Earth Becoming Greener Due To Increased CO2

[Philomath]

Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds
From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.

Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds

 

[Pointless]

I also read that this is a temporary effect.

 

[schultz]

I always laugh to myself when I read about the dangers of increased CO2 in the atmosphere being a pollutant. People need to get their heads checked.

CO2 is good for plants and for people.

"Across a range of FACE experiments, with a variety of plant species, growth of plants at elevated CO2 concentrations of 475–600 ppm increases leaf photosynthetic rates by an average of 40%" (Ainsworth & Rogers 2007).

This is why greenhouses sometimes have a CO2 generator in them to boost plant growth.

This issue reminds me of the "ruminant animals are bad for the environment" argument. Let's kill a bunch of elephants to save the ecosystem... oh wait, it caused desertification. Properly managed livestock will heal the planet, not spinach mono-cultures.

 

[Philomath]

The earth saw an inconceivable amount of growth, an explosion of life in the Pre/Cambrian era. Not surprisingly, this era had the highest level of atmospheric CO2 we are aware of.
Coincidence?

 

[mentaltriad]

CO2 levels have been dramatically higher in Earth's past. I wonder if that's why giant megafauna were present in the past, but not so much today.

Update: oops, Philomath beat me to it

 

[dfspcc20]

There are so many other real, immediate threats to the environment, such as radioactive waste, and the omnipresence of plastics and other xenoestrogens. Yet all of the attention on CO2...

 

[jaguar43]

Although the idea of global warming has been dismissed by Ray Peat, he is a true believer in environmentalism. He wrote a whole chapter in Generative Energy on the clear-cutting of ancient forest. He talks about extinction, and weather changes. Some people on this forum assume he isn't an environmentalist because he think co2 isn't bad.

 

[Hugh Johnson]

I always laugh to myself when I read about the dangers of increased CO2 in the atmosphere being a pollutant. People need to get their heads checked.

CO2 is good for plants and for people.

"Across a range of FACE experiments, with a variety of plant species, growth of plants at elevated CO2 concentrations of 475–600 ppm increases leaf photosynthetic rates by an average of 40%" (Ainsworth & Rogers 2007).

This is why greenhouses sometimes have a CO2 generator in them to boost plant growth.

This issue reminds me of the "ruminant animals are bad for the environment" argument. Let's kill a bunch of elephants to save the ecosystem... oh wait, it caused desertification. Properly managed livestock will heal the planet, not spinach mono-cultures.

Wet bulb temeratures in places like India could rise high enough to literally kill all human life. Switch to the next equilibrium will take thousands of years and kill billions.

 

[lollipop]

The earth saw an inconceivable amount of growth, an explosion of life in the Pre/Cambrian era. Not surprisingly, this era had the highest level of atmospheric CO2 we are aware of.
Coincidence?
View attachment 2633

Soooo true!

 

[skycop00]

Taxing CO2 is about screwing hard working tax payers. It's about control! Why does no one picket China and Mexico and other countries that would never abide by carbon emission taxes. This topic turns my stomach. Hypocrites that fly around in jets complain about others making CO2. They can kiss my.......

 

[ekool445]

Do any of you guys know what chemtrails are?

More recently, "top environmental scientists" have been saying that they think geo-engineering would be beneficial in stopping global warming. There are people who say that the government has been spraying massive ammounts of chemicals (aluminum and barium oxides/sulfates (as well as other substances)) into the atmosphere since the 1990s as means of "geo-engineering".

They deny it, but apparently there are air and soil tests to show increasing levels of these chemicals? Google Kristen Meghan. Apparently she worked for the Air Force and found out that this it's true? There is some conflicting information, but I am interested in finding out more.

What is interesting, is that aluminum oxide acts as a "sun screen" and blocks UVB rays and other rays from the sun. Plants need these rays to perform photosynthesis and convert CO2 into oxygen. Also, these chemicals can cause a lot of health complications (like respiratory illness) in humans. There is also speculation that this "sun screen" could also prevent cloud formation in heavily sprayed areas. China has been toying with this since the 50s and even was able to modify the weather during the Beijing Olympics (China plans to halt rain for Olympics).

I have seen some of the arguments saying that chemtrails are a joke, but I'm not totally convinced. Like vaccines and fluoride, I am thinking that the idea of "geo-engineering" will become a part of normal life. That spraying chemicals into the atmosphese will be something that happens without people even thinking twice. David Keith (an advocate for geo-engineering) has talked about spraying chemicals into the atmosphere.



He can also be seen on the Colbert report years ago talking about it.

Any thoughts?

 

[Philomath]

It's already underway. They haven't admitted it yet, but they're slowly parsing out information - backdooring it. Typical government.... do it, deny its happening, then set up councils and groups to study feasibility, build support and then carry it forward Officially.

 

[ekool445]

BTW, I found this link that challenges some of the chemtrail conspiracists. Still not sure what to think on the matter.

Debunked: What In The World Are They Spraying? - Contrail Science

 

[Richiebogie]

Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased but are still dangerously low.

Burning fossil fuels is win win!

 

[Amazoniac]

Plant Growth Response to Very High CO2 Concentrations

 

[PecosRiver]

New study undercuts favorite climate myth ‘more CO2 is good for plants’ | Dana Nuccitelli

 

[jaa]

Yes there are benefits of burning hydrocarbons (immediate $ and greenery), but that's not why people are concerned about climate change. You have to show the pros outweigh the cons ($ relocation and human and animal death and suffering).

It's also amusing that this is getting so much love by the climate skeptics here. Must be nice to pick and choose what science you believe based on your ideology.

 

[NathanK]

It's also amusing that this is getting so much love by the climate skeptics here. Must be nice to pick and choose what science you believe based on your ideology.

Who isnt the skeptic in this climate debate? That would assume that someone or some group of people know something about the complexities of the Universe and our Earth's behavior, beyond a few decades, with some sort of certainty.

As humans, have we ever created a climate model that has ever been correct or even in the same ballpark? What exact science are you picking and choosing? Is it based on actual science youve studied, your own ideological imprinting by the latest celebrity narrated documentary, or possibly your immediate group think bubble?

Science isnt an analogy for the word fact, but is literally a process of understanding. So, i guess my burning question is, where do you derive your confidence to make such condescending remarks? Are you just as confident that we can reverse Earth's climate trajectory? I really want to know or be educated. It baffles me because I cant say I hold much of any certainty except that we likely know nothing of climate context and yet have an abundance of arrogance that we think we do.

But yes, I think we need to curb poisonous pollutants from our environment to keep our water and food sources safe, of course. I can think of many pollutants worse than CO2 to be spending current and future wealth on.

 

[jaa]

Who isnt the skeptic in this climate debate? That would assume that someone or some group of people know something about the complexities of the Universe and our Earth's behavior, beyond a few decades, with some sort of certainty.

As humans, have we ever created a climate model that has ever been correct or even in the same ballpark? What exact science are you picking and choosing? Is it based on actual science youve studied, your own ideological imprinting by the latest celebrity narrated documentary, or possibly your immediate group think bubble?

Science isnt an analogy for the word fact, but is literally a process of understanding. So, i guess my burning question is, where do you derive your confidence to make such condescending remarks? Are you just as confident that we can reverse Earth's climate trajectory? I really want to know or be educated. It baffles me because I cant say I hold much of any certainty except that we likely know nothing of climate context and yet have an abundance of arrogance that we think we do.

But yes, I think we need to curb poisonous pollutants from our environment to keep our water and food sources safe, of course. I can think of many pollutants worse than CO2 to be spending current and future wealth on.

Again, this comes back to creedences. There are lots of smart scientists who outline lots of independent lines of evidence pointing to climate change as being primarily man driven. They are also worried about negative feedback loops and the like and predict some pretty dire consequences if we don't get off this path. We are seeing some of the effects now. I work in municipal engineering, and our stormwater systems are overrun. They are designed for 1:10 to 1:50 year rainfall events. We are getting those events now every few years. This costs huge sums of money to fix. And this is the least of our worries.

So most of the experts (90%) think climate change is primarily caused by humans and this % increases the more prestigious (more citations and publications) an expert is. It's agreed upon that greenhouse gasses are the primary driver of this, and CO2 is the main culprit. Outcomes range from some coastal flooding and more frequent storm events (mild) to runaway effects that kill billions of people and many more animals (severe). You can ascribe whatever probability distribution to those outcomes that you want to that, but unless you're an expert who knows where other experts get things wrong, can explain that to them, and have additional info and better models yourself, you're just talking ***t. Particularly if you overweight the mild scenario and put next to no weight on the medium to severe outcomes. It is pragmatic to address this issue now, and it's a moral responsibility. Writing global emissions off as "lol it's good for plants, idiot scientists, peat right again!" is idiotic, immoral, and irresponsible. Don't be that person unless you have good reasons not to be that person. And no, pointing at your favourite climate change denying or downplaying scientist does not count. They are just one of many scientists in the field, and represent an overwhelmingly minority and fringe position. You have to know the material as good as that person and their peers to really evaluate their claims. In which case, you should be able to provide a detailed write up as to why your favourite minority position scientist is correct and the other scientists are wrong and the other scientists who are wrong shouldn't be able to rebut you with ease.

 

[Marvel]

So most of the experts (90%) think climate change is primarily caused by humans and this % increases the more prestigious (more citations and publications) an expert is. It's agreed upon that greenhouse gasses are the primary driver of this, and CO2 is the main culprit. Outcomes range from some coastal flooding and more frequent storm events (mild) to runaway effects that kill billions of people and many more animals (severe). You can ascribe whatever probability distribution to those outcomes that you want to that, but unless you're an expert who knows where other experts get things wrong, can explain that to them, and have additional info and better models yourself, you're just talking ***t. Particularly if you overweight the mild scenario and put next to no weight on the medium to severe outcomes. It is pragmatic to address this issue now, and it's a moral responsibility. Writing global emissions off as "lol it's good for plants, idiot scientists, peat right again!" is idiotic, immoral, and irresponsible. Don't be that person unless you have good reasons not to be that person. And no, pointing at your favourite climate change denying or downplaying scientist does not count. They are just one of many scientists in the field, and represent an overwhelmingly minority and fringe position. You have to know the material as good as that person and their peers to really evaluate their claims. In which case, you should be able to provide a detailed write up as to why your favourite minority position scientist is correct and the other scientists are wrong and the other scientists who are wrong shouldn't be able to rebut you with ease.

:applause: