Previous :: Next Topic |
Author |
Message |
Parked Out Member
Joined: 18 Sep 2011 Posts: 508 | TRs | Pics Location: Port Angeles, WA |
Ski wrote: | I'm shocked! Shocked!! |
Another blow to my innocence....
|
Back to top |
|
|
Doppelganger
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Doppelganger
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Tom Admin
Joined: 15 Dec 2001 Posts: 17853 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Tom
Admin
|
Fri Jul 12, 2019 3:33 pm
|
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Parked Out Member
Joined: 18 Sep 2011 Posts: 508 | TRs | Pics Location: Port Angeles, WA |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Parked Out Member
Joined: 18 Sep 2011 Posts: 508 | TRs | Pics Location: Port Angeles, WA |
Ridley: Rejoice, the Earth Is Becoming Greener
https://humanprogress.org/article.php?p=2018
Quote: | Amid all the talk of an imminent planetary catastrophe caused by emissions of carbon dioxide, another fact is often ignored: global greening is happening faster than climate change. The amount of vegetation growing on the earth has been increasing every year for at least 30 years. The evidence comes from the growth rate of plants and from satellite data.
In 2016 a paper was published by 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries that analysed satellite data and concluded that there had been a roughly 14% increase in green vegetation over 30 years. The study attributed 70% of this increase to the extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The lead author on the study, Zaichun Zhu of Beijing University, says this is equivalent to adding a new continent of green vegetation twice the size of the mainland United States.
Global greening has affected all ecosystems – from arctic tundra to coral reefs to plankton to tropical rain forests – but shows up most strongly in arid places like the Sahel region of Africa, where desertification has largely now reversed. This is because plants lose less water in the process of absorbing carbon dioxide if the concentration of carbon dioxide is higher. Ecosystems and farms will be less water-stressed at the end of this century than they are today during periods of low rainfall.
There should have been no surprise about this news. Thousands of experiments have been conducted over many years in which levels of CO2 had been increased over crops or wild ecosystems and boosted their growth. The owners of commercial greenhouses usually pump CO2 into the air to speed up the growth of plants. CO2 is plant food. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Tom Admin
Joined: 15 Dec 2001 Posts: 17853 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Tom
Admin
|
Fri Jul 12, 2019 3:54 pm
|
|
|
Different title and spin in the Washington Post, go figure. Which version did you find more insightful and balanced?
|
Back to top |
|
|
Parked Out Member
Joined: 18 Sep 2011 Posts: 508 | TRs | Pics Location: Port Angeles, WA |
Tom wrote: | Different title and spin in the Washington Post, go figure. Which version did you find more insightful and balanced? |
Pretty much ignored the spin on both - I just enjoyed the statement from Chakrabati because it validates what many of us already suspected.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Tom Admin
Joined: 15 Dec 2001 Posts: 17853 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Tom
Admin
|
Fri Jul 12, 2019 4:26 pm
|
|
|
What does it validate? That we shouldn't worry about AGW? There are motivations at play on both sides. Why do you think most deniers advocate against the science? Ultimately the planet doesn't care what the motivations are.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Parked Out Member
Joined: 18 Sep 2011 Posts: 508 | TRs | Pics Location: Port Angeles, WA |
Tom wrote: | What does it validate? That we shouldn't worry about AGW? |
Now why would you say that? I don't really want to be drawn into a political discussion here since that's supposedly against the rules, but since you asked, it validates the suspicion that many climate activists have a more general "progressive" agenda in mind, and their alleged concern for the climate is more or less a tool to that end. This seems pretty obvious to those not on the left (today's left anyway). Not saying everyone is guilty of it or that there's anything wrong with worrying about our little experiment of raising CO2 levels. But AOC and her ilk? These people are haters of capitalism.
Tom wrote: | Why do you think most deniers advocate against the science? |
Am I a denier? If so, what exactly am I denying? I'd really like to know. I definitely do not advocate against "the science", in most cases I don't even disagree with the science. I do disagree with activism masquerading as science and the vilification of those who fall outside the bounds of popular opinion.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Tom Admin
Joined: 15 Dec 2001 Posts: 17853 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Tom
Admin
|
Fri Jul 12, 2019 5:12 pm
|
|
|
Why so defensive? Did I say you were a denier? My perspective is that we aren't being hoodwinked by the scientific community. I don't have the silver bullet solution assuming it isn't already too late. It's easy to find fault with those working on solutions but I don't think the motivations as nefarious as those advocating against might claim.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Parked Out Member
Joined: 18 Sep 2011 Posts: 508 | TRs | Pics Location: Port Angeles, WA |
Tom wrote: | My perspective is that we aren't being hoodwinked by the scientific community. I don't have the silver bullet solution assuming it isn't already too late. It's easy to find fault with those working on solutions but I don't think the motivations as nefarious as those advocating against might claim. |
I'm not of the broad opinion that we're being hoodwinked by the scientific community either, but I'd also be quick to point out that the scientific community is not monolithic in its thinking about climate, although there's a continual effort to portray it that way such that the purveyors of unpopular opinions can be characterized as being 'anti-science' or 'industry shills' or whatever (a la Skeptical Science, DeSmog Blog, or Michael Mann for that matter). Many scientific subjects are highly contentious but the whole climate issue has such a nastiness to it (thanks partly to the media and our current political polarization) that it doesn't even seem to be a scientific undertaking at times. As far as the motivations of those working on solutions, I would never portray them as being generally nefarious. Most are probably sincere but there's also no shortage of climate activists (and yes skeptics too) whose perception of the issue is seriously distorted by the political lens they see it through.
|
Back to top |
|
|
runup Member
Joined: 05 Feb 2016 Posts: 188 | TRs | Pics
|
|
runup
Member
|
Fri Jul 12, 2019 8:10 pm
|
|
|
Parked Out wrote: | I'm not of the broad opinion that we're being hoodwinked by the scientific community either, but I'd also be quick to point out that the scientific community is not monolithic in its thinking about climate, although there's a continual effort to portray it that way such that the purveyors of unpopular opinions can be characterized as being 'anti-science' or 'industry shills' or whatever (a la Skeptical Science, DeSmog Blog, or Michael Mann for that matter). Many scientific subjects are highly contentious but the whole climate issue has such a nastiness to it (thanks partly to the media and our current political polarization) that it doesn't even seem to be a scientific undertaking at times. As far as the motivations of those working on solutions, I would never portray them as being generally nefarious. Most are probably sincere but there's also no shortage of climate activists (and yes skeptics too) whose perception of the issue is seriously distorted by the political lens they see it through. |
Well said, P O!
|
Back to top |
|
|
Tom Admin
Joined: 15 Dec 2001 Posts: 17853 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Tom
Admin
|
Fri Jul 12, 2019 8:13 pm
|
|
|
The distortions I see are mostly denial or conspiracy theories with high correlation to political lens. I don't believe there is that much debate or nastiness within the scientific community and is mostly manufactured.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Parked Out Member
Joined: 18 Sep 2011 Posts: 508 | TRs | Pics Location: Port Angeles, WA |
Tom wrote: | The distortions I see are mostly denial or conspiracy theories with high correlation to political lens. I don't believe there is that much debate or nastiness within the scientific community and is mostly manufactured. |
That's probably because you get 99.9% of your climate change information through left-leaning mainstream media.
|
Back to top |
|
|
|