You know, because a tiny increase in the global temperatures since 1850 are super bad
Climate Change Likely to Slow Plant Growth in Northern Hemisphere
Plants are a highly effective carbon sink. Globally, forests absorb about 7.6 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide per year, about 1.5 times the annual emissions of the United States.
Since the 1980s, climate warming, prompted by rising levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, has caused an increase in plant productivity in the Northern Hemisphere outside the tropics.
But new research published May 30 in Nature Climate Change estimates that summer warming in this region will begin to have the opposite effect within the next half-century, causing photosynthesis—or plant productivity—to decline. The global land carbon sink will likely take a hit as a result, the authors write.
The researchers found that generally in the Northern Hemisphere, warmer temperatures will mean less summer plant productivity by 2070 for most regions below 60° N—the approximate latitude of Oslo, Norway, and Anchorage, Alaska. Plant productivity in Arctic areas, however, will continue rising as the temperature increases.
Doom!
Scientists used two different ways of estimating the effects of rising summer temperatures on productivity: models that represent photosynthesis based on a variety of environmental factors, and climate models combined with extrapolations from historical observations of the thermal tolerance of wild plants. Anping Chen, a study coauthor and ecologist at Colorado State University, explains in an email that researchers rely more on the first method because it takes into account factors like elevated CO2 levels, changes in precipitation, and the acclimation of plants to warming.
Using eight Earth system models, the study found that under intermediate projected emissions conditions, about 48 percent of vegetated land in the Northern Hemisphere will experience a decline in plant productivity due to warming by 2060, rising to 78 percent by the end of this century.
And there they are, the computer models, typical doom prognostications. So, just wondering, if this turns out to be wrong, who is held responsible? Oh, right, these are far in the future, so, no one will remember.
So the right points out that rising temperatures mean more land to cultivate and grow stuff, which is a good thing.
The left counters with oh by the way more land means those plants will stop doing what plants do because they live in the north.
LOLOLOLOLOL….anyone who can’t see through the AGW global scam concocted by the CCP of China is a moron.
Anping Chen, a study coauthor
says it all baby….says it all.
Asymmetric effects of daytime and night-time warming on Northern Hemisphere vegetation
Authors
Shushi Peng, Shilong Piao, Philippe Ciais, Ranga B Myneni, Anping Chen, Frédéric Chevallier, Albertus J Dolman, Ivan A Janssens, Josep Peñuelas, Gengxin Zhang, Sara Vicca, Shiqiang Wan, Shiping Wang, Hui Zeng
Notice the names.
Terrestrial vegetation carbon sinks in China, 1981–2000
Authors
JingYun Fang, ZhaoDi Guo, ShiLong Piao, AnPing Chen
On and on it goes. IF YOU SAY AGW IS BAD….YOU WIN A PRIZE. The US GOVERNMENT GIVES YOU MONEY. CHINA GIVES YOU MORE MONEY. CHINA spends billions developing climate scientists that say…….
AMERICA BAD….AMERICA END FOSSIL FUELS>>>>AMERICA GO AWAY….CHINA GOOD.
CHINA USE ALL THOSE FUELS TO RUN THE WORLD AND PUT IN JAIL OR SLAVE LABOR ANYONE WHO CALLS THEM OUT ON AGW AFTER THE FALL OF THE USA.
Teach asks again, “… if this turns out to be wrong, who is held responsible?”
Who is held responsible for exercising their free speech rights? Really?
Which anti-science conservatives will be held responsible if the climate scientists are right and we did absolutely nothing but “drill, baby, drill”?
Dear Elwood:
I love to read these articles and review the words they use.
“remains uncertain” That means they don’t know.
“indicate a weakening” That means they don’t know.
“evidence suggest” That means they don’t know.
“will probably exceed” That means they don’t know.
“could affect” That means they don’t know.
“could shift” That means they don’t know.
“These eight models performed relatively well” That means they don’t what they wanted.
“future temperature projections” That means they don’t know.
Why anyone would pay attention to this article as anything but one huge guess is beyond me.
Doom and Gloom
The 2 first politicians whom I am aware of warned us about AGW were Margsret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan (watch him on you tube by searching Reagan climate change) Reagan also pushed fir and signed the treaty to ban CFC refrigerants which deplete the ozone and also are powerful greenhouse gases
CCP?????? NOT!!!!
John,
Yes, two of our best leaders indicated AGW as a concern when this subject first came up, 50 years ago. Much like Trump was led astray by Fauci. But we now know that AGW is total bull manure. Same goes for CFC, has nothing to do with ozone or holes or any other issue.
Hairy, the very fact you pointed out, that Reagan and Thatcher were hoodwinked by phony science is the reason today most thinking people don’t buy your bullshit. Fool us once and all that good shit.
FJB
I haven’t studied agronomy in many years, but I was of the understanding that crops, generally, need sunlight, water and warmth to grow and flourish. It might be necessary to make some adjustments, but agriculture should be okay as long as farmers can afford to farm.
