The extra CO2 has hugely stimulated plant life everywhere including third world agriculture. I've been a skeptic of the "doomsday" view of climate change for a while now (used to be a tree hugger), but after reading this, I am officially done. The most hardcore proponents of environmentalism are a religious cult at this point.
This is 100% great news. wrote:
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36130346?SThisFBThe extra CO2 has hugely stimulated plant life everywhere including third world agriculture. I've been a skeptic of the "doomsday" view of climate change for a while now (used to be a tree hugger), but after reading this, I am officially done. The most hardcore proponents of environmentalism are a religious cult at this point.
Of course it's good news. But how does it refute climate change? It's not going to mitigate rising seas.
The Earth will balance whatever effects we have on it, even if it means ridding itself of say, 3 or 4 billion people. Overpopulation is the problem, not climate change. Western countries need to get less consumptive, but non-Western countries must get less reproductive.
High levels of CO2 are good for plants; deadly for humans and most life species. Human Race RIP.
CO2ed to death wrote:
High levels of CO2 are good for plants; deadly for humans and most life species. Human Race RIP.
No, CO2 is not harmful to humans. The atmosphere is 00.02% CO2, we will be fine.
U Asked For It wrote:
The Earth will balance whatever effects we have on it, even if it means ridding itself of say, 3 or 4 billion people. Overpopulation is the problem, not climate change. Western countries need to get less consumptive, but non-Western countries must get less reproductive.
Three sentences of Pure Truth.
Wrong. CO2 is deadly to humans.
Permian–Triassic extinction event
-- The extinction primarily affected organisms with calcium carbonate skeletons, especially those reliant on stable CO2 levels to produce their skeletons. These organisms were susceptible to the effects of the ocean acidification that resulted from increased atmospheric CO2.
Miners, who are particularly vulnerable to gas exposure, referred to mixtures of carbon dioxide and nitrogen as "blackdamp," "choke damp" or "stythe." Before more effective technologies were developed, miners would frequently monitor for dangerous levels of blackdamp and other gases in mine shafts by bringing a caged canary with them as they worked. The canary is more sensitive to asphyxiant gases than humans, and as it became unconscious would stop singing and fall off its perch.
CO2ed to death wrote:
Wrong. CO2 is deadly to humans..
You're still wrong. CO2 is not, nor will be anywhere near those levels in the near future. Maybe in 10 million years?
CO2ed to death wrote:
Wrong. CO2 is deadly to humans.
Permian–Triassic extinction event
-- The extinction primarily affected organisms with calcium carbonate skeletons, especially those reliant on stable CO2 levels to produce their skeletons. These organisms were susceptible to the effects of the ocean acidification that resulted from increased atmospheric CO2.
Miners, who are particularly vulnerable to gas exposure, referred to mixtures of carbon dioxide and nitrogen as "blackdamp," "choke damp" or "stythe." Before more effective technologies were developed, miners would frequently monitor for dangerous levels of blackdamp and other gases in mine shafts by bringing a caged canary with them as they worked. The canary is more sensitive to asphyxiant gases than humans, and as it became unconscious would stop singing and fall off its perch.
Everything is deadly if you have enough of it, even water and oxygen.
Currently CO2 is 00.02% of the atmosphere. If that doubles or triples or quadruples we will still be 100% fine.
It is probably worth mentioning that the authors of the research you are using to support your point of view disagree with you. Their conclusion was not: "so it's ALL good!"
"But the researchers say the fertilisation effect diminishes over time.
They warn the positives of CO2 are likely to be outweighed by the negatives.
The lead author, Prof Ranga Myneni from Boston University, told BBC News the extra tree growth would not compensate for global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers, ocean acidification, the loss of Arctic sea ice, and the prediction of more severe tropical storms."
Dora the Agoraphobiac wrote:
It is probably worth mentioning that the authors of the research you are using to support your point of view disagree with you. Their conclusion was not: "so it's ALL good!"
"But the researchers say the fertilisation effect diminishes over time.
They warn the positives of CO2 are likely to be outweighed by the negatives.
The lead author, Prof Ranga Myneni from Boston University, told BBC News the extra tree growth would not compensate for global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers, ocean acidification, the loss of Arctic sea ice, and the prediction of more severe tropical storms."
Well obviously they're forced to say that it MIGHT be bad. A lot of the warming stuff is actually good. Overall the situation is good.
Danny Noonan, Esq. wrote:
CO2ed to death wrote:Wrong. CO2 is deadly to humans..
You're still wrong. CO2 is not, nor will be anywhere near those levels in the near future. Maybe in 10 million years?
What does 10 million years, even 1 year, have to do with extinction of the human race. Because it is in future, that makes it okay?
we have a class system wrote:
Currently CO2 is 00.02% of the atmosphere. If that doubles or triples or quadruples we will still be 100% fine.
We as compared to the human race. Very short-term thinking on your part.
This is 100% great news. wrote:
Well obviously they're forced to say that it MIGHT be bad. A lot of the warming stuff is actually good. Overall the situation is good.
Yes, definitely. No bad news coming or already happening. Yay!
CO2ed to death wrote:
Danny Noonan, Esq. wrote:You're still wrong. CO2 is not, nor will be anywhere near those levels in the near future. Maybe in 10 million years?
What does 10 million years, even 1 year, have to do with extinction of the human race. Because it is in future, that makes it okay?
The extinction of the human race is not coming due to CO2. Not now, not ever.
CO2 is so scary wrote:
The extinction of the human race is not coming due to CO2. Not now, not ever.
Link to your claim?
;) wrote:
This is 100% great news. wrote:Well obviously they're forced to say that it MIGHT be bad. A lot of the warming stuff is actually good. Overall the situation is good.
Yes, definitely. No bad news coming or already happening. Yay!
I didn't say there's no bad news, but bad news is vastly outweighed by the good news and all the doomsday predictions have been wrong.
You will be dead and forgotten when doomsday comes. But, it will come.
less people = better world wrote:
U Asked For It wrote:The Earth will balance whatever effects we have on it, even if it means ridding itself of say, 3 or 4 billion people. Overpopulation is the problem, not climate change. Western countries need to get less consumptive, but non-Western countries must get less reproductive.
Three sentences of Pure Truth.
Agreed 100%. Until "environmentalist" face the elephant in the room I dismiss their "green living" elitism.
CO2ed to death wrote:
You will be dead and forgotten when doomsday comes. But, it will come.
And it will have nothing to do with too much CO2.