Photosynthesis
I always thought that was quite funny because invariably when the CO2 level increases, then foilage does too since it uses CO2 to grow and then releases O2 as a result. If the trees are taken out then the green stuff in the lakes and oceans increase. We studied that in environmental science and chemistry a long time ago, do they not teach that anymore?
Photosynthesis
But C02 is the devil's work!
EDIT:
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/religion.ht...
"Sin and absolution
It is in the nature of religion to be authoritarian and proscriptive. Essential to this is the concept of sin – a transgression in thought or deed of theological principles.
Original sin in the older religions derived from one of the founts of life on earth – sex. The new religion goes even further back to the very basis of all life – carbon. Perhaps the fundamental human fear is fear of life itself. The amazing propensity of carbon to form compounds of unlimited complexity made the existence of life possible, while its dioxide is the primary foodstuff, the very start of the food chain. Every item of nutriment you consume started out as atmospheric carbon dioxide. It is therefore the ideal candidate for original sin, since no one can escape dependence on it. This manna that gave us life is now regularly branded in media headlines as “pollution” and “toxic”: surely one of the most perverse dysphemisms in the history of language.
The corrective to sin in religion is absolution, and the power of most religions comes from their claim to have the monopoly on absolution. So it is with the new godless religion. Furthermore, it is in the nature of religion to create false markets. In the time of Chaucer the Pardoner sold papal indulgences, which freed the prosperous from the consequences of sin. Likewise, the new pardoners sell carbon offsets. As in so much of both ancient and modern society these activities divert effort from wealth creation and so act as a drag on the economy. They also grant to the rich a comfort that is not available to the poor – a sure road to success."
More CO2 is benefitting all around, more crops, less deserts, more agriculural land, whats not not to like
“While a CO2 effect on foliage response has long been speculated, until now it has been difficult to demonstrate,” reported Dr Randall Donohue, a CSIRO research scientist. “Our work was able to tease-out the CO2 fertilisation effect by using mathematical modelling together with satellite data adjusted to take out the observed effects of other influences such as precipitation, air temperature, the amount of light, and land-use changes.”
"Satellite observations reveal a greening of the globe over recent decades. The role in this greening of the “CO2 fertilization” effect—the enhancement of photosynthesis due to rising CO2 levels—is yet to be established. The direct CO2 effect on vegetation should be most clearly expressed in warm, arid environments where water is the dominant limit to vegetation growth. Using gas exchange theory, we predict that the 14% increase in atmospheric CO2 (1982–2010) led to a 5 to 10% increase in green foliage cover in warm, arid environments. Satellite observations, analyzed to remove the effect of variations in precipitation, show that cover across these environments has increased by 11%. Our results confirm that the anticipated CO2 fertilization effect is occurring alongside ongoing anthropogenic perturbations to the carbon cycle and that the fertilization effect is now a significant land surface process."
“On the face of it, elevated CO2 boosting the foliage in dry country is good news and could assist forestry and agriculture in such areas; however there will be secondary effects that are likely to influence water availability, the carbon cycle, fire regimes and biodiversity, for example,”
"In the areas where we could isolate the CO2 effect from the effects of other drivers (such as changes in rainfall, temperature, humidity and land use), we observed an 11 per cent increase in cover. In other areas, where we were unable to isolate the CO2 effect, the overall change in cover will be the net effect of all the driving processes, including CO2 fertilisation.
So the CO2 fertilisation effect means that cover is around 11 per cent greater now than it would have been if CO2 levels were constant. In other words, there are places that have become less green (ie lower cover), but they would have had even lower levels of cover had CO2 not increased."
http://www.csiro.au/~/media/CSIROau/Portals/Media%20Releases/2013/DesertsGreeningRisingCO2/SatelliteData/High_Resolution.png
http://www.csiro.au/Portals/Media/Deserts-greening-from-rising-CO2.aspx
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50563/abstract
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v499/n7458/full/nature12291.html
