"Studies have shown that increased concentrations of carbon dioxide increase photosynthesis, spurring plant growth."
"Results showed that carbon dioxide fertilization explains 70 percent of the greening effect, said co-author Ranga Myneni, a professor in the Department of Earth and Environment at Boston University. “The second most important driver is nitrogen, at 9 percent. So we see what an outsized role CO2 plays in this process.”"
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2436/co2-is-making-earth-green...
I'm not going to engage with it either. That kind of statement is just begging for a response because the goal moves in any number of directions - look, plants will sequester all our carbon! Solar minimum will counter human climate change! More food for people! It's all a conspiracy!
No.
There's a reason those climate change reports can be 100s of pages long. Scientists have done very thorough public research, accounting for all those variables - the conclusion is, we're fucked.
All the science is complicated but completely public. Trust the summary provided by the consensus of journalists covering the scientific consensus of raw research - that's called an educated opinion. Alternatively, roll up your own sleeves and probe the research yourself.
Never let some online rando's idle musings erode your opinions. If it sounds too good to be true, it is.
The fact is... we don’t really know what will happen. Our world will be different, some animals may be gone, some will be better off than ever, but humans will still be here. The inhabitants of Earth have survived far worse conditions and events in the past.
Yes, but how many, and who. It's still an existential threat to invididuals, when you don't know what conditions that will make up that survivability. Now that it is apparent that there is the distinct possibility of people dying within our lifetimes, even if not many, it's a concern. It's basically "Evolution has decided that the time has come to select the strongest, and I don't know if I or my loved ones are strong enough."
1) is limited in how much it is allowed to reduce economic activity (what point is there in saving humanity if you have to do it through famine ?)
2) is limited in how much global warming is allowed
Nobody has any such solutions, except for geoengineering, at which point humanity simply takes direct control of global climate. That means someone, probably in Washington or perhaps Brussels or Beijing, simply decides whether crops in the Sahara will work out this year or not. Are they responsible for the failed yields ? How about fuckups (which we can pretty much assume will happen) ? How about sacrificing one area to save another when they're at war ?
Also this tech is probably pretty easily weaponized.
Yeah, let's just wait and see what happens...
>Our world will be different, some animals may be gone, some will be better off than ever, but humans will still be here.
Yeah, just a couple billions or so less, and dying / living horribly... But who cares, you give some, you get some, right?
Things are going to change a lot, yes. It might require a lot of changes to the way we live, yes. It might have some really tragic consequences, yes.
But speaking about climate change as if the apocalypse were nigh and there were nothing that could be done about it is not only counter-productive, but has played an important part in guaranteeing the situation got as bad as it has (remember Al Gore saying that, by 2014, there would be no ice at the poles? Do you think people who heard that are more or less likely to pay attention to climate change, now that 2014 has come and gone and the ice caps are still there, even if smaller?)
Now, I agree with you that climate science and forecasting is complex. However, the reports are public and known for anyone doubting, and the organization is highly transparent[0].
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_C...
[Zharkova is] a Professor in Mathematics at Northumbria University. [She has a] BSc/MSc in Applied Mathematics and Astronomy, a Ph.D. in Astrophysics, certificate in project management.
Henrik Svensmark (born 1958) is a physicist and professor in the Division of Solar System Physics at the Danish National Space Institute (DTU Space) in Copenhagen. He is known for his theory on the effects of cosmic rays on cloud formation as an indirect cause of global warming.
Casey received his B.S in physics and math from Jacksonville State University and his MA in Management from Webster University.
Freeman John Dyson FRS (born 15 December 1923) is a British theoretical physicist and mathematician known for his work in quantum electrodynamics, solid-state physics, astronomy and nuclear engineering.
Not really good for us or for a stable climate, but probably good for plants. Plants love CO2
> We are in a cooling period, which means we need all the help we can get growing food.
We might have some cold winters, but global average temperatures are going up, a lot. Globally we are in no danger of not being able to grow food due to cold temperatures (though local effects from disrupting ocean currents are still very possible ofc).
'Football pitch' of Amazon forest lost every minute
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48827490