Tommy Cheech And Chong’s Space...
History0 min ago
Carbon Dioxide "Crisis" ?
The main effect of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is to stimulate plant growth, this is known as the 'fertilisation effect'. Research & careful studies have shown that this effect is indeed making the planet greener thanks to the increased CO2, & yet we are told that we need to prevent any further increase in order to become 'green' & prevent the planet from becoming marginally warmer.
Are we really at what Johnson calls, 'one minute to midnight on the doomsday clock' & would he be not better sticking to reading Homer than dishing out pseudo-science?
Are we really at what Johnson calls, 'one minute to midnight on the doomsday clock' & would he be not better sticking to reading Homer than dishing out pseudo-science?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
bobinwales. It is true that a secondary effect of increased carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere is to warm the planet slightly. Is this though a bad thing, with many more people dying from diseases related to cold than from heat?
I read : ' According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, (an offshoot on the U.N.) the Earth is warming of at most, one sixth of a degree per decade, a barely perceptible amount'.
I read : ' According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, (an offshoot on the U.N.) the Earth is warming of at most, one sixth of a degree per decade, a barely perceptible amount'.
You are describing the Greenhouse effect.
Here is an explanation for 9 year olds which you might just understand.
https:/
Here is an explanation for 9 year olds which you might just understand.
https:/
Firstly, the fertilisation effect is clearly a thing, so in that at least there is a discussion here. However:
1. The Fertilisation effect (FE) is insufficient to compensate for increased human CO2 emissions, although it may have served to slow the rate of growth somewhat: https:/
2. Large-scale deforestation obviously acts against the FE, further reducing any potential benefits: https:/
3. Increasing CO2 levels can have a deleterious effect on concentration of other minerals in plants, which impacts human nutrition: https:/
4. Whilst the average rate of increase in temperature is indeed "only" 1/6 of a degree per decade, or thereabouts, this rate is also increasing: https:/
5. It is often said that the target is to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees, which has to be understood as being compared to pre-industrial temperatures. In that context, we have already reached a change of about +1 degree. With no change in policy towards climate, we are likely to reach a further degree of warming, with various unpleasant impacts as described in, e.g, https:/
6. It's also important to understand that any "doomsday" predictions, at least when made by experts rather than by politicians, refer to a point beyond which long-term changes are essentially "frozen in" to the system. If, for example, we reached carbon neutral tomorrow (ie, no further increase in CO2 levels), then many of the impacts of Climate Change, such as sea level rise, etc, would still continue for some decades before stabilising.
7. Likewise, many of the effects will operate on (relative to politicians and humans) fairly slow timescales. Current projections for Sea Level Rise, for example, are in the region of half a metre by 2100 (+/- 25cm), which is presumably a much slower rate than many people might imagine. This is, however, beside the point. If, say, the Maldives becomes uninhabitable in 100 years, as opposed to next week, that still matters and there's still the potential to do something about it.
1. The Fertilisation effect (FE) is insufficient to compensate for increased human CO2 emissions, although it may have served to slow the rate of growth somewhat: https:/
2. Large-scale deforestation obviously acts against the FE, further reducing any potential benefits: https:/
3. Increasing CO2 levels can have a deleterious effect on concentration of other minerals in plants, which impacts human nutrition: https:/
4. Whilst the average rate of increase in temperature is indeed "only" 1/6 of a degree per decade, or thereabouts, this rate is also increasing: https:/
5. It is often said that the target is to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees, which has to be understood as being compared to pre-industrial temperatures. In that context, we have already reached a change of about +1 degree. With no change in policy towards climate, we are likely to reach a further degree of warming, with various unpleasant impacts as described in, e.g, https:/
6. It's also important to understand that any "doomsday" predictions, at least when made by experts rather than by politicians, refer to a point beyond which long-term changes are essentially "frozen in" to the system. If, for example, we reached carbon neutral tomorrow (ie, no further increase in CO2 levels), then many of the impacts of Climate Change, such as sea level rise, etc, would still continue for some decades before stabilising.
7. Likewise, many of the effects will operate on (relative to politicians and humans) fairly slow timescales. Current projections for Sea Level Rise, for example, are in the region of half a metre by 2100 (+/- 25cm), which is presumably a much slower rate than many people might imagine. This is, however, beside the point. If, say, the Maldives becomes uninhabitable in 100 years, as opposed to next week, that still matters and there's still the potential to do something about it.
The conclusion, therefore, is that the tone of this post is hilariously ill-informed. The long-term impacts of Climate Change are difficult to understand, and I'm sure that if you looked hard enough you would find some local "benefits" in a certain sense. The net effect, however, is negative by any sensible measure.
Then you weren't reading it properly:
"This slowdown [due to the FE] can’t keep pace with emissions, so the overall amount of human-caused CO2 in the atmosphere increased, just not as quickly... Unfortunately, this increase is nowhere near enough to stop climate change."
This is in accordance with the point I was making. In short, the FE is no doubt an important effect, but it is far from the most significant, and certainly not significant enough to counteract the damage humans are doing to the Climate and the environment in general.
"This slowdown [due to the FE] can’t keep pace with emissions, so the overall amount of human-caused CO2 in the atmosphere increased, just not as quickly... Unfortunately, this increase is nowhere near enough to stop climate change."
This is in accordance with the point I was making. In short, the FE is no doubt an important effect, but it is far from the most significant, and certainly not significant enough to counteract the damage humans are doing to the Climate and the environment in general.
In fact, it's a direct quote from the first link. Copied-and-pasted.
I should correct my second link, though. For whatever reason it's broken: please see https:/
I should correct my second link, though. For whatever reason it's broken: please see https:/
It's the "opinion" of the author whose work you seem to think is favourable for your own position. Since his opinion is literally the exact opposite of what you seem to be claiming, I'd suggest revising your own stance before criticising anybody else's.
There is, as I say, no evidence that the FE is capable of compensating for human-induced Climate Change; at the very least, not in the long-term.
There is, as I say, no evidence that the FE is capable of compensating for human-induced Climate Change; at the very least, not in the long-term.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.