sorry!
Of course they're not the devil; they're just inefficient at everything that doesn't involve choking everything around them with smog and soot, and somewhat okay at generating energy using materials that we're rapidly running out of.
Sh,it happens either way. Had people not sacrificed their lives for chernobyl, half of Europe would be uninhabitable for half a million years. Even today, the plant still needs to be contained. Even Fukushima was bad. How many nuclear plants are working correctly? Id like to see statistics.
Because fossil fuels are not the devil, like people want you to think.
Turn on TG background and make anything explode to make wind, then get soapy and put it over the wind, then it completely takes the wind out, also, the wind doesn't go away when you reset, so use soapy to take out wind that gets annoying!
Why are we having a debate about energy? It's pointless. (Also, the plants are placed in places that people consider 'in the middle of nowhere'.)
Chernobyl was poorly made even by the standards of a bankrupt developing power, and then when something happened a response was delayed until it was too late to do anything. Properly made plants and response times appropriate for disaster make the the Fukushima outcome.
And really, the first use of the technology was a super-weapon based on not controlling the reaction, one would think the USSR would have the Realpolitik to not risk losing control of an asset like that.
@Vidkunssonn Pray for your snail.
is that u Esigma?
When did he say that renewable/nuclear energy is unreliable? He just said how desperately we need them right now as developed nations.
Also, it looks like Mr. One-percent-of-the-ocean-being-trash-is-perfectly-fine suddenly became Mr. One-percent-of-nuclear-plants-will-eradicate-all-life-on-Earth.
Pray for Venezuela <3
Oh wait, I read that as "100s of miles". Whoops.
But yeah they've declared 70% of the affected area to be safe.
It's like none of your opinions are grounded in reality.
Well, I have done research in school, and there are plenty of other more natural ways to create energy such as wind turbines or geothermal energy.
check out my latest upload
Fossil Fuels aren't a clean source of energy, that's why there is this conversation.
So basically we shouldnt use fossil fuels because were already industrialized, even though we sitll need energy, and renewables and nuclear have proven themselves unreliable?
While 99% of nuclear plants may be fine, the 1 event every century will make the nearest 100 miles uninhabitable for millenia. Not a risk I'd be willing to take at the moment, when we have tons of safe, plentiful, efficient energy right under our feet.
Obligatory comment so I can click my name to see my PG2 uploads if any.
Fukushima was struck by both a 9.0 earthquake and a tsunami and despite that no deaths or radiation sicknesses have been reported since it started.
Chernobyl was intentionally built with numerous cut-corners because the USSR generally valued low costs over human lives. The most surprising thing about it's failure was that the news got past the Iron Curtain, and the US govt. hyped it to hell and back for morale reasons.
The thing is fossil fuels ARE good up to the extent when a developing country has begun rapid industrialisation. Look at Britain, Japan, Brazil, when they were industrialising. It wouldn't have happened without fossil fuels. Of course, you get quickly rampant and unsustainable levels of pollution as a country moves into stage 3 of the Demographic Transition Model. This is why China is now the number one investor of alternative energy. This is why postwar Britain introduced restrictions on coal burning. It won't get better unless you change it. We will have rapidly industrialisation in south Asia, in Africa in the upcoming decades. We need more efficient, cleaner and more renewable fuels to stop this. Of course, improving the efficiency of machines is also a measure to take but there will always be a limit.
You are right I guess. You just proved fossil fuels are good.
Increase efficiency of cars. More efficient cars is a good thing, as it uses less gas, and pollutes less, which means the gas can be used to power more cars and other stuff. Its a win-win. The problem with nuclear is that its too high risk. Look at fukushima and chernobyl. If we can contain nuclear, and make it safe and reliable, then I'll be all for it, but until then, fossil fuels are our best energy.
No it only patch..
hi hi COOL GAME
Climate Change or not, burning hydrocarbons in excess makes it impossible to live in urban areas without having to wear a gasmask everywhere in the name of moderately productive output. That's the best-case scenario, a coal plant will always put out toxic gas, but a nuclear plant just makes steam and a lump of waste that can be safely buried under a mountain. Coal/oil/gas are outdated and obsolete, they have been for decades.
Why is being a "fossil fuel shill" worse than being a nuclear shill. Im not a fossil fuel shill, I'm a climate realist.
Your arguments would make more sense if you were a nuclear power shill instead of a combustion power shill, just FYI. The yields are incomparable for how little actually goes into it.
Thanks, Toucans. That's a good explanation.
I recently visited the Peabody Museum's new mineral exhibit, and it was really incredible. If any of you are on the East Coast and are interested in geology, you should definitely check it out.
By the way, who was it that recommended Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell? I just got it from a library book sale.
I did this in school ;)
I WILL INFORM YOU ON ROCKS.
Rocks are made of one or more minerals.
Igneous rocks are are formed when magma cools. Sedimentary rocks are formed by other pieces of rock, sediment is from when a rock erodes and builds up until it hardens into a rock. One example is sandstone, sedimentary rocks can also form from the remains of dead plants or animals. Metamorphic rock is formed from sedimentary rock and Igneous rock. Water can dissolve minerals in old rock and It can also carry new minerals into it to form metamorphic rock.
A mineral mix could be used and mixed with water and be left to dry to form some sort of rock.
The process when a rock forms can change the surface of the earth, when a rock erodes that changes the surface of the earth because a rock must erode for a new one to form, slowly changing and moving the material naturally.
How is Amazingdude ever going to understand earth's natural processes when he can't even understand what you're saying?
The relationship between me and the rock is that we both weigh ~170lbs.
The relationship between the apple and the candle is that neither taste like the dirty sock.
The relationship between Nick Cages' film rates and the suicides in Mexico is that while there are more movies he's in in a year, there is also more suicides in Mexico.
AS I SAID BEFORE, all of these relationships are indirect, implying there is NOT a correlation. There's a relationship because there's a similarity, and that relationship is indirect because the similarities are not caused by the same force.
You were trying to put "indirect relationship" and "correlation" together and make it sound like they mean the same thing, and I was͏ ͏e͏xplaining to you what the term you used ACTUALLY means.
You're going off the handle with this.
Calling me stupid because you couldn't understand my explanation of the thing you used wrong is a sign you shouldn't be participating in this discussion. Do as @skyk says and stop where you're at now before things start to get worse for ALL of us.
@amazingdude He was making an example. Like there is an indirect relationship to me liking burning people and how often the Chechen Oblast rebels. Also, you need to think before you post.
Also that was a pop song reference and you've made me feel old.
We eat the fish that eat the fish that eat the fish that eat the plastic. There's no such thing as a closed system and you'd do well to abandon such a bronze age idea.
There is no relationship between your weight and the weight of a rock. There is no relationship between cage movies and mexican suicides. Your just being stupid. Both examples compare 2 completely unrelated things. Explain how nic cage movies cause mexicans to ki,ll themselves.
Its only one area, not the whole ocean. 99% of the ocean is perfectly habitable. Honestly, who gives a sh,it about a few fish? It not gonna ki,ll us. Moving industry to mars would not work. Itll be to expensive to ship to earth. If you think were gonna be underwater in 3000 due to human activity, you are insane.
It still says "Cannot upload" for me...
Powder Game 2 ver8.7
Bug fix: Save game of posted work
"Indirect relationship" means that there's NOT a correlation.
There's an "indirect relationship" between me and a rock that weighs the same as me. There's an "indirect relationship" between an apple and a candle regarding the fact that neither tastes like a dirty sock. There's an "indirect relationship" between the number of films Nicholas Cage starred in this year and the number of suicides in Mexico this year.
Honestly, do you even read your comments before you post them?
"I know there is correlation. The problem is that correlation does not equal causation. Not only that, but better sanitation doesn't even mean the same thing as a better environment, it just means more transportation of garbage.
At this point, I'm pretty sure you're not having this discussion "in good faith", so I'm just going to stop involving myself."
͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ~skyk
It weighs 7,000,000 tons. Of plastic. The material we use specifically because it's sturdy and lightweight. And it's concentrated in a very specific area, disproving your assertion that whatever we put in the ocean is too diluted to matter. And it's poisoning everything around it because fish are stupid and think the smaller pieces are krill.
Look, how about we go with Molefight's idea to stop before this gets really bad and agree that the best compromise would be to move all our heavy industry to Mars. Earth stops getting polluted, oil/coal dependent industries can fcuk up the air and soil all they want without endangering any of Mars' nonexistent wildlife, and if global warming turns out to be a thing and melts the ice caps then we get some much-needed terraforming out of it instead of living underwater in the year 3000.
Causation means A causes B. Correlation means A and B have a relationship, but neither is caused by the other.
Using fossil fuels do not cause increased sanitation. There is, however, an inderect relationship between fossil fuel use and sanitation. Indirect.
If you can't understand the difference between correlation and causation, I'm just going to stop discussing this.
There actually is correlation. More fossil fuels mean more energy production, which makes sanitation possible.
The "great garbage patch" is only a few hundred feet across. It is vastly exaggerated and abused by alarmsits to promote the false narritave that we are making a trash island.
The Great Garbage Patch begs to differ.
I've seen a graph that correlates the number of films Nicholas Cage makes an appearance in and the suicide rate of Mexico.
I watched the videos. The "science" in them is horrible. A line graph correlating fossil fuel use with sanitation proves that fossil fuels are eco-friendly? I could show you a graph that correlates ice cream consumption with piracy, but it wouldn't prove causation.
I must ask, did anyone watch the 5 videos i listed earlier?
Of course oceans are important. But theres so much ocean that any pollution is so dilute its barely even traceable. Its like a drop of water in a gas can.
If anything, Molefight is the most rational of us here.
I'm afraid you're not in very rational company, Molefight.
@Ameighzingdude: The oceans aren't important? Seriously? The thing that produces 95% of the world's oxygen supply and the bottom of the food chain isn't important? Sure the tundra is by and large a wasteland with maybe 15 distinct species per continent most of which are lichens or mosquitoes, but the ocean might as well be the most important part of the natural world.
Jesus crist the char limit is too short
This isn't really a situation where it's appropriate to "agree to disagree". Only one side can be correct, and if climate change actually is occurring, the consequences of not acting now are going to be very significant in the future.
Cats have always been aggressive towards me. I never have figured out why.
Pesticides, pollution and genetically modified crops are all threats to our environment. I just don't find the idea that co2 is causing the earth to heat very convincing.
So let's just agree to disagree on climate change.
What exactly is the "alarmist industry", and how would they have more funding and more to gain than the oil and coal industries?
Also, how can environmentalism lead to extinction? By definition, it will only prevent further expansion.
>Calls people alarmist
>"Environmentalism is dangerous and will lead to our extinction"
Sure, we should just fill our waterways with DDT and industrial run-off the way god intended.
Same cat situation as Tyne for me :(
Oh me! I love cats! It's a shame I'm allergic though...
So.... who likes cats?
Human development and activity, especially in developed and developing countries, is unsustainable anyway. Surely we can agree on that.
That's a very simplistic view of things. The earth is far more complex than a single equilibrium. Biological and physical processes are far more diverse than that.
Unfortunately, neither of those elements would cancel out climate change. In fact, both cause further disruption, through extreme weather and dispersal of invasive plant species.
George Soros and the Democrat party, but it's mostly the schools that are brainwashing students.
Also, wouldn't climate change just balance itself out? If it gets too hot it rains, which cools the earth. If co2 levels rise, plants will grow at a faster rate, which will lower the co2 levels.
Occam's Razor, ameighzingdude. You're suggesting that it's more likely that 97% of every goddamn climate expert on Earth has been bribed by vast sums of money. Who? Who could possibly have that much money and be willing to throw it around for basically no reason?
Is anyone else getting "Cannot upload" messages?
Are we seriously having the FU.CKING global warming argument again???
Amazingdude: I am a scientist. I have spent several years working and spending time with environmental researchers. If you met these people, you would realize how ridiculous it is to claim that they have been paid off. These are the sorts of people that duck tape their socks because they can't afford to buy new ones.
On the other hand, the lobbies that benefit from environmental deregulation, which are the ones promoting anti-climate change, have huge amounts of money at stake.
the scientists are all paid off to preach the alarmist fear mongering agenda that were gonna cook to death and sink into the ocean. ive researched both sides, believe me.
I have disapered from existence *creepy voice*, I reappear now to say that I have been looking at all your comments and projects when no body knows where I am. farewell, I will be watching.
To be fair, if you take the side of the issue with significantly less support from the majority of scientists in the field in question, it's a good chance you're probably not informed either.
incognito. if u aint willing to see both sides of the issue, you aint informed.
Free game list25th Aqua Box