Burning fossil fuels increases biodiversity and is healthy for animal life folks, you heard it here first. There’s no problem, we can all go home now. And probably scrap all these alternative energy and nuclear power plants, then transition back to coal power plants. Everything seems to be doing better thanks to our friend burnt carbon.
Exactly!
The planet is fine; the people and animals are fucked!
And of course, the resident fool does not know what sarcasm is.
I think I preferred this being the Sammy Show.
This should all be part of the equation we should be seeing.
The point was that you are asking for something like the Drake equation, it is not a very useful one. As the short video I linked about Professor Richard Alley, The calculations are that the warming is not as beneficial as you expect, that you press on some items that are missing, is like waiting for the most likely harmful effects to come, while not preparing at all… And at the same time betting that the missing items will not be found to make the situation worse.
It is a very foolish bet, considering that the same ones that give you this “debating” tactic also have an interest on keeping things to remain the same.
And… Care once again to tell us who told you that “Nothing on earth is showing any ill signs” from atmospheric carbon increases?
“Those eggheads know nothing. My backyard looks just the same as it did 10 years ago. The ecosystem is fine. Case closed.”
Surely you’re not suggesting that @HoneyBadgerDC is not being sincere when they say they’re interested in the science. I’m shocked!
Is it favorable from the perspective of the algae, or from the perspective of everything impacted by the algae?
Yes, increased CO2 does increase the yields of certain crops, but not all of them.
And there are studies that show that the increased yields are offset by reduced nutritional value.
And while having longer growing seasons in areas that used to get too cold may increase yields, that same sort of temperature increase makes it too hot to continue growing in previously temperate zones.
The science may be nuanced, but it isn’t favorable.
I suspect HB’s knowledge of agriculture is confined to cherry-picking.
slow clap on dat.
We actually have about 300 million years of History to back up the claim that things grow better with more CO2. Talk about cherry picking.
How about this cherry pick if the FactCheck.org link, just above, was too tl;dr for you…
“Overall, every expert we spoke with said the net impact of CO2 and climate change will leave crop production and quality worse off in the future, not better.”
I will certainly look into this. I seem to be getting very different results.
There are some good points in the articles but they are all classic examples of what I am complaining about. Weak science, weak studies and speculation. Even if we accept them at their word it looks like 700 PPM would be a very acceptable number to stay below. This buys us a little time to get alternative fuel sources established without destroying society in the meantime.
What happened to,
???
I guess you’d have to ask the dinosaurs I have no idea
What???