Forums - Politics Discussion - Earth is rapidly greening because of CO2 fertilization (NASA study)

fatslob-:O said:

He pretty much explains why earth is a long way from runaway greenhouse warming like Venus is and also explains the benefit that CO2 emissions bring in such as higher crop yields so I guess ~1000 ppm of CO2 is ideal for plant life ... (need to at least double the CO2 concentration)

Sure, there are probably some doom-mongerers that spread horror stories about how we'll turn to Venus if we don't stop (we won't in the next several dozens of millions of years), but that has never been the threat from climate change. Besides, ideal for plant life doesn't mean ideal for human life, or life overall.



Around the Network

It's not like greenhouse effects on a Venus level would ever occur.
But a whole lot of other things. Mainly stuff plants don't care as much about as we do.
+2° Celsius already mean there is a whole lot more of energy in the global weather system. A warmer overall climate can lead to local weather extremes in bith directions though. Polar storms might get extremer and reach far more south and another region might dry out, you can even have more desertification in some areas.
More CO² makes the oceans more acidic than they are now. Which will be bad for reefs, scallops etc but good for algae. Algal blooms might lead to less oxygen in the water (not good for the fishies) and so on.

So, good for plants, not neccessarily good for humans.



fatslob-:O said:

He pretty much explains why earth is a long way from runaway greenhouse warming like Venus is and also explains the benefit that CO2 emissions bring in such as higher crop yields so I guess ~1000 ppm of CO2 is ideal for plant life ... (need to at least double the CO2 concentration)

But won't too much CO2 make air quality too poor for humans and animals? And what about rising sea levels?



Ocean acidification would still be an issue...



newwil7l said:
Um am I missing something here? I feel it is common sense that the plants are reaping the benefits of a warming planet. But what about animals?

CO2 fertilization has nothing to do with temperatures.



Around the Network
Aura7541 said:
Ocean acidification would still be an issue...

How do we prevent that?



Wait, are you telling me that the stuff we breath out, and plants require to live, is good for plants. Seriously, the only people who have any right to believe in man-made global warming is atheists. If you actually believe in a God, and believe in man-made global warming, you might as well look at the sky and tell God he's an idiot.

We've had only 1-2 degrees of warming in the last 100 years and people act like it even matters. Whose to say it doesn't go back down by the same amount in the next 100 years. Obviously scientists can't predict this shit. Hell, they can't even 100% accurately predict the weather in a 24 hr period, yet they act like they can predict the climate in 24 years? How arrogant. I have to laugh at those who believe these same scientists who 30-40 years ago were all about global cooling and who wanted the government to take over businesses, or tax them heavily, and spend billions helping melt the polar ice caps. But, when they were proven wrong and the Earth started warming ever so slightly, they switched to global warming, still wanting the government to control or tax businesses and spend billions/trillions to fix the problem, which they would undoubtedly pocket some. At the time most of them predicted it would be MUCH warmer, now. Then, we had "the pause," so a lot just switched to climate change so they can be right no matter what Mother Nature decides to do. How "scientific" of them. Of course, it all has the same theme, they want government to control/tax businesses, spend billions/trillions on the problem, while they get their share.

Even more laughable is to see people supporting world leaders and politicians who spout this BS. Oh yeah, they really are worried about the environment as they continue to live in their multiple houses that suck many times more energy from the world than your average home, building many of them on the shores they keep talking about disappearing in just a short time, while traveling the world in their private jets and gas guzzling limos and sports cars. Hmm, seems like they want the same thing, to be able to tax businesses more, without actually trying to change their actions, and spending billions/trillions on the problem, as they pocket their share.



I love how OP is trying to make a point here without ever telling us the point. Probably because the point is stupid in actual context. Which is why he presents all of the information without any distracting context.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

spurgeonryan said:
Nice! I am going to go throw the garbage from my car at a homeless man as soon as I can!

It will help the environment and whatever he can recycle he can make money off of! Plus my car will be clean! I love Environments!

I don't know what I love more: your sarcasm or your avatar.



Interestingly, while CO2 may spur the growth of certain plants, it can also reduce the nutritional value of certain agriculturally important food crops:

"The nutritional value of agriculturally important food crops, such as wheat and rice, will decrease as rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide continue to reduce the concentrations of protein and essential minerals in most plant species [Very Likely, High Confidence]."

It is also likely to increase pests (such as weeds and insects) which will result in competitive effects within agriculture and an increase in pesticide use:

" Rising carbon dioxide concentrations and climate change will alter incidence and distribution of pests, parasites, and microbes [Very Likely, High Confidence], leading to increases in the use of pesticides and veterinary drugs [Likely, Medium Confidence]."

 

https://s3.amazonaws.com/climatehealth2016/high/ClimateHealth2016_07_Food.pdf