a greening of the globe over recent decades
Kyoto Protocol extended to 2020 to fight climate changePublished: 12:00am, 9 Dec, 2012
nope. I'm an anti-science asshole unable to have a rational thought, so nope.
The poorest will be most affected by CO2 greening.
Empirical evidence shows that increasing levels of CO2 result in lower concentrations of many minerals in plants tissues. Doubling CO2 levels results in an 8% decline, on average, in the concentration of minerals.
D. R., Miller, B., & Allen, H. (2008). Effects of elevated CO2 on the protein concentration of food crops: a meta‐analysis. Global Change Biology. Myers, Samuel S.; Zanobetti, Antonella; Kloog, Itai; Huybers, Peter; Leakey, Andrew D. B.; Bloom, Arnold J.; Carlisle, Eli; Dietterich, Lee H.; Fitzgerald, Glenn "Increasing CO2 threatens human nutrition"
You must think what you like.
I only provide alternatives.
Less nutrients on the same land is less food.
The don't own where the greening is taking place even if it was beneficial.
In fact land prices will rise even more. Wake Up!
That’s your mistake. You’re the one who doesn’t own anything. You take over and expropriate from others.
Talk about the specific meaning of the PPM if you are ready to answer for your words. If you are just a privileged descendant of colonizers
Doubling CO2 levels results in an 8% decline, on average, in the concentration of minerals.
I'm not enforcing anything but just making statements about the present reality.
If you want to change property relationships I'm on your side.
The data does contain absolute figures about the changer in mineral levels in relationship to the change in CO2 levels.
These are not mutually exclusive statements. I can be both.
There can be no single figure because local factors change individual crops and locations and years. What is demonstrated is a percentage drop. One plant may lose 7% and the next one 9%.
There is no way to make one figure as all are slightly different. A child could understand such simple truth.
According to growers data, 1500ppm is twice as fast as 400ppm, which is a result of the doubling of yield growth.
Once again, I ask you, if you can’t give us specific data from your “research”, Talk about the specific meaning of the PPM if you are ready to answer for your words.
Whatever. You can't use NASA as a source and then moan someone else's research was done with "capitalist money". NASA is paid for by capitalist money.
For one you are confusing yield with growth which is why your 30-40% figure is meaningless.
In rice crops just increase the CO2 by 50% from 400ppm to 600ppm.
The experiments were run using a co2 concentration of 560-90 ppm as predicted level of end of 21st century. Imagine the reduction at 1500ppm!
Data to support your speculation that the rise in CO2 levels is having or will have a positive impact on the poorest people?
None. And we didn't even take into account population growth yet.
Still, the ideology that nazis propagated cannot be compared with Thunberg's.
Earlier, the West used this colonial manipulation immediately after the collapse of the USSR: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_ProtocolThe consequences of this treaty: Western Europe has outsourced its harmful and environmentally unfriendly production to the East. http://www.bloha.info/view/articles/1011642/After the report on the state and environmental protection of the Russian Federation, Yasnaya Polyana was included in the list of settlements most affected by air pollution with various harmful substances.Shchekinoazot, which is known to produce urea-formaldehyde concentrate, was concerned about pollution data that appeared in the media.According to some reports, the degree of air pollution with formaldehyde in Yasnaya Polyana has exceeded 20 times the limit of its maximum permissible concentration.Yasnaya Polyana is the place where i was born. This example from my personal experience.
Ah i understand you. You are one of supporters of depopulation, who believes that the planet is overpopulated and wants to destroy the least developed people.
Я бы не стал вас запрещать, потому что я нахожу некоторые вещи, которые вы говорите, интересными и заставляющими задуматься, но у вас есть безошибочная тенденция клеймить любого, кто с вами не согласен, как врага свободы всех.
Обсуждение использования искусственного света является еще одним обсуждением и не относится к этому обсуждению.
I believe the planet could sustain many more people and maybe I'm wrong. Capitalism is the problem not some specific green or other mode. I don't think that the planet needs to be depopulated. I said we should take into account the increase in population when we discuss any benefit of greening. Maybe your assumption is due to the language difference.
Нет
Относится. Искусственный свет - это лабораторные условия, точные показатели. На солнечном свете невозможно получить точных данных, как минимум, из-за облачности.
What do you mean by "democratic delegates"?
Yes, Like you say that you don't judge people, when you do.
Field studies are more accurate evaluations in that case, where the test replicates the real conditions.
You don’t care about the forests, you want to limit forest’s food for the glory of Rockfeller’s agenda as i understand your arguments.
So you don't understand my argument. There's nothing I can do.
Let’s just say that i have karmic access to any information
Pointing out the errors you arrive at by jumping to conclusions doesn't make me arrogant.
The tendency will be for the poorest not to own any land at all. They will cease to be self-sufficient in provision of basic needs. The possibility will not exist.
>> Let's just say that i have karmic access to any information, copyright and financial value are of no importance to me.Let's just say that's bullshit.
The way you like it, the data on feed crops.
If your example was using staple food crops it still would be irrelevant.
There are too many factors in the field. It is problem for repeatability.
i don’t understand
There are many reasons I can give for believing this and some of them will definitely be because of such an agenda but not because I support that agenda.
I didn’t make any errors in this thread yet and you didn’t point them out.
I believe the planet could sustain many more people . . . I don’t think that the planet needs to be depopulated.
Better let’s just say that’s your beliefs in Western copyright and financial value is bullshit.
you want to limit forest’s food for the glory of Rockfeller’s agenda as i understand your arguments.
If you produce some statistics and then say that they are not repeatable in the field then they have no meaning. On the other side I already produced field research which you accepted.
I'm trying to keep it simple. Not because I think you are stupid but because of the language. If we were trying to have this conversation in Russian I would be the one saying "I don't understand".
I think you are being naive and not taking enough factors into account. Because of that you keep calling me a supporter of the Rockefeller agenda or some other stupid comment. Just because i think that greening will not benefit the poorest people.
You don't understand my arguments.
I ask you about your sources. Your “scientific” sources
Given that you’re willing to justify your opinion, i’m willing to talk to you on an equal footing.
I gave you some and you said
Maybe you forgot.
And i showed Rockfeller’s funding of this source
Apologies. Do you mean these links that you posted?
No, i do not forgot anything in this case.. . . But i am happy to fix my mistakes.
Apologies. Do you mean these links that you posted?Yes.And i showed Rockfeller’s funding of this source.
But i am happy to fix my mistakes.
I don’t think anyone would be wise to submit to a test created by someone who makes so many simple errors. I wouldn’t advise you to submit to it.
Shall I wait a while longer?
You are not doing this for the sake of truth, but for the sake of self-indulgence, to justify your participation in neo-colonial propaganda.
I think it is not the only case where you tried to deceive me.
Wrong. I disagree with you about greening helping the poorest.
There is nothing more to this conversation except what you chose to create. The only mistake I made was corrected with more suitable source. Your mistakes remain unaddressed.
I don't have a reason to do it.
You're deceiving yourself.
I just disagree with your thinking on this matter.
If based on that you have decided I'm a propagandist for western neo-colonialism so what?
I do not trust you.
I've never known a person be as wrong so many times in one conversation as you just managed.
Why would I want to turn the conversation around?
I'm totally fine with it as it stands.
you’re going to have to live with all of this
But your only “scientific” argument funded by Rockefellers.
Look at where this reply “Given that you’re willing to justify your opinion, .” appears. It’s a response to a totally different comment which directly precedes it containing other links.You just made some of my statements “errors” without explaining what the errors were.
What? That I don't agree with you? It won't be hard.
I believed you to be a serious person but just another liar.
A lie which you must tell to cover your error.
Another lie. It's very easy to see where I explained your errors. You don't fix any of your mistakes but pretend they never happened which leads you to make further mistakes. It's very common.
It is your personal projection. You try to attach your vision and methods to me.
please do not write me again if you’re not afraid that if you don’t say your last word, you’re going to have to live with all of this, so you’re desperate to turn this discussion around in your favor. But if yu’re afraid that if you don’t say your last word, you’re going to have to live with all of this, so you’re desperate to turn this discussion around in your favor - you will write something again here again and again.
I proved it with links of Rockefller’s funding your sources. There is the details:
LOL My reply isn't based on either of these choices. I comment for my reasons independently of your beliefs.
The discussion is a process of learning and not a loss to any person. Please stop writing the same irrelevant comment.
Incorrect. You demonstrated that my original choice was a bad choice. That was my mistake which I corrected with further research. You agreed to behave on equal footing but now try to ignore your own mistakes. This is immature.
The discussion is ongoing. We both accept greening as reality. I don't accept that this will benefit the poorest people.You believe it will because they are subsistence farmers and herders. I believe the poorest people don't have any land to subsist on or any herds of anything.
Why does it make me a climate change propagandist?
It’s not about people. My post was not about people.
You put in an argument that you think is wrong
I have read the list. Is it your bible?
Why would I not do the same?
You are not prepared to discuss ok but don't try to make it my problem. I agree with everything you wrote.
I think it's right. I'm ok to be proved wrong. Maybe we'll discuss again not on this thread. Maybe for you it's not the right place. If that's your argument I accept it. I'm afraid soon you will begin to cry. Maybe I do care about you a bit. ;)
“Trees are feasting on decades of carbon dioxide emissions and growing bigger as a result, according to a new study of U.S. forests.Scientists tracked wood volume in 10 different tree groups from 1997 to 2017, finding that all except aspen-birch grew larger. Over that same period, carbon dioxide levels went from 363 parts per million to 405 parts per million, owing largely to the burning of fossil fuels. More abundant CO2 accelerates photosynthesis, causing plants to grow faster, a phenomenon known as “carbon fertilization.” The findings were published in the journal Nature Communications.”
Support Hubzilla
