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 09-26-2017, 06:41 PM
 
16,555 posts, read 13,964,627 times
Reputation: 20512

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by KaraG View Post
Where in the US would be optimal to live?
For who?

Quote:
What species are expected to go extinct first?
Amphibians associated with mountain habitats, they cannot extend their ranges and their breeding makes them most susceptible to changes in climate.

Quote:
What diseases should we watch for and how do we prepare?
When you play evolutionary roulette you can't always predict.

Those related to water quality and sanitation are a safe bet though, E.coli, cholera, the mosquito borne encephalitis related viruses.

Maybe some of the exotic parasites like Chagas might spread.

Many more than I know, I am an oceanographer specializing in invasive species by training so disease and vectors are a bit outside my wheelhouse.

 
Old 09-26-2017, 09:39 PM
 
672 posts, read 640,800 times
Reputation: 1198
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714 View Post
You think the ocean has a level of 87.5 mm??? ROFLMAO
I was speaking of the variation between the fall and rises not total depth. But Hey, thanks for coming to the thread when someone says let's talk about it and see what would happen with greater warming. The first thing people state is Yeah Thanks, for your uneducated opinion and then (cut: not going to go there)
Thanks for your condescending opinions.
I phrased almost everything as a question not a fact.

Last edited by Dhult; 09-26-2017 at 10:31 PM..
 
Old 09-26-2017, 09:45 PM
 
Location: Gilbert, AZ
3,113 posts, read 1,912,431 times
Reputation: 3194
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714 View Post
The actions of individuals are meaningless compared to the actions of governments.
If governments are our only salvation, we are all doomed!
 
Old 09-26-2017, 10:30 PM
 
672 posts, read 640,800 times
Reputation: 1198
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714 View Post
Non native and invasive are not the same thing.

Invasive species are those that have a disproportionately, negative, large effect on the environment. Think kudzu.

It varies from natural spread as nearly all invasive species cannot move from continent to continent without humans

As for where to draw the line. How about education? Not all non native species are invasive.
Let me quote that for you again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dhult
What is really a invasive species? Is controlling "invasive species" natural or is it unnatural? Are we just trying to keep the earth exactly as we see it now? Have different species changed within in area throughout the history of the planet? Are we actually just stopping a natural migration change of species in areas that would take hold anyways? Would a invasive species that takes hold in area and succeed where other species to the point of devastating the species there, actually be more suitable for the environment where it is gaining hold?

Seems odd that according to most climate alarmist claim that humans are the number one threat and the biggest invasive species on the planet that one invasive species would complain about others and try to control them.

So, is all invasive species bad or do you just want to pick and choose which ones? I Is that natural and green?

To eradicate "non-native" species is, where to exactly draw that line? Almost all animals and many plants, trees etc. don't originally belong to the continent they are on now? What about crop and food production taken from every part of the globe to sustain people?

If an invasive species could built a boat then is it OK for them to move around the globe?
I used non native one time in that serious of questions. Let me replace that for you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dhult
What is really a invasive species? Is controlling "invasive species" natural or is it unnatural? Are we just trying to keep the earth exactly as we see it now? Have different species changed within in area throughout the history of the planet? Are we actually just stopping a natural migration change of species in areas that would take hold anyways? Would a invasive species that takes hold in area and succeed where other species to the point of devastating the species there, actually be more suitable for the environment where it is gaining hold?

Seems odd that according to most climate alarmist claim that humans are the number one threat and the biggest invasive species on the planet that one invasive species would complain about others and try to control them.

So, is all invasive species bad or do you just want to pick and choose which ones? I Is that natural and green?

To eradicate invasive species is, where to exactly draw that line? Almost all animals and many plants, trees etc. don't originally belong to the continent they are on now? What about crop and food production taken from every part of the globe to sustain people?

If an invasive species could built a boat then is it OK for them to move around the globe?
Thanks again for the condescending response to the questions. Care to actually answer those questions are just find some way to call someone a idiot again?

You didn't answer any of the questions you just trolled the last sentence where I said non-native instead of invasive. You kind of get off on calling people stupid for asking questions. You're awesome.
 
Old 09-26-2017, 10:52 PM
 
672 posts, read 640,800 times
Reputation: 1198
My questions in the beginning of this thread and still is would the planet actually be greener with global warming? Would it actually be better in some aspects? Would it really be as bad to life as some state even if

In response I've received answers such as

*You bring up interesting points.

*Yes

*I'm pretty much a idiot for sharing my thoughts and asking questions.

*And a whole lot of how the planet would change with droughts and rains, invasive species but not a No that it wouldn't be greener. That it would be a huge change and how bad it would be so it isn't good.

* I'm a idiot again for asking questions

Thank you very much for participating.
 
Old 09-27-2017, 01:36 AM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
2,769 posts, read 1,021,874 times
Reputation: 5927
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714 View Post

Absolute lies. Ocean pH is remarkably constant. Given it is an exponential scale several 10ths would be an order of magnitude each. That much change "daily" would be catastrophic. As for coral bleaching it is primarily due to warming water

Perhaps you fell asleep during the Oceanography 101 lecture that covered this
[PDF]Diurnal variation of pH in Oshoro Bay, Hokkaido, Japan – A ...

or this https://news-oceanacidification-icc....ia-mercenaria/

or hundreds of other ref sites offered by a simple internet search.


And you apparently missed this about the role of the oceans in accepting and distributing heat around the globe:
From the NOAA: How does the ocean affect climate and weather on land?

"The world’s ocean is crucial to heating the planet. While land areas and the atmosphere absorb some sunlight, the majority of the sun’s radiation is absorbed by the ocean. Particularly in the tropical waters around the equator, the ocean acts a as massive, heat-retaining solar panel. Earth’s atmosphere also plays a part in this process, helping to retain heat that would otherwise quickly radiate into space after sunset.
The ocean doesn't just store solar radiation; it also helps to distribute heat around the globe...."

That's pretty basic meteorology: the atmosphere is warmed by the surface of the earth, not to any great extent by incoming solar radiation.
In regards ocean acidity & coral bleaching, one would guess that ocean pH doesn't make much difference to the coral when the coral isn't covered by ocean water anymore: https://www.biogeosciences.net/14/817/2017/

Your arguments about the role of co2 in plant growth, regardless of the metabolic pathway is disingenuous: many factors effect the outcome positively as they increase, reach an optimum, then often show diminished effects as they continue to increase. Both water and oxygen, for instance are absolutely required for life, but become toxic at high concentrations.co2, for instance, cannot sustain photosynthesis in the currently adapted plants at conc's <160ppm. Commercial greenhouses, OTOH, routinely enhance their atm's to 1000ppm+ to increase growth.

The argument often made by the Greenies is that GW has occurred at such an unprecedented, accelerated rate that species can't evolve quickly enough. This is untrue on two counts: a) GW was actually faster during the period 1880-1025 than during the period 1970-2015, so it's not even unprecedented in recent memory, and more to the point (b) punctuated evolution is more common than gradual evolution. In order to adapt to a new environment, regardless of how quickly the change has occurred, the novel adaptive genes must already have been present in the genetic pool prior to their attaining the status of improved survival value. Life started here more than 3B y/a and we've not been without life since then, so the mechanism must work pretty well.

Last edited by guidoLaMoto; 09-27-2017 at 02:01 AM..
 
Old 09-27-2017, 04:47 AM
 
16,555 posts, read 13,964,627 times
Reputation: 20512
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dhult View Post
My questions in the beginning of this thread and still is would the planet actually be greener with global warming? Would it actually be better in some aspects? Would it really be as bad to life as some state even if

In response I've received answers such as

*You bring up interesting points.

*Yes

*I'm pretty much a idiot for sharing my thoughts and asking questions.

*And a whole lot of how the planet would change with droughts and rains, invasive species but not a No that it wouldn't be greener. That it would be a huge change and how bad it would be so it isn't good.

* I'm a idiot again for asking questions

Thank you very much for participating.
Because it is a stupid question.

Greener has no meaning scientifically anyway. Do you mean more chlorophyll per meter? Do you mean increase plant biomass?

But since you want a dumb meaningless answer to a dumb meaningless question it would be No it won't be "greener". Even if you increase the number of c3 plants you lower the amount of c4 and cam plants. Lower overall biomass, lower chlorophyll per meter (as those plants just have less) and lower permanent green plants as you would likely completely lose conifers and other non deciduous plants.
 
Old 09-27-2017, 04:57 AM
 
16,555 posts, read 13,964,627 times
Reputation: 20512
[quote=guidoLaMoto;49644250:eleted blather for brevity but don't worry I kept it to show my students in the class I teach on scientific literacy. Thanks btw::
[/QUOTE]

Roflamo nice try. You said the "ocean" has a variation of tenths per day. A bay is NOT an ocean is estuarine by its very definition. That is some basic Oce 101 right there, maybe you should try taking a class, or even googling basic defintitions.

As for the rest of the nonsense you post and yet clearly don't understand. I literally said the amrine and continental effect lead to the temperate climate due to the clean absorbing and giving off heat. My own words, not cut and pastes, because I actually understand this stuff.

As for disingenuous it's ironic to whine about plant pathways and th n day the atmosphere is warmed by th earth rather than solar radiation. Either you completely don't understand how a heat budget works are you are trying to obsfuscate. It will be interesting to see btw, whether the opinion of th students is the former or that latter.

1880 -1025? Are you also unaware how time works? I am not a "Greenie" I am an oceanographer and I have never made a claim about the time line of climate change like the one you decided to throw in as a strawman, but nice to your getting desperate to try to make this political.
 
Old 09-27-2017, 07:13 AM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
2,769 posts, read 1,021,874 times
Reputation: 5927
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714 View Post
Roflamo nice try. You said the "ocean" has a variation of tenths per day. A bay is NOT an ocean is estuarine by its very definition. That is some basic Oce 101 right there, maybe you should try taking a class, or even googling basic defintitions.

As for the rest of the nonsense you post and yet clearly don't understand. I literally said the amrine and continental effect lead to the temperate climate due to the clean absorbing and giving off heat. My own words, not cut and pastes, because I actually understand this stuff.

As for disingenuous it's ironic to whine about plant pathways and th n day the atmosphere is warmed by th earth rather than solar radiation. Either you completely don't understand how a heat budget works are you are trying to obsfuscate. It will be interesting to see btw, whether the opinion of th students is the former or that latter.

1880 -1025? Are you also unaware how time works? I am not a "Greenie" I am an oceanographer and I have never made a claim about the time line of climate change like the one you decided to throw in as a strawman, but nice to your getting desperate to try to make this political.
Talk about ROFLMAO, your whole response can be summarized as "Oh, yea?" If you have to pick on a typographical errors as your counter-argument, you've lost.
 
Old 09-27-2017, 08:57 AM
 
672 posts, read 640,800 times
Reputation: 1198
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714 View Post
Because it is a stupid question.
Thanks.
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.

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