The great climate change fallacy
- Thread starter YouSayPotato
- Start date
This is a literal line from the article:
On the flip side, the more CO2 there is in the atmosphere, the faster plants grow, and the more they suck from the atmosphere. That’s a negative feedback system, and it tends to moderate changes.
This person is a ****ing buffoon.
On the flip side, the more CO2 there is in the atmosphere, the faster plants grow, and the more they suck from the atmosphere. That’s a negative feedback system, and it tends to moderate changes.
This person is a ****ing buffoon.
Drank thee deep and long of the woke pablum. It appears you do not understand photosynthesis.
Managing Carbon Dioxide in Your Grow Space
February 25, 2014 by fifthseason 53 CommentsIf you are green to gardening you might not know that carbon dioxide, the gas we all exhale, is critical to plant growth and development. Photosynthesis, the process through which plants use light to create food, requires carbon dioxide. CO2 concentration in ambient air ranges from 300-500 parts per million (ppm), with a global atmospheric average of about 400 ppm. If you are growing in a greenhouse or indoors, the CO2 levels will be reduced as the plants use it up during photosynthesis. Increasing the CO2 levels in these environments is essential for good results. Additionally, there are benefits to raising the CO2 level higher than the global average, up to 1500 ppm. With CO2 maintained at this level, yields can be increased by as much as 30%!
CO2 levels in greenhouses
I'd explain it to you but it requires understanding science beyond a third-grader's comprehension.
More CO2 in the atmosphere hurts key plants and crops more than it helps » Yale Climate Connections
The familiar adage - too much of a good thing is a bad thing - applies to atmospheric carbon dioxide: In higher concentrations, it is a damaging pollutant.
yaleclimateconnections.org
Go to the embedded link that this airhead woman herself cites in your article. It says the polar opposite of what she states in her goofy manifest. Here is the summary, verbatim:I'd explain it to you but it requires understanding science beyond a third-grader's comprehension.
More CO2 in the atmosphere hurts key plants and crops more than it helps » Yale Climate Connections
The familiar adage - too much of a good thing is a bad thing - applies to atmospheric carbon dioxide: In higher concentrations, it is a damaging pollutant.
Highlights
•
The last 27 years of FACE (free-air CO2 enrichment) experiments were reviewed.
•
Elevated CO2 decreased evapotranspiration of both C3 and C4 plants about 10%.
•
Yields of most C3 grain crops were increased on average about 19%.
•
Yields of C4 species were unchanged with ample water, but increased 30% with limited water.
•
Yield increases due to increased CO2 were variable with increased temperature.
About twenty-seven years ago, free-air CO2 enrichment (FACE) technology was developed that enabled the air above open-field plots to be enriched with CO2 for entire growing seasons. Since then, FACE experiments have been conducted on cotton, wheat, ryegrass, clover, potato, grape, rice, barley, sugar beet, soybean, cassava, rape, mustard, coffee (C3 crops), and sorghum and maize (C4 crops). Elevated CO2 (550 ppm from an ambient concentration of about 353 ppm in 1990) decreased evapotranspiration about 10% on average and increased canopy temperatures about 0.7 °C. Biomass and yield were increased by FACE in all C3 species, but not in C4 species except when water was limiting. Yields of C3 grain crops were increased on average about 19%.
Last edited:
I'd explain it to you but it requires understanding science beyond a third-grader's comprehension.
More CO2 in the atmosphere hurts key plants and crops more than it helps » Yale Climate Connections
The familiar adage - too much of a good thing is a bad thing - applies to atmospheric carbon dioxide: In higher concentrations, it is a damaging pollutant.
Reading the study it is hard to determine how many PPM they raised CO2 levels to for the study. The experimental concentrations used for the [CO2] treatment (568 to 590 μmol mol−1)....is hard to compare vs current 412 ppm available for plants today.
Is 1umol mol-1=1 ppm? If so, the 590 level raises CO2 over 43% for the study.....might be a bit high vs what we are seeing now.
Doest study say yields increased as per original post?
Anyway, plant breeders have vastly changed plants in our past, continue to do so today and the study suggests this as an answer to the plant nutritional problem they are studying.
Last edited:
This is called science. They literally pump CO2 into greenhouses.
Bet they do not invite him back. Lol. I would imagine a good hunk of that crowd suckers the Government for grant after grant to pay for studies that say something slightly different than the factual science he is presenting.
Nope. I dont know when doomsday might be. Very complicated system with all kinds of feedback loops all over. Since we don’t know when a runaway feedback loop will doom us maybe it is wise to be cautious.
Screw that. I'm gonna live it up. I'm gonna drive my SUV (actually, we have 2) spend time on my boat, fly to great vacations. I'm not worried about it.
Sure, I'll put out the recycling bin, but unless you're riding a bike to work, don't preach to me.
Sweet. You are really sticking it to the libs. Not at all curious about what are actions are doing to future generations?
Ask, I don’t believe individuals reducing their usage will do much for climate change anyway. Need policy and technology.
That's called a ten-year-old's understanding of science. Is putting infinite gas in a car going to make it go faster?
Yes, that's the point. Saying "More CO2 in the air = healthier plants" is the same type of stupid.
Actually no it isn't. We KNOW that most plants evolved at a much higher C02 concentration in the atmosphere (well over 1000 ppm). We have also proven that with higher C02 levels plants grow much faster and better. Even NASA has shown that the Earth is greening as C02 levels have risen.
Climate change is very complex. There are many variables at play. Pointing to one likely results in a conclusion that is far too simplistic and inaccurate. At 1500ppm, the human race will be extinct and the planet will look like Venus. Greenhouses will not matter.
Yeah, most of that "greening" is coming from the Arctic you idiot.
Global Green Up Slows Warming
Scientists say the world would be even warmer if not for a surge in plant growth.
And that is already well underway . . .
Trees may grow 500 km further north by 2100
By Alister Doyle, Environment CorrespondentOSLO (Reuters) - Trees in the Arctic region may grow 500 km (300 miles) further north by 2100 as climate change greens the barren tundra and causes sweeping change to wildlife, a leading expert said. A quickening melt of snow, ice and permafrost will enable more southerly species such as pine trees or animals such as foxes to move north.
“Changes seem to be happening even more rapidly than we had anticipated just 10 years ago,” Aevar Petersen, chair of the Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF), told Reuters from Greenland on Thursday, where foreign ministers of Arctic countries agreed steps to bolster regional cooperation.
“Scientists estimate the treeline could move 500 km north by 2100 from now,” he said, based on CAFF projections. If that happened, as much as half the Arctic tundra from Siberia to Canada could vanish. In some places, southerly evergreen shrubs were taking over from grasses, mosses and lichens typical of tundra. “The tree line is moving north quite rapidly,” he said. CAFF is backed by the Arctic Council, comprising the United States, Russia, Canada and the five Nordic nations.
Warming in the Arctic is happening about twice as fast as in the rest of the world. As reflective snow and ice recede, they expose soil or water which are a darker color and so soak up more of the sun’s heat.
Polar bears are among those under threat from an accelerating melt of sea ice. “We do fear for the polar bear if the ice is melting,” Petersen said. “It really hasn’t anywhere to go.” An international report last week projected that the Arctic Ocean could be ice-free in summers in the next 30 to 40 years.
Foreign ministers from the Arctic Council agreed to step up cooperation and signed a deal splitting responsibilities for search and rescue as the region becomes more accessible to shipping, mining and oil and gas exploration. A CAFF study showed that wildlife species in the high Arctic were generally in decline while those slightly to the south were increasing. On land, many cannot move north if temperatures warm because they face the barrier of the Arctic Ocean.
Millions of shorebirds, such as the red knot which migrates as far as Australia or South Africa, build nests on the ground in the high Arctic. Their eggs and chicks will be extremely vulnerable to predators such as foxes if the region warms.
Nope. I just said I don’t think individuals cutting back won’t do much.
This has to be one of the dumbest takes ever considering the planet had ~7000 ppm when the greatest explosion of life occurred 54 million years ago.
That response was so infantile & confusing, it sounded like Biden himself. LOL
It depends on the infinite gas octane rating!
How much is a gallon of infinite gas?
I'll never have to fill up again.
This is all bullshit unless countries like China, Russia, and India buy into the same things as Europe and maybe the US do. Right now they are not on-board because they know it will have serious implications to their plans for world hegemony. Let the stupid Europeans and Americans self-immolate while we continue business as usual………?????
Or we can be leaders and develop the technology and infrastructure. Are we all to just go off a cliff blaming each other while doing nothing to stop it?
It is not possible to reverse global warming by unilaterally reducing carbon emissions. We know for a certainty that most of Asia, Africa, the Mideast and Latin America are not going to stop burning fossil fuels. It is also well known that China and India are planning to build hundreds of new coal-fired power plants during the next decade. Russia is building a natural gas pipeline to Germany. Brazilian farmers continue to burn down the rain forests in the Amazon River Basin.
The only way to reduce greenhouse gases to pre-industrial levels is to sequester carbon. Plant a trillion trees. Fertilize the oceans with iron to stimulate phytoplankton growth. Switch from gasoline to flexfuel like Brazil has done but also incorporating the new technology of fermenting cellulosic ethanol.
These endeavors can be done by the US and our allies without the cooperation of China or Iran or Russia. Sequestering carbon is our only realistic hope of reversing global warming.
This is fallacious thinking. If China, Russia, and India don’t buy into the US and Europe thinking, it won’t matter what the US and Europe do. Why is this so hard to understand? China and India are the world’s largest carbon emissions generators by a fair margin.
I’d you are a leader I. Developing the technology perhaps those other countries will adopt when the technology is mature. We’ve already let China out to a huge lead in solar panel production. Why shouldn’t that have been us leading the world?
You just keep dancing around the issue. They’ll likely just keep on polluting like they have been. What are going to do? Start WW III because China and Russia don’t care about the environment as passionately as you do?
Similar threads
