It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Rise in CO2 has 'greened Planet Earth'

page: 1
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 11:47 PM
link   
Rise in CO2 has 'greened Planet Earth'

I was reading this news story just now on BBC and I was surprised to see that no one had started a thread for it. I know there are already dozens of threads on ATS regarding climate change, most of them swaying in the direction that made made climate change has not been proven. I for one, fall into the category of believing that the climate changes on its own. Of course we as a technologically and industrially evolved species pollute our planet, no one is disputing that. We have contributed to the extinction of many a species as well. And I'm not saying that we shouldn't be mindful of the environment and I'm not saying that we shouldn't be conserving our energy and reducing our carbon footprint.

But interestingly enough, the heavily lobbied and bribed scientific institutions that propagated the man made climate change theory are also the one's claiming that it has done some good. But according to them it's only temporary:


The new study is published in the journal Nature Climate Change by a team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries.



Carbon dioxide emissions from industrial society have driven a huge growth in trees and other plants.

A new study says that if the extra green leaves prompted by rising CO2 levels were laid in a carpet, it would cover twice the continental USA.

Climate sceptics argue the findings show that the extra CO2 is actually benefiting the planet.

But the researchers say the fertilisation effect diminishes over time.

They warn the positives of CO2 are likely to be outweighed by the negatives.


It's almost becoming a joke, that there can be so many scientists and yet there are so many differing opinions on this issue. And where ever did this 97% figure come from? You know the one that was repeatedly shilled out by the MSM. 97% of the worlds scientists believe climate change is a man made phenomenon. Yea that one.

Does anybody remember back in 2009 when that Climatology lab in Greenwich, England was hacked and thousands of emails were published that showed many well to do scientists, politicians, and media moguls colluding to distort data in order to pass carbon legislation? This is the one I'm referring to. The head of the facility even publicly admitted he had distorted data and admitted to colluding to distort data. But we never hear about anymore. Somehow in 7 years that climate research facility hack became an inconvenient truth for those on the bandwagon.

Now we have people that truly believe that we are so powerful that we have the ability to control the weather, and no I'm not talking about HAARP. The simple fact is, that which contributes the most to the climate on this planet is The Sun. You would have to be a fool and very naive to believe that we on Planet Earth can harness anything that can match the sun's energy. And yet by making this thread I'm a denier, and according to Alec Baldwin I have a disease.

I'm sure there is someone out there that thinks that the Dinosaurs invented styrofoam, and that's why the creator had smitten them. Anyways, see for yourself:


It is called Greening of the Earth and its Drivers, and it is based on data from the Modis and AVHRR instruments which have been carried on American satellites over the past 33 years.The sensors show significant greening of something between 25% and 50% of the Earth's vegetated land, which in turn is slowing the pace of climate change as the plants are drawing CO2 from the atmosphere.



This is in line with the Gaia thesis promoted by the maverick scientist James Lovelock who proposed that the atmosphere, rocks, seas and plants work together as a self-regulating organism. Mainstream science calls such mechanisms "feedbacks".
The scientists say several factors play a part in the plant boom, including climate change (8%), more nitrogen in the environment (9%), and shifts in land management (4%).
But the main factor, they say, is plants using extra CO2 from human society to fertilise their growth (70%).


So which is it? Humans are destroying the climate or they're making it healthier albeit only temporarily? Or is it some combination of both? Are there any members on ATS that work in climate research? If so, show yourselves and enlighten us on the flip flopping, big lobbying, carbon legislating 97%.

Additional Source




posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 11:51 PM
link   
S&F, good read.

All I can say is good luck op, you will find some here on ATS to be truly dogmatic about climate change and refuse to acknowledge other possibilities.
edit on 25-4-2016 by Wardaddy454 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 11:56 PM
link   
The earth is marginally warmer and has been far warmer in the recent past.

Its suppose to increase bio diversity and populations.

Were also still in an ice age which is why there is water on the poles and I'm assuming that means we will eventually be out of an ice age.

Also I believe it should be raining more but is it?



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 11:59 PM
link   

The simple fact is, that which contributes the most to the climate on this planet is The Sun.
True. Tell me, has the output of the Sun changed? In which direction?



While a greener Earth might seem like a positive from CO2-induced global warming, along with milder winters and longer growing seasons, he said there were many more negative impacts — including rising sea levels and severe weather.

"These will eventually outweigh by far any benefit from the greening," he said.

edit on 4/26/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 12:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Way to have a real discussion, Phage.




posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 12:03 AM
link   
a reply to: ColdWisdom

You mean by quoting the article cited in the OP?



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 12:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I guess your response was just too cryptic for my liking. I don't know.

edit: Cheers on editing your post to negate my only criticism. Touché.

edit on 4/26/2016 by ColdWisdom because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 12:07 AM
link   
Yeah, it takes way more green to buy stuff nowadays. I can agree with that.



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 12:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Hey Phage can you explain the difference between now and the Minoan and Roman warming periods?

Have they recorded an increase in biodiversity?

Are we having more or less precipitation

Does the increase in precipitation and increase in plant life offset the rising of the oceans?

What happens when the land mass the ice melts on rises, does this offset the rising sea levels?

Does the sea level rise evenly across the globe?

Where has the sea level risen?

Has there always been ice covering the poles?
edit on 4/26/2016 by onequestion because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 12:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage


True. Tell me, has the output of the Sun changed? In which direction?


If I had to guess, I would say that since we've been measuring the radiation of the sun and since our technology that produces such measurements is evolving exponentially that yes, the output of the sun is on a constant state of flux.

There's still nothing on Earth that can match the sun's energy.



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 12:10 AM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

That wasn't one question at all... onequestion.

lol



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 12:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: onequestion

That wasn't one question at all... onequestion.

lol


No but I have this odd feeling that Phage won't answer any of them he will just ask odd questions and deflect.



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 12:12 AM
link   
a reply to: ColdWisdom

That's true but remember the earths energy is consumed in different ways.



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 12:13 AM
link   
The Sun never changes, and it has nothing to do with climate change...


Just kidding



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 12:15 AM
link   
I talked to someone yesterday that told me the Earthquake in Ecuador was the result of the VW emissions scandal. No joke.

So naturally, I handed them a gun and pointed them to ATS.



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 12:17 AM
link   
a reply to: ColdWisdom

There are more cosmic forces at work than what mainstream science wants you to understand



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 12:19 AM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

Hey Phage can you explain the difference between now and the Minoan and Roman warming periods?
Yes. There is a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere now. We also now that the entire planet is experiencing warming while that is not completely clear for the periods you mention.


Have they recorded an increase in biodiversity?
Actually, no. We are experiencing very high levels of extinction.


Are we having more or less precipitation
Compared to what?



Does the increase in precipitation and increase in plant life offset the rising of the oceans?
No. Neither has any effect on sea levels.


What happens when the land mass the ice melts on rises, does this offset the rising sea levels?
Land which was under ice sheets rebounds, very slowly. No, it does not offset rising sea levels. Sea levels rise faster than the rebound effect. But hey, the good news is that Greenland will get more coastline in a few thousand years. The bad news is, it will take a few thousand years.


Does the sea level rise evenly across the globe?
No.


Where has the sea level risen?
Various places. My backyard is one. But there are many others.



Has there always been ice covering the poles?
Possibly, a few million years ago.




edit on 4/26/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 12:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Wouldn't increased plant life increase biodiversity and wouldn't marginal changes of temperature create new variables that produce different outcomes ie bio diversity

A warmer earth would be "wet" by proxy wouldn't it?

Ie atmospheric changes that again in turn change the variables producing different outcomes in both weather and causing speciation

because: (no reason given)

edit on 4/26/2016 by onequestion because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 12:22 AM
link   
a reply to: ColdWisdom




I would say that since we've been measuring the radiation of the sun and since our technology that produces such measurements is evolving exponentially that yes, the output of the sun is on a constant state of flux.

Let me clarify.
Has there been an increase in solar radiation which can account for the observed rise in temperatures?



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 12:24 AM
link   
a reply to: onequestion




Wouldn't increased plant life increase biodiversity
Would it? Is that what the article says? In any case, the reverse seems to be what's happening.


wouldn't marginal changes of temperature create new variables that produce different outcomes ie bio diversity
Would it? Are all those variables favorable to biodiversity?


A warmer earth would be "wet" by proxy wouldn't it?
In some places, yes. In others, no. See, that's the difference between global warming and climate change. Global warming means the Earth's average temperature rises. Climate change means that, as a result, climates change.

edit on 4/26/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join