Baccheus says plants are less nutritous, that may be true by 1 or 2% but with plants increasing by 10% it is no problem just eat an extra tomato.
Deforestation is nothing to do with climate change or CO2 just mans stupidity, and CO2 is offsetting deforestation, where man cuts it down CO2 is increasing vegetation in other areas, satellite observations show that vegetation (despite deforestation) is actually increasing http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress...
So yes CO2 is greening the planet.
If warming is so beneficial then how come the Sahara desert (or any other desert for that matter) isn't a green oasis feeding Africa's poor?
The bottom line is that, while in theory increased CO2 and increased rainfall are beneficial for plants/crops, a changing climate (hence the term 'climate change') means that some areas will get more rainfall while others get less.
For much as I try to see 'the positive side' as Raisin Caine suggest, I fail to see anything positive in Spain's current worst drought in 150 years.
Short term, not really; long term, no. Global waring is causing the desert bands to expand, drying out crop land of countries closer to the equator. Further north, in the US for instance, we will have longer growing seasons, but we'll also have more droughts. The major aquifers we use to water our crops are nearly dry, and the great plains get less rain every year.
No
Plant life, like animals, evolved in the environment it flourishes in.
A warmer Earth increases rainfall only in bursts. The US has already suffered a drought and food prices are going up.
Plants already have plenty of c02. Much of your idea is BS from non-scientists who try to rationalize global warming. Years ago they said it wasn't even happening. Some actually attempt to claim there is global cooling.
I suggest you watch Cosmos this Sunday for a clear understanding and avoid conservative propaganda and lies !
Everything you have written is true. Plants also tend to thrive with more CO2. The question remains, however as to what the overall affect to the rainfall will be. Warmers frequently claim that it will lead to more floods and more droughts. That is a stupid way of looking at it. It is stupid because it focuses on the negative and does so incorrectly. While it may be said that the rain pattern will change, this does not necessarily mean more floods and droughts, it simply means that some places used to droughts may have more rain and some places used to floods may have less rain.
I believe that the overall affect of the CO2 emissions will be positive for plants.
No it is for only short duration but it may lead great disaster as well because plant which is not grow in himalayan region are also start to grow and it totally contain disease virus on the plant so for some extinct it is better but as a whole it seriously cause only distruction.......
Yes
yes
Yes, absolutely. On photosynthetic plants.
they help to trap sunlight i.e. warmth so defiinately global warmin is good for plants.
High CO2 levels cause global warming. In a warmer Earth, rainfall increases. And plants and crops thrive in high CO2, moisture and temperature conditions. I mean, everything grows faster in warmth (like during summer months). So is global warming actually GOOD for plants in this way?
All answers are welcome.
Jim z –
>>Lyn suggest CO2 is never a factor. How could he come up with nonsense like that? Obviously it is a factor. Stomata can close their openings sooner when CO2 levels are higher thus reducing water loss...Gring wants to see a positive side but can't because he is an alarmist and that would go against his nature. I guess his argument boils down to if the Sahara isn't greening, that must mean our CO2 emissions are causing catastrophic change...Alph and Virtualguy suggests that Oklahoma and California have never experienced drought. It really boggles the mind<<
The real question is: How can you read such nonsense into their answers?
The fact is that there is a ceiling on the CO2 fertilization effect and, even then, it only works if temperature does not increase. When the stomata are closed, plants cannot release moisture so the water in the plants heats up. The has the double effect of directly warming the immediate environment and reducing atmospheric moisture which increases temperature even further – not to mention the fact that plant physiology suffers from overheating just like people do.
Deniers gravitate to simplistic interpretations that support their political agenda and are clueless about science and scientific evidence. They think that isolated facts are evidence; which is not only wrong, it is unscientific – but, being unscientific is all Deniers have and it is their only intellectual skill.
It depends on what you mean specifically.
Part of the cause of global warming is deforesting, especially of rain forests. The processes that cause global warming are process that are diminishing total plant life on the planet. So you are in essence asking whether destroying plant life is good for plant life.
CO2 does help plants grow. That much is good. But there are a several problems with that for agriculture: 1) water 2) weather and 3) nutrition.
Water is certainly affected in at least some major agriculture areas. In California, the great Central Valley, where many of our fruits, vegetables and nuts come from, we already know that earlier spring melts of the Sierra snowpack is decreasing the water available for irrigation. Now there is also the question of whether the blocking high pressure pattern that caused the most intense drought in the history of the state is due to global warming. The most recent published research found that indeed it is.
The question of whether California's drought is made more likely by global warming is also tied to the intense winters in the Midwest (and related Alaska winter heat waves) of the past 5 years. The jet stream has slowed by 14%-- we know that -- the the slowing causes the jet stream to become wavier and slower to move weather. The blizzards that have moved so far south in the past few years are tied to the slowing of the jet stream. We also know that the jet stream is created and fueled by the difference in temperatures in the Arctic and lower latitudes. So there is a very plausible likelihood -- at least 50% -- that the cold winters of the past 5 years are directly related to the warming of the Arctic and the loss of Arctic ice. If that is so, then the cold and blizzardly winters have become the new normal for America's Midwest. And if that is so, then America's grain yields are permanently reduced. Growing food plants is hurt by global warming. (Let's hope this is not yet true. There are climatologists who believe the slowed, meandering jet stream is related to ocean currents driven in turn by some unknown natural process. If it is some unknown natural process then it is likely temporary rather than new normal.)
Finally nutrition. Plants that blossom sooner and grow rapidly due to more CO2 are less nutritious. So more CO2 is good for the roses and dandelions in our yards, but not for us when we eat wheat and tomatoes. We have to grow more for the same level of nutrition.
So yes, in isolation CO2 is good for plants. But the more rain does not help because with that comes more flooding and in places that rely on snowpack for summer water, more summer droughts. Better for plants is not better for humans. Some plants we grow to eat, and more CO2 does not necessarily help.
I think global warming detroy our earth.So it's very harmful for our whole world and all plants.
Despite what some brain dead alarmists might have you believe, the last 60 year have been very good for crop production. In 1950 the total world grain production was about 600 million tons. By 2010, production had more than tripled to 2.2 billion tons.
Obviously, there are many factors in the explosive rise in production- GMO seeds, more fertilizer, better equipment, clearing more land for farming. I'm not even claiming increased CO2 is a factor. All I'm saying is that with agrocultural trends being what they are, it's difficult to claim weather is making things worse.
I look at the asinine answers from alarmists. They pretend to be interested in science yet provide weird answers that have nothing to do with science.
Lyn suggest CO2 is never a factor. How could he come up with nonsense like that? Obviously it is a factor. Stomata can close their openings sooner when CO2 levels are higher thus reducing water loss.
Gring wants to see a positive side but can't because he is an alarmist and that would go against his nature. I guess his argument boils down to if the Sahara isn't greening, that must mean our CO2 emissions are causing catastrophic change.
Alph and Virtualguy suggests that Oklahoma and California have never experienced drought. It really boggles the mind
Ask a corn farmer after the next midwest heat wave. Many important food crops have a rather sharp mortality limit at about 100F
Yes. Warmer temperatures and higher carbon dioxide is generally good for plants and animals. The publicity emphasizes negative because that is what the Global Warmers are using to scare people. They headline every drought, flood, tornado, hurricane, and ice-shelf collapse (though there haven't been any more than normal) to terrorize us. Terrorists, they. Downstream media: accomplices.
We've had 40% more CO2 for a while now.
Have you seen a 40% increase in vegetation?
I haven't.
I haven't seen trees grow taller, or grass grow thicker.
Weeds seem to be doing exactly what they always do.
The error in that idea is that CO2 is not a limiting growth factor.
Sometimes nutrients in the soil is the limiting factor.
Sometimes it's space to grow.
But in the natural world, it's never CO2.
More rain certainly would be nice.
Calif is experiencing the worst drought that we've ever recorded.
global warming might be good, if it puts off the next ice age, but probably the warming will happen first.
One problem though is that it isn't just warming, its better described as climate change. So more freak weather which is generally destructive, and as far as plants go, this is bad as plants do best with very steady temperature, rainfall, and seasonal changes - they can't up sticks and migrate easily.
Ask oklahoma or california if they benefit from more rain in europe
