The Planet is Getting Greener, and That's a Good Thing
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 май 2024
- Heartland Institute Research Fellow Linnea Lueken talks about how the Earth is greening, meaning plant life is increasing - it’s one of the benefits of climate change that is often ignored or dismissed.
Support this content 👉Donate - The Heartland Institute
heartland.org/donate/
Download a FREE copy of Climate at a Glance for Teachers and Students and get the app so you are never without resources to combat climate alarmism: climateataglance.com/app/
…Or help us out by purchasing a hard copy on Amazon: shorturl.at/deiKS
Watch Linnea every Friday LIVE at 1 p.m. ET on The Climate Realism Show. / theheartlandinstitute
Follow us on Instagram 👉@HeartlandInstitute
We’re on Facebook 👉 The Heartland Institute
Follow Linnea on Twitter 👉 / linnealueken
Sources used for this video can be found here: climateataglance.com/climate-...
The more CO2 the more plants love it.
Bring on the CO2
But you can't deny CO2 is a greenhous gas, right?
@@hosnimubarak8869 and so is water vapor - much more
@@hosnimubarak8869 There are no GHGs! There is no evidence of GHGs! GHGs are a lie used swindle the gullible like you...
@@noleftturns
Currently, water vapor has the largest greenhouse effect in the Earth’s atmosphere. However, water vapor increases in response to an increase in temperature. So, water vapor is a feedback mechanism, wherein CO2 from us causes some warming, that warming increases the amount of water
vapor in the atmosphere, and that water vapor causes even more warming, So ultimately, the warming is still from us producing CO2.
It's all explained through science.
@@hosnimubarak8869 Then you should know that at 220 ppm CO2 becomes saturated to warming the atmosphere and at double that the temp goes up very little.
CO2 absorption chart easily shows this..
RUclips hates when the truth is told… “context warning, context warning” what a joke
"Context", gotta luv YuToob.
Sure is nice having people talking the truth, this is 100% correct.
I wish our politicians here in Australia would listen to you.
They would have her put away for this truth.
When our labor party are made up of ex uni protestors and activists pushing their activist causes as policies, idiots like blackout (Casanova) Bowen and absent airbus albo just keep pushing the WEF cult they are members of.
How would they tax you to death without the CO2 excuse?
Yea, Australia is such a wet place with a super abundance of green plants. Imagine Australia with the vegetation of even Texas.
@@thomaswayneward look closer, it has an over abundance of plant life. Our deserts are green. Inland Australia is not the Sahara.
That is where the carbon is going it is a self regulating process!
Actually, carbon is being trapped on the sea floors by aquatic animals and their ability to mineralize (adapt using calcium carbonate). Aquatic life dies, sinks to the sea floor, and that calcium carbonate never reenters the carbon cycle.
Over millions and millions of years, carbon dioxide levels begin to decline, which jeopardizes life on earth.
Which means as we drill for, and refine the shale oil down there, we're releasing that carbon back into the carbon cycle. Which makes us heroes for the earth.
I was a college physics teacher until recently. I wanted to post something about this very fact on the billboard of the Science Department but the dean (a biologist) refused to allow me to do it. When I complained, the college put me on unpaid leave. I was so disgusted that I quit,
Good for you. Better to be useful somewhere else. The amazing thing is, young people are paying hundreds of thousands to go to college.
You were a victim of climate Nazis!
@@tomimo65
Proof of Godwin's law
Good on you for your great moral convictions!
They have an agenda to push, you can guess whos benefit its all for...and not yours.
RUclips why the United Nations statement? What in here is even remotely questionable let alone misinformation.
What the world needs most of all is more CO2...
We could use more teachers like you! Courage of conviction is sorely lacking.
Just like government subsidies! More CO²=more plants!
Look at the 50 year later location video of It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World and see how much greener the California desert locations are now.
Interesting observation
It's a big W!
It's a Win!
But more plant life means more fuel for fires, right?
@@sdrc92126 And more vegans 😆
@@randombrian256 grep msdap green energy policies
Well represented,thank you from a Saskatchewan farmer!
GREAT JOB YOUNG LADY...
Higher crop yields with less fertilizer is a good thing.
There’s no question that, in the past few years, plants are growing at a much faster rate.
Climate naysayers have long upheld CO2 fertilization as evidence that humans are doing the planet a solid by pumping 40 billion tons of fossil carbon into the air every year. It’s an argument that makes sense superficially, but falls apart as soon as you start to unpack it.
Green is good!
All of this change biz is a hustle. It's 3-card Monty on an enormous scale, and the foolish and dim buy it and eat it by the bushel.
$150T worth. With a T. There is limited time before the gig is found out
Don't tell ST GRETTA the planet is getting greener she will say how dare you...
CO2 is plant food. The more CO2, the more and faster, larger growing plants. Most plants evolved when the atmospheric level of CO2 was over 1000ppm. Plants are essentially starving right now. Eventually, the plant biosphere could increase to the point that it would stabilize and regulate CO2, including emissions by man. The increase in plants in recent decades is why we are able to feed the population of the planet. CO2 is the last thing we want to get rid of.
"Plants are essentially starving right now".
No! That's a lie.
Anyone should be able to look at the trees around them outside and in their garden and seeing how big and green they are getting
i'ts true, I live in New Zealand, last few years trees looking lush and full of foliage. Say that to a city dweller and they say "what are you talking about?", as they stare at a screen telling them how bad the climate is.
@@richardbrown8785 Yeah, those bricks and the concrete didn't grow a bit. 😊😅😅
Most of Earth's history since the arise of life on Earth CO2 levels have been at 2,000 to 3,000 PPM. Now we're down to about 430 PPM we're in a CO2 drought.
No, that's silly.
@@hosnimubarak8869actually the last ice age 2-2.5 million years ago the Co2 content was 4000 ppm.
If you believe 420ppm is warming the planet how did we have an ice age at 4000 ppm?
@@johnbowman6981
Over geological timescales, changes in Solar brightness matter, too. Solar brightness is considered to have increased steadily by about 10% per billion years of Earth's history. Millions of years ago, there would therefore have been 4-5% less sunshine reaching the Earth. That's a big difference and enough to change what is known as the 'ice-threshold' - the point beyond which perennial ice-sheets can exist on Earth's surface.
I’ll keep this short….
All live on this planet thrives in 1600ppm-3600ppm of CO2. Higher CO2 levels actually increase O2 within mammalian cells and decrease cancer rates. To take this full circle, with higher CO2 levels and we have increased plant growth proportional to the increase of CO2 (I.e., plants grow twice as fast at 800ppm as they do at 400ppm of CO2), this also increases plant respiration rates which in turn increases oxygen levels on a global scale…. It’s a win-win for all life.
What was Earths global temperature every time CO2 was high? What were sea levels?
@@hosnimubarak8869 You have asked two unrelated questions - CO2 levels and sea levels.
If you want sea levels to decline, you need a new glacial period. That said the rate of sea level rise has been in a stead state for a long time - not accelerating and not slowing down. If you’d like to do some of your own basic research look up photos from the 1850s vs 2000s and sea level. You will see that nothing has actually changed in any meaningful way.
I can’t post you a graph of the last 600 million years here; however, I can say that there have been times when CO2 was much much higher than today and the global average temp was no different (e.g., circa 450 million years ago during the late Ordovician period CO2 levels were over 10x todays levels (approx 4500ppm CO2) and global average temperature were as cold as today. I say cold because we are just coming up off the bottom of temps set during the “little ice age” which was the coldest period in the last 10,000 years, so we SHOULD be warming. As we warm CO2 levels rise because CO2 is released from the cold ocean waters.
When there is a warming period (e.g., the medieval warm period) which was warmer than today, just as the Roman warm period was warmer than the medieval warm period (MWP). After each warm period there is a typical lag in CO2 levels of 800 years, after which CO2 levels increase. Look up when the MWP was, add 800 years and you will understand the modern increase.
That said, during the MWP CO2 was much lower than today and yet global average temp was higher, so you have another example of CO2 being inversely correlated with temperatures, this time opposite to my previous example. So you can have high global temps and low CO2 AND high CO2 and low global temperatures.
Incidentally, all the CO2 generated by human activity on the planet equates to a fraction of a percent of the CO2 generated by the earth during her natural cycles.
I hope this answers your questions.
@@aquarionh2o132
1) From about 3,000 years ago to about 100 years ago, sea levels naturally rose and declined slightly, with little change in the overall trend. Over the past 100 years, global temperatures have risen about 1 degree C (1.8 degrees F), with sea level response to that warming totaling about 160 to 210 mm (with about half of that amount occurring since 1993), or about 6 to 8 inches. And the current rate of sea-level rise is unprecedented over the past several millennia.
2) 450 million years ago during the late Ordovician period the sun was cooler.
3) The Medieval Warm Period was not a global phenomenon. Warmer conditions were concentrated in certain regions. Climate scientists now understand that the Medieval Warm Period was caused by an increase in solar radiation and a decrease in volcanic activity, which both promote warming. However, evidence shows ocean circulation patterns shifted to bring warmer seawater into the North Atlantic and this is why it was felt mainly in the Northern Hemisphere. Search for this. “Climate feedback Research does not show a Medieval Warm Period warmer than the present day”.
A recent study working with a global database of paleoclimate records found that no previous warm or cool period in the last 2,000 years-including the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period (also called the Medieval Climate Anomaly)-occurred globally and synchronously. But 20th Century temperatures were the warmest of the last 2,000 years for the entire surface of the Earth.
Search for this,
“No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era, Raphael Neukom, Nathan Steiger, Juan José Gómez-Navarro, Jianghao Wang & Johannes P. Werner Nature volume 571".
Or this. “Climate feedback Research does not show a Medieval Warm Period warmer than the present day”.
4) Are you saying the rapid warming we are seeing is a natural recovery from the Little Ice Age and if so do you have citations to back that up? BTW... A simple search for "Why is global warming not a recovery from the Little Ice Age" will show you the truth. Or, Search for. New Scientist, "Climate myths: We are simply recovering from the Little Ice Age" And, Carbon Brief, "Is climate change all just a recovery from the Little Ice Age".
5) Earth's orbit around the sun is not fixed. It varies in its distance from the sun (eccentricity), the angle of the earth's rotation (obliquity)and the earth's wobble (precession). You can google "the Milankovitch cycles" for more info. Isn't science fascinating? The Milankovitch cycles drive the ice ages but this takes thousands of years and their effect is too weak to cause the shifts between glacials and interglacials on their own. Ice cores show us quite clearly that as orbital changes start the warm up phase after an ice age, ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. Of course many prominent "deniers " try to cherry pick this information and claim CO2 follows temperature change and thus cannot be a driver but the science is clear.
Today, the CO2 is not coming out of the oceans but is rather being produced through human activities, most principally the burning of fossil fuels, which bring ancient, sequestered carbon out of the ground and into the present day carbon cycle in the form of CO2. CO2 doesn’t know or care from whence it came. Once in the atmosphere it warms the surface like all greenhouse gases do. Today it is leading the warming
6) Emissions from humans burning fossil fuels have doubled CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
@@hosnimubarak8869 the more CO2 the better. I would be very pleased to see 3600ppm again.
The MWP was identified as something that needed to be erased in order to fit the climate change narrative.
So, you have some good science in your reply and some political science and propaganda.
I know enough people (personally) that play the academic game to get their funding - because that’s the game - yet will tell people confidentially that it’s all smoke and mirrors.
Both the rate of, and total rise of, sea levels in the last 150 has been close to zero.
So much “science” isn’t. It’s just a narrative.
Isotopic dating of glaciers for example: Himalayan glaciers were once dated at 500,000+ years old. In recent dating using a different isotope, they were dated to be a MAX age of 17,000.
C14 dating: utter trash. We can generate C14 in two weeks and have it dated at between 30,000-33,000 yrs old at a 95+% confidence level.
Personally, I’ve isolated an isotope that I was told was “impossible” to isolate, yet my sample was tested via mass spectrometry and confirmed I had done just that.
In short, don’t believe everything you read in ANY journal or peer reviewed paper, shake off the fog of the indoctrination of the last 40+ years and learn to think for yourself. If government or the mainstream narrative says something, you will be closer to the truth if you look 180 degrees from what they tell you.
Easy case In point can be made from
The last few years of all the co-vid-19 narrative. Completely lab origin, injections were never tested and were never a vaccine again at anything, just experimental mRNA gene therapy that have increased cancer rates among the recipients by 1200% and infertility by 500%, and that’s just for starters.
I can sight everything I’ve stated, but that’s more work than it’s worth. If you want to do a tiny bit of seeking yourself, look up when Moderna filed their patented. You will find that it was filed BEFORE the “discovery” of the “novel” virus. Your next question should then be how does one file a patent for something that is allegedly supposed to protect against something that had not been discovered yet?
On the climate front, all these “hottest at day/year on record” junk, that’s only since 1976. The 1930s were much hotter. Look up some of Tony Helier’s work on RUclips for an easy listen.
Good morning. Time to wake up.
@@aquarionh2o132
"I can sight everything I’ve stated".
Okay. Do it!,
"The 1930s were much hotter".
Here is how Tony Heller fools you. He posts newspaper articles about past localized heat waves like the 1930's. It's called cherry-picking. The 1930’s were very hot years in the United States. However, global warming takes into account temperatures over the entire planet, including the oceans. The land area of the U.S. accounts for only 2% of Earth's total surface area. Despite the U.S. sweltering in the 30’s, those years were not especially hot over the rest of the planet. Globally, 1930 temperatures were actually cooler than average for the 20th century.
You can confirm my comment by searching for.
“NASA Science Briefs Whither U.S. Climate-NASA"
Look up these videos,
Tony Heller Graph Abuser:
Tony Heller Under pressure:
Heller Drowning in Deceptions:
Heller Not Telling the Truth (again):
Heller Dishonest Science
The Australian outback is greener than back in the 80s too.
Planet is getting greener because I don't eat plants and concentrate on eating meat, fish and other seafood.
Can someone please ask one of the alarmists how low they would like atmospheric CO2 to go? I’m no expert, but my suspicion is that at the level they would like we would be sentencing vast regions of the world to famine.
"You are the carbon they want to reduce"
In a 2018 climate debate with Happer, Titely, Curry and Moore, Mann postulated that 350-380ppm would be acceptable. We assume from that statement that over 380 to the current 420 would not be acceptable? Happer used the thermal emission & absorption charts and Stefan-Boltzmann formula to show that a doubling of CO2 from 400-800ppm would warm by only 0.71C and take 160 years to achieve at the current emission rate 2.5ppm/yr net.
Or, what is the optimal average temperature of the world?
If the CO2 Levels go below 250 parts per million, plants will begin to die. In 1850, CO2 levels were at 350 parts per million; today we are at 425 parts per million. During some of the lushest times in Earth's history , CO2 levels were at 6000 parts per million, 15 times greater than have today.
Did you know that when CO2 doubles it's atmospheric amount plants only use 50% less water as at the lower level. Another process in earths current greening due to current increased CO2. This science has been accepted as factual until the great suppression of 2020.
This format works really well for sharing, short, sweet, informative and factual and perfectly delivered by Linnea
One should note that edible crop growth has also increased allowing for millions more people to be fed. If the climate alarmists get their way and destroy our farming industries by banning fertiliser millions will die.
Greenhouse operations have determined that 800ppn to 1000ppm or so is optimum.
Challenge your climate alarmist family and friends with this question: What is better for the earth, 150ppm or 1000ppm? Hint: one is an extinction level event.
Thanks Linnea, keep up the good work
About two weeks ago, a local television station showed live video feed from the Grand Canyon. I have lived in Arizona for almost 50 years, and had never seen the walls of the canyon, and the slopes of the islands, so green this close to Summer.
But but, polar bears, but but corral reef. Oh right, they've both increased too, lol. So glad the world is slowly but surely waking up from this stupor.
Truth at last! Thank you !
Well said!
Make Photosynthesis Great Again!
Great video thank you 👍🏻
It’s not easy being green🪯💖🎶🎶🎵🎶🎶
thank you❤
Linnéa Luken, fun fact from Sweden: Linnéa is the 7th most common name here in Sweden and is considered as a very beautiful name and I agree with that.😊👍Great show by the way, as usual.
Wow…real information from an intelligent young woman, don’t stop speaking reality as you and science are CORRECT…wow 👍🇦🇺
Awesome facts
Where are your open non stop demands for environmental & climate change debates?
When leftists don’t show up, proceed anyways against their empty chairs.
Please produce, don’t just lecture us.
Yeah, the planet doesn't seem too stressed out to me. Except where it's covered in solar panels or those wind mills.
Or all of the mining being done for all the precious minerals needed for batteries.
Yes you are right, Canada is greening with marijuana plants.
Thanks for posting this good news!
More co2 has its benefits !!!! R
I like desserts but I like green spaces better. Certainly more beneficial to the planet as a whole.
Uh oh, some MORE inconvenient facts.
You should get a better greening map that doesn't show greening in the middle of Australia.
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️❗️
That pollutant known as Co2 is such an inconvenient fact. Context that! RUclips
All that is required of humans is to have governments lean heavily on country’s like Brazil to stop clear cutting rainforests and where trees are cut down ,replace at a rate of ‘plant 3 for every 1 removed’ ,as Canada has been doing for decades.
We cant have this! Plants growing better by themselves. We need to rely on mega corporations to supply our fertiliser and control our food.
Riddle me this, if the greenhouse existed how did temperatures drop 5-20°C in 20-30 mins during the eclipse.? The co2 hasn't gone anywhere, ohh got it, it's a con..!
Air temperature at ground level, is measured in the shade. That is why they use those ventilated boxes (Stevenson Screen) to house the thermometers.
If your thermometer is in sunlight then you are measuring the Sun's radiance, not air temperature.
You will get crazy fluctuations if the thermometer is exposed to sunlight.
@@PhilJonesIII I know and the thermometer is 6' above ground level. Did you read what you wrote before hitting send? I don't think so.! Air temp is the same in or out of shade.
@@stewartread4235 If a thermometer is exposed to sunlight then you are no longer measuring air temperature.
There are a lot of requirements surrounding the placement of a Stevenson Screen. From height above ground (1.22 meters) to its proximity to other tall objects. All for good reason.
@@PhilJonesIII Geez, are you guys dumb? These temperature drops were officially recorded, explain to me where the greenhouse went? Or is co2 afraid of the dark??
If you look at "then and now" photos, especially the photos taken in the 1800's, almost all of them show more trees in the "now" photos. I'm surprised that YT even allows this channel. Maybe it is demonetized. I don't know how to tell if it was.
😂😂How dare you? Keep up the good work
Who else survived "The Coming Ice Age" they freaked-out about in the 70's?
In the 1970’s, a handful of scientists (not a consensus) indicated that human caused air pollution was increasing and aerosols (particulate matter) in our atmosphere would cause cooling due to an albedo effect. As a result of observations and a switch to cleaner fuel burning, this no longer seen as a problem.
@@hosnimubarak8869
I remember "Smog Days" and hyterical magazine covers warning of the coming frozen world.
Satellite data have recently revealed that between 2002 and 2019, the mesosphere and lower thermosphere cooled by 3.1 degrees F (1.7 degrees C ). Mlynczak estimates that the doubling of CO2 levels thought likely by later this century will cause a cooling in these zones of around 13.5 degrees F (7.5 degrees C), which is between two and three times faster than the average warming expected at ground level.
That's not lag on CO2 and glaciation charts, but actually CO2 super cooling.
So how do you explain the crazy exponential shrinking of the global cryosphere?
Or how do you explain 140 degree F in northern Pakistan?... In APRIL!!
Or explain 100 degrees F in eastern Washington, USA Inc??.... In the last week of APRIL!!!
Why is methane coming out of the warming Arctic tundras by the giga tons???!!
@@asimplehorseman4648 Ever lived in Pakistan? It gets hot there. In the past 4000-8000 years ago temps were +2C higher than now. Those well-preserved Pleistocene animal remains that we find today in the permafrost were already in the ground then and didn't rot away.
@@yasi4877 You understand there is enough methane in the arctic to turn earth into Venus 10 times over, right? And that methane is 120 times more potent(over a ten year horizon) a green house gas than CO2, right? And what part of 130 in April in northern Pakistan did you not understand? I live in eastern Washington and 100 at the end of April was off the charts not normal, VERY not normal. And how does a shrinking cryosphere mean the planet is cooling? Do you know what a cryosphere 'is'?
@@asimplehorseman4648 High temperatures are common there. Look at the record. The permafrost had every chance to release much of its methane 4000-8000 years ago. We are still digging up the perfectly preserved proof that such did not happen. I don't buy your alarmism.
There's two super huge problems that's not entered into that scenario, "the depleted ozone layer". Which by the way is at between 20 and 30 percent of what it was even just 40 years ago and the off the charts methane expulsion in the arctic. Look up Siberian methane craters, you'll be shocked. Never before did we have UV"C" recorded at surface levels and now we do. Methane covers the earth like a layer of glass. Let's heat in but not out.
Except in concentrated areas like LA the smog actually stunts plants. Imagin Bejing.
How many additional aerosols are released to the atmosphere from the extra greening? Enough for a lot of extra clouds 🌧️. Oh! Look! It’s raining, again.
PSST its called SEASON’s!
Is there an increase in marine plant life?
and sadly much of this plant life will be removed and replaced with solar panels.... crazy....
How did we ever get to a place that we now call CO2 pollution.
"greening is thought to have reduced global warming by 0.36F to? which is significant". But the Heartland Inst elsewhere says that a rise of global temps of 1 or 2C is insignificant "as it changes much more than that most days". Come on guys, make your minds up! Also it's ironic that they quote NASA who makes it clear that GW is human caused and extremely 'significant'.
You Are Stunningly Beautiful.. And Thank for all your Excellent work... I would seriously Like to give you one or three... And I would not charge you for the first time.. 😊😊
Lots of Love ❤️ from A Rhodesian Boy... ❤❤😊 xxx
How Long does it take to Grow a One Hundred Year Old Tree ?.
How Long does it take to Grow a Two Hundred Year Old Tree ?.
So We are Up from a Very Very Low Green Planet.
Long Way to go.
So, the Earth's climate is, to some extent, self-balancing, but I bet Great never acknowledges that.
Life has been on earth for a long time, so it must be self balancing.
Must be all the carbon.
Really? I want it to get purpler!
YES MORE CO2 = MORE PLANT.
NOW WE MUST START TO FEED PLANT BRAWNDO. BRAWNDO HAVE ELECTROLYTE. BRAWNDO HAVE WHAT PLANT CRAVE.
Nothing lives without Carbon dioxide!
Your point?
1975 doom and gloom ice age on the horizon...
In the 1970’s, a handful of scientists (not a consensus) indicated that human caused air pollution was increasing and aerosols (particulate matter) in our atmosphere would cause cooling due to an albedo effect. As a result of observations and a switch to cleaner fuel burning, this no longer seen as a problem.
It's not "climate change" that's causing the gardening, as the text makes clear.
Gosh, it's almost as if there's a self-regulating cycle of life on Earth...😅
Yes, it's called humans. For the last 10,000 years, humans have been cutting forests which blocked the uptake of CO2, and started farming which released CO2 and CH4 into the atmosphere. This stopped the rapid cooling after all interglacial maximums, maintaining climate temperatures relatively constant, and allowing human civilization to flourish until the Little Ice Age. The Little Ice Age appears to be caused by the loss of 81 million Native Americans, killed by European diseases in conjunction with volcanic activity. This population drop allowed the uptake of CO2 and stopped the release of CO2 and CH4 from North American farming. The human industrial revolution began about 1760 pulling us back out of the Little Ice Age by injecting massive amounts of trace greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Global temperatures have continued to rise since about 1900 with short stops and starts. The last 8 years have been the hottest years on record. El Ninos add just a tad more heat. Due to the Milankovitch cycles, the natural climate should be in a mild glacial period. Still, temperature gains continue to rise directly due to industry injecting massive amounts of trace greenhouse gas into the atmosphere. There will be a cost.
but does greening outpace deforestation?
By far these days. Most commercial wood is from tree farms now. Mostly only 3rd world countries are being deforested and that is even reversing. Oxfam (who I have worked with) has worked hard getting poverty stricken farmers to plant trees to help with soil erosion, rainfall problems, etc.
Thanks to CO2 of course, unfortunately humans don't produce nearly enough and what we do produce is so minute that it's irrelevant in the natural scheme of things.
That's a lie.
Yay for global warming!!
CO2 is NOT pollution.
A broader definition of pollutant is a substance that causes instability or discomfort to an ecosystem. Over the past 10,000 years, the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has remained at relatively stable levels. However, human CO2 emissions over the past few centuries have upset this balance. The increase in CO2 has some direct effects on the environment.
Earth will burn by our hand...
Make Greenland green again. (Will need more warming...)
So, you are interested in returning Earth back to like it was during the Dinosaur days where the equatorial region was a vast desert with only the northern latitudes habitable for humans? We'll have to shed billions of our population.
@@spacescatatford Desert is not green. Population of India is 24500 times that of Greenland. Area is 1.5 times. Amazon is not a desert. Heat is not drouth. Hot areas are habitable as long as not dry. And somewhere the water must come down.
But cold kills always.
@@hartunstart You seemed to have missed that part about the Dinosaur days. Yes, the entire equatorial region was a desert where virtually nothing lived. As we continue to inject greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the Mexican desert will continue to move east. Presently that desert movement is about 100 miles per year. Due to the extreme drought in the western US, our cattle herd is now at 1951 levels. Have you noticed the price of beef lately?
@@spacescatatford According to traditional climate theory, latitudes 30 and poles are high-pressure areas with dry and sunny weather while equator and latitudes 60 are low-pressure with cloudy and wet weather. Sonoran Desert is on latitude 30 far from equator. High elevation helps keeping it dry. Moving east does not take it closer to equator, but we can hope it finally neutralizes itself in Gulf of Mexico.
Since dino days continents have moved, elevations changed and ocean streams redirected. CO2 does not explain everything. In Ukraine war they burn a couple of refineries every week and you just can not stop the emissions. But Sonoran Desert is just a local thing even if big if you are going to walk through it.
@@hartunstart "CO2 does not explain everything." When you heat the planet, you disrupt normal weather patterns. Human-induced climate change began 10,000 years ago, not since 1760 at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Go to Wikipedia, Ice Age, Magor Ice Ages, right-hand graph, and click on it. That top blue line shows the temperature. The right-hand side is where we are, the Holocene. All interglacial temperature maximums before the Holocene had a very short period. That's because during the Holocene, humans started cutting forests which blocked the uptake of CO2, and began farming which released CO2 and CH4 back into the atmosphere creating a relatively constant temperature human civilization could thrive. By the Milankovitch cycles, we should be within a mild glacial period. We are heating instead at a rapid relative rate. If we continue at this pace, the entire US and Europe will become desert regions. We've understood this since the 1960s when my great-uncle Bud was a physicist working for the oil industry. Oil rigs were designed back then specifically for sea level rise. One way or another, carbon-based energy is coming to an end.
if co2 is so bad why plants and trees thrive near freeways
Plants next to pavement get more water runoff, at least in places where water is marginal, such as South Dakota, eastern Colorado, etc.
@@comment8767 That is the feeblest most idiotic argument ever!
#1.Vehicles produce a lot of Carbon Monoxide CO which is bad for plants. Don't confuse Carbon Monoxide with Carbon Dioxide CO2. Plus gasoline has a lot of toxic additives.
#2 Asphalt has a lot of toxic chemicals in it that causes the soil to become contaminated. And Asphalt especially near freeways and highways were there is a lot more asphalt causes a lot heat to radiate off. And the excessive heat can dry out the surrounding area.
#3 Salt many roads are salted in the winter time. Salt is toxic to plants.
@@rodkeh Ahh no it isn't
@@ulrichenevoldsen8371 Ahh Yes it is!
After all the drama turns out the Earth thrives on higher CO2. Just the opposite of the doomsday claims.
But you can't deny CO2 is a greenhouse gas, right?
@@hosnimubarak8869 of course a very necessary one.
@@rubytuby6369
And greenhouse gasses keep our planet warm, right?
@@hosnimubarak8869 warmer and wetter versus drier and colder. Life thrives it’s a better earth when it’s a little warmer and wetter. Just like it was for millennia in the past and people did just fine.
@@rubytuby6369
Do a search for "Wet bulb temperature effects on human health".
And keep in mind, more than 3.3 billion people live in the tropics, representing about 40% of the world’s population. Despite some areas of affluence, such as Singapore, the tropics are also home to about 85% of the world’s poorest people and are therefore particularly susceptible to the impacts of climate change.
Our planet is dying. Stop carbon pollution
lol
It’s got nothing to do with science, it’s all about money. Follow the money.
I followed the money and it turns out this video is produced by a political think-tank sponsored by one of the most prolific oil and gas lobbying groups, the Koch family. They are the modern equivalent of cigarette companies telling you that smoking is good for you.
Fashies deleting my comments. I followed the money and it turns out the Heartland Institute is a political think-tank sponsored by one of the most prolific oil and gas lobbying groups, the Koch Family. They are the modern equivalent of smoking companies telling you cigs are good for you.
The world may be getting greener but it is also getting hotter and much faster than predicted. The rising temperatures will eventually kill most things including our grandchildren.
no. temperature growth has been minimal, and well within expected rise post little ice age. Remember, the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than now. The Roman Warm Period was warmer still. The Minoan Warm Period was even warmer. Did we all die? Not last I checked.
If we somehow go above Minoan warm I will profusely apologize, but we will not.
@@damagingthebrand7387
"the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than now. The Roman Warm Period was warmer still. The Minoan Warm Period was even warmer".
No! Not globally.
There are massive tree planting projects in China and Africa. China has planted billions of trees as part of their Great Green Wall project which is ongoing. So I wondered how much of the greening NASA measured can be attributed to those tree planting schemes and how much is due to increased CO2 concentration.
The USA has increased forest amount by 5% over the last 40 years.
" the planet is greening and that's a good thing." No it's not.
Yes, actually it is.
@@damagingthebrand7387 What about ocean acidification. It's caused by rising CO2 levels. Is that a good thing?
@@petewright4640 Our oceans survived hundreds of thousands of years with a higher CO2 level.
We were near plant starvation levels of CO2, only grasses survive below ~120PPM.
On ocean acidification, that was a lie brought by a group of dishonest people.
Carbonic acid comes out of water as water warms, thus as we get warmer the oceans get less acidic, this is basic chemistry.
This is also one of the reasons atmospheric CO2 has been rising, the end of the Little ice age causing oceans to warm, releasing carbonic acid.
@@damagingthebrand7387
Wow!
you still use the climate alarmists' terms, language, and jargon too much.
And the oceans are getting more acidic from the CO2, and that's a bad thing.
Though most of Earth's history when there has been life on the planet CO2 levels have been at 2,000 PPM to 3,000 PPM. We are now down to 400 PPM. If CO2 levels at 3,000 PPM weren't enough to raise the acid levels high enough what makes you think we can do it.
Yes and the coral reefs are disappearing because of that right?
@@dalebaker3799 people weren't here then
@@ulrichenevoldsen8371 krill is the issue
@@Ron-dx9wq no. The issue is the fear mongering
The planet might be greener but it's also a lot wetter, there's severe floods kicking off all around the globe, a clear sign of the impact of our warming climate.
Floods haven't gone up in the world.
@@dalebaker3799 You've got to be kidding, literally everyday there's another unprecedented flood event somewhere around the world. If it was just the odd isolated event then sure it could be considered normal, but at the rate they're occurring it's an undeniable sign the climate has changed.
@@leegoodman297 The ICCP papers have shown there's not. But there's more media now than ever before to broadcast it. You here about shootings more then ever before even though there are fewer shooting now then in the 1980s and the 1990s. PS Most of Earth's history since the arise of life on Earth CO2 levels have been at 2,000 to 3,000 PPM. Now we're down to about 430 PPM we're in a CO2 drought.
@@leegoodman297 more flods compared to what time period?
@@leegoodman297 LOL, do you think the commie networks are reporting on floods more?
Greening has nothing to do with climate change.
Why not. Is climate change only doom?
@@ulrichenevoldsen8371
Name something good about it.
@@hosnimubarak8869 more plant growth
@@ulrichenevoldsen8371
Liebig's Law of the Minimum, and detailed experiments and measurements, show as CO2 goes up, crop nutrient density and soil fertility go down. While leaves get bigger, they get unhealthier. In a greenhouse, where artificial fertilizers and irrigation are available, these effects can be countered, though it is costly to manage.
@@hosnimubarak8869 bla bla bla nonsense
That’s not to say every last corner of Earth is losing its vegetation. Some recent studies have revealed that parts of the Arctic are “greening” as the chilly landscape warms. And there’s increasing plant growth still happening in other regions of the world, as well.
But on a global scale, averaged across the entire planet, the trend is pointing downward.
The declines challenge an argument often presented by skeptics of mainstream climate science to downplay the consequences of global warming: the idea that plants will grow faster with larger amounts of carbon dioxide. The argument hinges on the idea that food supplies will increase.
It’s largely a red herring, as climate scientists have patiently explained for years. Rising CO2 does benefit plants, at least up to a point, but it’s just one factor. Plants are also affected by many other symptoms of climate change, including rising temperatures, changing weather patterns, shifts in water availability, and so on.
What rising temperatures would those be? As I have stated ad nauseum we have not, and will not reach the temperatures of the Roman warm or the Minoan warm. Guess what? life was thriving. Quit listening to climate crazies and billionaires making money off of your foolishness.
‘plants take in carbon dioxide
and convert it via photosynthesis
into oxygen and water vapor’
actually, plants take in CO₂ and H₂O
and convert it via photosynthesis
6H₂O + 6CO₂ => C₆H₁₂O₆ + 6O₂
into sugar and oxygen
And the glucose is food which powers cellular respiration, which drives the production and release of H2O, some CO2 and water vapor.
H20 was meant to be O2.
@@charlessansom4849
cellular respiration is
C₆H₁₂O₆ + 6O₂ => 6H₂O + 6CO₂