Ttbn,

A drop-off in the greening of the world ? I don't think so:

https://notrickszone.com/2019/04/22/new-study-the-recent-co2-increase-has-had-an-even-greater-earth-greening-impact-than-previously-thought/

I'm pretty ignorant of all this but I'm curious:

1. How much CO2 does the world's biomass absorb in its growth processes relative to the amount of CO2 being produced ? How much excess CO2 is being produced each year over and above what the world's biomass can process ? And what impact would mass re-forestation have on reducing that 'excess' CO2, say across the north of Australia ?

2. Yes/no: is more CO2 produced in the manufacture and maintenance of solar panels and wind farms over their lifetimes, than they save ?

3. I wonder what they're teaching kids in schools these days about photosynthesis and the take-up of CO2 by plant-life ? That CO2 is a poison ? That somehow plant-growth would be faster without CO2 ? That there would still be plant-growth if there was no CO2 in the atmosphere ?

Joe

Loudmouth, sorry but that is a furphy.

According to satellite imaging & the description of Oz by the early explorers, there are now more trees in Oz today, than at first settlement.

With aboriginal burning, Oz was rather park like. Scattered trees in grass land was the order of the day. Yes we chopped down many trees in some areas, but what was once naturally open grassland, the cessation of aboriginal burning, has become scrub so thick it is basically useless to cattle or wildlife.

The 10,000 acre paddock across the river from me is a perfect example. 25 years ago we used to train our eventers & show jumpers in there, galloping through the open bush, jumping natural jumps. Today the grazier has given up. Maintaining the paddock as good grazing with out burning was too costly, & he has let it go. He gave up burning due to the complaints of recently arrived acreage development folk. There are huge amounts of litter on the ground, & the brambles are so thick, you would be scratched to pieces if you rode through at more than a walk. The next fire will be very dangerous.

What we need is a return to logging of native forests, to extract mature carbon filled logs, allowing space for new growth.

Sorry, Hasbeen, I'm a slow learner: which bit is a furphy ?

Joe

That we need more trees Loudmouth. We have more than we should have.

As I said, if we want trees to absorb more CO2, & I can't imagine why we would, we should be seriously harvesting more trees for their timber, allowing more space fro new young growing trees.

I too must admit that I am not up with all this GW, CC and CO2.
Just a naive question.
I keep hearing about 'greenhouse effect'.
Is not a 'greenhouse' somewhere to grow plants?
If that is so, is it not a good thing to be in a situation where places that cannot normally grow food, might just be able to do so?
I know I'm missing some details in making this leap of faith, but how can this CO2 phenomenon, be turned or used to our advantage?
Is/are there any such options.
If trees absorb CO2, what other plant life does the same?
Cabbage? tomatoes? and so on.
I've remained on the fence on this issue, only stepping down every now and then to clarify one of the many things I don't understand about it.
I am still skeptical, and as long as we have reports rebuking some of the 'science'? I must keep an open mind, and keep asking questions until I can see a clear and un-challenged path to the correct answer.

Belly,
How you feel is irrelevant. As the problem is global, helping others to reduce their emissions (by paying them to do so) is just as effective as reducing our own. Ten years ago it was probably more cost effective than most of the improvements we could have mad ourselves, although I doubt that is the case today.
________________________________________________________________________________________

ttbn,
Australis's refusal to cooperate with other countries on this has been used by countries like India and China as an excuse to do nothing.

China's continued construction of coal fired power stations is not economic - it's still going for political reasons, but demand for their use has stopped increasing. China's CO2 emissions peaked in 2015 and started to fall.The government then induced a construction boom which brought them back up, but this is unlikely to be sustained. Meanwhile solar power is booming; 8% of electricity generation last time I checked, but doubling every 3 years.

And just saying there's increased greening and increased production is insufficient. For it to be attributed to CO2, it has to be shown that it's not just down to other factors like better irrigation, better genetics, fewer rabbits etc.

________________________________________________________________________________________

ALTRAV,
It's called the Greenhouse effect because it results in things being warmer than they otherwise would be. The way it does so(by absorbing and reradiating infrared) is totally different from a greenhouse (which does so by stopping convection).

Almost all plants absorb CO2 - there are a few parasitic exceptions, but even most parasitic plants absorb CO2.

And a higher atmospheric CO2 concentration does benefit plants and even decrease the water they need. Unfortunately the other effects of increased CO2 (like more frequent and more severe El Niño events) are likely to counteract those benefits.