What puts more CO2 into the atmosphere cars or forest fires?

"Since our record-keeping began in 1895, the country’s average temperature has climbed somewhere between 1.3 and 1.9 degrees Fahrenheit."

O.M.G. One hundredth of a degree F PER YEAR! We're all gonna die.
The annual range of temperatures over all 50 states is around 100 degrees.
One degree is TRIVIAL! ! ! ! !

`NASA Scale of Human experience.jpg


While the cultists eat insects and glue their hands to highways to interfere with everyone else's lives, China is building two coal-fired electric generating plants a week. Twenty-five percent of humanity lives in SLUMS and couldn't care less about your carbon dioxide panic.

6 Khayelitsha, South Africa.jpg

-------------------------------------------
 
Last edited:
Crick is a member of the climate change cult who is so proud of flying to Paris that he features a picture of himself at the Louvre. His trip required enormous amounts of crude oil for airplanes and taxis but now he proselytizes against the world's most crucial and important source of energy for our very existence. View attachment 970454
That was my 25th wedding anniversary. I don't get too many of those. My sister lived in Chartre. We stayed with her and rented a car, though most of our travel, particularly in Paris, was via subway and train. You'd have to be nuts to try to use a car in Paris. I haven't been back. But I'm pretty sure the plane would have flown without me.
 
weather-map-tv-news-red-scary.jpg


Here is how the complicit left-leaning media lies to everyone.

UNPRECEDENTED HEAT DOME.png


It was much hotte in 1988 on the right, but Leftist media calls current cooler temperatures "unprecedented climate change fueled heat dome." Here's a Lefty now on his phone:

I'd like to report.PNG

_______________________________
 
The greening stopped in the 1990's. More CO2 isn't helping at all. It's making things worse.

Your propaganda is very badly outdated. That's deliberate on the part of your masters, who rely on keeping you ignorant.

You made this nonsense claim at another forum that I corrected you doing it again here then showed why the Report from NASA doesn't agree with you, here it is again from NASA,


Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds​



April 26, 2016


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


=================

You said the greening stopped in the 1990's NASA says it was having significant greening affect over the last 35 years from 2016 which means back to at least 1981.

Thus, you are profoundly wrong.... as usual.

You ever going to learn kid?
 
So this microscopic gas that you say basically doesn't exist is somehow greening the planet. Sure.
Plants don't need tons of it per plant. Correction: Doesn't harm, but yes is microscopic.


Looking at remote sensing data from NASA’s satellites, we’ve discovered that over the last two decades, the Earth has increased its green leaf area by a total of 5 percent, which is roughly five and a half million square kilometers—an increase equivalent to the size of the entire Amazon rain forest. The two countries that have been most responsible for the global greening came as a surprise to us. We found that China and India—the world’s first and second most populous and still-developing countries—are leading the world in greening due to widespread crop farming.
 
Gawad you are stupid
Ah, the belligerent stupidity of a Dunning-Kruger afflictee, someone not smart enough to understand they're not smart. You really should stick to your SafeSpace website, where nobody is allowed to laugh at pseudoscience, and where you're a big fish in a little pond.

Now, concerning what has you failing so hard at simple math, here's more about it.




CO2 was just one bottleneck to plant growth. Remove it, and other bottlenecks then limit plant growth. And they can be even more restrictive. More heat means drier soil, more insect pests, more diseases.
 
Ah, the belligerent stupidity of a Dunning-Kruger afflictee, someone not smart enough to understand they're not smart. You really should stick to your SafeSpace website, where nobody is allowed to laugh at pseudoscience, and where you're a big fish in a little pond.

Now, concerning what has you failing so hard at simple math, here's more about it.




CO2 was just one bottleneck to plant growth. Remove it, and other bottlenecks then limit plant growth. And they can be even more restrictive. More heat means drier soil, more insect pests, more diseases.
2000 - 2018

Scientists previously established that the world is greener than it was in the early 1980s. Updated maps show that the trend has continued, and researchers say reduced global warming is among the consequences.

The map above shows where greenness increased (green) and decreased (brown) across the planet between 2000 and 2018. Specifically, it shows the trend in the “leaf area index”—the amount of leaf area relative to ground area—during the growing season. The index is computed using data from the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) on NASA’s Terra and Aqua satellites. White areas are where the land is barren, built upon, or covered with ice, wetlands, or water.

Note that the map does not show overall greenness, which is why it does not exactly match heavily forested areas like the Amazon or the Congo Basin. Instead, the map shows how greenness has changed —a phenomenon most obvious in places like China and India where agriculture has intensified and governments have made efforts to conserve and expand forests.

There is a clear greening trend in boreal and Arctic regions, a result of rising temperatures.
 
Ah, the belligerent stupidity of a Dunning-Kruger afflictee, someone not smart enough to understand they're not smart. You really should stick to your SafeSpace website, where nobody is allowed to laugh at pseudoscience, and where you're a big fish in a little pond.

Now, concerning what has you failing so hard at simple math, here's more about it.




CO2 was just one bottleneck to plant growth. Remove it, and other bottlenecks then limit plant growth. And they can be even more restrictive. More heat means drier soil, more insect pests, more diseases.


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!


It is manifestly clear you didn't read the paper which composed of mostly models... and you didn't address the NASA paper at all thus remains unchallenged.


Atmospheric vapor pressure deficit (VPD) is a critical variable in determining plant photosynthesis.


This is made up misleading narrative since there is no actual evidence of greening slowdown as NASA made clear in their report which you continue to ignore as they show a greening process continuing up to 2016 while YOU and that Modeling construct paper says it stopped in the late 1990's.


The paper shares the same bogus effort as the Fraud Sherwood paper pretending, he found the hot spot.


NASA showed that the expansion was still continuing in 2016 while you and that dumb paper claims it stopped even decreasing in the he he .... ha ha. 1990's

It is all a great big LIE!
 
Last edited:
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!


It is manifestly clear you didn't read the paper which composed of mostly models... and you didn't address the NASA paper at all thus remains unchallenged.





This is made up misleading narrative since there is no actual evidence of greening slowdown as NASA made clear in their report which you continue to ignore as they show a greening process continuing up to 2016 while YOU and that Modeling construct paper says it stopped in the late 1990's.


The paper shares the same bogus effort as the Fraud Sherwood paper pretending, he found the hot spot.


NASA showed that the expansion was still continuing in 2016 while you and that dumb paper claims it stopped in the he he .... ha ha. 1990's
Have you ever heard that a pair of cats are smart?
 
The following are based on Satellite DATA.

Piling it on from Nature


Vegetation greenness in 2023​


Global greening continued into 2023, reaching near-record values that were dominated by regional enhancement in the mid-western USA, Europe, northern Australia and parts of equatorial Africa. In contrast, climatic events contributed to browning signals in Russia, Canada, Mexico and tropical drylands.

LINK


From Elsevier


The global greening continues despite increased drought stress since 2000​


Highlights​



  • The global greening is an indisputable fact.

  • The rate of global greening increased slightly.

  • The drought has only slowed the global greening, but not caused the global browning.


LINK


From Nature,


Global climate-change trends detected in indicators of ocean ecology​


LINK

There is plenty more out there and the Grains crop yields and total amount are still increasing.
 
2000 - 2018

Scientists previously established that the world is greener than it was in the early 1980s. Updated maps show that the trend has continued, and researchers say reduced global warming is among the consequences.

The map above shows where greenness increased (green) and decreased (brown) across the planet between 2000 and 2018. Specifically, it shows the trend in the “leaf area index”—the amount of leaf area relative to ground area—during the growing season. The index is computed using data from the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) on NASA’s Terra and Aqua satellites. White areas are where the land is barren, built upon, or covered with ice, wetlands, or water.

Note that the map does not show overall greenness, which is why it does not exactly match heavily forested areas like the Amazon or the Congo Basin. Instead, the map shows how greenness has changed —a phenomenon most obvious in places like China and India where agriculture has intensified and governments have made efforts to conserve and expand forests.

There is a clear greening trend in boreal and Arctic regions, a result of rising temperatures.

It goes on to state that the greening process will continue for many decades into the future shown from your link:

1720121623939.webp



The paper’s authors reviewed more than 250 published articles that have used satellite data, modeling, and field observations, to understand the causes and consequences of global greening. Among the key results, the authors noted that on a global scale greening can be attributed to the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Rising levels of carbon dioxide increase the rate of photosynthesis and growth in plants.
 
It goes on to state that the greening process will continue for many decades into the future shown from your link:
No, that's the opposite of what it says.

---
The beneficial impacts of carbon dioxide on plants may also be limited, said co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais, associate director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suv-Yvette, France. “Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time.”
---
And that's EXACTLY WHAT FREAKING HAPPENED. I was right on all counts.

I know why you make stuff up. Cultists don't react well when their religious dogma is shown to be false. It hurts their little cult brains, so they have to come up with deranged reasons as to why reality is really the opposite of what the facts show.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

It is manifestly clear you didn't read the paper which composed of mostly models... and you didn't address the NASA paper

The NASA paper agrees with me, which is why you had to use your fake math. You're so goddamned stupid, you can't even calculate years and dates.

And no, my various papers weren't models. They were about measured data, which is why you're triggered so hard. And there's no shortage of more papers. I could make a long list, but what's the point, given that you'll just make crazy stuff up again? Cranks will be cranks. Nobody cares about you. That's why you have to hide in a SafeSpace.

I've shown you three papers so far. Here's another, by NASA (who you declare is perfect and wonderful), which points out that the perceived greening wasn't from CO2, it was from India and China changing land use policies. Oops.


We look forward to further unibomber rants from you. Make sure you include tearful cries that nobody has paid any attention to your unibomber rants, which proves you win. That will surely make people stop laughing at you.
 
The following are based on Satellite DATA.

Piling it on from Nature


Vegetation greenness in 2023​


Global greening continued into 2023, reaching near-record values that were dominated by regional enhancement in the mid-western USA, Europe, northern Australia and parts of equatorial Africa. In contrast, climatic events contributed to browning signals in Russia, Canada, Mexico and tropical drylands.

LINK


From Elsevier


The global greening continues despite increased drought stress since 2000​


Highlights​



  • The global greening is an indisputable fact.

  • The rate of global greening increased slightly.

  • The drought has only slowed the global greening, but not caused the global browning.


LINK


From Nature,


Global climate-change trends detected in indicators of ocean ecology​


LINK

There is plenty more out there and the Grains crop yields and total amount are still increasing.
Yay, FACTS in fact do not harm humans, FACTS will calm Humans. Let the alarmists spin this.
 
I'm not even talking to you, and you're still weeping these anguished tears of loser-butthurt.

Nobody forces you to pout-stalk me. You just get off on being butthurt.
I mentioned cats. Are you a cat?
 
The 2017 picture used no colors at all. Do you by chance have the soundtracks?
The colors are there. Bright red. And it lies. Cooler is not red.
 
The colors are there. Bright red. And it lies. Cooler is not red.
The picture with the red was 2024. The 2017 picture was simply topographic green. It used no added colors at all. There is nothing unusual about using the spectrum to indicate relative temperatures. Is using blue for cooler temps alarmist? How about green for rain? Is that too scary? Deep blue for freezing temps? How about those pointy little arrows for wind? Isn't that actually threatening?

This color crap is just idiotic bullshit. If you numbskullls don't have a better argument to make than this, I don't have the faintest clue why you haven't just given up.
 
Back
Top Bottom