Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The Green New Deal Is a Dead Man's HandIs it possible that the call for decreasing CO2 is for the purpose of crop reduction =famine = depopulation.
The Green New Deal Is a Dead Man's Hand
Now will people finally connect that with all the evidence that auto-emission
"pollution" has wiped out all deadly viruses since it wiped out the Spanish Influenza.
The Unabomber Cult's lethal lockdown
cost the world six million lives.
Only mentally ill Warmist/alarmists thinks CO2 is a satanic gas which is why they go into panic mode when the planets biota loves the increase of it in the atmosphere:
NASA
Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds
From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.
An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.
LINK
=====
I doubt warmists ever saw this one,
NASA
Greening of the Earth Mitigates Surface Warming
A new study reports that increased vegetation growth during the recent decades, known as the “Greening Earth”, has a strong cooling effect on the land due to increased efficiency of heat and water vapor transfer to the atmosphere.
A new study published in the journal Science Advances titled “Biophysical impacts of Earth greening largely controlled by aerodynamic resistance” reports that the entire land surface would have been much warmer without the cooling effect of increased green cover during the recent decades. The study used high-quality satellite data from NASA’s MODIS sensors and NCAR’s state-of-the-art numerical earth system model.
LINK
yaleclimateconnections.org
Couple points here about added CO2 as a "fertilizer" for plants.
Yes, added CO2 ceteris paribus would be a good fertilizer for plants. BUT added CO2 will (and already is) affect the climate. Meaning that a local climate may become DRIER overall due to changing precipitation patterns. Or it may become WETTER. Not all plants thrive under drier or wetter conditions uniformly. Just ask any gardner.
The myth of added CO2 being a net benefit is a gross oversimplification and requires that literally nothing else change. Unfortunately that isn't how any of this works.
You don't have to believe me. You can read this:
More CO2 in the atmosphere hurts key plants and crops more than it helps » Yale Climate Connections
The familiar adage - too much of a good thing is a bad thing - applies to atmospheric carbon dioxide: In higher concentrations, it is a damaging pollutant.
The sound of settled science.
Who woulda thunk more plant food means more plants and more warm means longer growing seasons.
Further proof the climate fascists want us dead.
Envirowhackos can’t keep their bullshit straight.Couple points here about added CO2 as a "fertilizer" for plants.
Yes, added CO2 ceteris paribus would be a good fertilizer for plants. BUT added CO2 will (and already is) affect the climate. Meaning that a local climate may become DRIER overall due to changing precipitation patterns. Or it may become WETTER. Not all plants thrive under drier or wetter conditions uniformly. Just ask any gardner.
The myth of added CO2 being a net benefit is a gross oversimplification and requires that literally nothing else change. Unfortunately that isn't how any of this works.
You don't have to believe me. You can read this:
More CO2 in the atmosphere hurts key plants and crops more than it helps » Yale Climate Connections
The familiar adage - too much of a good thing is a bad thing - applies to atmospheric carbon dioxide: In higher concentrations, it is a damaging pollutant.
www.hsph.harvard.edu
How about you explain to us why you think PV's link isn't sound science.Not news.
It has been (relatively) common knowledge that grasslands are better CO2 sinks than forests.....As an added benefit, thriving grasslands can feed all the people on the planet.
But environmental wack-o-ism and warmerism are about misanthropy and nihilism, not sound science.
which is irrelevant since"Couple points here about added CO2 as a "fertilizer" for plants.
Yes, added CO2 ceteris paribus would be a good fertilizer for plants. BUT added CO2 will (and already is) affect the climate. Meaning that a local climate may become DRIER overall due to changing precipitation patterns. Or it may become WETTER. Not all plants thrive under drier or wetter conditions uniformly. Just ask any gardner.
The myth of added CO2 being a net benefit is a gross oversimplification and requires that literally nothing else change. Unfortunately that isn't how any of this works.
You don't have to believe me. You can read this:
More CO2 in the atmosphere hurts key plants and crops more than it helps » Yale Climate Connections
The familiar adage - too much of a good thing is a bad thing - applies to atmospheric carbon dioxide: In higher concentrations, it is a damaging pollutant.
which is irrelevant since"
Bushels per acre are going up
Tons per acre are going up
And sacks per acre on going up
The 2 bit gardener that you mention does little to feed the world
Envirowhackos can’t keep their bullshit straight.
Your pseudo scientific hoax has already been debunked eight ways from Sunday....Go play in traffic.How about you explain to us why you think PV's link isn't sound science.
Simply pointing out how the Envirowhackos simultaneously predict doom from life ending while predicting increased life creating too much plant growth.I'd ask what specifically was wrong with my post but I know you can't answer.
"The scientists" haven't been right about anything in over three decades.Just gonna toss off what the scientists say? OK. Fair enough.
At least I have a position that is grounded in reality.
