all 48 comments

[–]Electronic_Antelope 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (42 children)

Because otherwise, all the growing plants in an enclosed space will significantly reduce the amount of carbon in the air available for photosynthesis. That has no particular relationship to carbon dioxide's heat-trapping effects in Earth's atmosphere.

[–]chadwickofwv 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (18 children)

Are you aware that all of those models showing heating from co2 do not take clouds into account at all? They also completely ignore solar radiation. In fact, there is nothing scientific about them at all, just purely propaganda.

[–]weavilsatemyface 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

/u/chadwickofwv said:

Are you aware that all of those models showing heating from co2 do not take clouds into account at all? They also completely ignore solar radiation.

To which, /u/Electronic_Antelope responded:

No, I'm not aware of any of that.

You wouldn't be aware of it because it is not true. Not even almost true. Not even within the same country as true.

Chadwickofwv, whoever told you that climate models don't include clouds or solar radiation lied to you.

Perhaps some very simple toy models don't, but of course climate models take clouds into account, and solar radiation.

To a first approximation, incoming solar radiation is almost constant. (At least over the timespan of human history -- go back to the Carboniferous era, when the coal and oil was laid down, and the sun was significantly weaker.) To a second approximation, fluctuations in solar radiation might as well be random. Its not like we can turn the sun down a notch if the climate grows too warm.

Nevertheless, short-term cycles of solar brightening and dimming may have been responsible for as perhaps as much as half the global warming observed up to 2000.

Quoting NASA: "Sunspot cycles may sway global warming either way. If long-term cycles in solar radiation reverse course and the Sun’s spots and faculae begin to disappear over the next century, then the Sun could partially counter global warming. On the other hand, if the average number of spots rises, the Sun could serve to warm our planet even more. As to the shorter-term 11-year cycles, they may dampen or amplify the affects of global warming on a year-to-year basis."

More here.

Clouds are even harder to deal with, since clouds both warm the earth by trapping heat close to the surface, and cool it by reflecting sunlight back into space. There is great uncertainty whether on average clouds will accelerate global warming, or reduce it. Different models make different assumptions, but common sense suggests three things:

  • It is highly unlikely that changes to cloud cover would be so precisely balanced as to perfectly cancel out anthropomorphic climate change due to greenhouse gases; that's a minuscule chance to bet the future of civilisation on.
  • So the best case is that in the short and medium term, cloud cover will merely slow, not prevent, global warming.
  • And the worst case is that they will throw fuel on the fire, so to speak, accelerating it.

People hoping that clouds will save us are hoping for a miracle.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You seem to be agreeing that solar radiation and cloud cover are poorly understood, yet your 'common sense' conclusions still imply that anthropomorphic climate change is an existential threat. I am not following.

[–]Electronic_Antelope 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You wouldn't be aware of it because it is not true. Not even almost true. Not even within the same country as true.

Yeah, that's what I was intending to suggest. Some crazy ideas around here.

[–]Electronic_Antelope 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

No, I'm not aware of any of that.

[–]CreditKnifeMan 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Can you show us the physical/chemical mechanism that CO2 affects to retain atmospheric heat?

[–]Electronic_Antelope 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Sure, it's just (relatively) opaque to infrared, absorbing and re-radiating it in all directions instead of allowing it to be transmitted through and lost.

Ultimately, though, the physical mechanism barely matters. The heat retention capabilities of carbon dioxide were observed as far back as the 1860s - called here "carbonic acid," based on its solution form in water. We know perfectly well it traps heat, we know the proportions in the atmosphere have increased sharply, we know the temperatures have increased sharply; the conclusions are pretty straightforward.

[–]CreditKnifeMan 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

[–]CreditKnifeMan 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

it's just (relatively) opaque to infrared, absorbing and re-radiating it in all directions instead of allowing it to be transmitted through and lost.

It's not relatively opaque.

As a gas, it has no lattice structure to absorb/emit a range of any spectrum.

Solids and liquids have lattice structures. Their molecules loosely connect to adjecent molecules. These materials can absorb/emit broad EM ranges

Gas molecules can only absorb/emit narrow and discreet bands of light, based on their election orbital shells.

Ultimately, though, the physical mechanism barely matters.

The heat retention capabilities of carbon dioxide were observed as far back as the 1860s - called here "carbonic acid," based on its solution form in water.

Carbonic acid is H2CO3, not CO2.
CO2 in solution is contained within a lattice structure.

Dissolved CO2 is irrelevant.

We know perfectly well it traps heat, we know the proportions in the atmosphere have increased sharply,

Everyone's heard this bogus story on the news and propaganda programming.

The reality is it was 0.0350% and now they say it's 0.0410%.

Note: There's an extra 0 after the 0 in the single digit percentage spot. 0.0X% for both figures.

It's literally 0.0% vs 0.0%. A net increase of zero.

They fool the public by using the parts per million (PPM) number.

410 PPM, which is 0.041%, which is also known as 0.0% It just ain't so.

we know the temperatures have increased sharply;

Based on what? Antarctic/artic ice has been increasing year over year.

The ice cube in the water is growing larger; year over year. Given the hysteria, this should be impossible.
But it's a fact that's never openly debated on the mainstream networks.
Mentioned occasionally.

the conclusions are pretty straightforward.

I was fooled for many years by the "climate science" fraud.
I had to unlearn the bullshit, and it took years to roll it all back. It wasn't easy to accept that I had been duped.

Metrology (weather science) is in the physics dept. It's based on measurement, and observation.
More or less. Some physics is still quite questionable.

They NGO foundations that manipulate the world created "climate science" depts, so they could make up absurd "climate computer models", which have no relationship to actual physical/chemical reality.

It's brainwashing that's pushed starting in grade school, and it simply isn't true.
We were lied to.

The media propaganda is everywhere, but the global warming fraud was rolled back because the temperature wasn't increasing. So they rebranded it "climate change".

In reality CO2 has 0.0% impact on the Earth's climate.

[–]weavilsatemyface 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

As a gas, it has no lattice structure to absorb/emit a range of any spectrum.

What in gods name makes you think that gases need "a lattice structure" to absorb/emit light??? Jeezus Christ on a crutch, you've swallowed the lies something awful, to the point that you don't even believe your own eyes any more. Haven't you noticed that the sky is blue??? Fuck me.

Then there's iodine gas. Mustard gas is yellow. Chlorine gas is greeny-yellow. Bromine gas is orange/brown (amber). Ozone is pale blue. Nitrogen dioxide is brown/red. And that's just in the visible colours -- in infrared, most gases absorb lots of different frequencies.

The infrared absorption spectrum of gases is well known, and accurately enough that physicists were able to discover helium in the sun before it was isolated on earth. Anyone who tries to tell you that absorption spectrums are only known from aqueous solutions is bullshitting you.

The reality is it was 0.0350% and now they say it's 0.0410%. [...] It's literally 0.0% vs 0.0%. A net increase of zero. [...] 410 PPM, which is 0.041%, which is also known as 0.0% It just ain't so.

Dear god, you fail maths bad. Imagine thinking that 410 is "literally" 0.

The mass of the atmosphere is approximately 5 million million million kilograms. So an increase that you call "a net increase of zero" is actually more like 300 million million kg, or 300 billion tonnes.

Antarctic/artic ice has been increasing year over year.

No no no, haven't you gotten the memo? You're not supposed to deny that the ice has been shrinking any more, since that's about as plausible as "the Covid jab will completely stop you from getting Covid", "BLM was all peaceful protests", "the Jan 6 rioters beat Officer Brian Sicknick to death with a fire extinguisher", "trannies are real women" and "Epstein really did kill himself".

It's been years since anyone has seriously pretended to believe that the ice isn't melting. Now you're supposed to argue that its a good thing that the ice is melting, so we can drill for lots more oil and gas in the Arctic. If only we can overthrow the Russian government and install our own puppet of course.

Get your story right. "There's no warming" is so 1990s. Now it's "of course there's warming, but its a good thing!!!"

In reality CO2 has 0.0% impact on the Earth's climate.

Without the CO2 in the atmosphere, the earth's average temperature would be below freezing and, like the moon, would range from well below freezing to well over boiling. This has been known since the 19th century.

CC /u/Electronic_Antelope

[–]CreditKnifeMan 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

You haven't debunked my arguments, because you can't.

Each of your arguments are either attacks, or logical fallacies.

What in gods name makes you think that gases need "a lattice structure" to absorb/emit light???

You don't understand the basics.

They want misinformed people like you to parrot the fraud.

Can you explain why they changed "global warming" to "climate change"?

They already admitted the planet wasn't warning.

Some people just don't have what it takes to read the writing on the wall.

[–]weavilsatemyface 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

You don't understand the basics.

So says the person who thinks that gases need "a lattice structure" to absorb light.

Can you explain why they changed "global warming" to "climate change"?

Oh no, people use two different terms for the same thing!!!1!! Obviously it must be a fraud! /s

There is no "they" who changed anything. Climate change has always been the more common term. Both terms are correct, and refer to the same thing.

Imagine being so small that you think that just because there are two terms for something, it must be fraudulent. Wow.

They already admitted the planet wasn't warning.

You can't admit something which is not true. The only people who have "admitted" the planet isn't warming are delusional idiots and lying fucktards shilling for the fossil fuel industry.

Besides, you need to keep up. The narrative is not "no global warming" any more, that's so 1990s. Now you're supposed to say that there is warming but it's good.

[–]CreditKnifeMan 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Oh no, people use two different terms for the same thing!!!1!! Obviously it must be a fraud! /s

They changed the name because the warming halted.

You're not the first bot that I've replied to.

I don't expect a bot to know the difference, but plenty of actual people will know the difference.

[–]Electronic_Antelope 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

As a gas, it has no lattice structure to absorb/emit a range of any spectrum.

Blatantly wrong right off the bat, not much point in going further.

(About the conclusion that it therefore can't absorb a range, naturally, not the absence of a lattice.)

[–]CreditKnifeMan 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Blatantly wrong right off the bat. https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C124389&Type=IR-SPEC&Index=1#IR-SPEC

The example we're discussing only applies to gases. The misleading evidence you provided is in solution, not in gaseous form. Here's the detail from your own source.

Notice: Except where noted, spectra from this collection were measured on dispersive instruments, often in carefully selected solvents, and hence may differ in detail from measurements on FTIR instruments or in other chemical environments.

So your argument is a fraud.

Find the broad absorbtion info in gaseous CO2.
Spoiler: You won't find it.

not much point in going further (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectral_line#Line_broadening_and_shift)

If you understood the facts, then you would realize that you're supporting my argument.

This is supporting evidence that the molecular EM absorbing bands of gases are narrow and discreet.

These are generally centered at specific frequency, but have a a tight distribution around that freq.

The measurements of these tight bands is precise enough that they can measure the distribution of atomic Doppler effects, etc.

Your climate change crib notes have failed to debunk the physical facts that I have put forth.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

False, it is to double plant growth/yield, like the title says. Greenhouses normally circulate fresh air and don't run low on C02.

[–]Electronic_Antelope 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/50820500/GPRG/2011PublicationsandSummaries/ElevatingCarbonDioxideInACommercialGreenhouse[Article].pdf

The drawdown of CO2 in a closed system is an often ignored issue and in some instances, can lead to plant growth problems. Measurements as low as 175 ppm CO2 inside greenhouses have been recorded (FrantzandSchmidlin,2009), and CO2 concentrations are commonly 300 to 330 ppm (390 ppm atmospheric or outside), even in well-ventilated greenhouses.

There are additional growth benefits, though, to increasing concentrations above atmospheric, to a peak apparently around 1000-1200 ppm.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

okay okay, C02 can slightly decrease in a ventilated greenhouse

[–]weavilsatemyface 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

C02 can slightly decrease in a ventilated greenhouse

If you think a reduction of 55% (390 - 175 ppm) counts as a "slight" decrease, I hate to think what you would consider a big decrease.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

yes, 390 to 315 is a 20% decrease and that makes it significant

[–]Questionable[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

So you are saying there is no relation between the green house effect, and a green house? Am I getting this right?

[–]Electronic_Antelope 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

No, I'm saying that the metabolic use of carbon dioxide by plants is unrelated to the heat-trapping effects of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The greenhouse effect is called that more in relation to the glass walls and ceilings of a greenhouse, which act to admit light but trap heat in a manner similar to CO2 and other "greenhouse gases" in the atmosphere.

Obviously, greenhouses have been around quite a bit longer than we've had devices to supplement their CO2 concentration.

[–]Questionable[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Yes, and they are deigned to trap in heat. Say, I'm having trouble finding information on high temperatures in the Amazon. All I can seem to find are average temperatures, and this article on the summertime being the rainy period. In fact, all the movies I watch seem to depict deep tropical forests as sweltering hot. So the heat is bad for plants, and will cause droughts? Am I getting that right?

[–]Electronic_Antelope 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

You'll find heat in both rainforests and deserts. Now, what I think you're getting at is that, yes, in fact, if the atmospheric CO2 concentration were really pumped up to 500, 600, whatever ppm, and everybody heated up a few more degrees, the places that ended up with good rainfall would probably be quite suitable for growing crops! If the soil was also decent, of course. But there's issues of, where's that going to be, what will be the rainfall and climate in the farmland we already have, how quickly can our agricultural centers really shift while maintaining production, how much will the coastlines recede along the way, what other species will be unable to biologically adapt to the rapid shifts and go extinct...

Humans in general are quite well-equipped to survive global warming as a species, and probably even to make the best of the world that results from it. Which is good, because I don't think we're sociologically equipped to do anything about it, save maybe geoengineering via sulphate aerosols. But there'll be a lot of disruption and losses and, almost certainly, human suffering along the way. If we could, it would probably be best to avoid it.

[–]Questionable[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

I don't think we're sociologically equipped to do anything about it

I think the past two year are proof enough that you can guilt society into anything. Even killing themselves in the name of 'science'. As long as you craft a conniving enough story to go along with it. By the way, it's not 'global warming' anymore, it's "climate change" now, as 'the science has changed'.

[–]weavilsatemyface 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Climate change has always been the more common term.

Imagine being so small that you care more about the label newspapers use to talk about a thing than the thing itself. I suppose you think that Meta is completely different from Facebook because they changed their company name? No of course you don't. So why are you pretending to care that people have two terms for the same thing?

As global temperatures get hotter, the climate changes. Duh. As the climate changes, short-term and localised weather patterns become more unpredictable, and can be either colder or warmer, depending on the time of the year and literally which way the wind blows. Duh again. This isn't rocket science, its common bloody sense.

(On the other hand, predicting precisely what those changes will be, and the short-term consequences, are significantly harder than rocket science.)

But tell me, what would you suggest we do as we learn more and discover new facts? Stick our heads in the sand and ignore them? You're not one of those creeps who think that anything that wasn't written in the Koran is irrelevant? What year do you think we should close the book on scientific knowledge and say "There is nothing new for us to learn"?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It was my understanding that newspapers incorrectly ran with global warming to sensationalise climate change. Once called out on it, the use of the term reduced.

Despite the global warming terminology, climate change has now been used incorrectly by the media to describe weather patterns to instill fear in local populations. This is why very cold winter s of late are referred to as just weather by the media, but our recent warmer weather in Europe was described incorrectly as climate change. This is a replacement for the term global warming as they continue to persist in referencing only to climate change when there is warmer weather. And this has nothing to do with global temperature rising over decades, in some cases it's merely the gulf stream or el nino.

We have recently been taking more and more temperature data from airports, this skews climate models in the favour of those who seek to push lockdown mandates on climate change, and increase carbon taxes. When airport data is removed, the UK was cooler in the 2010"s than the 2000's, but this doesn't help push the propaganda.

Carbon policy and climate science is geared toward man made carbon ONLY. There is no accounting for the solar cycle, the big ball in the sky that heats the planet. There is little government policy that would ever take volcanic activity into account. It's a big scam.

[–]Questionable[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

My apologizes. I mistook you for a thinking, rational human being, with an ability to make observations. But you're not are you? You're the sort that gets giddy when you're told how smart you are.

Now go prove how smart you are, and answer a resounding "NO!" to this Question!

[–]weavilsatemyface 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Dunning-Kruger score, 9 out of 10. It must be nice to know so little and think you know so much.

[–]Questionable[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm sorry I didn't reply to your bating Questions and statements. Why would I do that? You made no arguments. And to top if off, you are not u/Electronic_Antelope , and seem to be picking up some bad mannerism from Chinese bot accounts.

What I find most striking is your use of the word "imagine" as a premise, which is most common with Chinese bots. Now image that you are a thinking rational human being. How would that effect you? Oops, sorry, I didn't define what "that" was. I guess I'll let you fill in that blank yourself. It's either this, or that. Take a stab at it.

Now for the brunt of your argument. Right off the bat, you don't seem to know what the word "always" means, and are using it to push a narrative. Not going to address that. There is nothing there to address besides my own imagination, as you have told me to image something. Am I to literally argue both positions and check back with you, and tell you who won? Alright. I had a debate, and I won.

After which you then ramble on emotionally about, heat, and hotter, and... hot?... Did I mention the heat?... The korr̪͍̦̹ͬ͋͂̉an? More Chinese bot mannerisms? No seriously, you tell me, what I was supposed to reply to. OMG! Wait... I get it now! Super you are win! You are big win forever!

On a side note. You should make note, of this note:

One should not wish for common sense, when in fact, what is desired is uncommon sense.

Ĥ̅͛ǝ̮̺͕̲̰llo ʍoɹlp' I,m Qnǝsʇᴉouɐqlǝ.̬̘̟ͅ

[–]Electronic_Antelope 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It's both, of course. Global warming refers specifically to the rising temperatures, climate change refers to the suite of other effects that go along with that, like those shifts in rainfall patterns previously mentioned. Associated with the temperature change, but not, strictly speaking, the same thing.

They try to predict those too, but, eh, I'm dubious how accurate any such prediction can be - it's trying to model a phenomenon a hell of a lot more complex than the temperature, which ultimately is a simpler system of energy out vs energy in.

[–]Questionable[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

And yet they model solutions that produce MORE CO2? And somehow heightened profits? Amazing, if they are 'wrong', they still improve the environment, and the only difference is that they get all the credit and money. All while we are lulled into the false belief that our sacrifices, made a difference.

What if it's a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?

Better for who I ask?

[–]weavilsatemyface 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

So you are saying there is no relation between the green house effect, and a green house?

Don't be daft. Of course there is a relationship -- that's why the warming due to atmosphere was called the greenhouse effect in the first place. It's an analogy: the atmosphere (all 5 million million million kilograms of air) acts rather like the glass in a greenhouse, trapping the heat. The physical mechanisms in both are related but not identical.

In an actual glass or plastic greenhouse, the contribution to warming of a mere few hundred kgs of air is negligible compared to the warming due to the glass/plastic walls. But that's because even the largest artificial greenhouse doesn't cover the entire planet, duh.

If it did, the relative importance of the two would flip. Our atmosphere already warms the earth from a frozen -190°C (-390°F) to an average of about 15°C (59°F). Adding a giant glass box around the entire planet might only add another 5 or 10 degrees on top of that.

[–]Questionable[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

You took 3 days, to come back at me, and call me daft? Even though you have been active this whole time. Post up a bunch of irrelevant data, literally call it relative, and provide no conclusion. You must have graded well in school. As your professors must have rubber stamped your essays in order to avoid reading them.

[–]weavilsatemyface 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You took 3 days

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realise that there was a time limit on replying to posts.

Some of us have lives, family, jobs, hobbies. We don't all sit in mom's basement obsessively replying to social media every waking hour of the day.

[–]Questionable[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Correct. There is a time limit on being a passive aggressive asshole. It stems from social norms and expectations. OH sorry. I meant to say. What are you Daft?

Speaking of which. Why are you replying for Electronic_Antelope ? I wasn't even talking to you. Unless you are Electronic_Antelope ?

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Well, C02 increasing plant respiration is completely separate from the claim that human CO2 emissions cause devastating global warming. The climate models for CO2 are admittedly flawed, but this isn't really related. CO2 being good for plants is a separate issue than whether or not the ecosystem can survive x degrees temperature increase or whether human CO2 emission is the cause of it, which again I admit the science isnt clear on as the models are not really sufficient.

[–]Questionable[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Is that literally how you see things? There are no relations unless you are explicitly told to see them? And you say this while admitting every metric you refer to is flawed? Truly science has convinced society to disregard their subjective points of view, in lieu of what is claimed to be fact.

“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.” ― George Orwell, 1984

[–]weavilsatemyface 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If flooding is bad for crops, why do farmers irrigate their plants? Checkmate farmers!

If vitamin A poisoned Mawson and Mertz, how come people take supplements? Checkmate polar explorers!

Concentrating CO2 in a carefully controlled manner inside a glass greenhouse where it will act as food for plants: good. Uncontrolled increases in CO2 across the entire world at a scale large enough to cause temperatures to increase and weather patterns to shift in unpredictable ways: even better! If you're a fucking psychopath wanting to watch the world burn.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

10 pound tomatoes sounds awesome. free the plant food!

[–]Questionable[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

[–]Dunwidit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I wish I knew where the article was at. But basically it was this.... Somewhere in China in the middle of nowhere in a vast wasteland is a factory that produces more CO2 than just about any other thing on earth. Around the factory it's lush and green. It's in the desert somewhere.

[–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Around the factory it's lush and green. It's in the desert somewhere.

Right, because the thing holding back the deserts from blooming with lush, green growth is not lack of water, or the searing temperatures during the day, or the freezing temperatures during the night, or the nutrient-poor sandy and rocky ground lacking good rich soil, but the lack of CO2.

Sounds perfectly plausible to me! I also believe that trans women are women, that the BLM riots were completely peaceful, and that the Covid pandemic started from people eating bat soup.

[–]Dunwidit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Well I couldn't tell you with any certainty as I'm not a scientist.... I can't even confirm for a certainty that the tube worms they say they discovered living around volcanic vents... That survive completely outside of the conventional food chain... You know in water that would be steam if it were in the atmosphere.... Completely devoid of sunlight , Getting their nutrients directly from minerals coming out of the vent.... Again, so hot that it would flash into steam in the atmosphere... Actually exist. I only know what I read.

They were probably lying about the microbes they discovered living deep in the earth that eat Rock as well...

Thanks for clearing it up.

-sigh-

[–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I couldn't tell you with any certainty as I'm not a scientist

You don't need to be a scientist. You just need to have some, any, experience with growing plants. Maybe that's hard if you live in a big city in an apartment, but surely you know somebody who is a gardener, or grows hydroponics, or you've even seen a movie about farmers struggling with droughts and floods?

Getting a small patch of the desert to bloom is not hard. Normally all you need is water. That's what happens at an oasis. What's implausible is that it is CO2 emissions from a factory that is responsible.