Too much CO2 causing a climate crisis? Why not just plan stuff?

I’m asking you to watch it. It is about deforestation primarily. It makes no claims about CO2 making the planet a desert.

It’s amusing to see him blame flooding in Bangladesh on sea level rise when it’s actually a function of deforestation. But that’s just amusing and not related you you not having watched the video.

 

So?

 

China will tell you what you want to hear. You want to hear that China is concerned about CO2.

 

And after roughly six to eight thousand years of expansion it is beginning to shrink again. I know how clouds form. I minored in Meterology and geology and climatology in college and spent 2 years as a ballistic meteorologist in the army.

 

Obviously they lie about a lot of crap when they thing it will benefit them. Unlike the Biden administration that lies even when they would be better off to tell the truth.

 

So why did you mention the boiling point of water?

 

Deforestation and massively burning of fossil fuels have the same effect: too much CO2 in the atmosphere -> increased greenhouse effect -> dangerous global warming.

Unfortunately, if we do both (and we do!), the faster we ruin our earth.

 

The direct non-CO2 negative effects of deforestation are orders of magnitude greater than the CO2 warming effects. The recent fire on Maui is one example. Deforestation of western Maui transformed that area from “the Venice of the Pacific” into a fire prone “desert”.


Same with Bangladesh flooding. Has very little to do with CO2. Mostly effects of deforestation.

 

Water isn't going anywhere. It evaporates condenses around small particles and rains or snow or hails the trace amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere have literally no impact on that. At 4.2 parts per 10,000 it literally can't.

 

So what has that got to do with the boiling point of water?

 

You're the one asking where the water is going to fill those streams.

 

Lol. What has that got to do with the boiling point of water!

 

Because you are apparently assuming the water went somewhere.

 

That makes no sense either. Boiling water ends up in the same place as evaporated water

 

Well some things live in the deserts already so "reclaiming them" is actually destroying them, but whatever. If you want to rewild an area you don't terra-form it. You let nature take care of it and stay away.

 

Any action changes things. We can stick a cork up our butts and hope nothing ever changes or we can act to better our existence. For instance, Boston in 1600 had a very different shore line than today. They simply moved earth from some areas to others. Today? Boston is bigger than it was in 1600.

 

They could have just built in a different direction. They chose not to and because Boston is bigger than it was in 1600 it has a massive carbon footprint just for heating in winter alone. Terraforming has a carbon footprint. Sticking a cork up our butts not so much. You seem to think that your intent to do good makes what you propose good. It can actually make things quite worse. You would be better off reducing the number of highways and replanting the area with switchgrass and miscanthus.

 

Too much CO2 seems to be far less of a crisis when compared to lack of oxygen to the brain cells of climate change aficionados.

 

The atmospheric CO2 level for optimal growth for common grasses ranges from 950-1150 ppm. If we assume the rate of atmospheric CO2 increase follows historical patterns we could see optimal CO2 levels for grass growth in about 175-200 years.

 

Doesn’t a plant that’s simple as grass produce oxygen while scrubbing CO2? And since that plant isn’t operating near it’s high efficiency zone mean we’re in the safe zone?

Still doesn’t explain cerebral hypoxia….

 

Here’s a new flash for the tree lovers that think we’re doomed after a forest fire…. Grass replaces the trees and doing a better job than the trees did:

https://sustainability-success.com/does-grass-produce-oxygen/

 

Yep. The claims we’ve seen in this thread about CO2 creating deserts is patently absurd and not based on evidence.

Not only does CO2 levels in the 950-1150 ppm range result in optimal photosynthesis rates (optimal CO2 uptake and oxygen production) it also results in more optimal water use efficiency by the plants. In fact, peak water use efficiency doesn’t occur in some grass species until CO2 levels of around 1600 ppm are reached. So higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere also help prevent desertification by increasing the ability of plants to thrive with less water availability.

 

But if I'm correct, that "carbon footprint" will not matter. Plant stuff and you'll reduce CO2 in the atmosphere. Much better than shoving a cork up your butt.

 

What you plant matters greatly. Trees are not the magic bullet. They release too much of their carbon too quickly to make much of a difference over time.

 

Others in this thread have suggested grasses are better. I hear kudzu grows like wild, even where you'd rather it didn't.