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.
The leeches making a good living from AGW modeling hate it when something happens to upset their agenda. AGW MUST be all bad. There MUST be a catastrophe in our future. Otherwise, why hire all these leeches to build for casting models?
-------------
A new study says that if the extra green leaves prompted by rising CO2 levels were laid in a carpet, it would cover twice the continental USA.
I'm not sure what is going on in your head but I do know that you did not read the article. See a snippet below AND read the entire article. You did post it. Titles are made to be catchy to attract readers, yes. But, to get to the meat, you need to go further.
The authors note that the beneficial aspect of CO2 fertilisation have previously been cited by contrarians to argue that carbon emissions need not be reduced.
Co-author Dr Philippe Ciais, from the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences in Gif-sur‑Yvette, France (also an IPCC author), said: "The fallacy of the contrarian argument is two-fold. First, the many negative aspects of climate change are not acknowledged.
"Second, studies have shown that plants acclimatise to rising CO2 concentration and the fertilisation effect diminishes over time." Future growth is also limited by other factors, such as lack of water or nutrients.
I'm not sure what is going on in your head but I do know that you did not read the article. See a snippet below AND read the entire article. You did post it. Titles are made to be catchy to attract readers, yes. But, to get to the meat, you need to go further.
The authors note that the beneficial aspect of CO2 fertilisation have previously been cited by contrarians to argue that carbon emissions need not be reduced.
Co-author Dr Philippe Ciais, from the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences in Gif-sur‑Yvette, France (also an IPCC author), said: "The fallacy of the contrarian argument is two-fold. First, the many negative aspects of climate change are not acknowledged.
"Second, studies have shown that plants acclimatise to rising CO2 concentration and the fertilisation effect diminishes over time." Future growth is also limited by other factors, such as lack of water or nutrients.
Yep. It would be like someone arguing that broken windows reduce the need for A/C while ignoring all the water damage you're sustaining from the storm going on outside.
The circle of life. Plants eat CO2, create O and clean the air.
I have to wonder how the rise in CO2 isn't a good thing. There have been record crops worldwide for consecutive years. Lower the CO2 and the AGW alarmists would instantly turn into Feed the World activists. That's all they have to make their lives meaningful I guess.
Did you buy your exhale credits from the government?
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.
