CO2 is a blessing and not a curse, it does NOT drive warming. CO2 is increasing and temperature is NOT. But the world is getting greener, plant-life and crops are thriving worldwide. This is a tremendous benefit not only to the environment but to humanity in general. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...
We are plainly seeing the benefits of increased CO2, it is not theoretical, it's fact, it's empirical. But the allegations against increased CO2 are only proving to be another in a very long list of failed predictions by climate science. http://www.c3headlines.com/bad-predictio...
And the peer-reviewed study you refer to is not the only study to show the beneficial affects of increased CO2, here is another one published back in 2001.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.10...
-----------------------
The IPCC in 2007 projected increased crop yields in some parts of the world in the early part of the century due to increased CO2, followed by decreases due to changes in temperature and water. This is nothing new.
The temporary benefits are not an excuse to ignore the risks. We should look at the whole of the coming changes.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Feature...
"Increases in productivity are important in a practical sense, since plant biomass is the food and fuel for all animals―including humans―on the planet. It’s also important in the way that everything related to carbon has become important in recent years. Scientists and environmental policy decision makers across the world want to know what is happening to all the carbon in the carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere through fossil fuel and biomass burning, such as forest fires or firewood used as fuel. If carbon dioxide is “food” for plants, maybe more of it in the atmosphere caused plants to grow better."
“Productivity may have increased 6 percent in the last 18 years, but human population has increased by over 35 percent over that same time. One half of a 6 percent increase in the net productivity compared to a 35 percent increase in population means that these net primary productivity changes have not improved global habitability in any significant way.”
---------------------------------------...
What would a 6% temperature increase be? I'm sure it would be more than 0.82 Celsius.
---------------------------------------...
OOPS! The temperature rise in 30 years was what?
Anyone knowledgeable about the subject knows that there are expected to be some positive and some negative effects of AGW. However, even if they were expected to be about equal in magnitude--which they aren't--it makes sense to pay more attention to the negative effects than the positive ones, because negative surprises are much worse than positive ones.
If we are unprepared for some positive happening, such as the greening effect of CO2, we... get a nice little bonus. If we are unprepared for some *negative* happening, such as droughts, we could suffer a lot of damage that we could have avoided.
>>New research has confirmed what scientists have suspected for some time<<
Been there - done that. As usual, we're decades ahead of you. I demonstrated that empirically in a paper 15 years ago - and that was 15 years after other researchers had put it forth as a hypothesis.
What I find hysterical is the way Denier's uncritically accept mathematical models that they (mistakenly) think support their political ideology while simultaneously rejecting out of hand every result from a model that contradicts their ideology.
So if it causes plants to flourish , why do you think the atmospheric CO2 levels are sill increasing?
As we've all learned in school, driving cars as well as burning any type of fossil fuels add to the carbon out put. We have known this for quite some time. We also know that our carbon output does have some effect on "global warming". Although, the earth has throughout its lifetime, gone through numerous changes. The last ( most recent Ice age) which created the giant ice caps we know today, is seen as one of the smaller ice ages in history. The earth has also seen times of extreme heat, where the average temp rose to over 4 degrees above levels today ( these kinds of temp changes today would lead to extreme havoc on earth and a possible extinction of life). At any rate, my point is that the earth has seen many phases, and we might just be living through one of these phases. Although I'm not totally warding off the idea of global warming. But to answer your question, global warming (contrary to what we see on tv) wouldnt mean a totally desolate life on earth. The average weather we know in certain parts of the world would change dramatically. For example, the ice caps which regulate warm water currents would no longer exist, leading to major change. And in areas of deserts, you may see very diverse forests spring up. In short, global warming will really just mean a change in average weather and climates we know today.
Why not? There is not one alarm that has come true yet. Not even the warming. Catastrophes is all I've heard about for the past 30 to 40 years. Time to put a positive outlook on it instead of letting the scare mongers cry "FOUL!". Bring on the lists of positives instead of the negatives! I've never seen an alarmist with a list of good things so I guess we will have to put up with their whining anyway until the Earth actually shows them how resilient it is.
If the foliage of the planet on land increased 11% in 18 years, then how much of an increase was there in the oceans?
If the foliage of the planet on land was 37% in 1982, then a 11% increase would mean there is now 41.7% of the land covered by foliage.
If the total land area is 30% of the Earth's surface, then the total surface area is 57,500,000 square miles - http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/Dani... -
That means 21,275,000 square miles of foliage has grown to 23,977,500 square miles of foliage. That's an increase of 2,702,500 square miles of foliage in 18 years. Doesn't anyone see how significant that is?
Ahhh, denial, a dish best served with little thought, why is it deniers insist it's not happening but then in the same breath say look at the benefits (of the thing that isn't happening), "don't trust scientists", unless of course they do a study of the benefits of AGW.
If your aim is to make deniers look silly then congratulations you have succeeded yet again.
Of course if you claim the benefits what do then do with the problems, sea level rise, ice melt, ocean acidification, or do you just deny they parts you don't like, like all true deniers.
There are some pretty basic physics in ice melt, it will happen in a warmer world and is indeed happening to Arctic sea ice and glacial ice in both Greenland and the Antarctic. At this point deniers usually try to reference (in their ignorance) Antarctic sea ice, saying it is growing, indeed it is, but it is, for the moment protected by the Antarctic current and the cool melt water from those melting Antarctic glaciers.
If you wish to put on blinkers and try and focus on a few benefits and ignore the massive problems then you are indeed a true denier. I note you use a real scientific paper GRL as a source, odd given deniers also claim peer review is "part of the conspiracy" or is that also only when it suits.
Deniers are funny !
The warmon gang are not prepared to even consider this question, let alone answer it objectively.
You are asking something which goes against their core green religious beliefs and cultists are not known for their objectivity in considering alernative ideas.
It is my belief that our planet was spiraling downward as CO2 became less and less and that C4 plants would eventually die out leaving us C3 grasses and so on, of course this was taking hundreds of thousands of years to come about and would have eventually stabilized as phytoplankton declined and lost the ability to sequester CO2.
However along came man and temporally restored the balance by burning fossil fuel, and is restoring this earth to a flourishing fertile planet again.
New research has confirmed what scientists have suspected for some time: that elevated carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere cause green foliage to flourish, particularly in arid regions. According to the study accepted for publication in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, increased carbon dioxide levels have had a fertilization effect, causing a gradual but steady greening of arid regions around the planet from 1982 to 2010...
http://www.sciencerecorder.com/news/earths-arid-regions-are-getting-greener-due-to-global-warming/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/05/31/study-climate-change/2377179/
Good info Cy I am afraid however this may be one of a handful of beneficial effects. So I guess if you believe this you believe in AGW
What an ignorant question. Plants don't just need water for transpiration. They need water for photosynthesis.
no.
