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.
Everything I have read indicates deserts are expanding due to lack of water and warmer climate. I assume that you are indicating some desert is getting greener, my question is where?
You better have a more substantive excuse for robbing people than "everything I've read indicates..."
Beyond the deserts expanding there is the impact on farming due to warmer temperatures so yes there is an impact and it will end up robbing people of money.
Nothing to do with deserts but interesting article on the melting permafrost in Russia uncovering fossils.
Quote:
YAKUTSK, Russia — The lab assistant reached into the freezer and lifted out a football-size object in a tattered plastic grocery bag, unwrapping its muddy covering and placing it on a wooden table. It was the severed head of a wolf.
The animal, with bared teeth and mottled fur, appeared ready to lunge. But it had been glowering for some 32,000 years — preserved in the permafrost, 65 feet underground in Yakutia in northeastern Siberia.
As the Arctic, including much of Siberia, warms at least twice as fast as the rest of the world, the permafrost — permanently frozen ground — is thawing. Oddities like the wolf’s head have been emerging more frequently in a land already known for spitting out frozen woolly mammoths whole.
Everything I have read indicates deserts are expanding due to lack of water and warmer climate. I assume that you are indicating some desert is getting greener, my question is where?
So says some experts on cigarettes and cancer and those who use Anthony Watt as a source for science.
Never stated they were not greening, just questioned the point since deserts are expanding and as an expert like you might be aware they isn't much in the way of foliage.
Yes, I pointed that out. I don't understand how you missed it, it's literally the subject of my first two sentences, but oh well.
When it gets too hot, about 100F or so, the plant stops caring how much CO2 is in the atmosphere. Instead, it starts to care how much water it is losing by transpiration, so it closes its stomata to conserve water. That also means it ceases to absorb CO2, since the stomata are where gas exchange occurs. Also, when it gets that hot, the enzymes needed for photosynthesis denature. For both these reasons, when it gets that hot, photosynthesis ceases.
I guess we're just a little confused since you veered off course with the 100 degree temperatures that aren't really connected to anything we are discussing.
If the local plants are seeing temperature in excess of 100 degrees, they are likely in a part of the world where such temperatures are nothing new.
CO2, by itself, doesn't appear to be increasing surface temperatures significantly, so the issue is increased CO2, full stop.
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.
There are literal climate refugees right now. Yes, the big three should be establishing monies to offset the cost of relocating them considering we are the ones disproportionately benefiting from 100 years of fossil fuel use, while the entire world shares the cost. Literally tragedy of the commons on a global scale.
The notion that renewable energy is inherently some sort of luxury item is nonsense. Renewable energy like solar is inherently suited to the tropics where developing countries are disproportionately located, additionally much of the cost of renewable is change to predicting infrastructure, a cost developing countries won’t face. For example building biogenerators into their waste infrastructure from the origin is much more cost effective than almost any other method. Indeed Brazil has the best ethanol and market and it is integrated into their sugar cane production.
So I get that there is a tendency to tell a lie so long you feel like it is truth, but in this case it is particularly wrong.
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.
