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.
Gotta love all the climate deniers backing CO2, yet not a single mention of the fact that CO2 absorbs and subsequently re-radiates infrared energy back into our atmosphere, aka AMPLIFYING the greenhouse effect.
Which will be happening less .
Who is that refuses to change their position as new information arrives?....well it was not new to me but I actually know about plants, unlike coffee house urbanites, who care deeply, while blowing CO2 emissions all over creation...
Gotta love all the climate deniers backing CO2, yet not a single mention of the fact that CO2 absorbs and subsequently re-radiates infrared energy back into our atmosphere, aka AMPLIFYING the greenhouse effect.
“You have a fever buts its good cuz its cold outside! Hurr hurr!”
Hmmm, places not meant to be green. I didn't know such places existed. After all, only 17,000 years ago New York was under a mile-high sheet of ice! I don't think it was "meant" to be dry and fertile land but sometimes change is good.
exactly!
the change happened over a period of thousands of years!
Great news for agriculture in the 3rd world, and anyone who likes plants.
Bad news for the dying Climate Change movement, who scare us into implementing more socialism to prevent the flooding of some tiny island in the Indian Ocean in 2100.
Oh please.
We have known that increased carbon dioxide favors CAM plants over C4 and C3 for decades. This is not news, it isn't even new science. But making the claim that it is "great news for agriculture" is a bold faced lie. Sure it is "great" if you like cactuses, but unless you are planning on eating a solely pineapple based diet, it is baloney. Why? Because very few food crops are CAM pathway plants. Most of the plants that people eat every day come from C3 and C4 plants.
Leaving aside that this is a global trend not limited to Antarctica, why is that a bad thing?
Why is it bad that the largest ice shield on the planet, that reflects massive amounts of incoming radiation (aka albedo) is no longer doing so because it is growing plant cover?
OK, I'll play. What places have YOU decided aren't meant to be green? Greenland, perhaps?
The earth has been regulating/balancing CO2 in the atmosphere for millions of years-by the amount of plant growth. Growing plants absorb/consume CO2, sequestering it in their cellular structures. Increased atmospheric CO2 leads directly to more plant growth, which in turn lowers the CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
Plants have very little to do with long term carbon storage and certainly don't "sequester" carbon. Hell, you can see the carbon "exhale" every season when the deciduous trees drop their leaves which then decompose and release all of that carbon back to the atmosphere. Not on climactic time scales. In order to get true sequestration you need include the geosphere.
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.
