@metal-brain saidYou are welcome to go try that on another planet.
A warmer climate would be a good thing. It would mean more rainfall so plants will produce more food for us. A warmer climate would be beneficial. It is a colder climate that would be worse.
https://www.science.org/content/article/why-536-was-worst-year-be-alive
@wildgrass saidSea level rise is slow and steady and not a threat at all.
BOOO! Lots of things change. The existence of change doesn't mean that we don't have some interest in the direction of change, as a citizen, as a country, as a society, as an an individual, or whatever. Things change, but we can affect change. We dont need to let the waves wash over us and drown us just because tides exist.
Stop being a chicken little. You are scaring people for no reason.
Don't believe me? Tell me how much sea level rise is on average each decade since the year 2000.
How many centimeters?
@wildgrass saidIt already happened on this planet.
You are welcome to go try that on another planet.
Look up "Pliocene". You had better learn about it now. I am going to keep bringing it up until you do.
@wildgrass saidAnalogy Fail.
The animals in the zoo are constantly changing but we don't let them out to run willy nilly about our neighborhoods.
We have trillions in infrastructure invested in our current climate. Let's at least exert some effort to keep it stable for as long as possible so we dont have to move cities around.
Is man effecting the climate.
How different would the climate be if man had never existed. If 100 billion lives had never been lived.
What's the dream feeling number this week? 1.5 degrees warmer? Is all of that attributable to 100 billion lives lived? Maybe you think the earth should be actually cooling, i.e. that mans actions have warmed the world 3 degrees?
Let's cut CO2 emissions, a non-existent human produces no CO2 emissions.
@kmax87 saidAsk yourself where it came from. All the carbon must have been in the natural cycle, slowly the earth has been losing carbon from that cycle as it get's buried, all those trees and critters. Man is returning earth to it's natural state.
But its 150 ppm extra presence in our atmosphere compared to the historic level of 300 ppm over many centuries is problematic, because its addition is a direct result of industrialization and the burning of fossil fuels. Ask yourself how that extra 150 ppm got there and what forms of pollution it introduced with it and whether or not the environment would be a lot better off without it.
Release the carbon.
@wajoma saidWe've dug up carbon that's been buried deep underground and not been part of the natural carbon cycle for centuries and your advice is release the carbon?!
Ask yourself where it came from. All the carbon must have been in the natural cycle, slowly the earth has been losing carbon from that cycle as it get's buried, all those trees and critters. Man is returning earth to it's natural state.
Release the carbon.
@kmax87 saidPlants will grow better. That means more food production.
We've dug up carbon that's been buried deep underground and not been part of the natural carbon cycle for centuries and your advice is release the carbon?!
Nobody said burn it all. We should conserve it.
His point is that the planet has been CO2 starved for a long time and we are starting to change that. We should double the CO2 in the atmosphere from what it is now so it is about 0.1%
@Beowulf
Climate freaks. I wonder what you will be saying if you are alive in 50 years? When Manhattan is underwater and Florida is a distant memory? As well as any other coastal city world wide, like my Venice Beach, gone, San Fransisco gone, Vancouver island one tenth its previous size and so forth.
@Metal-Brain
Lying again as usual, Trump stifled a USDA report about the loss of nutritional value of rice under high CO2 conditions, in fact he killed the entire USDA science unit because he actively suppressed scientific knowledge and that science unit of the USDA is no more. 200 scientists studying plant nutrition and such gone because of Trump.
And you love this POS.
Fortunately copies of the report on loss of nutrition of rice under high CO2 conditions were put out to the net so Trump was unable to stop that paper.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0212840
Notice, this is not RUMBLE BUMBLE or any of the OTHER POS sites you post. This is real science and OF COURSE you will diss it, totally expected from a closed brain such as you.
You will go on spouting your lies no matter WHAT science says.
REAL science.
@sonhouse saidRight. People cannot eat anything but rice.
@Metal-Brain
Lying again as usual, Trump stifled a USDA report about the loss of nutritional value of rice under high CO2 conditions, in fact he killed the entire USDA science unit because he actively suppressed scientific knowledge and that science unit of the USDA is no more. 200 scientists studying plant nutrition and such gone because of Trump.
And you love this POS.
...[text shortened]... d brain such as you.
You will go on spouting your lies no matter WHAT science says.
REAL science.
I don't eat very much rice. People who eat rice probably eat fish as well.
You are a moron.
@Metal-Brain
If you had actually READ the dam report you would have seen the nutritional value has gone down in many grains not JUST rice but you never read it or even looked at the abstract so you clearly don't give a rat's ass about that issue.
All fake news apparently but that was an official study not the rumblings of fringe sites you puke on us.
@sonhouse saidI prefer wheat and barley. I cannot grow rice where I live anyway. Get real.
@Metal-Brain
If you had actually READ the dam report you would have seen the nutritional value has gone down in many grains not JUST rice but you never read it or even looked at the abstract so you clearly don't give a rat's ass about that issue.
All fake news apparently but that was an official study not the rumblings of fringe sites you puke on us.
@Metal-Brain
Most grains will be and ARE being affected by the increase already in CO2. But that goes WAY beyond your pay grade, you are WAY too interested in destroying democracy in the US to worry about such pesky details.
@sonhouse saidThat is not true. Rice is all you have. All other grains will grow well and you know it.
@Metal-Brain
Most grains will be and ARE being affected by the increase already in CO2. But that goes WAY beyond your pay grade, you are WAY too interested in destroying democracy in the US to worry about such pesky details.
@Metal-Brain
Which is what the paper is saying if you bothered to read it, it is affecting many other grains as well as rice but you will never Dain to read it will you, because it is a REAL science paper and not Rumblstiltskin BS.