U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 09-22-2017, 06:32 PM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
2,769 posts, read 1,033,780 times
Reputation: 5940

Advertisements





 
Old 09-23-2017, 12:11 AM
 
37 posts, read 16,267 times
Reputation: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dhult View Post
OK, I read the sticky about discussing global warming so let us all play nice.

I'm for green living. Love to talk about it. I raise my own food more than half the time. I'm pro self-sufficiency. Pro alternative forms of energy. Yet (Gasp), I'm more of a conservative on many topics. I'm also against a lot of regulations on private property.

Without getting into a debate about if global warming, aka "Climate change" is happening or natural cycle vs man-made, Why is global warming a bad thing for those that like green living.

Sure oceans may rise a bit but that only effects man-made structures. Wouldn't the planet be greener with global warming? Seems much more life flourishes with more CO2.

So wouldn't those who want less c02 favor a colder, less green environment? I think that equals less land live?

Constantly here that people are destroying the environment, were destroying the earth and are no good. There should be less of us and we should return most of the planet back to original state pre industrial revolution from some environmentalist.

Sooooo, If you are against global warming aren't you against green living? Would it not be better for many land species?

We can all agree that the planet constantly changes regardless of cause. It seems to me that people are actually just trying to keep the status qua.

So actually, those that argue for the status qua are against the natural environment of the earth.

Animals will migrate where they need to including people. Green living = Come On global Warming! More plants more carbon dioxide taken in more oxygen put out.

That's just my uneducated thoughts.
You do bring up some interesting points, and thank you for admitting that these are just your uneducated thoughts. It takes a lot of courage to admit that publicly and I commend you for it.

So it does make sense that more plant life existing due to increased levels of carbon dioxide will be good for the planet. This could work out if deforestation and massive emissions of carbon dioxide from human activity weren't issues.

But the effects of global warming you've listed here aren't the only ways that global warming will affect the planet. You say that sea level rise would only affect man-made structures. Not true. Many of the world's biggest cities are in coastal areas. A lot of people live in these cities and they would be negatively affected by sea level rise. You said that humans would migrate where they need to. I'm assuming you mean inland to avoid flooding. Yet this would cause huge strain on the infrastructure of the areas receiving these refugees. Yes, the people leaving coastal areas decimated by global warming will be refugees. We don't have to get into a debate about whether accepting refugees is a good or bad thing on this thread as that's besides the point.

Plenty of animals are negatively affected by global warming too. Polar bears for instance are starving and drowning because of the melting Arctic ice. The American pika is also dying out because the mountaintops they live on are getting too warm. Before you say that these pika can also just migrate to find cooler climates, let me explain that they can't. The American pika will die if it's exposed to temperatures as low as 78F. So once they go to a mountaintop and find it's too warm, they can't go back down and go look for another mountaintop because they'll just be putting themselves in mortal danger.

Oceans are also getting warmer and this is leading to coral bleaching and eventually death of the coral reef.

These are just some of the effects of global warming.

You seem to be making an argument that people who fight climate change are just selfishly maintaining the status quo of humans in this world and that a person who is into green living should be all for global warming. I have two responses to that.

One is that green living includes more than just fighting climate change, as my previous mention of deforestation suggests. Also there are many other organisms besides plants and humans who are negatively affected by global warming and people who fight against climate change are also looking out for them. So not quite selfish imo.

My second response to that would be that even if it were true that in fighting climate change humans were just selfishly maintaining the status quo, that this would be natural for an animal. Animals naturally want to keep surviving and do even better for the species. When a species as a whole gets an opportunity to expand and/or benefit itself greatly, it generally doesn't stop unless it's forced to. Take the case of the deer in Yellowstone park that ate all the grass and flourished so much that the land eroded and rivers became much wider. This all happened because the deer were allowed to do so because they had no natural predators in the area and therefore no reason to stop what they were doing. But once wolves were introduced to the area, the deer population became more limited, leading to the grass growing back, the land becoming stronger, and the rivers returning back to their natural courses.
 
Old 09-23-2017, 12:39 AM
 
672 posts, read 642,437 times
Reputation: 1198
Quote:
So it does make sense that more plant life existing due to increased levels of carbon dioxide will be good for the planet. This could work out if deforestation and massive emissions of carbon dioxide from human activity weren't issues.
OK so I don't under stand this point. The point about massive emissions of carbon dioxide.

If there is massive emission of carbon dioxide wouldn't there be massive growth?

It was elementary school when we were taught about photosynthesis and plants and trees use
carbon dioxide to grow. Why would there not be rapid growth with more carbon dioxide?

We can't get the CO2 without it.
 
Old 09-23-2017, 12:46 AM
 
672 posts, read 642,437 times
Reputation: 1198
Study Finds Plant Growth Surges

Study Finds Plant Growth Surges as CO2 Levels Rise | Climate Central


"Plants build their tissues by using photosynthesis to take carbon from the air around them. So more carbon dioxide should mean more vigorous plant growth though until now this has been very difficult to prove."
 
Old 09-23-2017, 12:54 AM
 
Location: on the wind
6,791 posts, read 2,763,228 times
Reputation: 23121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dhult View Post
OK so I don't under stand this point. The point about massive emissions of carbon dioxide.

If there is massive emission of carbon dioxide wouldn't there be massive growth?

It was elementary school when we were taught about photosynthesis and plants and trees use
carbon dioxide to grow. Why would there not be rapid growth with more carbon dioxide?

We can't get the CO2 without it.
Because plants need more than CO2 to exist....they need water and soil and sunlight. Without water you have a desert despite atmospheric CO2. If ground water is too polluted or salty (from agricultural and industrial runoff or from salt water intrusion due to sea level rise) terrestrial plants can't survive. If the soil is too contaminated with petroleum products, herbicide residue, plastics, PCBs, heavy metals, radiation, or other toxic contaminates plants can't survive despite availability of CO2. Aquatic algae are inhibited by acidification even with more CO2. Human effects on the planet extend beyond an increase of atmospheric CO2. Its just not that simple.
 
Old 09-23-2017, 01:04 AM
 
672 posts, read 642,437 times
Reputation: 1198
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayStevens View Post
This all happened because the deer were allowed to do so because they had no natural predators in the area and therefore no reason to stop what they were doing. But once wolves were introduced to the area, the deer population became more limited, leading to the grass growing back, the land becoming stronger, and the rivers returning back to their natural courses.
Well, Natural course is subjective in this regard because we are allowing the wolf to be the predator at that point. The same would be accomplished if we harvested the deer and kept the balance the same.

If there were no predators the natural course would be wider and less grass.

The deer would exhaust the food supply, reduce numbers or migrate. Or it would create a vacancy for a new predator to emerge. The course and environment would change again.

That is to suggest the natural balance is what we have decide it to be based on a snapshot of a time when Yellowstone had this particular predator at a particular time.

Who is to state which is the natural course of the river? I think the deer would vote for the wider river and migration when it was time over the wolf.
 
Old 09-23-2017, 01:20 AM
 
672 posts, read 642,437 times
Reputation: 1198
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllisonHB View Post
Because plants need more than CO2 to exist....they need water and soil and sunlight. Without water you have a desert despite atmospheric CO2. If ground water is too polluted or salty (from agricultural and industrial runoff or from salt water intrusion due to sea level rise) terrestrial plants can't survive. If the soil is too contaminated with petroleum products, herbicide residue, plastics, PCBs, heavy metals, radiation, or other toxic contaminates plants can't survive despite availability of CO2. Aquatic algae are inhibited by acidification even with more CO2. Human effects on the planet extend beyond an increase of atmospheric CO2. Its just not that simple.
That's not point I was addressing. I agree with you on soil quality and
Quote:
herbicide residue, plastics, PCBs, heavy metals, radiation, or other toxic contaminates
The point was would global warming make the planet greener?

Of course plants need water, soil and sunlight. Where does rain come from?

It comes from the sun heating the water and creating steam.

Does hotter not equal more sun hitting the ocean, creating more steam, creating more clouds, creating more rain?

Does more carbon dioxide equal more plant growth?

Does more sun hitting the oceans causing more steam shrink or rise the oceans?

Now just how far is sea level rise going inland to effect large amounts of ground water in agricultural areas?

So yes toxic chemicals = bad. I don't think anyone here would suggest there not.
 
Old 09-23-2017, 01:27 AM
 
672 posts, read 642,437 times
Reputation: 1198
Seems to me it would be a richer oxygen environment.
 
Old 09-23-2017, 02:02 AM
 
Location: on the wind
6,791 posts, read 2,763,228 times
Reputation: 23121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dhult View Post
That's not point I was addressing. I agree with you on soil quality and

The point was would global warming make the planet greener?

Of course plants need water, soil and sunlight. Where does rain come from?

It comes from the sun heating the water and creating steam.

Does hotter not equal more sun hitting the ocean, creating more steam, creating more clouds, creating more rain?

Does more carbon dioxide equal more plant growth?

Does more sun hitting the oceans causing more steam shrink or rise the oceans?

Now just how far is sea level rise going inland to effect large amounts of ground water in agricultural areas?

So yes toxic chemicals = bad. I don't think anyone here would suggest there not.
Well, SOME species of plants would be favored by these conditions but not all of them. Plants that don't tolerate warmer higher humidity conditions wouldn't thrive. There are many species that need a cold winter dormancy. The problem for them might be that they can't evolve fast enough to tolerate loss of that cold cycle. There are alpine/subarctic species that are now retreating as temps warm.

We don't know how far salt water intrusions would go because we can only partially model sea level rise. Its one thing to predict intrusion where aquifers extend near coastlines, but we can't model how well salt water can percolate THROUGH different types of bedrock. Some are probably less resistant to salt.

Last edited by Parnassia; 09-23-2017 at 02:36 AM..
 
Old 09-23-2017, 04:07 AM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
2,769 posts, read 1,033,780 times
Reputation: 5940
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dhult View Post
That's not point I was addressing. I agree with you on soil quality and

The point was would global warming make the planet greener?


Does more carbon dioxide equal more plant growth?


.
During the Carboniferous Period, the time in history that gave us our large oil reserves from dead plants, the co2 level was 8000ppm (as opposed to our current measley 410ppm) and world temps were 22*C (as opposed to our current frigid 15*C).

QED.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:54 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top