Global warming would cause lower temps over time as fresh water is added to the ocean it raises the freezing temp closer to 0C-32F allowing it to freeze at lower latitute levels reflecting the sun light away and causing a snowballing effect (no pun intended). It's literally in the sedimentary layers that it's happened many times but it takes A LONG ASS TIME for anything to happen not the 20-30 years they are saying maybe by 2150 we'd see slight changes not 2040 like they are saying..... That being said... this is just a normal arctic front and nothing else.
It is global warming though. A lot of conservatives don't understand the nuance of the situation, which makes us look like idiots. Increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere will, eventually, cause global temperatures to rise and will change the climate and weather. That's not controversial because it's literally a result from physics, we know CO2 absorbs more IR light than other gasses, which keeps that energy in the atmosphere longer. However, that doesn't mean the timeline the liberals like to spout is real. The most biodiverse time in Earths history was the Cretaceous period, which had about 100 ppm of CO2 more than now. We do need to be cognizant of the possible effects in the long term, but private industry is probably going to fix things as energy efficiency is more profitable.
The rate of CO2 absorption in trees is lower than the output of CO2 by humanity.
Actually, cutting down and replanting trees captures way more carbon, as old trees do not grow as fast as young trees.
The primary consumer of CO2 (constituting greater than 50% of CO2 consumed per year) is actually green algae, not trees. Fun fact, all of our oil comes from ancient green algae, not dinosaurs.
We are increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere faster than it's being consumed at the moment. That could change as, you are correct, the growth rate of plants increases along with CO2 concentration. However, there is an upper limit on that growth, so there will be a point in which it won't be able to keep up with increasing output. That's not anytime soon, but the underlying theory is correct.
Trees actually don't do dick for the co2 levels. Mostly it is algae in the ocean. The carbon cycle was created a loooooong time before plants even colonized the earth.
Seems there's some nuance you're missing as well. Are you aware why it is said atmospheric co2 would increase temps? Is because it reflects light. The original hypothesis was that the net effect would be to cool the temperature before they changed their hypothesis to warming (the assumption being that whatever light made it down to earth would then get trapped)
Now: as both hypotheses have been wrong, they're predicting change... Not warming. There isn't an experiment they run for this, it's all conjecture. So, no, it isn't "a result from physics"
CO2 doesn't reflect IR light, it absorbs it. We know the spectrum of emission and absorption for most simple compounds. I invite you to watch https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYfl45X1wo for a good lay person friendly demonstration. If you want more detailed information, the field you should investigate is called spectroscopy.
I was "global warming" mockingly. Hence the paragraph explaining the natural cycle of the earth as we rotate in the galactic arm. People don't realise how insignificant the human role is and believe we'd have an effect on anything when we can literally be wiped out in an instant by any number of celestial events... like a giant space rock hitting our giant space rock, or a gamma burst that would strip humans and every other living thing down at the molecular level.
This. People also like to conflate the fact that "climate change" is 100% real and possible as CO2 absorbs IR light (keeping it in the atmosphere longer), with Climate Change, the FUD that the world is always ending 10 years from now and you need to give up freedoms and money to save it. Yes, man can, and is, causing climate change by adding an excess of CO2 to the atmosphere. But no, it's not going to affect us for a few hundred years, and that's presuming we don't find a more efficient energy source in the meantime (which we will, because that's what humans do, we innovate and optimize). Ironically, the liberals' solution to the problem will prolong it as capitalism will be the driver of that innovation.
Global warming would cause lower temps over time as fresh water is added to the ocean it raises the freezing temp closer to 0C-32F allowing it to freeze at lower latitute levels reflecting the sun light away and causing a snowballing effect (no pun intended). It's literally in the sedimentary layers that it's happened many times but it takes A LONG ASS TIME for anything to happen not the 20-30 years they are saying maybe by 2150 we'd see slight changes not 2040 like they are saying..... That being said... this is just a normal arctic front and nothing else.
Not global warming.
Natural climate change.
Only communists use communist phrases.
It is global warming though. A lot of conservatives don't understand the nuance of the situation, which makes us look like idiots. Increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere will, eventually, cause global temperatures to rise and will change the climate and weather. That's not controversial because it's literally a result from physics, we know CO2 absorbs more IR light than other gasses, which keeps that energy in the atmosphere longer. However, that doesn't mean the timeline the liberals like to spout is real. The most biodiverse time in Earths history was the Cretaceous period, which had about 100 ppm of CO2 more than now. We do need to be cognizant of the possible effects in the long term, but private industry is probably going to fix things as energy efficiency is more profitable.
CO2 is taken in by plants.
Plant more trees.
Stop cutting down trees.
Trees are only part of the equation. Algae is where it's at.
Few things:
The rate of CO2 absorption in trees is lower than the output of CO2 by humanity.
Actually, cutting down and replanting trees captures way more carbon, as old trees do not grow as fast as young trees.
The primary consumer of CO2 (constituting greater than 50% of CO2 consumed per year) is actually green algae, not trees. Fun fact, all of our oil comes from ancient green algae, not dinosaurs.
We are increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere faster than it's being consumed at the moment. That could change as, you are correct, the growth rate of plants increases along with CO2 concentration. However, there is an upper limit on that growth, so there will be a point in which it won't be able to keep up with increasing output. That's not anytime soon, but the underlying theory is correct.
Trees actually don't do dick for the co2 levels. Mostly it is algae in the ocean. The carbon cycle was created a loooooong time before plants even colonized the earth.
Seems there's some nuance you're missing as well. Are you aware why it is said atmospheric co2 would increase temps? Is because it reflects light. The original hypothesis was that the net effect would be to cool the temperature before they changed their hypothesis to warming (the assumption being that whatever light made it down to earth would then get trapped)
Now: as both hypotheses have been wrong, they're predicting change... Not warming. There isn't an experiment they run for this, it's all conjecture. So, no, it isn't "a result from physics"
CO2 doesn't reflect IR light, it absorbs it. We know the spectrum of emission and absorption for most simple compounds. I invite you to watch https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYfl45X1wo for a good lay person friendly demonstration. If you want more detailed information, the field you should investigate is called spectroscopy.
I was "global warming" mockingly. Hence the paragraph explaining the natural cycle of the earth as we rotate in the galactic arm. People don't realise how insignificant the human role is and believe we'd have an effect on anything when we can literally be wiped out in an instant by any number of celestial events... like a giant space rock hitting our giant space rock, or a gamma burst that would strip humans and every other living thing down at the molecular level.
This. People also like to conflate the fact that "climate change" is 100% real and possible as CO2 absorbs IR light (keeping it in the atmosphere longer), with Climate Change, the FUD that the world is always ending 10 years from now and you need to give up freedoms and money to save it. Yes, man can, and is, causing climate change by adding an excess of CO2 to the atmosphere. But no, it's not going to affect us for a few hundred years, and that's presuming we don't find a more efficient energy source in the meantime (which we will, because that's what humans do, we innovate and optimize). Ironically, the liberals' solution to the problem will prolong it as capitalism will be the driver of that innovation.