Very interesting, and lends even more argument to the damage that net zero is causing. Good agricultural land, for one, given up for acres of solar panels or wind turbines. Nature needs to be cherished, not obliterated.
Excellent article. It’s critical to expose the hoax created around CO2. Either with articles like this showing its impact on the planet greening, bigger crops, less infant mortality rate, etc. And/Or, more scientifically, explaining CO2 residual if not negligible (according to W. Happer et al) effect on the warming of the planet’s climate. Most debates ASSUME that there is a need to decarbonise; the while discussion is biased. It’s about time to challenge that assumption based on robust independent science and continue to expose the hoax!
Clearly Kimberley Simpson doesn't understand the carbon cycle, ecological succession or the hydrological cycle. Plants using less water, as they don't need to open stomata for carbon dioxide for as long, reduces demand for soil water. The soil moisture enables plant nutrient uptake. That in turn enables the support of greater vegetative biomass which has a cooling effect and also plants will age naturally and eventually die, decompose and increase soil nutrients, organic matter and moisture retention followed progression to the next successional stage of the particular habitat. Its the exact opposite of desertification. Even the plant material consumed in fires will only return part of the carbon dioxide back to the atmosphere, the rest blows on to the land as particulates in smoke and increases nutrient levels, so there will still be a reduction. The herbivores which consume the extra vegetation which grows are reasonably long lived and so will lock up the carbon in body tissues. In Africa think about Elephants. Also, more abundant food for herbivores means their population increases and supports an increase in carnivores which locks up the carbon for even longer. Humans consumption of the extra crop and livestock biomass do the same. So overall there will be a positive outcome. Afterall, any ecosystem is always in a state of dynamic equilibrium, constantly adjusting to the natural fluxes of nutrients, water, temperature, solar radiation etc just as the earth in its entirety does.
Very interesting, and lends even more argument to the damage that net zero is causing. Good agricultural land, for one, given up for acres of solar panels or wind turbines. Nature needs to be cherished, not obliterated.
Excellent article. It’s critical to expose the hoax created around CO2. Either with articles like this showing its impact on the planet greening, bigger crops, less infant mortality rate, etc. And/Or, more scientifically, explaining CO2 residual if not negligible (according to W. Happer et al) effect on the warming of the planet’s climate. Most debates ASSUME that there is a need to decarbonise; the while discussion is biased. It’s about time to challenge that assumption based on robust independent science and continue to expose the hoax!
Clearly Kimberley Simpson doesn't understand the carbon cycle, ecological succession or the hydrological cycle. Plants using less water, as they don't need to open stomata for carbon dioxide for as long, reduces demand for soil water. The soil moisture enables plant nutrient uptake. That in turn enables the support of greater vegetative biomass which has a cooling effect and also plants will age naturally and eventually die, decompose and increase soil nutrients, organic matter and moisture retention followed progression to the next successional stage of the particular habitat. Its the exact opposite of desertification. Even the plant material consumed in fires will only return part of the carbon dioxide back to the atmosphere, the rest blows on to the land as particulates in smoke and increases nutrient levels, so there will still be a reduction. The herbivores which consume the extra vegetation which grows are reasonably long lived and so will lock up the carbon in body tissues. In Africa think about Elephants. Also, more abundant food for herbivores means their population increases and supports an increase in carnivores which locks up the carbon for even longer. Humans consumption of the extra crop and livestock biomass do the same. So overall there will be a positive outcome. Afterall, any ecosystem is always in a state of dynamic equilibrium, constantly adjusting to the natural fluxes of nutrients, water, temperature, solar radiation etc just as the earth in its entirety does.
Oh, the scientist rediscovered the benefits of photosynthesis... And the Watermelons are upset about it... Well, colour me surprised, not!