Is it being captured faster than hot houses are releasing it to make the food grow better?Should more be used in hot houses as best carbon capture process?
Thanks for another entry into the Whataboutism Hall of Fame collection.
it is real you know
That is just a truism, even school children know about the carbon cycle. The point is that an excess of CO2 in the atmosphere retains heat and changes the balance of that cycle.
A great examples of problems created by that imbalance is found in agriculture. Look at trends in viniculture related to global warming.
1 Like
The only thing measured in climate change in oz is it rains less in the south and more in the north which is less than about 100 years of data.
Hence gov working on moving crops around and or making them suit the new conditions.
Re agriculture the best reality on crops is talking with meteorologists that work for commodity brokers.
The 2 I have chatted with said we ignore the green lobby, for every place on the planet warming we have one cooling, just shift the crops.
We use data from actual thermometers we have access to not the made up homogenized data.
From the linked article:
In an ideal world CO2 captured from the outside atmosphere, using renewable energy. The CO2 is pumped into the greenhouses at the low level to “enriched” the air that the plants use to grow faster and produced more, or better vegetables and flowers.
In the process the plants produce Oxygen, which is vented back to the atmosphere through the ventilation hatches on top of he greenhouses.
A neutral process that add no GHG to the atmosphere and thus cause no global warming. A win-win situation for all.
PS> The CO2 can be captured and liquified somewhere else, like from ships engine exhaust etc.
What’s an excess? What’s the Goldilocks not-too-hot, not-too cold, but just right setting on the CO2 control knob? When did we have it exactly right?
The earth once had 2500 ppm and is now down to 420 ppm or thereabouts so there’s plenty of possibilities. In past ice ages we’ve been down to less than 200 ppm and things don’t grow. I suggest higher CO2 is better because warming is better than cooling and plants grow better.
Adding more CO2 now doesn’t produce significant warming because the warming effect declines logarithmically as its concentration increases. We might get 0.2C warming per century at 450 ppm. At 800 ppm we might get 0.1C. I’m not worried about that.
Finally we cannot attribute CO2 increase to human causes without first understanding the natural causes. Primarily that’s degassing of oceans as they warm naturally as we continue to recover from the last ice age. But another one is due.
All of which costs money.
BTW we all know how an enclosed greenhouse works, but the earth’s atmosphere is not an enclosed system and is not a greenhouse. The tropics are connected to the polar regions.
I don’t know, I’m not a climate scientist and don’t pretend to be one on the internet.
If you really want to learn, instead of trolling a bunch of sailors, contact a few of the real climate scientists and universities who inhabit that domain.
And I was just warming up. I’m quoting studies by actual university climate scientists by the way.
Good then you understand why global warming is said to be caused by the “greenhouse effect” and why CO2, Methane etc. is known as “greenhouse gasses”
The atmosphere become enclosed when you put a lid on it, like the glass roof on a greenhouse.
Yes, by the temperate zones in between:
You’re struggling, mate.
Ye struggling to make any sense of your arguments, here as on other topics.
2 Likes