Plants use the same pores to breathe CO2 and release water vapor. With denser CO2, their pores can be smaller, they retain water better, and need less watering.
Just got to love those who like to research things before giving into the media and contrived popular opinion. 13 or so years ago I was in a heated (no pun intended) discussion with coworkers about climate change. It seemed everyone had bought into man made global warming due to Al Gore’s film, and the media photos of the mother polar bear and cub floating away on a chip of the melting artic ice cap. After a few questions, i found out few people could even tell you that the majority of the earth’s atmosphere was nitrogen, and were unaware of which gases actually held heat, and did not know the amount of CO2. After informing them that water vapor was at least 25X and varies up to 75X the amount of CO2, and that virtually all periods of warming could be associated with solar activity and its effects on water vapor, I could tell some people began to wake up a bit. I then informed them that Time magazine in the late 70’s was preaching the next coming of the ice age. The magazine was concerned about global cooling and was blaming it on pollution. I simply asked, Do you think we are being played?
Over the last 250 million years, CO2 averaged 1000 to 1200ppm and the climate was beneficial to plants and animals thriving. We are at 410ppm. We need more CO2 not less.
Oxygen was at 40% too decades ago, now it's around 30%. Increase CO2, increasing plant growth and you increase Oxygen levels. Environmentalist want to kill plants to kill people, part of the depopulation agenda.
I would argue that concentrated constructions in big cities do change the local weather by deflecting wind and absorbing and holding sun heat. Whether those effects can change climate over the world is another story. I don't know what efforts have ever been made to observe or predict on a long range. This has nothing to do with carbon dioxide. It does have something to do with petrochemicals as ultimately they are involved in the building and maintainance of mega cities, but again, not as simple as just the hydrocarbons in the air.
Yeah, they're called heat islands, large masses of concrete with absorb a lot of heat. They don't affect larger climate to any appreciable extent, but if your measurement devices are all in the heat islands, i.e. cities/airports, then your data is going to skew higher.
Then, combine that with the fact that temp reading from more remote places (cooler) are gradually getting excluded from the data, further driving the average up. And, that's all before they "adjust" the data.
They do affect wind and rainfall, and they do tend to merge into long heat islands. I think over time it exerts an effect. So do big hydraulic projects like using the Aral Sea for irrigation. That had a very long term effect.
I grew up in LA. In the 50's when I was little, it would rain once or maybe twice each summer. By the 70's, that stopped. But the pollution was enough to make tears run down my cheeks. After they controlled it, the stinging eyes stopped.
I think that was about the first time I saw LA, when flying from Phoenix to Portland. This yellow smoke was spilling over the mountains, in tendrils like some horror movie, then coalescing to a solid smoke. Here we are flying in to switch planes and visibility is almost nil. And in 1969 the Cuyahoga River caught fire, not for the first time. People forget that there was a real need for pollution control.
The possibility of Stacey Abrams changing location and shifting the earth's axis is a far greater danger. And if Chris Christie and Michael Moore moved around too...OMG. I am literally trembling.
There is a fatal flaw in the whole run away climate change argument, it's mathematical in nature and so any person who actually studies this stuff will concede it, they just then invent epicycles and "models" which constantly have to change because they always fail to predict anything and so the goal posts have to move. Most others have no idea about this mathematical fact, have never heard it, or are even incapable of understanding what it means because many people are barely numerate.
The flaw in this whole thing, the fact that makes this whole thing nonsense is that while there is a relationship between CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and global mean temperature rise, that relationship is not exponential, it's not even linear, it's logarithmic, i.e. sub-linear. This means that the more CO2 we emit into the atmosphere the less impact each additional unit of CO2 has. The more CO2 that is emitted the more the temperature converges on a stable plateau, all other things being equal.
If you think about it, this has to be the case. Imagine a balloon which had air in it the same composition as the atmosphere, which you had laying in out in the sun, and then you slowly began adding pure CO2. If, as many believe, the relationship were not sub-linear, what would happen would be that the temperature increases would scale with the amount of CO2 you added, all you'd have to do is add a bit more CO2 and you'd have a thermal capacitor, a heat battery. If this were possible we'd be able to solve the world's energy needs by letting the sun cause balloons of CO2 to enter thermal runaway which we could then use to power turbines. This of course does not happen. Increased CO2 will trap a relatively small bit of heat, the more you added the less would be trapped, until finally you wouldn't see any more heat being trapped and the system would be stable. The same is true for the atmosphere, the effect of CO2 is diminishing on this heat trapping capacity, and we'd have to continually double the number of cars, airplanes, ships, power plants, factories, etc. simply to maintain a linear temperature increase. We have no hope of doing that, especially given our very low global GDP growth.
Sometimes I think the reason that a lot of Leftists buy into the CO2/Global Warming/Climate Change bullshit is because chirping about it constantly in the most self-righteous manner possible gives them cover to do absolutely nothing about actual environmental issues.
Whether it's a Leftist politician or one of their brain dead constituents, you'll never heard them talk about cleaning up the pacific garbage patch or figuring out healthier ways to farm fish or getting the weird chemicals out of our drinking water.
That's the problem with Leftists though, they're not just stupid, they're lazy too.
Most solutions folks like us come up with involve a shovel, or a paint brush, etc. Most solutions these retards come up with involve an awareness background for their Facebook account photo.
Most humans are self centered so naturally any bad thing that happens in the environment we instinctively go "omg is this because of ME is this MY FAULT?!?! I PROMISE I WILL USE LESS TOILET PAPER NEXT TIME PLEASE PUNISH MEEEE"
They ignore plastic and micro-plastics, synthetic estrogen and estrogen disrupters, and PFAS/PFOAS fucking up the environment... Because it is intentional, and carbon is the distraction.
Stop worrying about climate, and start thinking and writing your congressmen about the comets and earth passing asteroids ---remember CHELYABINSK METEOR!!?
That was a wake up call for man-kind-including all the folks worried about climate!
we are sitting ducks in a cosmic shooting gallery!
I am now convinced [they] want to minimize the CO2 in our atmosphere in order to halt or severely minimize our ability to produce properly nutritious foods.
After all, "you vill eat ze bugs, and you will like it."
Counter the Co2. Plant more trees.
Plants use the same pores to breathe CO2 and release water vapor. With denser CO2, their pores can be smaller, they retain water better, and need less watering.
The Satanic Cabal inverts everything.
That's why the Green Revolution will end up destroying huge swaths of plant life all over the planet.
They are engaging in widespread arson and jungle habitat destruction while they take away our food sources.
THEY ARE INSANE
They are Evil!
Just got to love those who like to research things before giving into the media and contrived popular opinion. 13 or so years ago I was in a heated (no pun intended) discussion with coworkers about climate change. It seemed everyone had bought into man made global warming due to Al Gore’s film, and the media photos of the mother polar bear and cub floating away on a chip of the melting artic ice cap. After a few questions, i found out few people could even tell you that the majority of the earth’s atmosphere was nitrogen, and were unaware of which gases actually held heat, and did not know the amount of CO2. After informing them that water vapor was at least 25X and varies up to 75X the amount of CO2, and that virtually all periods of warming could be associated with solar activity and its effects on water vapor, I could tell some people began to wake up a bit. I then informed them that Time magazine in the late 70’s was preaching the next coming of the ice age. The magazine was concerned about global cooling and was blaming it on pollution. I simply asked, Do you think we are being played?
You gotta love researchers. This is a good site.
Own your puns...you know you meant it
Over the last 250 million years, CO2 averaged 1000 to 1200ppm and the climate was beneficial to plants and animals thriving. We are at 410ppm. We need more CO2 not less.
Oxygen was at 40% too decades ago, now it's around 30%. Increase CO2, increasing plant growth and you increase Oxygen levels. Environmentalist want to kill plants to kill people, part of the depopulation agenda.
I would argue that concentrated constructions in big cities do change the local weather by deflecting wind and absorbing and holding sun heat. Whether those effects can change climate over the world is another story. I don't know what efforts have ever been made to observe or predict on a long range. This has nothing to do with carbon dioxide. It does have something to do with petrochemicals as ultimately they are involved in the building and maintainance of mega cities, but again, not as simple as just the hydrocarbons in the air.
Yeah, they're called heat islands, large masses of concrete with absorb a lot of heat. They don't affect larger climate to any appreciable extent, but if your measurement devices are all in the heat islands, i.e. cities/airports, then your data is going to skew higher.
Then, combine that with the fact that temp reading from more remote places (cooler) are gradually getting excluded from the data, further driving the average up. And, that's all before they "adjust" the data.
But but but... If they didn't "adjust" the data, government funding would dry up.
They do affect wind and rainfall, and they do tend to merge into long heat islands. I think over time it exerts an effect. So do big hydraulic projects like using the Aral Sea for irrigation. That had a very long term effect.
I grew up in LA. In the 50's when I was little, it would rain once or maybe twice each summer. By the 70's, that stopped. But the pollution was enough to make tears run down my cheeks. After they controlled it, the stinging eyes stopped.
I think that was about the first time I saw LA, when flying from Phoenix to Portland. This yellow smoke was spilling over the mountains, in tendrils like some horror movie, then coalescing to a solid smoke. Here we are flying in to switch planes and visibility is almost nil. And in 1969 the Cuyahoga River caught fire, not for the first time. People forget that there was a real need for pollution control.
The possibility of Stacey Abrams changing location and shifting the earth's axis is a far greater danger. And if Chris Christie and Michael Moore moved around too...OMG. I am literally trembling.
Lizzo enters the chat, turkey drumstick in hand
Indeed. We are told the sun is 333,000 more massive than earth, yet environmental cultists never give it any credit.
Exactly. It's like saying one of Saturn's moons affects our climate
There is a fatal flaw in the whole run away climate change argument, it's mathematical in nature and so any person who actually studies this stuff will concede it, they just then invent epicycles and "models" which constantly have to change because they always fail to predict anything and so the goal posts have to move. Most others have no idea about this mathematical fact, have never heard it, or are even incapable of understanding what it means because many people are barely numerate.
The flaw in this whole thing, the fact that makes this whole thing nonsense is that while there is a relationship between CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and global mean temperature rise, that relationship is not exponential, it's not even linear, it's logarithmic, i.e. sub-linear. This means that the more CO2 we emit into the atmosphere the less impact each additional unit of CO2 has. The more CO2 that is emitted the more the temperature converges on a stable plateau, all other things being equal.
If you think about it, this has to be the case. Imagine a balloon which had air in it the same composition as the atmosphere, which you had laying in out in the sun, and then you slowly began adding pure CO2. If, as many believe, the relationship were not sub-linear, what would happen would be that the temperature increases would scale with the amount of CO2 you added, all you'd have to do is add a bit more CO2 and you'd have a thermal capacitor, a heat battery. If this were possible we'd be able to solve the world's energy needs by letting the sun cause balloons of CO2 to enter thermal runaway which we could then use to power turbines. This of course does not happen. Increased CO2 will trap a relatively small bit of heat, the more you added the less would be trapped, until finally you wouldn't see any more heat being trapped and the system would be stable. The same is true for the atmosphere, the effect of CO2 is diminishing on this heat trapping capacity, and we'd have to continually double the number of cars, airplanes, ships, power plants, factories, etc. simply to maintain a linear temperature increase. We have no hope of doing that, especially given our very low global GDP growth.
But, but, but….. cow farts
Sometimes I think the reason that a lot of Leftists buy into the CO2/Global Warming/Climate Change bullshit is because chirping about it constantly in the most self-righteous manner possible gives them cover to do absolutely nothing about actual environmental issues.
Whether it's a Leftist politician or one of their brain dead constituents, you'll never heard them talk about cleaning up the pacific garbage patch or figuring out healthier ways to farm fish or getting the weird chemicals out of our drinking water.
That's the problem with Leftists though, they're not just stupid, they're lazy too.
Most solutions folks like us come up with involve a shovel, or a paint brush, etc. Most solutions these retards come up with involve an awareness background for their Facebook account photo.
Spot on, MH.
Virtue signaling is free.
The biggest "greenhouse gas" is water vapor. Wonder what they're planning to do about THAT. Well, TAX us, of course. Not sure why I even wondered.
Most humans are self centered so naturally any bad thing that happens in the environment we instinctively go "omg is this because of ME is this MY FAULT?!?! I PROMISE I WILL USE LESS TOILET PAPER NEXT TIME PLEASE PUNISH MEEEE"
They ignore plastic and micro-plastics, synthetic estrogen and estrogen disrupters, and PFAS/PFOAS fucking up the environment... Because it is intentional, and carbon is the distraction.
I believe they are cloud seeding to create the illusion the climate is changing on top of the normal cycles of earth
They want another Ice Age. They want all plant life to die.
Mr. Bowe is 100% correct.
Stop worrying about climate, and start thinking and writing your congressmen about the comets and earth passing asteroids ---remember CHELYABINSK METEOR!!? That was a wake up call for man-kind-including all the folks worried about climate!
we are sitting ducks in a cosmic shooting gallery!
FYI the oceans act as a climate regulator of the received solar radiation.
I’ve been saying this for years. Not in so many terms, but yes!
I invite everyone to visit the great NY area ~50 miles away from shithole and you would be amazed how much CO2 is required!
But...but...but the Sierra Club says...
This guy is a good actor but I think he's been backlisted now for his views on Covid and other stuff.
Exactly
I am now convinced [they] want to minimize the CO2 in our atmosphere in order to halt or severely minimize our ability to produce properly nutritious foods.
After all, "you vill eat ze bugs, and you will like it."