That's why they are called watermelons. Green on the outside and red in its core. They use environmental issues to push there socialist and communist ideas. Sent from my SM-G935V using Grasscity Forum mobile app
Zero fertilizers needed on the Jerry Compound! Compost & worm castings... Although I suppose both contribute to additional CO2… Geez I can’t win LOL J
I’ve read a little bit on the earth greening but can’t seem to find anything quantifiable on the increase in co2 for plant greening. It makes sense. Just don’t know how they would go about checking this. I I don’t really care for gmos either but I can’t find any concrete evidence showing how bad they are claimed to be. I see it as more a necessary evil given the population.
At the very least crop production has gone up - whatever the reason and it could definitely be partly due to GMO seeds GMO seeds are a whole other discussion though. At the very least I hate Monsanto and everything they stand for. There’s not many things in this world that I actually hate but they are one. My big giant huge issue with the whole “global warming” - (I much much prefer “climate change”) thing is how mankind is being blamed for it vs natural occurrence. The more I read into it, I am seeing a lot of contradiction out there and I don’t believe half of what we are being told. Less than half. J
Would you hate Monsanto any more if you knew that Bayer bought them out? The same Bayer that constituted IG Farben. That is a rabbit whole in and of itself.
Anyone and anything that jumped in bed with the murderous bastards. Hey - wanna good laugh? Redirect Notice
But I see that one of the main reasons that mass migrations away from the area was left out - for some strange reason? Southeast Asia May Be Building Too Many Dams Too Fast “The promise of plentiful energy has brought major environmental risk to fish, soil, and people.” Closer to the collapsed Lao Dam, part of a hydropower project on the Xepian River, a tributary of the Sekong, the destruction was far more extensive. Inside Laos, several villages downstream from the failed dam were left completely flooded, leaving at least 39 people dead and up to 100 went missing, as well as thousands of people homeless.” And then there’s the massive loss of alluvium due to all of the dams being built and reservoirs popping up all over the river? https://m.english.vietnamnet.vn/fms...ore-water-reservoirs-are-built.html#ui=mobile This is leading to the riverbanks caving in, massive erosion and landslides - which is inevitably leading to flooding in areas they don’t want flooded - like villages, and of course which in turn causing people to leave the area. Dams for hydroelectric power are popping up like crazy, turning the Mekong essentially into a series of reservoirs. Massive amounts of fish are being killed off and it’s hugely affecting the people that have lived for centuries along it - and they are leaving. “the MRC estimates that the Mekong yields around 2.6m tonnes of wild fish each year, worth at least $2 billion in dockside sales. Add in secondary industries such as fish processing, markets, fuel and equipment sales and boat building, and the total value of the Mekong’s fisheries is between $5.6 billion and $9.4 billion“ “Chang Naa expects his son, Chang Thung, to fish in his footsteps; he may want it so. But like all sons Chang Thung will step into a different river—or perhaps, in this case, onto a different shore. Phnom Penh was a city of just 189,000 in 1980. It could be home to 2.5m by 2030, and Chang Thung may choose to be one of them. His choice may be a free one. People in backwaters, both figurative and literal, choose cities all the time. But it may not be. By the time he reaches working age, the fears of dam sceptics may have been realised. There may be no more fish for him to catch.” Cite: Requiem for a river And then there’s also the mass migration of the younger crowd that simply don’t want to live as their parents. Grandparents and many before them have lived. They’re moving to The Big City where there is more money and different opportunities than fishing or farming rice. From the 35 page article on migration from the Mekong area by the World Bank: “Economic growth and lower migration costs have been associated with large increases in migration. Vietnam’s 1989 census recorded very few internal migrants; the majority was from one rural location to another, and their motives for relocating were a mix of economic and other factors (Dang, 1999).1 This changed quickly as economic growth accelerated in the 1990s. According to the 1999 Census, 4.5 million people changed location in the five-year interval 1994-99. By this time the economic reform era was well under way, and the surge in spontaneous migration was also driven far more explicitly by income differentials (Phan and Coxhead, 2010). By the next census in 2009 this five-year migration figure had increased by almost 50%, to 6.6 million (Marx and Fleischer, 2010), or almost 8% of the total population. Again, a large fraction of those who moved did so for economic reasons. Vietnam’s economic growth since the early 1990s has been dominated by secondary and tertiary sectors, with a big contribution from foreign investment and the reform of state-owned enterprises. Changes in the sectoral and institutional structure of labor demand have mirrored these trends (McCaig and Pavcnik, 2013). Growth of employment and labor productivity in Vietnam is overwhelmingly in non-farm industries and urban areas. Moving to where job prospects and earnings growth are higher is sensible for most individuals, subject to cultural and behavioral norms, transactions costs and other constraints. Promoting labor mobility and remittances is also in general good development policy. Cite: Requiem for a river Saline from the ocean IS working it’s way slowly inland - partly due to rising levels but also due to the mangrove forests that are becoming depleted and killed off for a multitude of reasons. I do love how selective reasons are printed and put out by the global warming crowd when a small amount of light digging reveals a wide myriad of reasons that people are - and have been migrating away from the Mekong Delta rice bowl. J
So I took a few minutes yesterday and did some basic math - just for my own head. I went to a couple of science-based websites and did some basic research on the consistency of the earths atmosphere… Or rather the composition of the earths atmosphere. I was very very frustrated to find that most websites didn’t even want to give me the information I was looking for but instead were on the “man is bad and is causing the destruction of the earth/global warming/the end is near” rhetoric. This bullshit is being pushed into our faces… I was simply looking for a basic high school atmosphere composition information but instead at all this bullshit shoved down my throat. Anyhow...So this is basic information and can be found anywhere once you get past the “Doom is Nigh/The End is Near” websites. *************** 99% of the atmosphere is Nitrogen (around 78%), Oxygen (around 21%) and Argon (.09%) - so 99.09% of the Earths atmosphere is “other” gasses. The remaining less than -1% of the atmosphere is known as greenhouse gasses - or “GHG”. Now, 95% of GHG/greenhouse gasses is water vapor leaving the remaining 5% (of the less than 1% which is greenhouse gasses), consisting of carbon dioxide, methane, ozone and nitrous oxides. So these GHG gasses, if we do the math, make up a TOTAL of .05% of our atmosphere - or 1/20th of 1%. Co2 = .05% of the earths atmosphere with 3.65% or 15 PPM = man made C02 of the 400 ppm with the remaining being from natural sources. 150 billion tonnes of C02 results from natural processes, or 30 times what humans emit. (Cite: IPCC) So we have over 99% of our atmosphere consisting of Nitrogen, Oxygen with a touch of Argon. The remaining -1% is 96% water vapor and other gasses We are left with .04% being C02 right? Of this .04%, over 96% of this amount is coming from natural processes - lol. So this means that what man is putting into the atmosphere is a total of 0.001825% It seems like it’s pretty basic math but I’d be happy to have anybody check it for me. “The rate of rise in atmospheric CO2 is currently 2 ppm/yr, a rate which is 100 times as fast as any time in the 300,000 year Vostok ice core record. And we know our consumption of fossil fuels is emitting CO2 200 times as fast! So, where is the 100x as fast rise in today’s temperature causing this CO2 rise? C’mon people, think.” I just wanted to throw this basic info out there about how minuscule the amount of carbon dioxide compared to what natural processes are being emitted into the atmosphere. I absolutely am not for any type of pollution. That’s not my point at all. My point is that for some reason the population is being scared into thinking that we are causing the relatively recent?? changes to the earths climate - and I don’t believe it. J
"Here is something to ponder. Carbon Dioxide comprises .0004 of the total atmospheric composition. The natural contribution to the total ambient atmospheric CO2 is 250 times greater than the human contribution, about 750 gigatons naturally compared to 3 gigatons of anthropogenically sourced CO2 residing in the atmosphere at any given time. So, the human contribution to total atmospheric CO2 is .004, which means that anthropogenic sourced C02 comprises only 4 one thousandths part of 4 ten thousandth part, or 0.0000016 part of total atmospheric composition, that is 16 parts out of 10 million. This is what is known as a TRACE GAS, a gas, which, by the way, is absolutely essential to all life on Earth. A gas which has now been declared a “pollutant” by the EPA for purposes of regulatory control." Sacred Geometry International – Ask Randall: Climate Change – Who Are The Real Deniers?
I’m still trying to figure out what “they” believe to gain from this - it’s crazy how many believers they’ve sucked in? How about the carbon dioxide we exhale? A quick look shows the average human exhales around two and a half pounds of c02 a day but if we multiply this times the amount of people in the rock, aren’t we addinga significant amount just by being here? Now figure in the rate of humans rising each year. I’m guessing that’s ok, tho. The average concentration outside anywhere on the globe is around 300-400 ppm. This is pretty well documented. It’s also very well documented that plants - and especially fast growing plants like Cannabis LOVE IT when C02 levels are DOUBLED, TRIPLED & QUADRUPLED - and even higher. It is said that yields can be figured at an average of around 30% higher when adding C02 to a greenhouse or grow room - anywhere from 1200 to 1500 ppm. Now, we do know that plants use C02 during the process known as Photosynthesis to turn light, sugar and water into energy and inevitably end up creating oxygen - providing they have enough light, nutrition, etc available. I just looked on the NASA page and it showed that during the ice age, C02 levels were around 200 PPM, and in 2014 they were around 400 PPM. 400ppm. This isn’t even anywhere near where most plants would love to be??? Check this out and talk about sensationalism lol - “climatecentral” is a pro global warming website. “The last time there was this much carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Earth's atmosphere, modern humans didn't exist. Megatoothed sharks prowled the oceans, the world's seas were up to 100 feet higher than they are today, and the global average surface temperature was up to 11°F warmer than it is now. As we near the record for the highest CO2 concentration in human history — 400 parts per million — climate scientists worry about where we were then, and where we're rapidly headed now. According to data gathered at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, the 400 ppm mark may briefly be exceeded this month, when CO2 typically hits a seasonal peak in the Northern Hemisphere, although it is more likely to take a couple more years until it stays above that threshold, according to Ralph Keeling, a researcher at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography. CO2 levels are far higher now than they have been for anytime during the past 800,000 years. Click image to enlarge. Credit: Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Keeling is the son of Charles David Keeling, who began the CO2 observations at Mauna Loa in 1958 and for whom the iconic “Keeling Curve” is named. Carbon dioxide is the most important long-lived global warming gas, and once it is emitted by burning fossil fuels such as coal and oil, a single CO2 molecule can remain in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. Global CO2 emissions reached a record high of 35.6 billion tonnes in 2012, up 2.6 percent from 2011. Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases warm the planet by absorbing the sun’s energy and preventing heat from escaping back into space. The news that CO2 is near 400 ppm for the first time highlights a question that scientists have been investigating using a variety of methods: when was the last time that CO2 levels were this high, and what was the climate like back then?” Well - what the hell do you mean, what was the climate like back then??? Several sentences above it said that temperatures were 11 degrees higher than they are now??? So what the flying fuck? These ASSHOLES don’t know SHIT Look at this - Showing that CO2 concentrations were double than what they are today during the last Ice Age: New Research Documents Extremely High Atmospheric Carbon 14 During Last Ice Age Proving that these people don’t know jack shit and are guessing as they go, and to say that, and to show their graphs about how high today’s levels are is absolutely ludicrous. How about they start going further back in time and show those graphs instead? These graphs and “proof” we are showed that “levels are rising like crazy and out of control” only go back a short amount of time - WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A TIMELINE OVER THE HISTORY OF THE EARTH!! Show us THOSE graphs!! Take a look at this, which shows that C02 levels were at 1,000 ppm, 3,000 ppm in the past by this scientist?? Mr. Schmitt, an adjunct professor of engineering at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, was an Apollo 17 astronaut and a former U.S. senator from New Mexico. Mr. Happer is a professor of physics at Princeton University and a former director of the office of energy research at the U.S. Department of Energy. Look here: THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Distinguished physicist Dr. William Happer: 'The incredible list of supposed horrors that increasing carbon dioxide will bring the world is pure belief disguised as science' “The current levels of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere, approaching 400 parts per million, are low by the standards of geological and plant evolutionary history. Levels were 3,000 ppm, or more, until the Paleogene period (beginning about 65 million years ago). For most plants, and for the animals and humans that use them, more carbon dioxide, far from being a "pollutant" in need of reduction, would be a benefit. This is already widely recognized by operators of commercial greenhouses, who artificially increase the carbon dioxide levels to 1,000 ppm or more to improve the growth and quality of their plants.” Man - why are we being told lies? What is the agenda? J
Just thinking about this lately. So if C02 levels were up at 1,000 ppm, 2,000 ppm or 3,000 ppm 65 million years ago, this actually makes sense if we look at the coal we burn which came from plants - gigantic plants from when the earth was covered in swamps anywhere from 50 million to 250 million - or longer, years ago. Did these massive plants grow so huge partly, at least, due to the higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in the air back then? I can only guess that the answer is yes. Why don’t we hear about these 1,000 to 3,000 ppm CO2 levels from further back on the earths timeline like the scientists above did? I’m guessing it’s because “they” would rather show that the levels are rising and that couldn’t be done if they went that far back - and then THEY would have to show that levels are extremely low right now and that this would blow their rhetoric out of the water? J
As i have said to others, look at the size of the things living when co2 was 3-4k ppm. But the argument is that the problem is the rate of change, which if you look at the record Earth and the life on Earth has made it through changes WAY more drastic in the fairly recent past. Temperature swings of upwards 18 degrees Fahrenheit.
If only we had a model using several historical variables that perfectly matched these historical trends in temperature.
Remember when eco activists said not to cut trees or do burn outs in forests? And then so much dead wood and foliage piled up that half the country ignited? Now you're telling me those same donkeys want to try to fix the world? I think I'll take that one under advisement. Vigilo Confido
Why dont we try to straighten out our spin axis to our orbital plane, might as well have the whole planet like a cozy greenhouse instead of some areas freezing while others are barren wastelands of sand and heat