Rising CO2 levels are re-GREENING the Earth with huge gains in forest coverage

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It shows no such thing. No wonder you reach the wrong conslustion so consistently.

Temperatures decreased from around 1939 until the 70s even though CO2 levels rose every year.

Except they didn't.

Go find a graph that shows temperature - not temperature anomalies - and look to see which way it slopes.

Temperatures decreased again from 2000 to about 2015 while CO2 levels continued to rise.

No, they didn't.

Again: go to the actual data, not some calculated measure that some science denier has chosen to make the graph have the overall "look" they want.

There is no correlation.

Except there is. You're reading your graph wrong.

If you don't believe me, go to any reliable source that gives mean global temperature vs. CO2 year-by-year.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is not misleading.

IOW, it misled you.

 

[Heyo]

There is no evidence that CO2 has a significant impact on temperatures, if that's what your getting at.

All you need is an infrared camera to see for yourself.

 

[KW]

Except they didn't.

Go find a graph that shows temperature - not temperature anomalies - and look to see which way it slopes.


No, they didn't.

Again: go to the actual data, not some calculated measure that some science denier has chosen to make the graph have the overall "look" they want.


Except there is. You're reading your graph wrong.

If you don't believe me, go to any reliable source that gives mean global temperature vs. CO2 year-by-year.

Here's another chart:

 

[KW]

IOW, it misled you.

You just can't read. Can't help you there, although I did give you another chart.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You just can't read. Can't help you there, although I did give you another chart.

Yes, it was very helpful.

 

[Bathos Logos]

People should be free to improve their lives.

No matter the cost to the environment or other people's lives that may be affected, correct?

Bureaucrats should not be limiting fossil fuel production or distribution.

Not just "bureaucrats", I agree - it should be all of us.

These leftist governments are hurting people.

I'd like a listing of types or circumstantial groups of people who are literally harmed when access to fossil fuels is not readily available. And is this happening when the fossil fuels aren't readily available to those people, personally (the people being hurt)? Or when the fossil fuels aren't made readily available to some other group who is using them for purposes even further removed from activities related to survival/necessity?

 

[crossfire]

I agree with the OP that CO2 is not a pollutant. Focus on the real pollutants. If you have a patient in unstable condition due to poisoning, you don't smother the patient--you work on counteracting the poisons.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

There is zero empirical evidence that CO2 has any significant impact on our temperatures.

First the disinformation.

The left cares about advancing their agenda. Leftist scientists cannot be trusted. We've seen them caught in multiple lies regarding climate change data, covid data, and cancer rates with relation to abortion, just to name a few.

Now the conspiracy theories.

For the left, everything is political.

Now the projection. Nobody on this thread has brought politics into this discussion but you. What do you post that isn't conservative political disinformation?

 

[KW]

First the disinformation.



Now the conspiracy theories.



Now the projection. Nobody on this thread has brought politics into this discussion but you. What do you post that isn't conservative political disinformation?

You are proving my point. I posted the actual data which shows no correlation between CO2 levels in the atmosphere and the average temperatures on earth.

Feel free to deal with the facts.

 

[KW]

No matter the cost to the environment or other people's lives that may be affected, correct?

Not just "bureaucrats", I agree - it should be all of us.

I'd like a listing of types or circumstantial groups of people who are literally harmed when access to fossil fuels is not readily available. And is this happening when the fossil fuels aren't readily available to those people, personally (the people being hurt)? Or when the fossil fuels aren't made readily available to some other group who is using them for purposes even further removed from activities related to survival/necessity?

Here are a couple of examples:

How Green Energy Hurts the Poor: News: The Independent Institute

Green Energy Policies Often Hurt The Poor | 2019-01-02 | ACHR News

Green Energy Dreams Will Hurt the Poor – InsideSources

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You are proving my point. I posted the actual data which shows no correlation between CO2 levels in the atmosphere and the average temperatures on earth.

Feel free to deal with the facts.

No you didn't.

You posted one graph that shows a consistent temperature rise as CO2 levels increase, along with a broken link.

 

[metis]

From NASA:
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an important heat-trapping (greenhouse) gas, which is released through human activities such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels, as well as natural processes such as respiration and volcanic eruptions. The first graph shows atmospheric CO2 levels measured at Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii, in recent years, with the average seasonal cycle removed. The second graph shows CO2 levels during the last three glacial cycles, as reconstructed from ice cores.

Since the beginning of the industrial era (1750), human activities have raised atmospheric concentrations of CO2 by about 50%. This is more than what had happened naturally over a 20,000 year period (from the Last Glacial Maximum to 1750, from 185 ppm to 278 ppm).

The time series below shows global distribution and variation of the concentration of mid-tropospheric carbon dioxide in parts per million (ppm). The overall color of the map shifts toward the red with advancing time due to the annual increase of CO2. -- Carbon Dioxide | Vital Signs – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet (nasa.gov)

The link also provides charts.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

 

[Kenny]

Rising CO2 levels are re-GREENING the Earth with huge gains in forest coverage across the Earth’s surface (climatesciencenews.com)

In a study published in the Nature journal, scientists analyzed 35 years of satellite data to assess the global land change dynamics that took place throughout the years from 1982 to 2016. Using historical satellite imagery from advanced, high-resolution radiometers, they explored the changes in cover of bare ground, short vegetation, and tree canopy across the planet and assessed the relation of these changes to human activity. They found that as the concentrations of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere rise, forest growth is supported.

The authors wrote: “We show that—contrary to the prevailing view that forest area has declined globally—tree cover has increased by 2.24 million km2 (+7.1% relative to the 1982 level).”

This is good!

More green trees is something that we, as keepers of the earth, wanted and needed it to happen.

thanks for the update.

 

[Suave]

Rising CO2 levels are re-GREENING the Earth with huge gains in forest coverage across the Earth’s surface (climatesciencenews.com)

In a study published in the Nature journal, scientists analyzed 35 years of satellite data to assess the global land change dynamics that took place throughout the years from 1982 to 2016. Using historical satellite imagery from advanced, high-resolution radiometers, they explored the changes in cover of bare ground, short vegetation, and tree canopy across the planet and assessed the relation of these changes to human activity. They found that as the concentrations of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere rise, forest growth is supported.

The authors wrote: “We show that—contrary to the prevailing view that forest area has declined globally—tree cover has increased by 2.24 million km2 (+7.1% relative to the 1982 level).”

This is terrific news, I am elated there are more trees for us to hug!

According to the Chicago region tree census, the seven county region located in northeast Illinois has an estimated 172,297,000 trees in 2020; this amounts to a 12 percent increase from 157,142,000 trees in 2010.

2020 Tree Census | Chicago Region Trees Initiative (chicagorti.org)

 

[Bathos Logos]

Here are a couple of examples:

How Green Energy Hurts the Poor: News: The Independent Institute

Green Energy Policies Often Hurt The Poor | 2019-01-02 | ACHR News

Green Energy Dreams Will Hurt the Poor – InsideSources

I get it, but the reality is also that simply remaining dependent on non-renewable resources without prepping for their eventually running out (more prescient concerning crude oil, but most definitely all nonrenewable resources are named that for a reason - they don't renew fast enough to keep up with the pace of human usage) also has its pitfalls. As we're likely to sooner run into with crude oil, prices will only skyrocket to astronomical levels when the supply is finally dwindling to near zero. If we haven't weaned ourselves off or found viable alternatives the demand will simply remain high even as the supply is extremely low. You want to talk about a crisis of poverty at that point? We'll be looking at people unable to make their commutes to even work because they can't purchase a single gallon of gasoline. Supply chains that rely on that fuel sitting immobile, causing prices of goods that are no longer being transported cheaply to also increase, or simply no longer be available - which will require further travel to actually obtain desired items - and how is that supposed to happen without gasoline if we're still dependent? In the end, we simply have to expect growing pains in a transition scenario. Just as people can tone down their travel when gas prices soar, so too can they utilize less electricity to buffer their finances against rising electricity costs. We're nearly all being irresponsible with this stuff as it stands, and taking for granted that the people generating the energy and forms of fuel have some responsibility to keep the prices low for everyone. They don't! To the point that we're not doing ourselves (as consumers) any favors by becoming and remaining dependent on resources that rest in the hands of people who are not at all required to have our best interests in mind when they do/enact anything.

 

[Yerda]

All you need is an infrared camera to see for yourself.

Maybe the absorption spectrum of the CO2 molecule is leftist propaganda.

 

[sayak83]

Rising CO2 levels are re-GREENING the Earth with huge gains in forest coverage across the Earth’s surface (climatesciencenews.com)

In a study published in the Nature journal, scientists analyzed 35 years of satellite data to assess the global land change dynamics that took place throughout the years from 1982 to 2016. Using historical satellite imagery from advanced, high-resolution radiometers, they explored the changes in cover of bare ground, short vegetation, and tree canopy across the planet and assessed the relation of these changes to human activity. They found that as the concentrations of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere rise, forest growth is supported.

The authors wrote: “We show that—contrary to the prevailing view that forest area has declined globally—tree cover has increased by 2.24 million km2 (+7.1% relative to the 1982 level).”

The reality of global greening
‘Global Greening’ Sounds Good. In the Long Run, It’s Terrible. (Published 2018)

Plants and marine plankton are soaking up merely 25% of the CO2 emitted by us by increasing their photosynthesis rates. They cannot increase it more because of their metabolic limitations. The rest 75% is getting dumped in oceans (acidification) and atmosphere (warming) creating the current rapidly detereorating climate of the world. This is well know and part of every climate model used (I can quote papers since 2000).
So what exactly is the good news here???

 

[sayak83]

• Global temperatures are recovering from the coldest period (Little Ice Age) of a warm period (Holocene) within one of the coldest periods (Quaternary) of Earth’s history
• It is not true that we are breaking temperature records. Moreover, we’re much closer to breaking all-time cold records then all-time highs
• It is true that CO2 concentration levels are the highest of the past 2.5 million years
• It is true that rising CO2 levels are due to human carbon emissions
• It is not true that these high CO2 levels are a threat to life on Earth. Life started and thrived at much higher global temperatures and CO2 levels
• It is not true that CO2 concentration fluctuations are the main driver for temperature variation. None of the four timescales we've observed show evidence of a clear positive correlation between CO2 and global temperature.

Temperature versus CO2 – the big picture | Holoceneclimate.com

Absurd fake websites do not improve your credibility.
Here is an exhaustive study of past 65 million years of temperature data. We have to go back 35 million years to see the level of changes we would experience by the end of this century if emissions are not controlled. Our civilization will not survive a shift to a hothouse climate.

66 Million Years of Earth’s Climate History Uncovered – Puts Current Changes in Context


For the past 3 million years, Earth’s climate has been in an Icehouse state characterized by alternating glacial and interglacial periods. Modern humans evolved during this time, but greenhouse gas emissions and other human activities are now driving the planet toward the Warmhouse and Hothouse climate states not seen since the Eocene epoch, which ended about 34 million years ago. During the early Eocene, there were no polar ice caps, and average global temperatures were 9 to 14 degrees Celsius"

“The IPCC projections for 2300 in the ‘business-as-usual’ scenario will potentially bring global temperature to a level the planet has not seen in 50 million years,” Zachos said.

Original paper
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aba6853