91–100 of 189 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fundamental problem is that humans are not plants. In 100 million years all the CO2 might become coal or oil again but humans won't be there to witness it.
No, not again. Coal came from plants in an era where microbes could not yet decompose plants.
From what I understand, the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide will have a massive greening effect on the Earth (plants love CO2). But it seems this fact is usually omitted so as not to complicate the intended message. I always found it ironic that the "eco" mode button in many cars is a leaf icon.
> plants love CO2 In artifical conditions in laboratory there is a significant effect, up to 20% when doubling pre-industrial CO2 concentration. But, in practice for wild plants nitrogen quickly becomes the bottleneck, so the real gains are much smaller. And even for farming plants (which have fertilizer providing additional nitrogen) the real gains diminish, and are more in 5-10% range. For some crops CO2 has very l…
So is the resolution high or moderate?
> It’s called the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer, or MODIS, and its high-resolution data provides very accurate information So is the resolution high or moderate?
From what I understand, the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide will have a massive greening effect on the Earth (plants love CO2). But it seems this fact is usually omitted so as not to complicate the intended message. I always found it ironic that the "eco" mode button in many cars is a leaf icon.
> plants love CO2 In artifical conditions in laboratory there is a significant effect, up to 20% when doubling pre-industrial CO2 concentration. But, in practice for wild plants nitrogen quickly becomes the bottleneck, so the real gains are much smaller. And even for farming plants (which have fertilizer providing additional nitrogen) the real gains diminish, and are more in 5-10% range. For some crops CO2 has very l…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> plants love CO2 In artifical conditions in laboratory there is a significant effect, up to 20% when doubling pre-industrial CO2 concentration. But, in practice for wild plants nitrogen quickly becomes the bottleneck, so the real gains are much smaller. And even for farming plants (which have fertilizer providing additional nitrogen) the real gains diminish, and are more in 5-10% range. For some crops CO2 has very l…
If the bottleneck changes from CO2 to Nitrogen, maybe plants will start adapting to get better at fixation, pushing that limit higher than the CO2 limit.
Thanks for the good newss, didn’t know about that. News tend to be biased towards the bad and the good is left it. Bookmarking that site
It's greener because the vegetation is capturing some of our massive CO2 emissions, but the planet (or the biosphere, more precisely) is increasingly suffering from the Anthropocene: the ocean is slowly being killed, the soil is getting ravaged, insects are disappearing, birds too, the biodiversity is collapsing, etc. A greener Earth is not a good sign. It's a swan song :'(
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t think being a fascist has anything to do with deforestation. There’s a history of fascists wanting to preserve the “motherland”. Even views such as ecofascism as portrayed in Linkola’s Can Life Prevail? I only care about ecologically minded governments and I don’t care about left or right. It’s the only important issue at this point.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's greener because the vegetation is capturing some of our massive CO2 emissions, but the planet (or the biosphere, more precisely) is increasingly suffering from the Anthropocene: the ocean is slowly being killed, the soil is getting ravaged, insects are disappearing, birds too, the biodiversity is collapsing, etc. A greener Earth is not a good sign. It's a swan song :'(
So when it has hotter previously in history it wasn't a good sign either? Not sure I understand why it's bad this time around and wasn't bad last time around?