"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Han wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Han wrote:

Ok, fun aside, whether or not you think there is a problem or not,
the increased production of CO2 is not helping the perceived
problems. And I would dearly see another "Elfstedentocht" in Holland
during my life time. A 200 km skating race on natural ice is just
awesome ...

Oh, but increased CO2 IS helping. Plants.

Plants grow faster and bigger at increased CO2 levels.

And *IF* CO2 contributes to global warming, the benefits of increased
CO2 may outweight the hazards. For example, the growing season(s)
could extend - Canada may be able to get three wheat crops instead of
two. Second, far more untimely deaths can be attributed to cold than
heat. Next, places like Minnesota and upstate New York may become
habitable.

Adapt, overcome, continue.

Apparently, the faster plant growth is somewhat of a fallacy. It may
simply be untrue, or only true for a few species. But, too bad, it
doesn't work too well. Perhaps the seeding of the Southern Ocean with
iron would work to a small extent. At least I just saw a reference
that it might (at least temporarily) deep six about 1/8th of the CO2
produced by fossil fuel burning. I'm sure you can google it.

Maybe so, but why would anyone WANT to "deep six" a mess of CO2?

By "fertilizing" the ocean with iron sulfate, they caused a bloom of
plankton and all kinds of tiny sea creatures, who all fixed CO2 into
their organic bodies. When they died, they sank to the bottom,hence my
choice of words.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid