posted on Jun, 11 2018 @ 12:24 AM
originally posted by: BeefNoMeat
a reply to: FredT
There is definitely a point of diminishing returns w.r.t. plant growth due to increasing concentrations of CO2
The more significant problem is H2O, and the changes in precipitation which will disrupt existing hydrological infrastructure and expectations for
agriculture. Ideal is a high mountain which can get lots of snow during winter which then melts gradually and delivers water to a fertile warm, but
not too warm area. That describes growing areas of California and some of Asia. With global warming, it's likely to be strong sudden rain, not
snow, in a rainy season more likely to cause destructive floods, followed by drought. Slow and steady is better.
Also, higher night time temperatures can really hurt some important plant crops. And increased greenhouse effect increases night temperatures
particularly more than day temperatures.
...the bigger issue is sequestration — trees are the best sequesters of CO2. So it’s a “it depends” discussion.
Yes, they sequester CO2 until they die and then it goes back in the atmosphere. Before humans, this was all in equilibrim.
The best sequester of CO2 is fossilized coal in a mine. Keep it the # there. Back a very very long time ago, when the trees which made the coal and
oil were growing, bacteria and fungus didn't have the ability to breakdown certain plant material. Therefore it piled up and was squished and turned
into coal. Now, they have evolved that ability, so no matter how many trees you go the carbon will never be sequestered in an inert fossilized form.
We will turn the atmosphere back to that how it was when the coal was created, and then there were crocodiles in the Arctic.
We need to make coal mining & burning a global capital crime.