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.
You control freaks remind me of the Aztecs that performed Human sacrifices to appease the Universe.
You thought putting a bag on your head was meant as a scientific analogy?
Changes in any single variable in one of the biogeochemical cycles, threatens the balances within these cycles .. This is known scientific information, no “analogy” needed.
"A2.3. Satellite observations15 have shown vegetation greening16 over the last three decades in parts of Asia, Europe, South America, central North America, and southeast Australia. Causes of greening include combinations of an extended growing season, nitrogen deposition, CO2fertilisation17, and land management (high confidence). Vegetation browning18 has been observed in some regions including northern Eurasia, parts of North America, Central Asia and the Congo Basin, largely as a result of water stress (medium confidence). Globally, vegetation greening has occurred over a larger area than vegetation browning (high confidence). {2.2.3, Box 2.3, 2.2.4, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 4.3.1, 4.3.2, 4.6.2, 5.2.2}"
If you're going to make people poorer and reduce their standards of living you better have a better answer than "I dunno"
Climate change disproportionately effects the poor already. And maybe you don’t understand words like “complicated” but no where in that post did I say “I dunno”.
Let us pretend for a moment you are capable of understanding. Even if I told you a specific number, say 350ppm, that ignores the fact that CO2 is part of the carbon cycle. The CO2 is in flux and reducing it in one location may or may not work depending if you are likewise changing the inputs and outputs from other sources and sinks. Additionally there is seasonal variation between the northern and Southern Hemispheres. Do we mean which season? Do we mean partial pressure or straight ppm? Are we taking into account residence time and if so on which scale? Are we solely looking at anthropogenic atmospheric CO2? Are we looking at total atmospheric concentrations are we looking by layer? In terms of oceanic flux, are we talking about spring or autumn draw downs?
So pretending you understand any of that, why don’t you narrow it down and then I will give you a number.
You present it as scientific fact. The journalist, who is actually a political activist, posits an increase in CO2 as a negative for the environment, when we all know that plants thrive in a high CO2 environment. You can't bring about worldwide wealth redistribution when your so-called climate crisis turns out to be a net positive for the world's populations.
All plants? That is a lie.
It depends on which pathway they utilize for carbon fixation. C3plants will likely do well in a high CO2 environment but that is not true for other pathway plants, particularly c4 ones like corn and soybeans. Not much is known what will happen to CAM pathway.
is that why poor undeveloped countries are allowed to increase their CO2 emissions....so it effects them more?
Allowed? Do you think someone tells other countries what they can do? They are sovereign nations, if we want them to reduce their CO2 we have to negotiate with them.
With Aztec cosmology? No, I'm too much a product of the West. I'm just pointing out that the Aztecs were following their theology/traditions, & hadn't reached the point of worshipping the universe as a whole, which might have led them to a more universal kind of ethics.
We'll never know, of course, since the Spanish came along & conquered them militarily, & then spent the next few centuries destroying their codices, art, architecture, cities, temples, priest/astronomers, administrators & any physical culture they could find.
Allowed? Do you think someone tells other countries what they can do? They are sovereign nations, if we want them to reduce their CO2 we have to negotiate with them.
You know that's not going to work, right? These nations will use any such negotiations as an opportunity to solicit foreign aid bribes from wealthier nations in exchange for some vain, vague promises to limit or reduce CO2 emissions, then continue on with business-as-usual. Many such nations will have no choice but to do that, since what they need is to lift their populations out of poverty is access to inexpensive energy they can actually afford...not "green" energy which is largely an unaffordable luxury reserved for extremely wealthy societies that can afford such flighty frivolities.
It depends on which pathway they utilize for carbon fixation. C3plants will likely do well in a high CO2 environment but that is not true for other pathway plants, particularly c4 ones like corn and soybeans. Not much is known what will happen to CAM pathway.
OK. I didn't consider ALL plants. But as far as my statement being an out and out lie, it wasn't and it isn't. The rest of your statement expresses doubt certain categories of plants. What we do know right now is that the current levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have not caused damage to corn or soybean production.
Sorry, but from my optic, more CO2 in the air is not the catastrophic development alarmists would have us believe.
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.
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.
Nahuatl is still spoken
....so you agree? Nope?
